Whenever governments throw money around, the opportunists and scammers will come out to play.

During the past two years, Ottawa, Ontario and the City of Toronto have handed out more than $1 billion in government rebates and interest-free loans to help homeowners and residential developers go green.

Despite the growing number of incentives — the list fills a 65-page document — the Star found there are few quality-control standards to protect consumers from incompetent “eco experts” looking to cash in on the booming industry.

As the examples in the article illustrate, the “green” industry has no more claim to virtue than any other. We are all marks in their confidence game, whether from lobbyists foisting their high-cost wind turbines and solar panels on electricity ratepayers, politicians wrapping themselves in green with taxpayer money to buy your vote or fly-by-night “eco-experts” trying to milk generous government programs and unsuspecting homeowners.


Wow! The mainstream media is waking up.

The greatest scandal connected to global warming is not exaggeration, fraud or destruction of data to conceal the weakness of the argument. It is those who are personally profiting from promoting this fantasy at the expense of the rest of us.

Al Gore is the most visible beneficiary. The world’s greatest climate-change fear-monger has amassed millions in book sales and speaking fees. His science-fiction movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Academy Award for best documentary and 21 other film awards. He was co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Gore was laying his own foundations. As he was whipping up hysteria over climate change, he cannily invested in “green” firms that stood to profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not more) from increased government regulations and sweetheart deals from connected politicians and bureaucrats. The multimillionaire climate dilettante was given a free pass by reporters, who refused to ask him hard questions about the degree to which he was profiting from the panic he was causing.


Given the clear conflicts of interest of those who both promote and profit from climate-change alarmism, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize should be rescinded.

Is the Nobel Foundation listening?

With the Green Lobby already dictating energy policy here in Ontario, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Big Environment also has the U.S. government in its pocket:

After Barak Obama used Spain as a model for successful green job creation, a Spanish university published a paper showing that for every four jobs created in the green energy sector, nine jobs were lost in the productive sector of the economy. The study found it cost almost $900,000 to create each ‘green’ job in Spain. Spain now has an unemployment rate of more than 19 per cent.

The wind energy lobby – the American Wind Energy Association – started attacking the Spanish study. Then, the  Obama administration used an agency of the US department of Energy (DoE)  to attack the study. That agency is headed up by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi, the former CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, and the person responsible for shovelling a lot of ‘green job’ stimulus out the door.

More here.

According to Robert Bryce with John Stossel on Fox News:

The wind business…is the electricity sector’s equivalent of corn ethanol. It is a scam from beginning to end.

(at about the 6:30 mark).

ht: Allegheny Treasures

The climate alarmist community prove once again the relevance of Goodhart’s Law:

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process.

h/t:  Cafe Hayek