I know there are huge issues with estimating carbon impacts of various aspects of life (I first studied environmental impact assessment as an env. science student when the discipline was in its infancy in the early 80s). Unfortunately there's a whole genre of studies (/"studies") of varying quality that get headlined though the media as though they can be considered definitive of themselves, with no attempt whatsoever to state, let alone assess, their assumptions and their limitations. They very often quote a single figure in some futile effort at precision, rather than stating a range.
Hence, imbecilic press articles like "Scientists calculate the carbon footprint of a dog is bigger than a car".
Of course I think we should all do best to think about the environmental implications of all aspects of our lives, but it needs to be done with a modicum of critical thinking and unfortunately the media often don't assist in that.
I would however be prepared to say anyone who denies the reality of human-induced CC, supported by the overwhelming totality of evidence, can be categorised with Donald Trump, ie as a cretin.