Garbage. I call bullshit on most of those items. First, they should define what is "pornography". Simply pictures of naked people is not necessarily pornographic.
#2 is garbage, because there is no way that much money is being spent on porn. That seems to be based off of #4 which is a frequently cited quote with ZERO evidence to back it up.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn_2.html
#3 is also garbage, because demographic studies of pornography viewers are unscientific and nonsense. The vast majority of internet porn viewers do so anonymously, without revealing much in the way of personal information.
#5 I'm not sure what constitutes a "pornographic email", but again, I highly doubt that number unless it is trying to include pornographic spam, which is sent out to untold numbers of people and is routinely deleted before ever being viewed.
#6 is also garbage, which can be seen by examining #8, which claims "sex" and "adult dating" are pornographic search terms. News flash to asshole prudes trying to make a flashy story, THEY AREN'T. There are perfectly legitimate non-pornographic reasons to search for sex or adult dating that have nothing to do with pornography.
#7 I can't even imagine where someone would try to attempt to figure out a percentage of porn downloads. Do porno pics and films have a secretly embedded tag that indicates it is of a pornographic nature? And who keeps track of this nonsense? BULLSHIT.
#11 Are there really? STFU. No one is plugging CP into google expecting to get a result. It's just not happening, stop lying.
#12 Possible, but why is this surprising or a problem? I saw my first Playboy at like 11 and somehow I've managed not to go out and kill busloads of nuns. This isn't shocking or interesting.
#13 "Admit". So again, the study is based on nonsense studies and online surveys. Go back to college and take a statistics course, stupid.