The theory of man-made global warming has created so much wealth and self-import for individuals across the globe that continued talk of its pending disastrous consequences will not be tamed. The most vocal about global warming often profit from its publicity (investment in certain technologies forced upon manufacturers; litigation; selling books; speeches; etc.). Publicity of global warming results from excessive victimization of Earth's organisms and from endless attacks on "developed" nations' consumption.
Last year, a doctor in Melbourne diagnosed a 17-year old lad with "climate change delusion"
(http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/?page=2). What?! Legitimizing ailments of the psyche due to man-made global warming is absurd. Do these revelations open new opportunities for money-making lawsuits? Do they benefit the doctor's business? What drug companies are profiting? Do similar dignoses provide justification to advance climate change legislation? I question the motive of any doctor attempting to draw a causal link between an individual's mental health and global warming. I think it is irresponsible and misleading for the patient. Ultimately, the only ways to treat the "delusion" and "anxiety" associated with climate change is to (1) tell God to slow down on the number of natural disasters or (2) attack the evil-doers who are warming the Earth.
Children are the newest target for global warming zealots. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK's Sustainable Development Commission, recently claimed that having too many children is irresponsible because it increases the family's carbon footprint (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece). Porritt suggests a two-child limit. True, additional children cause more consumption and more driving, but to deny an individual the right to procreate is ludicrous. If this concept jumps the Atlantic, don't hold your breath waiting for the ACLU to take action.
Pollution is harmful to our health and bad for the environment.
Technologies should be sought to reduce anthropogenic emissions.
However, any miniscule change in Earth's temperature cannot be unequivocally linked to man's activities (science debate for another blog).
I find many fear mongers of global warming hypocritical: they expect the commoner to ride our bikes to work/school (which I like to do), while they ride their private jets and limosuines; they expect the masses to live in modest, energy-conserving homes while they live in massive energy-consuming mansions. Their credibility is lost before they open their mouth.
Lastly, I think the fashion and hysteria surrounding man-made global warming is a profit-making business and clouds the minds of legislators, judges, politicians, and educators.