(V): You said: "As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how. "

If you lack information, how can you draw such a conclusion? The reality is, you can't. You're saying that the scientist is wrong about "random" and you use as evidence in your argument the lack of evidence. How's that work?

Then you say: "Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.."

Which you can't possibly REALLY know unless you've read his work in its entirety. Which I doubt you have.

So it makes me wonder how you came to that conclusion. Did a hedgehog whisper it in your ear?

And also: "I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical."

If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense. Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution. And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.