World’s First Anti-Global-Warming Hedge Fund Sticks It to the Greenies

The other day, while out hunting, I met a man who ran a brothel. (Till he got busted, anyway). I liked and respected him for brothel-keeping is an honourable profession which supplies a vital need and makes the world a happier place.

This is something that never could be said of a single person working in the climate change industry. It is now worth an eyewatering $1.5 trillion per annum — not a penny of which goes on anything remotely useful. As I argue here at the Spectator, it is a Potemkin industry, a racket, a form of state-sanctioned organised crime.

No one, in a free market, would spend a penny of their earnings on wind turbines, solar panels, research grants for dubious climate science projects, local council sustainability officers, et al: the industry is entirely dependent for its existence on favours granted to rent-seeking troughers by the political class.

If you build a giant trough, the pigs will come. And they have. (No insult to real pigs, by the way. Bacon! Mmm)

I’m thinking, for example, of wind farm entrepreneurs like Dale “dog on a rope” Vince — the former new age traveller whose £100 million fortune derives from carpeting the British landscape with gigantic bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes.

Rajendra Pachauri, the bearded, yogic railway engineer with wandering hands who, largely because he fitted the right ethnic profile, managed to parlay his way into heading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, jetting round the world for a succession of climatological shindigs in exotic locations, as well as making a tidy bit on the side thanks to his TERI research institute.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Al Gore: CO2 Makes You Stupid

The piece to which Gore is referring concerns a study by the Harvard School of Physical Health, which says that carbon dioxide (CO2) has a negative effect on cognitive abilities and decision-making.

According to the study, which tested participants in a controlled office environment under a range of conditions, an increase in CO2 intensity of 400 ppm (parts per million) can impair people’s cognitive scores by an average 21 per cent. Its biggest impacts were on Crisis Response, Information Usage and Strategy.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Enron Environmentalism: The Carbon Credits Scam Pumps Millions of Tonnes More Greenhouse Gases into the Atmosphere

As well as pumping much as 600 million tonnes more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the carbon credits scheme has been abused by countries like Russia and the Ukraine which have used them as a money making scam.

Vladyslav Zhezherin, one of the co-authors of the study by the Stockholm Environment Institute says:

“This was like printing money.”

Another co-author Anja Kollmuss has told BBC News.

“We were surprised ourselves by the extent [of the fraud], we didn’t expect such a large number.”

“What went on was that these countries could approve these projects by themselves there was no international oversight, in particular Russia and the Ukraine didn’t have any incentive to guarantee the quality of these credits.”

To which the two obvious questions are:

Have any of these people actually been to Russia or the Ukraine?

and:

This stuff that these greenies have been smoking sounds totally amazing. How do we go about getting some?

The corruption they describe is by no means a recent thing. It dates back to Enron whose entire business model was based on dodgy carbon credits, which it used not to save the planet but to close down its rivals in the coal industry.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Gore Fakes ‘Proof’ of Man Made Global Warming Shock

Watts Up With That has achieved a truly astonishing scoop. It seems that the world-renowned climatological expert Al Gore may have faked a “high school physics” experiment “proving” that Man Made Global Warming is fact, not fantasy.

Oh all right, I’ll turn off the sarcasm.

What I think is most interesting is not so much that Gore has been caught out telling porkie pies, nor that the TV crew faked every last detail of the experiment. Faking it is what TV does all the time, I’m afraid. As for Al Gore and extravagant untruths well, it’s scorpions, frogs and rivers, is it not? No, what’s so thoroughly cherishable about this story is the forensic attention to detail which Anthony Watts has brought to bear on it.

Read it for yourself and relish every moment. I particularly like the bit where Wattsy goes out to buy the exact same equipment used in the experiment and proves that those thermometers can’t possibly have been filmed rising inside the jars because they’re just not blurry enough. You might call this obsessive. I call it our salvation.

The point that can’t be made often enough about the internet is that it represents our best and perhaps only hope of outmanoeuvring the lies, bullying and control of the political establishment. Nowhere is this truer than with the Man Made Global Warming scam. Had it not been for the internet, Climategate would not have been broken, nor the earlier work of McIntyre and McKitrick disseminated, nor a community created in which scientific experts (and interested laymen) all over the world were able to discuss climate science freely without the risk of being defunded, or having their journal closed down or being ostracised by their colleagues. But though the internet was a necessary condition for this to happen, it was not a sufficient one. The other vitally important ingredient was the trainspotterish diligence of men and women like Anthony Watts, and Richard North and Donna Laframboise and Joanna Nova.

Why is this trainspotterish diligence so essential? Because one of the main planks of the defence used by the climate alarmist establishment against sceptics is that they have all the expertise on their side, all the PhDs, all the notable scientific institutions, and that therefore their “authority” trumps the feeble witterings of all those nonentities, crazed Oxford English graduates, and other such verminous specimens who dare to speak out against the mighty, unimpeachable wisdom.

What the internet has proved in these debates, time and again – from Glaciergate to Amazongate to Polarbeargate – is that when the rebellious amateurs of the sceptical blogosphere go head to head with the climate establishment, the bloggers always win. Not as a result of invective or snarkiness or any of the other things that bloggers also do quite well: but on the actual hard science and raw evidence. Look at almost any tussle between, say, WUWT on the one side, RealClimate on the other, and you’ll notice that when it finally boils down to the irreducible truth, the side that emerges triumphant is the sceptical one, not the alarmist one. It’s partly because the facts are on our side (so we jolly well ought to win if we’re doing our job even remotely properly), but also because, being the underfunded underdogs, we’ve been forced to raise our game to a higher standard than that of our rather complacent, smug opposition.

Related posts:

  1. Global Warming? Yeah, right
  2. Global Warming: is it even happening?
  3. Al Gore’s five loaves and two fishes
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

3 thoughts on “Gore fakes ‘proof’ of Man Made Global Warming shock”

  1. tkadm30 says:30th September 2011 at 12:56 amthey faking “proofs” every day now in montreal and canada! in fact al gore should have started there to collect “data” with all the chemtrails they’re spraying on a daily basis…. if this is not an engineered proof of deliberate climate modification then i don’t know what i’m speaking about.
  2. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:14 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
  3. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:14 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.

Comments are closed.

‘Climate scepticism is the new racism’ says Gore | James Delingpole

August 31, 2011

Climate sceptics, yesterday

Climate sceptics, yesterday

Climate scepticism is the new racism, Al Gore has told an interviewer. And do you know what? He’s absolutely right.

Just as “racist” has been honed over the decades by liberal-lefties for casual use as a deadly weapon against anyone who disagrees them, so “climate denier” has become the new leftist shorthand for “evil, wrong, uncaring, right-wing – and almost certainly funded by Big Oil.”

In both cases, the intent is the same: to close down the argument by implying that your opponent is so morally compromised that his case isn’t even worth consideration. He’s just wrong: “End of,” as they say.

Gore is by no means alone in this tactic. Consider Paul Krugman’s recent effort in the New York Times to smear sceptical Republicans such as Rick Perry by writing them off as “anti-science.” Krugman quotes a speech by Perry, in which the Texas governor and potential presidential candidate says: (H/T Roger Simon at Pajamas Media)

“I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

Here is Krugman’s take on this:

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

Krugman – and his sycophantic audience of house lefties at Pravda – may think Perry’s claims are “vile” but they also happen to be true in every respect. If the best riposte Krugman can come up with is an appeal to the bankrupt “authority” and junk sociology of the hopelessly compromised National Academy of Sciences, then maybe he should consider handing back his Nobel prize. Can Krugman seriously not be aware of the latest research from CERN? Surely one of the gravest socio-political issues of our time – one which, on current form, looks likely to take the entire Western economy over a cliff – deserves more trenchant analysis than this from a supposed economics expert?

Still less excusable is this outrageous smear job by the deputy-chairman of the IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. The eminent rocket scientist Fred Singer and the mathematics professor Claes Johnson had been invited to address a climate conference in Brussels, organised by SEII (Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels). But when van Ypersele found out, he intervened with the following letter:

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,


La SEII soutient-elle implicitement le déni climatique, à la veille du congrès mondial des ingénieurs à Genève consacré aux défis énergétiques (où j’aurai l’honneur de donner une “keynote lecture”) ?

L’utilisation du papier à lettres de la SEII par votre administrateur M. Masson pour l’invitation ci-jointe le suggère malheureusement, malgré une phrase hypocrite pour indiquer que la SEII ne “sponsorise” pas l’événement.

Vous devez savoir que MM Fred Singer est une personne dont l’honnêteté scientifique laisse fortement à désirer. Ses activités de désinformation sont financées par les lobbies des combustibles fossiles (voir XXXXXXXXXXXXXX) , et il est scandaleux qu’une telle personne puisse être associée, de près ou de loin, à la SEII et à la Fondation universitaire.
 
Des collègues éminents m’ont écrit que M. Johnson ne valait pas mieux. Un de ses “textbooks” récents, où il parlait à tort et à travers des changements climatiques, publié par le Royal Institute of Technology (KTH, Suède), a dû être rétracté par ce dernier tellement il contenait d’erreurs.

Loosely translated: Fred Singer is a person whose scientific honesty leaves very much to be desired. His disinformation activities are funded by the fossil fuel industry….
Shortly after this letter was sent Singer and Johnson were disinvited.

So we see that in each case above, the response of the left-liberal political/media establishment to a contentious subject in which it is losing the argument is not to fight back with better arguments but simply to close down the debate altogether with smears, lies and authoritarian bullying. Funnily enough, Stalin used a similar ploy against the scientists who disagreed with his pet genetics expert Lysenko. And the Nazis used the same technique against inconvenient Jewish physics when they wrote their pamphlet 100 Scientists Against Einstein. (Cf also: 100 Incredibly Obscure Lefty Historians Against David Starkey) If this is where things are going then those of us, at least, who believe in frank debate, freedom of speech and empiricism should be very worried. We are entering dark times and worse, much worse, is still to come.

Related posts:

  1. Climate scepticism: not just the new paedophilia, but the new racism and homophobia too!
  2. Al Gore’s five loaves and two fishes
  3. President Perry or President Bachmann? It’s the only question remaining
  4. Gore fakes ‘proof’ of Man Made Global Warming shock

 

‘Why will no one listen to us any more?’ wails AGW propagandist | James Delingpole

January 16, 2011

Climate-change-Media-cove-007

Bob Ward is sad. Very, very sad. “Why won’t anyone listen to us any more?” he wails at the Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei.

One or two helpful commenters have tried to explain the reason. But unfortunately, as Richard North has noted, at Komment Macht Frei freedom of speech is not encouraged. See how many of their comments have been deleted.

Poor Bob isn’t the only victim of “Climate Change” apathy. Ryan Maue at Watts Up With That has found numerous further heart-rending examples of green activists who just aren’t being listened to any more.

People, what is your problem? Didn’t you know that this is the third hottest year in the entire history of the universe? Don’t you care any more that it’s all totally our fault? Are you really so sick and selfish that you don’t agree any more that our landscape should be carpeted with wind farms and our economy bombed back into the Dark Ages so as to bring global CO2 levels down to the correct, UN-mandated level?

I look forward to your explanations. And they had better be good. After all, as Al would say, this is serial!

Related posts:

  1. Lovelock goes mad for shale gas
  2. Sarah Palin totally gets it
  3. North reports the Press Complaints Commission to the Press Complaints Commission
  4. Richard Curtis’s snuff movie: A joke? A canny marketing strategy? I don’t think so.

One thought on “’Why will no one listen to us any more?’ wails AGW propagandist”

  1. Groper says:19th January 2011 at 7:48 amBrilliant Jimbo, freedom of speech? Like you regularly have posters to your Telegraph blog censored? Pot calling kettle?

Comments are closed.

‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie | James Delingpole

October 22, 2012

Climate Change is dead. Long live the new Eco Lie

Climate Change is dead. Long live the new Eco Lie

And so it begins. With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green movement is ditching “Climate Change”. The newer, younger, sexier model’s name? Biodiversity. (Mega hat tips to: Hilary Ostrov and Ozboy at Libertygibbet)

When I say shameless, I’m talking so amoral it makes the Whore of Babylon look like Mother Theresa; so flagrant it makes Al Gore’s, ahem, alleged drunken “Love poodle” assault on the Portland Masseuse look like an especially delicate passage from Andreas Capellanus’s The Art of Courtly Love.

Consider this summary of the UN’s two-week Convention On Biodiversity, launched on Monday:

Delegates from nearly 200 countries are being asked to agree to new 2020 targets after governments largely failed to meet a 2010 target of achieving a significant reduction in biological diversity losses, a goal set at the last biodiversity conference in 2002. And one of the same issues that led to failure the first time around could jeopardize this meeting: money.

Developing nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world’s remaining biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and in central Africa.

Do you see what’s going on here?

OK. Here’s an even bigger clue. Here’s something, unbeknownst to the world’s taxpayers and free citizens, which the UN technocrats stitched together in June.

Busan/Nairobi, 11 June 2010 – History was made, Friday, in the South Korean port city of Busan, when governments gave the green light to an Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The independent platform will in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing world-wide understanding and governmental action on global warming.

The new body will bridge the gulf between the wealth of scientific knowledge -documenting accelerating declines and degradation of the natural world – and the decisive government action required to reverse these damaging trends.

Its various roles will include carrying out high quality peer reviews of the wealth of science on biodiversity and ecosystem services emerging from research institutes across the globe in order to provide gold standard reports to governments.

“Gold standard”, eh? Now where have I heard that phrase before?

Suddenly it becomes clear why they kept Pachauri on at the IPCC. Because the IPCC simply doesn’t matter any more. Sure it will go on, churning out Assessment Report after Assessment Report, bringing pots of money to the usual gang of bent scientists prepared to act as lead authors. But the world’s mainstream media – especially all those environment correspondents who so lovingly transcribe the press releases of Greenpeace and the WWF as if they were holy writ – will have moved on, according to the dictates of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) fashionable crise du jour.

“Never mind ‘Climate Change’,” they’ll say to themselves. “Our readers and viewers aren’t really so into that now all the winters seem to have got so very cold. Biodiversity, that’s the thing.”

And guess what? Not only does the great big new Biodiversity scam already have its own IPCC but it even has its own pseudoeconomic, panic-generating Stern Report. This one is produced by a member of Deutsche Bank which – as Hilary Ostrov tells us in an excellent post well worth reading in full – has form when it comes to promoting half-witted, ill-documented, patently political climate change ****ocks.

Hmmm … Deutsche Bank … Oh, yes I’ve heard of that one. Ross McKitrick recently responded to some misinformation they had included in “a report that aims to rebut major skeptic arguments on global warming”. But I digress …

Just read how it’s billed and weep:

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
Nagoya, Japan, 20 October 2010– The economic importance of the world’s natural assets is now firmly on the political radar as a result of an international assessment showcasing the enormous economic value of forests, freshwater, soils and coral reefs, as well as the social and economic costs of their loss, was the conclusion of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report launched today by TEEB study leader, Pavan Sukhdev.

“TEEB has documented not only the multi-trillion dollar importance to the global economy of the natural world, but the kinds of policy-shifts and smart market mechanisms that can embed fresh thinking in a world beset by a rising raft of multiple challenges. The good news is that many communities and countries are already seeing the potential of incorporating the value of nature into decision-making,” said Mr. Sukhdev, a banker who heads up the Green Economy Initiative of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

He was speaking at the launch of the two-year study, which has involved hundreds of experts from around the world, at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 10th Conference of Parties meeting (CBD COP10) in Nagoya.

The TEEB study calls for wider recognition of nature’s contribution to human livelihoods, health, security, and culture by decision-makers at all levels (local to national and business to citizens). It promotes the demonstration, and where appropriate, the capture of the economic values of nature’s services through an array of policy instruments and mechanisms.

Here’s the UN’s Achim Steiner – you’ll have seen him recently on a BBC news report where David Shuckman, was it? got to go on a nice freebie to Kenya in the guise of bigging up, you guessed it, biodiversity – telling us just how SERIAL this business is.

This year’s Global Biodiversity Outlook-3, prepared in close collaboration with UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre, points to ‘tipping points’ fast emerging – changes for example in freshwater systems that soon may be irreversible.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded that 60 per cent of the services provided by the world’s ecosystems that support human well being are now either degraded or heading that way.

Changes in biodiversity as a result of human activities were more rapid in the past 50 years that at any time in human history, it concludes.

The report, the output of more than 1,300 scientists from more than 90 countries supported by UNEP, the Global Environment Facility and many other partners, underlined that rather than exercising the brake the world continues to choose the accelerator.

What? Only 1300 scientists this time, was it? I’m sure the figure which used to be bandied about with global warming was more like 2,500.

Ah well, what the hell. It’s not like the “little people” are going to be able to do anything about it. That’s the beauty of the United Nations. The European Union too, come to that. Democratically unaccountable, lavishly funded, and with over a half a century’s expertise at spreading big lies round the world before the truth has got his boots on.

Related posts:

  1. When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning
  2. I’m loving being middle aged
  3. Giles Coren says: ‘Climate Change. It’s SNOW joke!!!’
  4. Dave, you’re a disappointment – but there’s still time to change that

 

CCX lay offs: You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh… | James Delingpole

August 15, 2010

“If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW!” (hat tip: Marc Morano)

That was how I began my Climategate blog in November last year and now, it seems, the CURSE OF DELINGPOLE has come to pass:

LONDON, Aug 11 (Reuters) – Market operator Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE.N) is laying off staff at newly acquired U.S. environmental bourse the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), industry sources told Reuters, citing a lack of U.S. action on climate change.

They said the first round of layoffs began on July 23 and, although the total number of jobs to be cut was unknown, one said around 25 employees, or roughly half CCX’s headcount at the time of ICE’s acquisition, had already been or were being let go.

ICE would not confirm or comment on the layoffs.

“ICE just came in one day and started hacking away … We were told the company was restructuring,” said one source, who declined to be named.

Another said ICE cut around 20 roles at the CCX late last month, and at least another six high-level layoffs would come before next spring.

ICE bought Climate Exchange plc, owners of the CCX as well as London’s European Climate Exchange (ECX), the world’s largest marketplace for carbon credits, in April for 395 million pounds ($622 million), despite failed UN climate talks in Copenhagen last December and a lack of U.S. action on climate change.

I am so sad, especially since among the significant shareholders in CCX are Al Gore and Goldman Sachs. Truly, it just couldn’t have happened to nicer people!

One Response to “CCX lay offs: You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh…”

  1. Richard Cumming says:August 16, 2010 at 12:52 amJames,Do you recall making the statement “Let the Court cases begin” or similar in your November Climategate blog?

    Well…

    “The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).”

    That from a report of the stoush developing linked here:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026553/Court-challenge-to-Niwa-climate-records

    Details of NZ Climate Science Coalition High Court action against NIWA:-

    Background to our application for judicial review

    Our Statement of Claim against NIWA

    Dynamite changes to raw readings

    High Court asked to veto NIWA graph

    All here: http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/

    Is this another symptom of the CURSE OF DELINGPOLE ?

    Richard Cumming (NZ)

‘Der Krieg ist verloren!’ declares confused, angry, trembly-handed Al Gore in bunker conference call | James Delingpole

August 15, 2010

Angry butterball: Al Gore

Angry butterball: Al Gore

“This battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year,” a shaken Al Gore has told his supporters, conceding that there is now next to no chance of US Congress passing a Climate Bill in 2010. (H/T Julian Morris).

As recorded by Steve Milloy at the Green Hell Blog, the bloated sex poodle was on magnificently paranoid form, lashing out in all directions at the enemies responsible for his mission’s failure, up to and including the US President:

Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “The federal government has failed us.” Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that “the government as a whole has failed us… although the House did its job. [emphasis added]”

Gore’s deadliest venom, however, was reserved for the kind of scumbags who read this blog – and of course for the Big Oil companies who fund our lavish lifestyles:

Gore said “the government was not working “as our founders intended it to” and laid more blame at the feet of fossil fuel interests who conducted a “cynical coordinated campaign” with “unprecedented funding” and “who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars just on lobbying.” He criticized “polluters” for “dumping global warming pollution into the atmosphere like it was an open sewer.”

Gore blamed the skeptics for “attacking science and scientists.” “They [the skeptics] did damage and cast doubt,” Gore said.

He also quite rightly recognised how hideously biased the MSM is on the global warming issue.

Asked why the alarmists were ineffective in addressing Climategate, Gore bitterly blamed a “biased right-wing media… bolstered by professional deniers.” Gore claimed the Wall Street Journal published 30 editorial and news articles about Climategate and “not a single one presented [his] side of the science.”

Yeah, that’ll be it, Al. Very powerful newspaper the Wall Street Journal. Nobody reads anything else.

Oh, and in the bit before Gore spoke, his warm up man Larry Schweiger of the National Wildlife Federation came on and described sceptics as “bastards” whom he hoped that True Believers in ManBearPig would outlive.

Which was nice.

Related posts:

  1. Greenies: the Red, the Dumb and the Angry
  2. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America
  3. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  4. The BBC: Al Gore’s UK propaganda mouthpiece

 

Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW | James Delingpole

April 28, 2010

Hey guess what – who’da thunk it? – one of President Obama’s energy advisers is on course to make millions from shares in green companies which may benefit from green policies that she has helped formulate.

Chris Horner has the scoop at Pajamas Media:

Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.

Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.

Among Zoi’s holdings are shares in Serious Materials, Inc., the previously sleepy, now bustling, friend of the Obama White House whose public policy operation is headed by her husband. Between them, Zoi and her husband hold 120,000 shares in Serious Materials, as well as stock options. Reporter John Stossel has already explored what he sees as the “crony capitalism” implied by Zoi being so able to influence the fortunes of a company to which she is so closely associated.

In addition, the disclosure forms reflect that Zoi holds between $250,000 and $500,000 in “founders shares” in Landis+Gyr, a Swiss “smart meter” firm. She also still owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in ordinary shares.

“Smart meters,” put simply, are electric meters that return information about customer power usage to the power company immediately and allow a power company to control the amount of power a customer can consume. These smart meters are a central component of the Obama administration’s plans to reduce electricity consumption as part of the “smart grid.”

Still, I suppose you can’t blame the green profiteers for making hay while they still can. All the signs are there that Project AGW is on the verge of collapsing – from Dr Roy Spencer’s convincing new rebuttal to the increasingly discredited notion that anthropogenic CO2 is the main driver of Climate Change to the news from Australia that Kevin Rudd’s government has shelved its Emissions Trading Scheme. (Hat tip: Peter T of Oz)

As Andrew Bolt reminds us, only two years ago, Rudd was claiming that it was the world’s most important issue:

The biggest challenge the world faces in the decades ahead is climate change. It is the great moral and economic challenge of our time.

Since then though, this decent, principled, forthright leader has considered the matter long and hard and come to an important new conclusion. There are no votes in it.

Related posts:

  1. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  2. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  3. Christian hoteliers prosecuted for calling Pope ‘Catholic’
  4. Cameron’s favourite greenie Zac Goldsmith is toast