Skip to content

It was just a little too convenient. A little bit too self-serving. An internally commissioned investigation into the ‘Climate-gate’ scandal at the University of East Anglia that exonerated the alleged malefactors, despite evidence indicating serious impropriety.

I originally assumed that the whitewash – or should I say greenwash? – of the university’s Climatic Research Unit was the product of simple ideological bias. After all, the chairman of the Scientific Assessment Panel, Lord Ronald Oxburgh, is himself an outspoken global warming activist.

But then the plot thickened. It turned out that Oxburgh wasn’t only politically partial to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but he had a financial interest in the business of climate change as well.

In 2007, Lord Oxburgh became chairman of a company called D-1 Oils, a self-described “alternative energy crop company”. And two years later he assumed the helm at Falk Renewables, a major European solar and wind energy producer. In other words, while Oxburgh was investigating Climate-gate scandal, he was intimately linked to commercial ventures that stood to reap huge profits from the imposition of a price on carbon.

If that doesn’t reek of a massive conflict of interest, your political olfactory sense is overdue for an overhaul.

The story grew stranger still when it was reported that Lord Oxburgh failed to disclose his involvement with a little known outfit called Globe International. Globe is a not-for-profit group whose raison d’etre becomes evident when its acronymic title is spelled out in full: Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.

In reality, Globe serves a powerful low-profile network for international climate change advocacy. It sponsors meetings of parliamentarians and spends millions flying supporters around the world to lobby for a price on carbon. At next year’s Rio+20 environmental conference, Globe will be organising a World Summit of Legislators to push for the enactment of binding climate change laws in national parliaments.

Just last week, the UK Daily Telegraph reported that Globe International was funded in substantial part by the British government. One grant from the Department for International Development sent £91,240 (AUS$140,000) into its coffers.

So in essence, the British Government is paying a not-for-profit environmental organisation to lobby the British Government on environmental policy. It’s all rather weirdly incestuous.

Of course, there was another committee of inquiry commissioned to investigate the CRU’s Climate-gate scandal. But chairman Muir Russell didn’t even bother to investigate claims that emails central to the incident had been deliberately deleted.

The Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons found that lapse particularly troubling. The Committee’s report on the University of East Anglia CRU noted: “We are concerned that the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review did not fully investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of e-mails. We find it unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the Vice-Chancellor that the e-mails still exist.” As Richard Nixon found out to his ultimate chagrin, sometimes it’s not the offence itself that gets you, but the cover up.

But the Climate-gate scandal is only one of the imbroglios emerging over the past few years to eviscerate the credibility of the environmental movement.

Last year we discovered that by UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was peddling error-ridden documents that were factually ridiculous. The IPCC made hysterical predictions about the disappearance of the Himalayan Glaciers and adduced wildly inflated claims about the energy potential of wave power.

Talk about shock and awe! The environmentalist movement has been waging the mother of all scare campaigns in an effort to muscle through a revolutionary agenda that would end modern life as we know it.

This Green penchant for hyperbole should really come as no surprise.

Full story