Each Sunday, the Patriot will provide a look at some of the news issues that you should know about. We know it is tough for college students to keep up-to-date on current events. The Patriot’s Sunday News Beat is your answer to that. Enjoy!

What’s in the news this week? Here at Lehigh, there isn’t much. There was a bird storm, followed by a snowstorm. Our bookstore manager allegedly ripped up several Brown and White’s due to an editorial he didn’t like, leading the Brown and White to claim that free speech was ‘stifled’. Given that their policy toward online comments – to never publish comments with links to outside sources – this editorial should be a good source of laughter for those who enjoy outright hypocrisy.

Looking to the bigger picture, here are the biggest stories and the best articles from the week.

Liberal Condescension

Gerard Alexander, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, wrote a great piece in the Washington Post on the history of liberal condescension in politics, and how it has been much more extreme than condescension coming from the right. It is quite enjoyable if you are open-minded, regardless of political affiliation.

Alexander’s Article

Climate Change Collapsing

Those silly “Climatologists” are at it again. More and more manipulations of data and misinformation are being discovered each day, and more and more news organizations around the world are covering the collapse. Most notably, India has decided to create it’s own agency to monitor climate change, since they feel that they cannot trust the IPCC. Additionally, the British head of the IPCC from 1997 – 2002 publically stated that the U.N. IPCC is on the verge of losing its credibility. Other instances of manipulation have been brought to light: baseless claims that climate change will destroy 50% of the Amazon, and manipulation of reports on water-stressed populations. With IPCC claims actually being scrutinized as they should have, it is quite likely that more inaccuracies and falsifications will appear over the coming weeks.

Healthcare: Pass / Fail Edition

In America’s most famous three-ring circus, Washington  D.C., Democrats continue to be flummoxed by the complexities of passing a healthcare bill that is opposed by a majority of the public during an election year. America’s angriest woman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi still says that the bill will be passed, but on the same day President Obama admitted that Healthcare Reform may not pass. Given the lack of newsworthy progress on the bill, it seems that President Obama’s outlook may be more likely.

Palin Speaks, People Cry

Liberals and Conservatives can unite in a fest of both laughter, and tears due to Sarah Palin’s latest reappearance.

For those who want to cry, or laugh, at Palin’s lack of logic and reason, Joan Walsh of Slate has an article for that.

For those who want to cry, or laugh, at Palin’s lack of vocabulary and sentence structure, there’s no better place to find that than from Fox News, where you can read, or try to read, the transcript of her interview with Chris Wallace.

The interview starts with a simple question and a butchered response, and it was all downhill from there:

WALLACE: How do you see yourself as a member of the Tea Party movement or a member of the Republican Party?

PALIN: Oh, I think the two are and should be even more so merging because the Tea Party movement is quite reflective of what the GOP, the planks in the platform are supposed to be about. Limited government and more freedom, more respect for equality. That’s what the Tea Party movement is about, so I think that the two are much entwined and I’m happy about that.

Additionally, her exchange at the end of the interview regarding her intentions for 2012 is particularly scary, due to both her many grammatical errors, and her bizarre reasoning.

That’s all we’ve got. Until next time, have a good week!

Over the past week, birds from all parts of the Northeastern United States launched an assault of previously unseen proportions on all parts of Lehigh’s campus.

Students brave enough to travel by night were often greeted with thousands of enemy combatants regularly dropping hazardous projectiles from their strategic perches above the ground.

The resulting mess has left University walkways covered in unsightly ‘graffiti’ and stained many vehicles belonging to both students and faculty.

Even though several of the markings resemble swastikas, President Gast has been slow to label this a ‘hateful incident.’

“We must understand that [the birds'] society operates much differently than ours. They have different cultural values, which sometimes results in misunderstandings when interacting with a different community, such as our own. I am quite confident that the birds did not realize that they were making offensive symbols on our sidewalks. Indeed, one culture’s offensive symbol is another culture’s artwork. Nevertheless, I have asked our VP of Nature Relations to try to speak with them and to find a solution that is amenable to both sides.”

As the administration seeks diplomatic solutions to the threat posed, students may be forced to take matters into their own hands.

Students have begun to wear parkas or carry umbrellas to shield themselves from the bombardment. One student, who wished to remain anonymous, has started to take drastic measures. He set of several rounds of firecrackers to fend off the birds.

So far, Lehigh has been slow to clean up the mess. Even while the campus’s new visage is drastically decreasing prospective student visits, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group was able to over ride all attempts to have our sidewalks cleaned.

In a statement issued yesterday, LEAG explained their decision.

“While it is unfortunate that Lehigh students, faculty, and prospective parents and students are forced to walk over fecal matter for most of their time on campus, water is a vital resource and not abundantly available. We feel that such a trivial use of water is deplorable, and have overridden all requests for cleaner, more sanitary walkways.”

With the birds claiming round one and the administration paralyzed, we can only hope that the recent snowstorm will cause the birds to search for other potential targets.

* This article is meant to be a parody of some aspects of Lehigh, as well as a commentary on our currently unsightly sidewalks. All quotes in this article are fabricated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582/Amazongate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

As the claims of climate alarmists continue to be investigated, the integrity of their premise continues to evaporate. While the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph (U.K.) outlines the previous unearthing of erroneous climate claims, it is worth reminding you here:

1.   Climategate - Hacked personal e-mails of top climate researchers reveal illegal dumping of information to dodge freedom of information laws, and also statements like “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

2.    Himalayan Glacier Debacle – Further investigation into claims in the 2007 IPCC report found that a statement was included – that Himalayan glaciers would all melt by 2035 – which was a blatant fabrication, and had literally no basis in fact. Despite being warned about this by at least one prominent glaciologist, the statement was included in the report anyway.

Which brings us to:

3.     Help us pretend to save the rain forest lie (also dubbed Amazongate by Mr. Booker) – As the article details, claims in the same 2007 IPCC report featured claims from non-peer reviewed, and essentially propagandist, material that stated that climate change would endanger “up to 40 percent” of the Amazon rain forest. This claim essentially had no scientific backing.

While climate alarmists continue to claim that we are headed toward a climate catastrophe, it is clear from building pile of falsified claims and unethical activity that these climatologists are shrouding the truth. As mentioned in a previous article of mine, The Common Sense Climate, there are many well-regarded scientists who disagree entirely with the theories behind human-induced climate change.

It is clearly time for the IPCC, the CRU, and all other organizations supporting climate alarmism to be audited, and for a truly independent organization to be created that will investigate the effects of human activity on the climate. Until then, the climate debate will forever be concealed by disingenuous propaganda.

Each Sunday, the Patriot will provide a look at some of the news issues that you should know about. We know it is tough for college students to keep up-to-date on current events. The Patriot’s Sunday News Beat is your answer to that. Enjoy!

• Last Friday, the Supreme Court made one of its most controversial rulings with regard to corporations and campaign financing in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 5-4 ruling overturned much of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and allows both corporations and individuals more freedoms to finance political advertising. The Wall Street Journal provides a good analysis of the decision as a victory for the first ammendment.
• This week, President Obama gave his first state of the union address (transcript here). In an interesting article, Peter Wehner of Politics Daily argues that Obama’s shifting of blame away from his administration should unnerve democrats. Meanwhile, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek claims that his speech should enthuse liberals.
• Even with the State of the Union being given, the fate of the health care legislation is still up in the air. Several sources suggest that Democrats may give up on the legislation and shift their focus to repairing the economy, which was the main focus of Obama’s speech. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama have all signaled that they “will not walk away from health care.” However, many moderate Democrats are shifting away from their support in light of the shifting political tide. John Bresnahan reports on Politico that influential Democratic Senator Evan Bayh wants to move on from the health care bill and focus on creating jobs.
• While news organizations specializing in liberal propaganda ignore the ever-decreasing credibility of climate alarmists, The Orange County Register has a great editorial detailing another incident that discredits their hypothesis. Specifically, the 2007 UN IPCC Climate Change report knowingly included a claim – that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 – that had “no scientific basis.” This follows the scandal in November revolving around several very prominent climate researchers. The issue was also covered in the Wall Street Journal, which shows that the IPCC was warned by glaciologist Georg Kaser that 2035 was “so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

This coming week, we will likely see continued attempts by Democrats to accomplish something of note. Some commentators suggest their failures thus far have been due to having Gilligan, of Gilligan’s Island fame, as their highest paid consultant.

Until next Sunday, have a good week!

President Gast’s tandem of emails to the student body at-large last week simply reeked of political maneuvering. With everything that is going on in Washington D.C. right now, it’s hardly a surprise that our President has decided to play a similar game here at Lehigh to pass her agenda: hire a Chief Diversity Officer.

She made this clear in her email, entitled “Martin Luther King Celebration 2010.” After a brief remembrance of Dr. King, she moved onto more important things, like transforming Lehigh from the racially and sexually biased campus that she currently sees, and in the process building her resume. In the email, she outlined her plan to hire a CDO to fix the University’s aforementioned woes. In doing so, she decided to bring up the alleged events of racial name calling, which have not been mentioned in any official campus dialogue or in the Brown and White for eleven months. Curious timing to say the least. Sure, those events are relevant to what Dr. King worked for and accomplished in his lifetime. But in celebrating his work, why not focus on the positive, that the events were isolated, and nothing similar has occurred in the past year.

Perhaps this contradictory behavior became apparent to the administration. Cue Thursday’s announcement that hateful incidences have returned to Lehigh. This time it was in the form of a ‘hostile and racist symbol’ in an undisclosed elevator discovered by an unnamed Lehigh employee. The convenient timing of the event, along with the vagueness of the wording in the email, prompts several questions. Before President Gast starts allocating possibly $1 million or more each year for diversity initiatives to cure this campus, we should make sure that there is an actual diagnosis. We can start by getting the answers to these four questions:

---

1. Why give this incident so much publicity?

Sure, we know the timing played into your favor. But does one symbol in one elevator really justify a campus-wide email? Whoever drew the swastika clearly wanted attention, and President Gast gladly delivered. I’m not saying the incident should be ignored. The University should clearly pursue disciplinary action if they find out who did it. But doing so quietly would have been the best approach. Additionally, it trivializes past and future campus-wide emails sent by President Gast. Are we to treat this event with the same degree of seriousness as the earthquake in Haiti, which also provoked a campus-wide email? How seriously should we take her next email admonishing homophobic phrases found inside men’s bathroom stalls around campus?

2. Why withhold the location of the ‘hostile and racist symbol’?

We still don’t know which one of Lehigh’s extraordinarily slow elevators was host to the symbol in question. Lehigh’s official response, as detailed in the Brown and White article on the subject, is that the location “will not be released so as not to bring unwanted attention to people who frequent that building.” Perhaps we could ask a Washington politician to explain that statement. Unwanted attention? A campus-wide email was sent out, clearly the administration wants people to pay attention to this event. Additionally, most buildings on campus are frequented by literally thousands of students, staff, and faculty. Say the incident occurred in Rauch, are people honestly going to say: “Oh, you go to Rauch every day, therefore you probably drew the swastika.” The answer is, of course not. This was a move to increase the mystery and intrigue surrounding the incident to generate more publicity for it.

3. Why withhold the fact that the symbol was a swastika for five days?

Thanks to the Brown and White, we were told five days after the incident that the ‘hostile and racist symbol’ was a swastika. Apparently, this information was deemed too sensitive at first, and was withheld from the student body. Was that really necessary? As adult members of the Lehigh community, we deserved to be given as many details as possible about the incident, especially as she called on us to be responsible for elevating the level of discourse within the Lehigh community. Again, withholding the nature of the symbol only increased the mystery and intrigue around the incident, which was completely unnecessary.

4. Why did the reporting of this incident correspond so well with your announcement that you hope to hire a Vice President of Equity and Community?

Yes, of course this could be a coincidence. But the two events are simply too close on a timeline to not be related to each other. With that being said, there are plenty of possibilities. Clearly, the University has already made the assumption that the goal of the swastika was to spread hate of some kind. However, it is equally possible that the symbol was drawn by someone who supports Lehigh’s hiring of a VPEC / CDO. Why’s that? Well, there are two reasons:

First, quite simply,  someone who supports a CDO has much more to gain from having a ‘hateful incident’ occur on campus, as it goes to prove President Gast’s aforementioned hypothesis about Lehigh. This incident serves that agenda very well, and someone who wants Lehigh to hire a CDO easily could have seen that bringing another ‘hateful incident’ to campus would cause an uproar similar to last semester, which would galvanize support for the hiring of a CDO.

Second, the timing is too good. We haven’t been notified of any ‘hateful incidents’ for almost a year, and then three days after President Gast makes her announcement – poof – we find a hateful incident, one which perfectly supports the need for Gast’s plan. Someone who is truly hateful always has an incentive (in their own mind) to write hateful things. However, someone who would benefit from a perceived ‘hateful incident’ has a limited period during which an incident is beneficial. Clearly, this event occurred within that period.

---

Before everyone jumps on the “Lehigh is racist, Lehigh is sexist” bandwagon, President Gast should answer these questions. She wants to hire a Chief Diversity Officer – that is her prerogative. But she used this incident to advance those claims, and launched an unfair assault on this school’s character by blowing this ‘incident’ entirely out of proportion. The large investment required for her diversity initiatives should not be based on isolated incidents perpetrated by a mere handful of Lehigh’s 6,000 students. Unfortunately, if her response to this event is any indication, that is exactly what she plans to do.

Update: Slight wording changes made on 2/13/2010

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.

People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.” – Barack Obama

In the latest saga of Barack Obama’s increasingly illogical comments, our President decided to blame Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts on… drumroll please… George W. Bush! Sure, it isn’t much of a surprise, given that this was Barack’s number one move in getting elected in the first place (followed closely by the hope-change two-step). But the logic behind this accusation is simply non-existent. A Republican doesn’t win, especially not in Massachusetts, due to anger against another Republican. Most democrats have figured this out, notably Senators Evan Bayh and Jim Webb, who have called for slowing down the process on the health care bill.

According to most polling, the health care bill was a primary reason why Scott Brown won. He won because he promised to vote against the bill which President Obama continues to push. By Barack’s logic, if a bill does get passed, George Bush should be blamed (or credited) for that as well.

A transcript of Barack Obama’s interview can be found here.

Additionally, Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg have some interesting, informative, and humorous things to say in reaction to Scott Brown’s election, and Barack’s subsequent interview.

The climate is changing. It always has been, and it always will be.  The question that drives discussion on environmental policy of late is, “What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the huge changes that some politicians support in the name of combating climate change, it is important to take a critical look at this question. While I know that you may have heard that the scientific community has reached a consensus on this question, let us take a look – you may be surprised.

Carbon and the Climate

The theory behind anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change is that CO₂ emissions are causing a rampant increase in global temperature. Thus far, proponents of this theory have largely succeeded in making the public believe that this is an undisputed fact among the scientific community. The truth is, many notable climatologists and other scientists dispute this scientific hypothesis. To name a few:

1.     The Polish Academy of Sciences [1], who submitted a letter discussing ten problems with the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

2.     Princeton Physicist Dr. William Happer [2], who testified before Senate in February that current climate models are inherently flawed.

3.     Ivar Giaever, Norwegian Nobel Prize winner [3].

4.     Dr. John Cristy, a lead author of the U.N.’s original IPCC report in 2001 [4].

5.    Over 700 scientists according to a list provided by the U.S. Government [5].

Clearly, it would be inaccurate to claim that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. All of these scientists provide theories of their own regarding human activity and the causes and effects of an increased level of CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is understandable to see so many differing views; since even the climate models that predict runaway warming cannot agree on its role.

The climate models that do predict global warming provide an estimated increase in temperature of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius by year 2100. These models require hundreds of assumptions – one of them being carbon’s role in regulating the climate. As Dr. Happer explains in his senate testimony though, about 90% of the “greenhouse effect” on earth is due to water vapor, not CO₂. The role of CO₂ is much smaller. According to Dr. Happer, it could cause at most a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperature. He explains:

“There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO₂ concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO₂ will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO₂ in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.”[6]

Dr. Happer continues to explain that models currently used rely on the assumption that small increases in CO₂ levels will lead to increased levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, causing runaway warming. However, empirical evidence has shown this correlation to close to zero of even negative[7].

Whether or not you agree with Dr. Happer, he and other renowned scientists contend that anthropogenic climate change does not pose a serious threat. Indeed, even climate models disagree. Climate models which assume a positive correlation between CO₂ and water vapor predict a temperature increases of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius. What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the evidence, it is pretty clear that we do not know. With that being said, let’s look at the cost of the proposed legislation on climate change, which is currently stalled in the Senate.

The Waxman-Markey Bill

The Waxman-Markey bill, touted as “transformational legislation,” would require the U.S. to reduce emissions of CO₂ and other gases by 17 percent within the next 10 years and by 80 percent before 2050. Should the bill pass through the Senate, the government will use a “cap and trade” system to regulate the emission of CO₂. Essentially, the government will issue permits to emit CO₂, which can then be traded from companies that pollute less to companies that pollute more. The end result should be a level of emissions equal to the “cap” that is set. The main issues in this bill are the effects on the monetary system, and the effects on the climate. So before a judgment is made about this bill, let’s look at who pays, who profits, and what happens to the climate as a result.

As with most government policies, U.S. citizens will foot the bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will cost the average household $175 per year, mainly from an increase in the price of carbon based fuels. Due to a series of provisions within the bill, the poorest 20 percent of Americans will actually benefit, making $40 per year due to this bill [8]. In addition to the direct cost to taxpayers, the “cap and trade” system will increase manufacturing costs, and provide incentive for companies to move manufacturing plants overseas to areas with lower energy costs, which would likely result in increased unemployment.

Where does this money go? That should be obvious – to the bureaucracy! According to the same CBO report, the bill would increase federal revenue by $845 billion over the coming decade, with estimated expenditures related to the bill weighing in at $821 billion [9]. There are several interpretations of what this means. One interpretation is the creative New York Times headline that the climate bill “would trim budget deficit.” Such an interpretation is accurate if the budgeting assumptions are valid, but also terribly misleading. This bill calls for an increase in spending of $82.1 billion per year. To put that into perspective, the AIG bailout of last August was $85 billion. This bill is essentially another one of those every year so that our government can regulate the emission of invisible gases.

Now despite the large costs involved, proponents of the bill claim that the cost is worth the benefit of reducing carbon emissions. The climate models cited by the proponents of the bill predict a rise of anywhere from two to nine degrees Celsius over the next century. Similar models predict the impact of the House’s climate bill to be a drop of 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050[10]. Simply put, even if these climate models are indeed accurate, then this bill will do virtually nothing to change the warming trend. However, by 2050, this bill will have cost us $3,000,000,000,000 ($3 trillion) to change the global temperature increase from 3 degrees Celsius to 2.95 degrees.

Climate in the Real World

While the United States may look to self-flagellate itself through the Waxman-Markey bill, other countries will not do the same. With one third of the world’s population residing in China and India, both countries are going through rapid economic growth. Economic growth is inextricably tied to cheap energy consumption, and hence CO₂ emissions. China’s emissions of CO₂ have increased at a rate of 11% over the past five years, and are expected to continue at a similar rate [11]. These emissions will counteract any cooling effects the Waxman-Markey bill may have.

Even if we take the apocalyptic approach, the Waxman-Markey bill still does not make sense. Geoengineers have already devised several methods of cooling earth, some of which involve ejecting particles like sulfates into earth’s atmosphere to reflect sunlight [12]. This solution lacks appeal to environmentalists, but the result is that humans would see little effect from any warming that does occur. These methods are hundreds of times cheaper than the forced reinvention of the American economy.

In the past, the earth has been warmer, and it has also been cooler. There have been Ice Ages as well as warm periods, when Greenland was actually green. While it is easy to think that we live in extraordinary times, we do not. Our economy and our energy will become more sustainable over time, but we do not need to force the fact before it becomes economically viable.

Money and How to Waste It

For the sake of clarity, here’s what the Waxman-Markey bill does in real terms:

1. Takes a lot of money from 80% of Americans

2. Gives some of that money to the poorest 20% of Americans.

3. Uses the rest to create a huge government agency that monitors and attempts to regulate the emission of an invisible gas.

4. Creates cost incentives that will drive industry elsewhere, as unemployment continues to rise.

5. All of this is done in hopes that we can cool the planet by a 1/20^th of a degree over 40 years.

Clean and domestic energy are worthwhile goals, no one can dispute that. But, in typical government fashion, this bill goes about “achieving” those two goals in the most convoluted and inefficient way possible. This huge sum of money – about $12,000 per person – over 40 years should not be taken in the first place. The $3 Trillion could be used to directly fund clean energy research and technology. It could be used to build more nuclear power plants to provide cheap and clean electricity. It could be used to reduce the huge deficit built by President Obama and his predecessor. Instead, this bill is directly transferring wealth from citizen to citizen, and being used to fund yet another massive federal bureaucracy. To cap it all off, it will do essentially nothing to change the climate. It is but another example of political negligence.

---

[1] Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner, 4/24/2009. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html)

[2] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[3] Christina Reed, Nature, 7/15/2008. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/nobelists_talk_energy.html)

[4] Jon Birger, Fortune Magazine, 5/14/2009. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm)

[5] Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 12/11/2008. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

[6] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[7] Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf)

[8] Steven Mufson, Washington Post, 6/23/2009. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html)

[9] Darren Samuelsohn, New York Times, 6/8/2009. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/08/08climatewire-house-climate-bill-would-trim-budget-deficit-83573.html)

[10] Chip Knappenberger, MasterResource.org, 5/6/2009. (http://masterresource.org/?p=2355)

[11] Univ. Of California – Berkeley, 3/10/2008. (http://www.physorg.com/news124384270.html)

[12] Jamais Cascio, The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/2009. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html

Question: What should Lehigh do to become more sustainable?

Lehigh should be factually and intellectually honest when it comes to sustainability. Currently, most of Lehigh’s efforts to become more sustainable revolve around small changes – things that cost little and accomplish even less. The one notable exception to this is the new Steps building, which is extremely costly and still does not accomplish much in terms of making Lehigh “greener.” Everything Lehigh does accomplish is made highly visible. Even Rauch’s test of a “new eco-friendly printer” received a feature length article in the Brown and White.

So Lehigh can keep making highly visible, cost-effective changes that have little effect on the environment or Lehigh’s carbon footprint. But that is the easy way out; it’s like turning in your younger brother’s algebra homework to your calculus professor and then patting yourself on the back. Certainly, we do not want Lehigh to be in that business. To be intellectually honest, Lehigh has two options: make transformational changes to Lehigh so that it truly is environmentally friendly, or admit that cost is what really drives their decisions and that it really does not matter how environmentally friendly campus facilities are.

Given that choice, Lehigh should do both, since the two philosophies do not contradict each other. Lehigh can look to be a leader in innovating sustainable products and systems. Doing so has several benefits. Lehigh can bring in research funding, researchers, institutional renown, and all of the things that Lehigh needs as an institution. It will provide students interested in such subjects the opportunity to be involved in research, and provide them with opportunities not otherwise available. Lastly, it has a chance to lead to a breakthrough that will lead to large advancements in sustainability in the future.

Going hand-in-hand with the aforementioned strategy for making real progress, Lehigh should come out and say that research and a high-quality education is Lehigh’s priority. In doing that, Lehigh should throw all of the silly token-environmentalist acts by the whey side. President Gast should be working to establish energy research here, not signing silly climate commitments. She should disband panels like LEAG, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group, and let these professors and administrators worry about – here is a thought – teaching and administrating. Instead of posting signs asking students to shower less, they could work on finding a better way to recycle the water that we do use.

According to the Lehigh’s strategic plan, Lehigh is looking to stand out. Some in academia may view this policy as hypocritical. However, some would appreciate the honesty in the statement. The only reason any school actually enacts green policies is a) save money or b) brag about being green. Lehigh should expose this policy, and reject it. Lehigh should work for big advancements and innovations, and not play the political correctness game of “my green is better than your green.” In the end, it will be a net positive for Lehigh, its students, and the environment.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.

On Friday, hackers infiltrated the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and posted hundreds of documents and emails regarding CRU’s research, climate models, and publications.

While main stream news sources have tried to downplay this, there is no hiding the incriminating evidence contained within. Currently, all signs point to the emails being authentic. While the hacking of CRU’s server is a crime, what it exposed is even worse.

Despite the American mainstream media’s ambivalence on the subject, this is big news. Many media outlets in other countries still understand that. For analysis on that, see the Telegraph’s commentary on the news story.

For analysis on the various documents contained, much is still being uncovered from the massive amounts of information held within the files. However, the Herald Sun in Australia has some very good analysis on what this means for IPCC lead author Dr. Phil Jones.

Many blogs are leaping on this story, detailing a lot of the troublesome quotes from the emails. One blog details a lot of the quotes that show severely unethical practices.

While I won’t detail the extent of the comments, I will leave you with one quote from an email sent by Dr. Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

What does this mean for the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis? That is for you to decide. Take a look at the evidence and make up your mind.

If you are so inclined, the .zip file containing the documents and emails can be found here.

Lehigh’s Environmental movement has finally realized that organizations and committees are not enough to change the world. Their first noticeable step towards changing Lehigh is a simple, hard plastic sign which can now be seen by visitors to Taylor Gym. The sign, brought to you by SustainabLehigh, advises gym goers that “showers here are a privilege” and to “conserve water by taking shorter showers” in order to “protect the environment.” In a few simple sentences, this display brilliantly exposes the arrogance, hypocrisy, and ignorance of Lehigh’s Green movement, which mirrors the same flaws of its national counterpart.

The arrogance of the Green movement is the easiest flaw to see, and the most important. Since the late eighties, those intimately involved with the effort to “combat climate change” have engaged in smear campaigns, strong-arm tactics, manipulation of data, and unethical use of the media. All of these tactics serve to place anthropogenic climate change as fact instead of the hypothesis that it is. In doing so, people skeptical of climate change have been equated to holocaust deniers¹. Data inconsistent with climate models has been ignored and thrown out². Models have been purposely distorted for the purpose of scaring the general population³. Finally, some media outlets portray this issue as scientific fact despite hundreds of qualified voices saying otherwise⁴.

The drowning out and denunciation of rational opposition is arrogant. The level that it has reached on this particular issue is astounding. Arrogance by the leaders of a movement trickles down to its followers and adjacent groups, which brings us to Taylor Gym. Because the Al Gores and Barack Obamas of this world seem so sure that humans are destroying the planet, SustainabLehigh (a branch of the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group) is able to feel justified in telling people their showers are too long. Importantly, SustainabLehigh sees showers as a privilege for Lehigh students – something that could legitimately be taken away. Low-flow shower heads, timers, or the removal of showers are implied to be potential reactionary steps with a discourse that indentifies showers as gifts, and not a service covered by tuition.
The extremism of the Green movement inevitably lends itself to hypocrisy as well. As Al Gore lectures on the doom that our planet is about to suffer due to carbon emissions. He is also heating four large houses across the country and flying around in a private jet ⁵. If CO2 emissions are so harmful, and Al Gore has humanity’s best interests in mind, as he claims, then why isn’t Al living as a dimly lit beacon of sustainability?
We must assume one of two things. Either Al does not believe a word that comes out of his own mouth, or that he considers himself above the rules he sets for others. Given the arrogance we discussed earlier, let’s assume he considers himself above what he preaches – certainly not a stretch for any politician. In addition to being arrogant, this is hypocritical. He tells others what to do and how to live, while completely ignoring those rules when they inconvenience him.
This characteristic also trickles down to Lehigh. SustainabLehigh clearly sees showers at the gym as a privilege, and a harmful one at that. Given that showers are harmful, the morally consistent thing to do for people who subscribe to that belief would be to shower as sparingly as possible. Somehow, I think that many involved with the Green movement are still concerned about their social standing and what their significant other thinks. For that reason, they probably prioritize cleanliness over their obligation to the environment. Even so, they still feel justified in telling others about how showers are a privilege, and how long or short their showers should be.

Finally, SustainabLehigh’s shorter shower movement is ineffective, and an ignorant appropriation of resources. The amount of water that can be saved by shorter showers at the gym is negligible on the Lehigh scale, let alone the national or worldwide scale. Even if such a sign changes the behavior of gym-goers, the cost savings will still be almost nothing. Certainly, SustainabLehigh knew this, yet they posted the signs anyway.
Perhaps this was an attempt by Lehigh to parody the climate bill in Congress, which similarly attempts to impose unnecessary restrictions on the masses in order to “save the planet.” Both the bill and SustainabLehigh’s parody of it result in negligible changes to the environment, while providing unnecessary burdens on others. Both organizations are trying to do something that it isn’t their job to do. Congress is supposed to serve the United State’s best interests, and Lehigh is supposed to serve its student’s. Instead, wings of each create arbitrary guidelines that they feel others should follow. In doing so, they exert far more effort and carbon than they save by controlling the lives of others.
At the end of the day, the signs at Taylor Gym are simply pieces of plastic. However, there is an obligation for students to respond. The university is spending money on this either from our tuition or alumni donations. While the hidden incentive may be to save money on the water bills, the idea behind it still highlights the illogical behavior of the Green movement. These signs won’t make Lehigh or this planet any greener. Without voices of dissent, the student body’s tacit consent will signal to the University that they can discourage, limit, or take away more, all in the name of going “Green.” Lehigh needs to know that its students want their money spent on tangible goods and benefits, not warnings at a shower near you.

Sources:
1. Ellen Goodman, “Deniers of global warming harm us,” The Boston Globe.
2/9/2009.
2. Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008.
3. Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Lawrence Bender
Productions, 2006.
4. Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
12/11/2008.
5. Peter Schweizer, “Gore isn’t quite as green as he’s led the world to believe”,
USA Today. 12/7/2006.