“Walking as bad as driving for global warming” was the headline on Glenn Beck’s show.  This ‘news’ was based off this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

“Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” a calculation based on the UK Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”

Ok, sure let’s not bring transport into the equation for gasoline, but just for food.  That makes sense.  Secondly, beef, milk?  Both inefficient ways to get calories.  What about the energy use of the treadmill that wouldn’t get used that day?

Point is, this article uses terrible ’science’ - an actual, thorough comparison was not done.  And Glenn Beck just reported it that way without actually doing any journalistic research.  Brilliant.  The message was “Why do anything?  Everything causes global warming.  Don’t let those liberals fool you that we can make any difference.”  Frankly, the reporting was so irresponsible I was disgusted.