## Monday, October 01, 2007 ... /////

### Universities and green hysteria

The Crimson

writes about the greenhouse caps that will constrain the new Harvard University buildings in Allston. I am sure that similar things occur at many other universities or even companies but let me focus on Harvard because I became quite familiar with it.

Harvard, much like many other institutions, "has a responsibility to lead the charge" when it comes to global warming. In other words, it has the responsibility to maximize the influence of bigots and hypocrites from the anti-greenhouse church. It is not surprising: for example, the current president has given a medal to Greenhouse. Greenhouse whose sister is a Greenhouse with a green shirt has decried "lack of activism". ;-)

These things are everywhere so the new science buildings will have to emit 1/2 of the greenhouse gases relatively to the national standards while the other buildings are allowed to emit 2/3.

See Allston community's blog
Think about the real situation rationally. Many people in Allston are surely worried about loads of students walking or driving around their houses and tall buildings that hurt the scenery of their town, about damaged businesses and buildings that have to be demolished, access to the Charles river, and Harvard's control over the life in the town, among other problems. But the officials in the "Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office" (MEPA), whatever it is, care about completely different things, namely about greenhouse gases. Believe it or not but the most important question about the expansion of America's oldest university is whether it will contribute 0.0000002 or 0.0000004 Celsius degrees to the expected global mean temperature in 2050.

The number of zeroes is not necessarily exact but it is irrelevant anyway. The point is that the Harvard contribution to the temperature is completely inconsequential, unlike (hopefully) its contribution to the civilization.

During the last years, I was getting increasing amounts of crazy spam about "green issues" at Harvard. Several times a week, someone sent me and everyone else a document describing new "green initiatives" or new tables showing that the labs of three experimental physicists beat the labs of biologists in their recycling or greenhouse gas emissions. I was never sure whether I should have congratulated someone or throw a party. ;-)

Some of those documents have made it to faculty meetings that were boring and meaningless anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. While it wasn't one of the ten most irritating things about Harvard, it became pretty irritating anyway. Even if it were a good thing or even an important thing, these activities simply don't belong to teachers' and researchers' job.

I wanted to politely ask those people to stop sending me this obnoxious spam - Dear Stuart, could you please stop filling my mailbox with this f*cking green spam [not to be confused with maestro Alan Greenspan]? - but I didn't have the courage. More precisely, I evaluated that any kind of resistance would bring me more problems than those that would be avoided. Instead, I chose adaptation and figured out that most of these messages can be deleted immediately. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the people who are sending this garbage to the whole university or the whole department on a weekly or daily basis are technically violating the law. It's the same kind of spam as Viagra advertisements except that it is much more annoying: you are actually expected by certain people to read it.

However, when there's no one who enforces the law, the law becomes a piece of toilet paper - just like more important laws and principles such as the freedom of speech that has also become a piece of toilet paper at the U.S. universities overrun by aggressive leftist whackos.

Let us ask anyway. What is worse: spam about anti-impotence pills or spam about an anti-greenhouse fight? I am sure that about 50 percent of Chinese men above 40 years of age surely find the anti-impotence mail messages way more useful and relevant than the messages about climate change. However, the article linked in the previous sentence explains that most of them won't tell you about this fact in the public. ;-)

The whole public sector as well as the commercial sphere in the Western world is being flooded by values and goals that no one - except for the most intensely brainwashed simpletons - really cares about because they are "unphysical" but these values and goals have become a part of a religion that people are forced and expected to worship by a ghost of political correctness that penetrates the whole atmosphere. If you are one of those who realize that this whole anti-greenhouse stuff is garbage and if you care about it, you are simply in trouble.

And until this environmentalist farrago collapses, you will continue to be in trouble.