No offense taken. My main point though is that it doesn't matter
   what I believe. If it's true it's true. If there's questionable
   bits, there's questionable bits. But _my_ stance is that it's
   practical to act as if it's true. Although I have to admit that
   jl* - whom I often argue with on many issues, including this one
   - does make a valid point when I mentioned
   governments-doing-something. He pointed out that it can lead to
   war. I hadn't considered that. For that possibility, I'd
   personally recommend (if anybody asked me) that local /
   provincial (state) / federal governments make positive changes
   WITHIN their own borders. If the mission crosses international
   lines, then diplomacy must be the method of action. Convince.
   Debate. Talk it over. But war-like things such as sanctions to
   force other countries to comply with the recommendations to fix
   things regarding global warming is something I'd recommend
   strongly _against_. Why? There's plenty to do within each
   country's own borders first. ==== I've seen that. It's not that
   impossible that it might be true because it might. But the
   correlation/causation as well as confirmation bias has to always
   be taken into account. Science often makes for terrible
   historians. Sorry, but it's true. The reasons for war and
   conflict are multivaried, complicated, messy. People like to
   look for a SINGLE REASON for it all. "It's religion! look at the
   stats!" "It's global warming! look at the stats!" "It's oil!
   look at the stats!" All of these things and more _are_ possible
   as singular causes or main causes. But it's _more likely_ to me,
   from a historical point of view, that it's EXACTLY as
   complicated as it appears to be. === You're right. I share the
   same values. I grew up with "give a hoot, don't pollute"
   campaigns and was a Boy Scout. I believe in leaving the place
   better than where you got there. I looked into the "Keep America
   Beautiful" campaign a few months ago, because I was always a big
   believer in it. The garbage cans everywhere. Recycle bins. I
   believe in it. I thought, "Oh good, this will be a
   controversial-free zone. Lemme find its history". Nope. Even
   THERE, there's controversy. There's critics who say that the
   whole campaign, a cooperation between federal government and
   large corporations, were designed to put the onus of
   responsibility on recycling onto the INDIVIDUALS and _away from_
   the corporations, who don't have to follow the same rules. Had
   something to do with glass bottle deposit revenues and stuff. So
   I was a little disappointed. There's a good chance they're
   right. Responsibility shifted away from corps and towards
   individuals by starting a mission. A campaign. Something for us
   to believe in. And, I did. And, I do. But it was another
   reminder how annoying and complicated these things get, when
   they get to the level of public policy.