I wholely disagree. The totalitarian angle should be completely played (and defended against) but by far the hypocrisy angle is the most effective and immediate.
It is one thing to argue the minutia of global warming. This study, this figure, this statistic vs. another study, another figure, another statistic.
You don't need almost any registerable IQ to recognise the rank hypocrisy of, say, Sheryl Crow saying we should use only one sheet (maybe two) of toilet paper per visit and then seeing bulletin boards of Crow endorsing a hair coloring system where the product comes in a very elaborate, corrogated box that clearly uses the equivalant of a roll or two or three of paper product.
Step one to make some of these enviromental celebrities shut up IS to highlight their hypocrisy with a constant drumbeat. Trust me-it'll shut alot of them up.
But it is certainly true that the most important thing is to expose the fraud that is the purported science.
crow is dumber than dumb, and is, in my opinion, one of those celebrities who must have made a deal with, or slept around with a music mogul or something, as she has no discernable talent, any more than say, any one-hit wonder you’ve ever seen profiled on VH-1. What a mediocrity. On top of that, ol’ “one-square” is telling us how to live our lives and fight “global warming”.