Climategate: The Parliamentary Cover-Up

Climategate exposed the greatest scandal in the history of modern science but you’re never going to hear this from any of the official investigations. Andrew Orlowski at The Register has uncovered why.

Turns out, that there’s this well-funded SPECTRE-like advocacy group called GLOBE (Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment) International which has co-opted leading parliamentarians from the main parties in both the Commons and the Lords into advancing the AGW agenda.

One of those is Lord Oxburgh, recently appointed – on the Royal Society’s recommendation – to lead one of the two official enquiries into Climategate. Mysteriously, Lord Oxburgh has failed to mention GLOBE in his register of interests.

Orlowski reports:

GLOBE may be too obscure to merit its own Wikipedia entry, but that belies its wealth and influence. It funds meetings for parliamentarians worldwide with an interest in climate change, and prior to the Copenhagen Summit GLOBE issued guidelines (pdf) for legislators. Little expense is spared: in one year alone, one peer – Lord Michael Jay of Ewelme – enjoyed seven club class flights and hotel accommodation, at GLOBE’s expense. There’s no greater love a Parliamentarian can give to the global warming cause. And in return, Globe lists Oxburgh as one of 23 key legislators.

One insider has described Oxburgh’s appointment to lead this supposedly neutral investigation into Climategate as “like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.” Here are just a few more of this scrupulously unbiased fellow’s interests, revealed by Orlowski:

In the House of Lords Register of Lords’ Interests, Oxburgh lists under remunerated directorships his chairmanship of Falck Renewables, and chairmanship of Blue NG, a renewable power company. (Oxburgh holds no shares in Falck Renewables, and serves as a non-exec chairman.) He also declares that he is an advisor to Climate Change Capital, to the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. For a year he was non-exec chairman of Shell.

GLOBE seems especially drawn to the kind of MP who likes sailing close to the wind. Its president is none other than Stephen Byers, recently exposed in the “cash for influence” scandal as offering his services as a lobbyist like a “cab for hire” for a small consideration of just £5,000 a day. And its leading lights have also included Elliott Morley, one of the MPs more heavily implicated in the Telegraph’s parliamentary expenses scandal.

As Bishop Hill notes its UK parliamentary group officers also include the redoubtable and incorruptible Labour MP Eric Joyce – “the first MP to claim more than £1m in expenses and on more than one occasion the most expensive MP in the house. He once famously claimed for three oil paintings on expenses “because they looked nice”.”

But then, to judge from the research done by Cumbrian Lad at Bishop Hill, GLOBE is very much the kind of body that likes to do things on the sly. Its Memorandum of Incorporation includes this revealing snippet about its purposes:

“To provide a forum for ideas and proposals to be floated in confidence and without the attention of an international spotlight

Bishop Hill reports:

GLOBE’s corporate structure and funding are not clear from its website, but Cumbrian Lad has discovered that it is a private limited company. Interesting that – an organisation of legislators, run as a private company. He has also obtained copies of its accounts and other information from Companies House.
GLOBE was incorporated in 2006, the founding directors all being British legislators – Malcolm Bruce MP (LibDem), Joan Ruddock MP (Lab) and Nick Hurd (Con), with the last directorship being held by Lord Hunt. Since that time, Joan Ruddock has stood down and Lord Oxburgh and Eliot Morley MP (Lab) have been appointed to the board.

The current accounts are all abbreviated, which means there is very little detail about the income and expenditure of the company, but for some reason 2007 was filed in full, revealing an income of £820k, almost double that of the previous year, and all of which was spent on administrative expenses.

And where does this money come from? Its 2008 accounts note:

The Directors acknowledge the support of International Organisations, Governments, Parliamentary Bodies and Industry, both financially and politically, with paticular acknowledgement to United Nations, The Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, European Commission, the Governments of Canada and Great Britain, the Senate of Brazil and Globe Japan.

Bishop Hill smells a rat:

My reading of all this would be that GLOBE is a vehicle to enable legislators to avoid the scrutiny of their electorates – the date of incorporation is probably instructive, coming just after the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act.

It’s no wonder Lord Oxburgh didn’t want to mention it on his CV.

Here is the link listing the names of all the MPs in its parliamentary group. The ones I find particularly interesting are the Tories on the list. They are:

Gregory Barker
Kenneth Clarke
Lord Fowler
Charles Hendry
Nick Hurd
Graham Stuart
Tim Yeo

If any of these represent your constituency, I urge you not to vote for them. A Conservative who indulges in this kind of slippery green activism is no conservative at all.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  2. Climategate: the official cover-up continues
  3. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
  4. ‘Climategate scientists should be immediately beatified in preparation for full sainthood by 2011′ says latest official enquiry

One Response to “Climategate: the parliamentary cover-up”

  1. Diogenes says:March 28, 2010 at 12:15 pmThanks for exposing this James. Guido Fawkes outed more of Yeo’s green investment advocacy on Newsnight some weeks back, so this reinforces it. I do hope the whitewashers’ hypocrisy will be exposed in the Telegraph. As for TV the only place we’ll see it exposed is on Putin’s pet Channel RT – the only news channel to lay into AGW. The Russians may be authoritarian, but they have better scientific debate on the issue because they have some hard-headed scientists who don’t have a nonsense-loving liberal establishment to nuture.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

The Economist: Not a Serious Journal

Can anyone tell me how The Economist got its title? I’m guessing it was probably founded in the early 18th century by some crazed charlatan called, perhaps, Zachariah Economist, who, because of the unfortunate coincidence of his surname managed to persuade thousands of gullible fools to part with their shirts on one of the South Sea Bubble companies. The one whose prospectus read “A company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.”

One thing I know for sure: The Economist’s name can have no relationship whatsoever with the “dismal science” of economics because if it did then never in a million years could it have run an editorial (and feature) as lame, wrong-headed, intellectually dishonest and positively dangerous as the one it produced this week on the subject of Climate Change.

Here is its conclusion at the end of a long article – unsigned, as is traditional on The Economist to convey its weightiness, self-importance and authority – purporting to sift through the science behind AGW.

Using the IPCC’s assessment of probabilities, the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than 1.5ºC in such a scenario has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of such a desirable outcome. The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction.

So, let me get this right: as even the Economist admits, scientists don’t really have a clue what the future holds regarding global warming. But that still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t DO something. Anything is better than nothing.

Let’s transpose that level of lame-brainery to the world of business, shall we? The real, decisions-have-consequences world in which, I imagine, most of The Economist’s readers operate.

So, we currently have a proposed scheme by Global PLC to spend around $45 trillion (that’s the International Energy Agency’s best estimate) combatting a problem which may or may not exist. The potential returns on this investment? Virtually nil. As the Spanish “Green Jobs” disaster has demonstrated, for every Green Job created by government intervention, another 2.2 jobs are lost in the real economy. It will also shave between 1 and 5 per cent off global GDP, create massive new layers of business-stifling taxation and regulation, and cause energy costs to rise to stratospheric new levels. Nice.

Alternatively we could look it at from a selfishly British perspective. OK, so UK Plc currently has a massive structural deficit, and knows it will soon have nothing left in the pot to spend on essentials like security and defence, let alone on fripperies. And how is the likely incoming CEO D Cameron proposing to deal with this crisis? Erm, he’s not yet quite sure. But one thing’s for certain: he’s going to stick with the new regulation brought in by the previous regime for this essential new scheme called the Climate Change Act. For the mere bagatelle of £18 billion poured down the drain annually, this will enable UK Plc to stifle its efficiency, drive up costs and wear the smug smile you only get when you know that none of your competitors is nearly SO bound by righteous green regulation as you. Nice.

What renders “The Economist’s” unforgiveable stupidity more unforgiveable still is that for all its ex-cathedra, this-piece-wasn’t-written-by-a-named-journalist-ergo-it-must-be-more-reliable-than-a-bylined-article portentousness, it can’t even form a fair, balanced and reasonable judgement.

Here it is on the Medieval Warm Period:

“Many climate scientists suspect this phenomenon was given undue prominence by climatologists of earlier generations with an unduly Eurocentric view of the world.”

After Soon & Baliunas’s near-definitive paper on this score does any serious scientist outside the warped, biased world of Michael Mann and his Hockey Team really believe this to be the case?

Or how about this outrageous piece of fence-sitting on the utterly discredited Hockey Stick:

In 2006 a review by America’s National Research Council endorsed points Mr McIntyre and his colleagues made on some methods used to make the hockey stick, and on doubts over a specific set of tree rings. Despite this it sided with the hockey stick’s overall conclusion, which did little to stem the criticism. The fact that tree-ring records do not capture recent warming adds to the scepticism about the value of such records.

Given that, as Andrew Montford unequivocally demonstrates in his masterpiece The Hockey Stick Illusion the story of the hockey stick represents one of the greatest exercises in mendacity and fudgery in the history of science, is it really the right thing for the Economist to take this lofty “one side says this, the other says that: who are we to judge which one is right” stance? Could it not for once, on this issue, acquire some cojones?

Some of the Economist’s readers, admittedly, stand to grow very very rich if this AGW scam is allowed to progress to its full and terrible conclusion. Many, many more though, stand to end up considerably poorer.

I know The Economist makes a fair bit of money out of all those taxpayer-funded bribe ads from the Carbon Trust. I know in the world of business dosh is jolly important. But isn’t integrity more so?

Related posts:

  1. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  2. Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care
  3. Dear Geoffrey Lean, let me explain why we’re so cross…
  4. Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate The Whitewash Continues

The Royal Society

(Motto: Nullius in Verba Unless It’s About Global Warming In Which Case We’re Happy To Believe Whatever Unsubstantiated Drivel We’re Fed By Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al) has announced who’ll be chairing its “independent” inquiry into the science behind the Climategate scandal.

And guess what? The man could scarcely be more parti pris if they’d given the job to Al Gore.

His name is Lord Oxburgh and, as Bishop Hill reports, he is:

* President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association
* Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables
* A member of the Green Fiscal Commission
So the chairman of this “independent panel” has a direct financial interest in the outcome.

Oh and here, Bishop Hill has also noted, is another member of the panel – Kerry Emanuel – at an MIT debate already showing the kind of open-mindedness we can expect in his judgement on the significance of the Climategate emails:

“What we have here,” says Kerry Emanuel, are “thousands of emails collectively showing scientists hard at work, trying to figure out the meaning of evidence that confronts them. Among a few messages, there are a few lines showing the human failings of a few scientists…” Emanuel believes that “scientifically, it means nothing,” because the controversy doesn’t challenge the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic warming. He is far more concerned with the well-funded “public relations campaign” to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to “interests where billions, even trillions are at stake…” This “machine … has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal-wearing, fruit-juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society…”

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the official cover-up continues
  2. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
  3. Climategate: the whitewash begins
  4. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

I Need YOUR Pledge NOW for the Most Important Campaign in the History of the Planet!

I refer, of course to LIGHTS ON – the vital protest being co-ordinated by my colleague Damian Thompson in response to the hideous annual exercise of eco-fascist triumphalism sometimes known as Earth Hour.

All Damian is asking us to do is that we screw up our courage, bump up our electricity bills and make damn sure we keep every single one of the lights in our home blazing between 8.30 and 9.30pm on Saturday March 27.

It will be a tough challenge, not least because the forces arrayed against us are so mightily powerful. Besides leading celebrity Alexandra Burke, leading blonde celebrity named after a fish Zoe Salmon, leading person called Paloma who is not called Picasso – Paloma Faith, and leading capital-lettered pop ensemble BLAKE, Earth Hour has managed to recruit the startlingly popular, well-known, and much-loved Lib Dem MP for Bath Don Foster. Yes. THE Don Foster.

A tough challenge, yes. But not an unsurmountable one. So remember everyone, even if it means interrupting your game of murder in the dark, or even rampant sex with a beautiful stranger who is too embarrassed to do it with the lights on, on March 27th you must put the interests of Western Civilisation before those of petty self-interest. Keep those lights ON. Because you know what will happen if you don’t, don’t you? ManBearPig will take over the world.

Related posts:

  1. Isn’t Black History Month a bit racist?
  2. The most important book of 2010?
  3. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  4. ‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

There Is Nothing Cuddly about the WWF

Today in the Sunday Telegraph my colleague Christopher Booker breaks possibly the most important environmental story since Climategate: a devious plan, truly Blofeldian in its scope and menace, by a hard-left-leaning activist body to gain massive global political leverage and earn stupendous sums of money by exploiting and manipulating the world carbon trading market.

My cynical prediction is that this vitally important story will gain little traction in the wider media, especially not with organisations like the BBC. Why? Because the activist body in question has a lovely, cuddly panda as its motif, and a reputation – brainwashed into children from an early age – for truly caring about the state of our planet. What’s more, this latest campaign by the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) is very easy to spin as something unimpeachably noble and right. After all, what kind of fascistic, Gaia-hating sicko would you have to be NOT to applaud a delightful heartwarming scheme to buy up whole swathes of the beauteous, diversity-rich, Na’avi-style, Truffula-tree dotted Amazon rainforest to preserve it for all time from the depredations of evil loggers, cattleranchers and other such profiteering scum?

Hence the understandably cautious tone in Booker’s opening par:

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

Only after this nod to fashionable concerns is Booker able to stick in the knife:

If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised. The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.
WWF, which already earns £400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

Read the full story here. Then, for even more grisly details – about how, for example, the WWF’s scheme rides roughshod over the interests of native peoples, in way that might rather shock those who think of the organisation purely in terms of that cute panda – turn to Richard North’s comprehensive analysis at Eureferendum. The work North and Booker have done exposing the great AGW scam is quite beyond admiration. Truly they are the McIntyre and McKitrick of British journalism.

But why does the story matter so much? Because it goes to the heart of what is truly the most shocking and evil aspect of the Global Warming Industry: the way democratically unaccountable – but quite astonishingly well-funded – activist groups like the WWF (annual income: £400 MILLION) have been able to subvert the scientific process, and coax and bully politicians into making policies which will benefit the environment barely one jot, but which will fleece the taxpayer, increase energy bills, and make a handful of filthy rich investors even richer. If this scheme ever comes off – and it still might, if Americans are foolish enough to vote for Cap and Trade – then the WWF will have the financial clout of decent mid-ranking economy and a political influence as great as any G8 nation. For WWF, read New World Order.

Related posts:

  1. After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
  2. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

In Praise of Lord Tebbit

Norman Tebbit, Telegraph blogger (Photo: Andrew Crowley)

Norman Tebbit, Telegraph blogger (Photo: Andrew Crowley)

My goodness how I admire Lord Tebbit! (So too, to judge by the number of comments on his brilliant blogs do many of you). I must admit I didn’t always feel this way but that’s only because in my younger more foolish days I was more easily swayed by the Gramsci-endorsed left-liberal dialectic which dominates our culture. The semi-house-trained polecat? The leather-clad boot-boy on Spitting Image? These were tags that stuck regardless of anything the poor fellow said or did.

Lord Tebbit is that rare thing: a conviction politician. And that even rarer thing in these dismal, heir-to-Blair times a Conservative conviction politician. Of the senior Tories around today, he is pretty much the only one left who speaks up for first principles: limited government; low taxation; liberty. Nor is he afraid to speak up on issues like Islamism and immigration. That’s because he understands that there are far worse fates for a politician than to find yourself on the wrong side of the BBC, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and the Guardian. Like waking up one day as David Cameron’s entire shadow cabinet have done and realising you have just sold every one of your party’s principles down the river in a tragic, desperate bid for a brief period out of Opposition.

Now Tebbo has got himself in a spot of trouble for re-enacting the put down of the Boxer Rebellion. He has our sympathies and our promise of a serious storming-of-the-Bastille type scenario if he finds himself banged up for this venial slip.

Sure, maybe the Chinese New Year parade which interrupted his peace in Bury St Edmunds was indeed a glorious celebration of the wondrous melting pot that is modern multicultural Britain. But sometimes, I think many of us would agree, it’s possible to have far, far too much of a good thing.

Related posts:

  1. What Lord Tebbit says: a bit more right-wingness will do Cameron no harm at all
  2. In praise of patrons – particularly mine
  3. ‘Budget for growth’? Wot budget for growth?
  4. Lord Turnbull: the IPCC is useless


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Ayn Rand’s books are deliciously anti-statist, but her philosophy is borderline Nazi | James Delingpole

Ayn Rand’s books are deliciously anti-statist, but her philosophy is borderline Nazi

March 17th, 2010

‘I am Howard Roark in a world of Ellsworth Tooheys…’ I tweeted in a fit of depression the other day, though I rather wish I hadn’t. I’m not an architect — and if I were I definitely wouldn’t be a humourless monomaniac into concrete and influenced by Le Corbusier; I don’t have hair ‘the exact color of ripe orange rind’ (does anyone?); I’m not a rapist; and, to be honest, I’m not even sure I like the novel that much anyway.

It’s called The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, and if you haven’t read it that’s quite understandable as the Russian-born novelist and philosopher Rand (née Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum in 1905) is much bigger in the US than she is over here. Though she’s now better known for Atlas Shrugged (1957) — currently enjoying a massive revival in the US as part of the Obama backlash — it was The Fountainhead (1943) that made her name and has since sold around 6.5 million copies.

(to read more, click here)


  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

I’ve Never met a Girl Who Hero-Worships Martin Amis As I Do — Except Maybe His Wife

I’ve never met a girl who hero-worships Martin Amis as I do — except maybe his wife

M. ‘I’ve spotted him!’

Me. ‘Where?’

M. ‘Down there. Having a coffee. On his own.’

Me. ‘Hey. Do you think he’d like it if we joined him?’

M. ‘I doubt it. He’s reading a book.’

D. ‘God, is he reading his own book? Unbelievable. He’s reading Yellow Dog.’

M. ‘No it’s not. I think it’s Hitch 22.’

Me. ‘Yeah well, whatever it is, look, he’s almost at the end. You know how it is when you’re nearly at the end of the book. You want to prolong the moment. So we’d be doing him a favour.’

M. ‘You can if you want to. I’m staying here.’

Me. ‘Coward. What about you, D?’

D. ‘Well we’ve come all this way. Seems a shame not to try…’

Back home in England, you’d never get away with it because: a) it would be considered a touch infra dig, and b) he’d never present such an obvious sitting target for such a prolonged period of time. But here in Dubai, the rules are different. That’s what we’re calculating. Indeed, I think it’s secretly one of the main reasons my friends D, M and I decided to come to this Emirates Festival of Literature. To hang with The Mart. The great Martin Amis.

Yeah, yeah, I know it sounds pathetic. At least it will if you’re a girl. I haven’t met a girl on the entire planet — apart from his wife Isabel, of whom more later — who gets excited by The Mart to nearly the same degree as boys do. But that’s because The Mart doesn’t really do girls’ books. He writes books about foul characters called Keith, and darts, sports cars called Fiascos, and the fantastic breasts of aristocratic blonde 20-year-olds in Italian castles, with glorious show-off, willy-waggling sentences and fantastic adjectives like ‘rangy’. I don’t know why, exactly, but when you’re a boy — at least a boy of a certain generation — this sort of thing really hits the spot. You feel you’re in the presence of greatness and you want a bit of it to rub off on you, ideally by getting some sort of quality time with the man.

But how? Interviews don’t count — they’re too one-way, too much of a performance. Bumpings-into-at-parties don’t count either — they’re too fleeting and unsatisfactory, as I’ve discovered many times before. The first must have been in my late twenties, when I said: ‘People say I look a bit like you. Do you think I look like you?’ and I can’t remember what his reply was but it must have been pretty boring, otherwise I suppose I would remember it.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. I’m so addicted to email, Facebook and Twitter, I have to hide it from my wife
  2. Childhood hero
  3. A speech, a radio interview, and the strongest cannabis I’ve had for 15 years
  4. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Greens Sacrifice Babies to Satan, Sell Grandmothers into Slavery, etc.

So it’s true: as some of us have suspected all along, Greens really are much more insidiously evil than the rest of the human race. All that eco-righteousness, all that ostentatious recycling and non-disposable-nappy-washing, all that more-healthily-flatulent-than-thou pulse-scoffing, all that “ooh-get-me-I-never-fly-unless-I-have-to-because-I-read-somewhere-that-Carbon-Footprints-are-like-really-bad-for-Mother-Gaia” (Yes that means YOU, Hannan) – it’s all just a cloak of sanctimony used to hide the rancid mass of pullulating vileness beneath.

Greens steal more than non-Greens; they are more likely to cheat and lie. And it’s not me making this up here. We’re talking hard scientific fact. Way harder than anything you’d find in, say, the Fourth IPCC Assessment report. See for yourself. It’s in The Guardian.

Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. “Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours,” they write.

The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.

Mazar and Zhong said their study showed that just as exposure to pictures of exclusive restaurants can improve table manners but may not lead to an overall improvement in behaviour, “green products do not necessarily make for better people”. They added that one motivation for carrying out the study was that, despite the “stream of research focusing on identifying the ‘green consumer’”, there was a lack of understanding into “how green consumption fits into people’s global sense of responsibility and morality and [how it] affects behaviours outside the consumption domain”.

The researchers claim to have been surprised by what they found. I’m not. You only have to hear the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt plotting the destruction of the mud flats Severn Estuary or to hear George Monbiot talking about wind farms to understand that the very last thing greens want is to make the world a better place. It’s about making THEMSELVES feel better, which is another matter entirely.

The same rule, incidentally, is also true of socialists, liberals, Lib-Dems, Cameroon ‘Conservatives’, and libtards generally.

Related posts:

  1. Frogs, scorpions, greens, lies…
  2. Peak oil really could destroy the economy – just not in the way greens think
  3. What is it that greens like Jonathan Porritt so LOATHE about nature?
  4. Liberty: it’s an easier sell than you’d think


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Two Things I Love about the Arabs

Today’s blog is brought to you from Dubai, courtesy of Emirates Airlines, which is sponsoring the city’s annual Festival of Literature. As always when I’m in the Middle East, I’m instantly reminded why it is that Britons from TE Lawrence to the Prince of Wales to pretty much anyone who has ever worked in our Foreign Office tends to go weak at the knees over Arab culture: because when you’re on the receiving end of its hospitality, there are few finer experiences in the world.

This Literature Festival is a case in point. All morning I’ve been watching authors like Martin Amis, Conn Iggulden, Francis Wheen, Roger McGough, Alexander McCall Smith and the world’s goriest children’s author Darren Shan wandering round in a daze, some of it maybe due to the time zone shift (we had to get up for the opening at the equivalent at 4.30 am UK time) but most of it due to sheer amazement that in these dark recessionary times there is as a place in the world where writers still get treated like royalty. Global literature festivals are a penny a dozen these days. But I don’t think there are many gigs left where pretty much everything – including your wife or husband’s business class flight (if you’re an author; not my wife unfortunately) – is paid for. And yes of course it’s all front – designed to project an image to the world that says “Dubai financial crisis? What Dubai financial crisis?” But I don’t notice many of the guests complaining about it.

The only thing the festival hosts won’t stump up for is booze (shame because a beer here costs about £7). This reflects Dubai’s rather awkward relationship with its fellow Emirates (and the rest of the Middle East). On the one hand they like the way it proves to the world that Arabs CAN do modern business and aren’t just relicts from the Middle Ages who only got lucky because of oil; on the other, they feel that the place has sold itself down the river by at least partially accommodating the wicked licentiousness of the West. Even though you can only buy booze in hotels here, Dubai is by some way the most liberal of the United Arab Emirates.

You can still get arrested for canoodling on the beach, being found drunk, swearing or even making a rude hand gesture, but I totally see why so many expats are drawn here. Partly, it’s the fact that as a free port it’s all tax free (though rumours of the cheapness of goods here are greatly exaggerated), partly, it’s because like many of us would rather like Britain still to be – as if PC had never happened.

I noticed one small example of this at the festival’s (surprisingly good) opening, when about two hundred kids trooped on stage dressed up as their favourite children’s characters (Pippi Longstockings, Worst Witches, Harry Potters etc) and did a really high-quality song and dance number. It was quite an eye-opener for anyone used to the achingly PC standards which obtain in most British state primary schools these days: the kids who got the starring roles were ruthlessly chosen either because they had the best singing voice or because they were prettiest, rather than to create balance or make the ugly losers feel better about themselves. And crikey, was the show all the better for it!

Related posts:

  1. I’ve never met a girl who hero-worships Martin Amis as I do — except maybe his wife
  2. There’s nothing greens love more than a nice, juicy oil-spill disaster
  3. Are music festivals better with children?
  4. Radio Free Delingpole XVI: buying Britain’s gold back
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations