>>>However, I don't agree that we need some hype for global warming. It isn't clear at all that CO2 emissions matter. Pollution is an entirely different matter for which we should always be vigilant.
>>
>>And that's where I think the current campaign is misleading. We've heard all sorts of calculations of how much carbon dioxide having a baby produces, the carbon footprint (in square feet?) of pretty much any consumer product, means of transportation or individual lifestyle, while the campaign was eerily silent about the enormous pollution pouring from the huge tankers (which consume the dirtiest and cheapest junk diesel fuel possible - just 15 largest tankers, as I hear, produce as much CO[sub]2[/sub] as whole cities, or maybe even countries - I forgot); the damage to the ocean floor by relentless trawling, the wholesale poisoning and reduction of biodiversity by lawns (they even advertise anti-dandelionistic racism), the chemtrails, the uranium casings on ammunition, the ecological damage done by wars... that's all absent.
>>
>>What's specially funny is that after every blunder, like the East Anglia scandal, or that guy from India whom they took as the source for the statement that Himalayan glaciers are coming down in 35 years - which turned out to be as firmly based as the yellowcake story - they say "yeah, right, there were some mistakes, but it doesn't change the fact". What fact? The evidence you were waving last week is gone, and you still claim that the "scientific consensus" is somehow evidence? It's a bloody vote by the bribed and coerced.
>>
>>The only thing they managed to prove is that today's science is prostituted in so many places, that we have no more means of knowing when they are lying and when are they just misrepresenting... or is there anyone with integrity left in the field, and still allowed to publish and be heard.
>
>Scarily enough, I agree.

I knew. Snow is falling outside.