There's also a lot of folks out there with no sense of scale getting "dihydrogen-monoxieded" by scaremongering tactics like measuring power consumption in number of atomic bombs.

Except that's not what you see people be up in arms about, or news reporting. Just like with a lot of other topics.

There being a grain of truth or a valid angle doesn't wash bullshit from being bullshit.

Is it actually bullshit? Where's the data?

Well, in the post above, isn’t it? Mind you, I was simply reacting to your general reasoning with some of my own, so bit of a misdirected question if not rhetorical...

Or here, in this comment from below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49958135

Now where's the data for the popular claim (which as you conceded is not what you just posted, where it's specifically the overall burden that is too big)? I'm amenable even for a complex mix of cases, where some of the local impact is too much. Would be good to know what share of it is true, even if only a sliver. Although this wouldn't change the bullshit conclusion.