What is it about human nature that makes us want to force each other to sign loyalty oaths to support our favorite ideology?

Perhaps the most interest aspect of this is the time lag from the phenomenon to the reporting. I suppose that's inevitable given the long term nature of the phenomenon being reported, but you'd think the scientific authorities, or the media, would at least be forthcoming about the year-to-year data even as it tends to subvert their hypothesis.

I have always been skeptical about the anthropogenic aspect of global warming claims, but over the years I have been bullied by relentless media reporting into at least the acknowledgement that, leaving aside the question of causation, global warming seems to be occurring. With respect to it's causation, I have also never had a qualm about acknowledging that greenhouse gas emissions would have a tendency to warm the atmosphere. However, it has always seemed to me that the crucial question is this: "Are human greenhouse emissions the moving engine of global warming, or are they merely a trivial add-on to some underlying process or processes that nobody fully understands?" And THAT's the question to which I am highly skeptical that anyone knows the answer, notwithstanding the constant propaganda churned out by the media about how bodies such as the IPCC are "95% certain" about anthropogenic global warming.

Now I'm learning that it's much worse than that -- they're not even certain any more whether global warming is occurring, never mind the etiology. Sheesh.

I am fully aware that water and air pollution, the loss of animal and plant species, as well as the loss of natural habitat are among our most pressing problems. I go out of my way to recycle everything I can and to save water. I'm a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to spending tax money on remedying the effects of pollution. Over the last 30 to 40 years there have been numerous successful projects undertaken to clean up, for example, lakes and waterways, and the money spent on them was well used and the results benefit everyone. That's all good.

If the global warming zealots were primarily working towards the creation of more energy efficient (green) vehicles and factories, saving the Amazon, the whales, and so forth, I would have no problem with them. It's the totalitarian nature of their efforts, such as the loyalty oaths noted in Erin's latest post. A year or two ago, one global warming group even tried to have a law enacted that would have made the denial of global warming a hate crime. And I am worried that a major focus of Al Gore's troops is to create tax-supported anti-global warming entities in the federal and state governments, and that, as usual, these entities will stick it to regular Joes, who have a small carbon footprint, and not to wealthy folks who have a large one -- Al Gore, for example.

Of course it's absurd for universities to sign such pledges. I guess some do it 'cause it feels good or makes the faculty feel good. Maybe they do it for funding reasons. Again, I wouldn't have a problem if the schools were signing an agreement to do something tangible, such as cutting energy use, saving water, or aiming at 100% in recycling glass and paper, etc.

I wonder how much of this kind of thing is based on genuine beliefs about the science vs how much is based on "declinism," to use a term introduced by Andrew Potter.

I dare not provide a link, for fear of the spam filter, but it can be found at Damian Penny's blog, which is www(dot)damianpenny(dot)com

Years before global warming was posited, in my grade school social studies class, I was taught that energy should be conserved, pollution should be reduced, and natural resources should be used wisely.

Whether or not global warming as it is currently theorized (which is *not* simply the idea that "it's getting hot in here") is correct, no one has presented substantial evidence that energy should not be conserved, that pollution should not be reduced, or that natural resources should be wasted.

Sure, these university signing statements are a waste of time. But every human on this planet has a responsibility to conserve energy, help reduce pollution, and protect natural resources. It is not your right to make the air in my city toxic. It is not your right to dump chemicals in my backyard (thanks IBM!). It is not your right to waste natural resources (note to conservatives: God hates wastefulness).

Mr. Blissett: Agreed.

What you say is pretty much common sense; no one needs to buy into junk science to support it. It's a shame that some people think that those who don't buy into junk science ipso facto don't support it.

LB...among the resources that should not be wasted is the time of human beings. For example, maybe you can save X ergs of energy if people in a particular area get to work and back via commuter rail instead of private cars, but at a cost of 2 hours/day/person in additional commuting time. The latter factor often seems to be left out of the equation by self-described environmentalists.

Also, I have to cynically observe that there is often much more interest in saving resources if that saving can be easily observed by other people. The organization of companies that make geothermal heating-cooling systems recently observed that their systems have a fundamental defect...they are invisible, so--unlike rooftop solar arrays or Priuses (Priusii?), they are not very useful for snob appeal.

David Foster wrote:

LB...among the resources that should not be wasted is the time of human beings.

True enough, but it's not like the western obsession with Saving Mother Environment is without costs measured in actual human lives.

The ban on DDT springs to mind. The estimates of the cost in (mainly sub-saharan) human lives, lost to mosquito-borne malaria, ranges from hundreds of thousands up to 2.5 million per year (pick your source) for 25 — 30 years. That's pretty wasteful.

But your point is well taken and is applicable not just to DDT, but to GW as well.

Bjorn Lomborg's 2004 Copenhagen Consensus attempted to come up with priorities on how to allocate limited resources to alleviate some of the world's major problems. Of the 17 problems tackled, "Climate Change" won the bottom 3 spots, being placed in the "Bad Projects" category. (And Lomborg is a GW believer.)

Have any of you guys hear what the New Jersey Nets are doing to in the fight against global warming? Not only are there games now carbon-neutral, but they traded Jason Kidd to the Dallas Maveriks for the a “better environment” also. Julianne Waldron explained to the media that Kidd was giving off to much Carbon dioxide. “Jason Kidd always hustles when he is on the basketball court, and we all admire that greatly. But all of that running up and down the court, pushing the team out on fastbreaks, expending extra energy just to make a few extra points and possibly win a game, caused all of the players to breathe a great deal more heavily and thereby expel extra amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and we all know that is bad for the environment. We made the difficult decision to trade Kidd in order to save the planet.” Check out this article I found on it Environmental Activism is the Key to the Current Success of the New Jersey Nets