WWF in denial over Donna Laframboise’s new book

So upset they issued a press release. That’ll show ‘em. Funny how they couldn’t delineate the title of the book in the text.

You can get the full story here at Marketwatch. But I see this as a rousing endorsement, likely to have the same opposite intended effect as the review by Dr. Peter Gleick on Amazon that backfired so badly on him when commenters pointed out he didn’t have any facts to back up his vitriol and many suspect he never actually read the book before writing a review. Dr. Gleick still has an open opportunity here to tell his side of the story on WUWT as I offered him a guest post slot on Judith Curry’s blog. So far silence in my inbox.

People are now buying the book in droves thanks to Gleick’s review saying on WUWT and Curry’s that they wouldn’t even have considered it until the fight broke out over his review.

Here are some other reviews:

Blooming brilliant. Devastating” – Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist

“…shines a hard light on the rotten heart of the IPCC” – Richard Tol, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change and convening lead author of the IPCC

“…you need to read this book. Its implications are far-reaching and the need to begin acting on them is urgent.” – Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Donna writes on her blog:

Two editions of my IPCC exposé are now available.

The Kindle e-book is  here – at Amazon.com for the reasonable price of $4.99 USD.

UK readers may purchase it for £4.88 from Amazon.co.uk here.

German readers can buy it from Amazon.de for EUR 4,88.

French readers may buy it at the same price here at Amazon.fr.

If you don’t own a Kindle you can read this book on your iPad or Mac via Amazon’s free Kindle Cloud Reader – or on your desktop or laptop via Kindle for PC  software.

Digital option #2 is a PDF – also priced at $4.99. Formatted to save paper, it’s 123 standard, printer-sized pages (the last 20 of which are footnotes). Delivered instantly, it avoids shipping costs and is a comfortable, pleasant read.

A 250-page paperback edition priced at $20 should be available by the end of next week from Amazon.com – which ships internationally.

Amazon has posted a sample of the book that extends well into Chapter 7. Click here to take a peek.

 

About these ads

99 thoughts on “WWF in denial over Donna Laframboise’s new book

  1. Lets hope more people investigate the influence of WWF, Greenpeace and others on what the IPCC publishes

  2. They didn’t read the book, either. It’s not about climate change denial. Plus, the second paragraph in the press release is grammatically nonsense. They must have been so rattled that they forgot how to write English. Atta Go, Donna! You gave them a drubbing.

  3. Thanks Anthony

    You can always tell when you are exposing truths that some would like to keep concealed, as the hysterical responses become, um, more hysterical. In Australian parlance like stirring up a bullants nest, angry and over excited to say the least!

  4. I tried finding the press release at a WWF site via Google news. No luck. Pity this story didn’t bother to provide a link. Perhaps Marketwatch got an early leak via Email.

    OTOH, Donna’s book is getting a fair amount of attention on the net, so that ‘s good.

  5. As always , you can rely on the ideologically opposed to be the best advocates. It was like when here is Australia , the Ex PM Kevin Rudd used to spruke at every chance that “Tony Abbot (opposition leader) reckons climate change is crap” and couldn’t understand why the opposition leader increased in popularity.

  6. Okay Josh, have at it. The WWF (choose the polar bear or the panda) has its hand in the IPCC cookie jar and can’t extract it easily because it has a grasp on too many climate cookies (cooked up assertions) and though caught in the act still shouts out its innocence. A witness will say something like “You keep using the word ludicrous. I do not think you know what that word means.”

  7. Because of Dr. Gleick’s rousing “anti-endorsement, I bought the pdf.
    Excellent read and thanks Doc.

  8. “WWF Climate Witness Scheme”

    Doesn’t the word “scheme” imply something is not on the up & up?

  9. The Lucis Trsust has spawned many subsidiary companies including “World Goodwill”
    From Dark Majesty, by Texe Marrs, pp. 139-40
    The Secret Brotherhood has developed the social and political art of networking to a fine science. World Goodwill, in
    its newsletter of 1986, No. 2, listed a number of groups that have participated in its World Service Forum. Such
    groups include those that are connected with World Goodwill’s centers in London, New York, and Geneva. The list is
    absolutely mind-boggling in its scope. In London, groups that have actively participated include the United Nations
    Association, the Teilhardt Center, the International Broadcasting Trust, the Buddhist Society, the Scientific
    and Medical Network, St. James’ Church (Piccadilly), Emerson College , International Health Research Network,
    Habitat International Council, the Schumacher Society, the New Economics Foundation, World Health
    Organization, Peace Through Unity, the British Holistic Medical Association, the *****World Wildlife Fund,***** and
    World College.

  10. In the middle of reading Donna Laframboise’s book at present. It’s very readable and well researched. I strongly agree with Ross McKitrick’s comments which you quote above (“…you need to read this book. Its implications are far-reaching and the need to begin acting on them is urgent”). Ms Laframboise ably exposes the unreliable and misleading “reporting” by the IPCC which forms the basis for the United Kingdom government committing its people to the expenditure of £ 2million per hour.

  11. People like Peter Gleick who live in a goldfish bowl and are apparently unaware of the nature of the real world may be forgiven when their strenuous attempts to undermine and hopefully destroy Donna’s new book have the completely opposite effect. WWF on the other hand are one of the world’s largest propaganda organisations. They have access to billions, are staffed by professional media /PR types in their hundreds. There is nothing the don’t know about getting their message across. That being the case, it is odd that they should decide to emulate Dr. Gleick and pile in, which will only serve to promote the book’s sales still further. I’m not complaining of course, just curious. I think “The Delinquent Teenager” should have finished downloading on my wife’s Kindle by now so I will go off and read it.

  12. I notice they use the word “ludicrous,” instead of the word “false.” Which suggests that they can’t actually disprove anything in the book.

  13. Good old Gandi’s quote comes in again and again! “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

  14. CoalsOfFire,
    I have a very clear image in mind of a drawing or painting of a bear cub with one paw in either a beehive or a honey pot. It likely dates to before WW2, possibly even 19th century One would only need to add a caption.

  15. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
    October 24, 2011 at 5:54 am
    “They didn’t read the book, either. It’s not about climate change denial.”

    Congrats for being the first to take the words out of my mouth Mike! Obviously they never read it! My how they are wriggling and the one thing that they do not get is that we wear the badge of “Denial” with honour!

  16. 11.Gary Pate says:
    October 24, 2011 at 6:46 am
    “WWF Climate Witness Scheme”

    Doesn’t the word “scheme” imply something is not on the up & up?

    ***Soon, I expect we’ll start to see scientists entering the Climate Witness Protection Program.

  17. One more and I am out…..Donna, you have made the Da Vinci Code upset look like a night out at the Comedy Store, bless you for you research!

    Now…….I want to know how these organizations can still be recognized as charities and claiming the tax breaks they get? Time to hit them in the pocket? How much are they making?

  18. The reviews on Amazon have attracted another activist (in addition to Peter Gleick) whose financial future is assuredly linked to propagating the myth of dangerous man-made global warming. In the link below we can see that Dr. Mark Boslough, Physicist at Sandia Labs “has turned his attention to climate change as a looming national security threat.” His attention seems to be focused squarely on attacking “denialists”.

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/mann_bites_dog_why_climategate_was_newsworthy

    Mark Boslough wrote a scathing review (probably without having read the book) filled with ad hominems and then attacked on all the those who criticized his review.

    I cannot see how Dr Boslough’s extremist view of “climate change as a looming national security threat” could possibly be consistent with the tenets of the CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) here – http://www.csicop.org/about/about_csi/

  19. Kind of obvious that someone who’s first language isn’t english wrote the press release but the the choice of words (my emphasis) in one place “WWF’s climate witness scheme” is hilarious.

    Scheme has a very negative connotation as a verb and it isn’t much improved as a noun with the second most common definition being:

    scheme n. A statement that evades the question by cleverness or trickery

    Possibly a Freudian slip? You be the judge. LOL

  20. Whoever posted that headline cannot tell the difference between “refute” and “rebut”.
    All chess players know that “refute” means to prove the argument is wrong. When my novelty chess opening is “refuted” I get crushed.
    To “rebut” is merely to disagree with the argument without providing conclusive proof that its wrong. The WWF merely “rebutted”” the argument presented by “The Delinquent Teenagre” in the feeblest way possible- argument by denial.

  21. There is a Kindle App that works on the iPad – so you can read Kindle books in colour (much better than a Kindle). Just bought the book, and will read with interest.

    .

    BTW, everyone, its about time that we all gave another donation to the WUWT TIP BOX. This kind of political pressure and lobbying does not come cheap, and the ramifications of losing this debate will be very expensive in terms of our jobs and taxes. In comparison, another $50 into the box is nothing.

    .

  22. Classic sign of a poor review used not to inform about a piece of work but to attack the idea of doing the work in the first place , is that it claims something which the work does not do. And here WWF attack Laframboise’s new book for ‘climate change denial’ something they don’t actual do .
    Like Gleick what really upset them is that Laframboise has done this work in the first place, aware as they are of the issues around the IPCC and the fact these issues greatly benefit WWF they much rather no one covered this story at all .
    Ironically its very much part of WWF remit to influence, what else is all the PR and pushing for governments to change policy about but using influence? And yet they object to this being pointed out ,while I am sure there membership would be upset if they did not do it .

  23. Lots of people who donate to WWF don’t realize what their money is actually being used for. They need to be told.

  24. Peter Gleick and his brother must have some sort of feud going on.

    Brother James has written two of the most fascinating yet easily absorbed books on science ever produced. Chaos, which explains a complicated subject and Genius, a biography of the no less complicated Richard Feynman.

    Pick either one and brother Peter has no argument. Whether he has a dog in the fight or pen is mightier than the sword envy is another matter. Do they never converse?

  25. Wait a second. IPCC Scientists are invited to a WWF panel, therefore WWF “infiltrates” IPCC?

    Is that really a fair description of Laframboise’s reasoning? (Honest question, I haven’t read the book) I find that difficult to believe.

    Could anybody who read the book quote the relevant passage?

  26. “WWF Climate Witness Scheme” – they obviously miss ed a work – protection.

    This scheme is to allow climate scientists to change there identify so they stop getting death threats from those evil deniers, or something like that.

  27. You have to note the WWFs objections are as follows:

    “It is ludicrous to suggest that in seeking ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent with the best scientific knowledge WWF is seeking to influence the IPCC,” said WWF’s International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith.

    “It is also ludicrous to suggest that IPCC reports are or could be influenced by the fact that some scientists have generously contributed some input to WWF’s climate witness scheme.”

    They failed to address this:

    – 28 out of 44 chapters (two-thirds) included at least one individual affiliated with the WWF

    – 100% of the chapters in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them – included at least 1 WWF-affiliated scientist

    – 15 out of 44 chapters (one-third) were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead authors belong to the panel

    – in three instances, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors

    This is the information that we must put in the hands of our legislators. Contact your MP or congressman or senator. They need to be aware of and read this book. I think Donna’s book can bury the IPCC once and for all. Do your part. Talk to your legislator.

  28. Toto, here are the two instances of Donna’s use of the word ‘infiltrate’ that came up in my search.

    Pg. 79 of the pdf. “After a few days of searching, cross-checking, and tabulating here are my findings with respect to the IPCC’s 2007 report:
     28 out of 44 chapters (two-thirds) included at least one individual affiliated with the WWF
     100% of the chapters in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them – included at least 1 WWF-affiliated
    scientist
     15 out of 44 chapters (one-third) were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead
    authors belong to the panel
     in three instances, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors
    Ladies and gentlemen, the IPCC has been infiltrated. It has been wholly and entirely compromised.”

    Pg. 116 of the pdf. “For further info on this matter, please see my blog post titled: How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC (and the blog posts that followed shortly thereafter). It was written as the manuscript for this book was in the very last stages of being finalized.”

  29. Just purchased it and look forward to reading it.

    Thank you for the easy path to purchasing it online Anthony!

  30. toto says:
    October 24, 2011 at 8:31 am
    Wait a second. IPCC Scientists are invited to a WWF panel, therefore WWF “infiltrates” IPCC?
    Is that really a fair description of Laframboise’s reasoning? (Honest question, I haven’t read the book) I find that difficult to believe.
    Could anybody who read the book quote the relevant passage?

    Click on the Amazon link and read Chapter 6 “Activists” which is available on line.

  31. It does appear that the old Shakespearean quote applies “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” WWF should know that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. I am sure Donna appreciates the publicity.

  32. AndyS said, October 24, 2011 at 7:05 am”
    “People like Peter Gleick who live in a goldfish bowl and are apparently unaware of the nature of the real world may be forgiven when their strenuous attempts to undermine and hopefully destroy Donna’s new book have the completely opposite effect.”

    Sure it had a desirable effect regarding bringing attention to the book, but NO, they cannot be forgiven for being so politically biased or just plain stupid and in such a supposedly prestigious position.

    The ends DO NOT justify the means. Never have, never will!

  33. I’ve been stealing free peaks at Donna’s book. It’s very well written. Will buy for sure.
    But I can’t get past one part:

    “6 – Activists
    Activists…need to keep their distance from scientific endeavors.
    Scientific conclusions…cannot be trusted if activists played a role.”

    I believe strongly in the above two statements, but clearly the IPCC, NASA, WWF, Greenpeace – none of these groups seems to mind a scientific activist who conducts research using public money.

    My question: Does it break ethical or legal standards to research with public money AND be an activist in the same area as your research, helping private interests such as Greenpeace? It breaks my ethical standards but I don’t count.

  34. “seeking (to) (sic) ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent ” To paraphrase: keeping the team “on message”. Where have we come across this attitude before?.
    (Note cherry picked quote….I am learning team work fast.)
    I would like to say how good this book is even though I have not read it yet.

  35. I’d be more interested in the greenpeace contribution.
    In all the hype from the wwf everyone seems to have forgotten my favourite watermelon organisation: greenpeace.
    Wwf seems more interested in its business model, greenpeace is the infiltrator.

  36. toto: your

    Wait a second. IPCC Scientists are invited to a WWF panel, therefore WWF “infiltrates” IPCC?

    Is that really a fair description of Laframboise’s reasoning? (Honest question, I haven’t read the book) I find that difficult to believe.

    Could anybody who read the book quote the relevant passage?

    Yes, it is a fair description. Its also correct.

    If a scientist affiliates with an activist organization, then the science should be suspect. The scientist is making a political judgement, and a call to action, based on their supposed scientific work.

    As Donna says in her book, imagine the outcry if an Exxon funded scientist were the head of a chapter that had a conclusion backing Exxon’s point of view.

  37. I don’t understand the word ‘infiltrated’? Right out of the box the IPCC was run by an world political organization that answers to nobody and is an offshoot from the Environment Programme of Maurice Strong who mused that the world has to DE-industrialize. Their agenda always was and always will be to increase their power over people like any political organization.

  38. From a naive and non-conspiratorial analysis it is possible to construct an argument that the WWF’s and other environmental NGO’s efforts to insert themselves into the IPCC process were a justifiable and innocent attempt to exert influence in a project that was very much in their field of interest, although when the vast web of financial interconnections is revealed that appearance of innocence looks much murkier.

    However since the IPCC’s remit has always been, at least ostensibly, to conduct a comprehensive review of the “scientific”, and hence by definition impartial, evidence in this matter their willingness to include a significant percentage of contributors whose only “credentials” were a lifelong history of policy advocacy, is entirely indefensible. Even if those so included were in fact in possession of legitimate expertise, if that expertise was accompanied by that history of personal advocacy, they should have been excluded or at the very least had their contributions footnoted to reveal their potential bias. The inclusion of significant numbers of contributors whose “credentials” range from inadequate to nonexistent is indefensible under any scenario.

    If, as a separate product, the IPCC had put together reports that provided a truly comprehensive and impartial digest of the contending policy advocacy viewpoints on this subject they would probably been a more valuable resource for policy makers and the general public than the purest review of the “science” imaginable. From my view the state of climate science is so abysmal that, even for the elements of the controversy that are more or less stipulated by both sides, the actual evidence is nothing to write home about.

    Of course the IPCC made absolutely no effort at balancing the advocacy viewpoints it recruited, but in fact proactively moved to exclude not only contrarian policy wonks but scientists whose impartiality was much more robust than most of those they chose to include. At this point anyone who is still attempting to argue that the various IPCC ARs are a source of impartial science is demonstrating that they are such epistemological mattress backs that they should be cautioned against venturing out on the streets of New York City, because they will probably be sold the Brooklyn Bridge three times before lunch.

  39. JohnM: your

    I’d be more interested in the greenpeace contribution.
    In all the hype from the wwf everyone seems to have forgotten my favourite watermelon organisation: greenpeace.
    Wwf seems more interested in its business model, greenpeace is the infiltrator.

    This is more right than you know. The WWF has a member, a VP in fact, by the name of Richard Moss. He is also a review editor on the upcoming AR4, in WG2.

    This is very interesting as the WWF has been given money by the World Bank to purchase the rights to Amazonian forests. The WWF hopes to sell these rights as carbon credits, for 60 billion dollars, through a program called REDD. (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Devolping countries)

    Which section of the IPCC deals with REDD?

    Why, its WG2. The working group with a WWF VP as review editor.

    Its a bloody good thing that the AR4 has no Conflict of Interest rules. Otherwise, 60 billion dollars might be at stake…..

    Remember Amazongate? Where it was claimed that 40% of the Amazon was at risk from drought? This was fought tooth and nail by the IPCC, and by the WWF. Daniel Nepstad from the Woods Hole Research Center was brought in to defend the assertion of drought killing 40% of the Amazon. Of course, Nepstad had authored papers on the Amazon forest, but his own research fails to back the claims of the WWF or the IPCC. Of course, Woods Hole is an early champion of REDD. Of course, Nepstad has written many papers for the WWF.

    Let me summarize; We have an activist from the WWF on the review panel for the AR4 section dealing with REDD. The WWF has a potential 60 billion investment in REDD. The scientist that was brought forward to defend the claim of 40% reduction of the Amazon by drought, is an activist who writes papers for, and is supported by, the WWF.

    Yeah, I would call that “infiltration”. I would also call it massive conflict of interest. In the real world, this would get you 10 to 20 with a roomie named Bubba.

  40. The correct phrasing is
    WWF ‘scientist’
    which is actually synonymous with
    1. Cargo-cult scientist
    2. Tinker-toy scientst
    3. Neo-Lysenko scientist

  41. Interstellar Bill.

    You got that right! One of the first to point out what Pinnochios they were was Bjorn Lomborg in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, where he explained how they used fake stats to promote the so-called extinction crisis.

    Hopefully this episode will awaken more of the public to what this corrupt organization is about. And it ain’t science.

  42. I can’t discriminate against either the WWF or Greenpeace – they are both as bad as each other. Large organizations with even larger budgets and staff! In both cases, I am sure they do some good work! But the bottom line is always the same – do you think their chiefs would take a pay cut rather than see a piece of forest burnt or a whale killed? No, of course not – they would just scream at the top of their voices and demand more funding and dismiss the junior staff, etc – you get the picture….
    The day I see a group of fully voluntary staff operating an organization like this, I would be a bit more interested and take whatever they say with a bit more seriousness. When I give a $/£ whatever – I want it to be wholly used for the subject matter, not 5% going here, 10% there, and the rest in the organizations pay role!

  43. Chuck Nolan says:
    October 24, 2011 at 6:36 am
    Because of Dr. Gleick’s rousing “anti-endorsement, I bought the pdf.
    Excellent read and thanks Doc.

    I have an e-reader (but not a Kindle) that will read PDFs. Has anybody tried the PDF on a non-Kindle reader? Does the text look alright, that is, does it wrap to the screen size properly?

  44. Dave Springer says:
    October 24, 2011 at 7:45 am
    Kind of obvious that someone who’s first language isn’t english wrote the press release but the the choice of words (my emphasis) in one place “WWF’s climate witness scheme” is hilarious.

    Scheme has a very negative connotation as a verb and it isn’t much improved as a noun with the second most common definition being:

    scheme n. A statement that evades the question by cleverness or trickery

    Possibly a Freudian slip? You be the judge. LO

    In Britain, whence this press release came, a “scheme” means merely a project.

  45. So, essentially, WWF didn’t refute the claims as ludicrous but merely as “ludicrous”. Yep Marketwire seem to have their faculties “intact” or did WWF have last word before publication so they could act “intelligently” on any mistake? :p

  46. just for fun I decided to look up WWF’s accounts – the link is below

    http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/stat_accounts_fy10_unsigned.pdf

    after a brief 5 minute perusal the first thing that strikes me is that in 2010 they recieved 8 million in grants and paid out 10 million in staff wages!
    another thing, on page 31 it says ‘cost of Generating funds’ – 14.0 million !! Public awareness (advertising?) 4.0 million.
    page 21 – cost of generating income is approx 50% of actual income (ignoring legacies which were 10 million!)!!
    I can’t be bothered to look any closer – am sure most can see my point

  47. Donna’s book is a very good source of information that also provides the references to the sources for her analysis and conclusions. Her book was probably completed before the full role of the Friends of the Earth in the UK climate legislation was explained – quite astonishing ……………. follow this link – to hear the story from one of their own ………………..

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/27/guilty-men-and-guilty-women.html

    Robert Thomson

  48. More Soylent Green:If you have a pdf reader, it reads very well. I bought the pdf version, as I can’t get Kindle over the internet in my country of residence.

    Kev-in-uk: you are talking about several million dollars. In my previosu post, I am talking about 60 billion (with a b) dollars that the WWF is trying coax out the Amazon, through the IPCC.

  49. I think Smith is right to suggest Donna is wrong about the WWF “infiltrating” the IPCC; they have been invited en masse, which is much, much worse.

    Donna may not have meant infiltrate in the true sense of the word, however the net result is still the same.

  50. note to WWF press release writers:

    Proper names, like the titles of books, are usually capitalized. When you write a press release specifically criticizing a book and fail to properly capitalize the name of the book while capitalizing the names of programs (Climate Witness stories, International Climate and Energy initiative) it can seem petty. I understand in this case it was likely caused by a poor understanding of the conventions of usage (the Climate Witness program is not capitalized in one occurrence also) but the failure to follow any set convention looks most unserious . When writing a press release you are the face of the organization and people will form judgements about the entire organization based upon how you write, and any lack of effort on your part reflects poorly on the entire organization.

  51. @More Soylent Green! says: October 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
    “I have an e-reader (but not a Kindle) that will read PDFs. Has anybody tried the PDF on a non-Kindle reader? Does the text look alright, that is, does it wrap to the screen size properly?”
    Bought PDF version. Reading on a Mac with Adobe Acrobat Reader (free from adobe.com and other sources) without any problems. Able to adjust size of page to suit my needs.

  52. Call me old-fashioned (I am travelling with a ‘droid phone, iPad and laptop) but I am awaiting the book. Old. Fashioned. Paper. I just like books.

  53. The delicious irony of WWF ( and Greenpeace etc) being tarred with the same brush as big oil is something to be savoured. That they are the mirror image of the mythical bete noir’s they helped create. Slithering hypocrisy is all one could reasonably expect from such self important and undemocratic outfits.

  54. Les Johnson says:

    October 24, 2011 at 10:11 am

    If a scientist affiliates with an activist organization, then the science should be suspect. The scientist is making a political judgement, and a call to action, based on their supposed scientific work.

    Did somebody say “James Hansen”?

  55. I do not know whether infiltration or coopting is the right expression for the involvementr of environmental activists in the IPCC. One thing I do know, is that if as many scientists on a scientific sysnthesis effort were shown to have connections to the fossil fuel industry everybody would be skeptical – and rightly so.
    Donna did a very good job with her pamphlet.

    Oberver Bernie on Amazon

  56. Robert of Ottawa says: October 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Call me old-fashioned (I am travelling with a ‘droid phone, iPad and laptop) but I am awaiting the book. Old. Fashioned. Paper. I just like books.

    Books are good in my books, too! But you may find that, in this particular book, the handy-dandy links to the source material with which Donna substantiates her arguments are not, well, quite as accessible as they are in either the Kindle or PDF version ;-)

  57. That is a typo – they are actually being dissed by “Ludacris” whose CD sales are being affected by all this climate change.

  58. So, if I understand this correctly, WWF is complaining because they checked to see what the “experts” were saying about climate-change, then fed-the-beast by writing articles “witnessing” things consistent with what the “experts” were saying, but the “experts” were under no obligation to make use of this material, so WWF is a wide-eyed innocent.

    Wasn’t there an article a year ago about how WWF takes donations from european timber interests, then coincidentally expounds on deforestation in the Amazon basin?

  59. Reminiscent of Nicholas Sterns handy work.
    Stern was commissioned by the UK government to “report” on the science of climate change and it’s impacts. (“I say old boy, we’ll get our own independent review, hmff what? yes”)

    So Stern gathers a collection of scientists (a cabal?) to brief him for his “independent” report.
    As you may have guessed, almost all of this cabal were either authors, lead authors or co-ordinating lead authors for the IPCC AR4.

    The Stern report cites the IPCC ARs extensively, in turn, the AR4 cites the Stern report on numerous occasions.

    It’s a wonderous thing the political process. It’s a wonderous thing the IPCC.

  60. Dave N says:
    October 24, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    I think Smith is right to suggest Donna is wrong about the WWF “infiltrating” the IPCC; they have been invited en masse, which is much, much worse.

    Donna may not have meant infiltrate in the true sense of the word, however the net result is still the same.

    She was trying to be polite. What she meant was “infest”.

  61. For those of you holding out for the paper version, in an email reply, Donna told me she receives slightly more money for the electronic version. She’s too nice to point that out here so I thought I would.

  62. What a useless environmental lobby group they must be, if they didn’t even seek to influence the IPCC.
    /sarc

  63. WWF claim their people’s involvement with IPCC is nothing but, IMO it would be like selecting the officers of PETA to make decisions about ‘wildlife management’ or ‘species endangerment’.
    Some animal populations need to be controlled and not every animal on earth is endangered.
    I don’t think would trust a PETA person to make the “hard’ decisions for the right reasons.
    Same with WWF….They’ve gotta dog in this fight.

  64. The material on the WWF advisory panel is at the end of Ch. 31 (“Extinction Fiction”) of DL’s book, at Kindle location 2069. When I read it, I thought DL went a bit overboard with her condemnation. Agreeing to advise someone isn’t the same thing as aligning with them. I’d be happy to advise anyone, regardless of his orientation. I’m not compromised if I screw a funnel into his ear and shout into it. Maybe that’s how these signers felt. Their affiliation is pretty weak, if they’re just advisors, which is, or might be, an arm’s-length relationship.

    It would be hypocritical to get too judgmental about this panel (unless more dirt comes to light) while excusing skeptical scientists from being tainted by their affiliation with free-market think tanks because that amounts to no more than their giving talks at dinner events and having their articles published in the think tanks’ journals, etc. Those are arm’s-length linkages too.

    (Hmm … unless the WWF advisors knew that the WWF would be publicizing their affiliation by printing their names in WWF brochures and whatnot and thereby legitimizing the WWF as being mainstream, having “connections,” and basing its policy positions in part on the recommendations of IPCC bigwigs—and thereby leading to more donations to the WWF. Hmm.)

    A much better target for DL would have been the WWF’s scandalous involvement in the recent WG3 document on the practicality of renewable energy. (It’s one of the justifications for a sequel from DL.)

  65. What would it take to get a memory stick with this book on it into every one of those ‘show bags’ for the participants at Durban? Just thinkin’. ROTFLMAO

  66. Say, here’s an interesting question: Are members of this advisory panel getting paid–and how much, if so?

  67. Pete H says:
    October 24, 2011 at 7:34 am

    ….Now…….I want to know how these organizations can still be recognized as charities and claiming the tax breaks they get? Time to hit them in the pocket? How much are they making?
    __________________________________
    Pete it is worse than that. If you are American YOU “Donate” to them!

    “….Profile: The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money, 10% from industry, and half from prescriptive foundations….” http://www.undueinfluence.com/wwf.htm

    And Yes I check the numbers are about correct.

  68. Roger Knights says:
    October 24, 2011 at 11:48 am

    …….In Britain, whence this press release came, a “scheme” means merely a project.
    __________________________________
    Agreed but we here in the USA can still enjoy RONFLOAO for the use of that particular word.

    This is an interesting look into those who initially funded WWF. http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/whit-man-game-wwf.htm Innocent, they ain’t.

  69. Robert of Ottawa says:
    October 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Call me old-fashioned (I am travelling with a ‘droid phone, iPad and laptop) but I am awaiting the book. Old. Fashioned. Paper. I just like books.
    ________________________________________________
    I am with you there. I want the BOOK not a pdf file. If I had the money I would by a copy for each of The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes Unfortunately most of them are as corrupt as the IPCC.

  70. Gail and Robert;
    Paper is nice for casual reading, but good luck with checking the references. Unless you live next door to a university library. Hyperlinks rule!

  71. @Roger Knights October 24, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    The material on the WWF advisory panel is at the end of Ch. 31 (“Extinction Fiction”) of DL’s book, at Kindle location 2069. When I read it, I thought DL went a bit overboard with her condemnation.[...]
    [...]
    Hmm … unless the WWF advisors knew that the WWF would be publicizing their affiliation by printing their names in WWF brochures and whatnot and thereby legitimizing the WWF as being mainstream, having “connections,” and basing its policy positions in part on the recommendations of IPCC bigwigs—and thereby leading to more donations to the WWF. Hmm.

    Well, if you take a look at the WWF’s own “Guidelines” for their illustrious Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), you’ll find:

    4.1 Benefits of being a SAP member

    The principal benefit of participating in Climate Witness is to be part of an innovative community that is increasing the public awareness of climate change and building the political will to prevent ‘dangerous climate change’.

    There are a number of other benefits that include:

    • Promotion of individual scientists and associated research institutes;
    • Opportunities for further promotion of scientific research and associated organisations;
    • Access to data collected from Climate Witnesses on climate change impacts;
    • The opportunity to explore research projects with WWF; and
    • Attendance at public media events, workshops, conferences or forums

    What kind of “objective” assessment/finding could any self-respecting scientist make if s/he could voluntarily subscribe to the mission of “increasing the public awareness of climate change and building the political will to prevent ‘dangerous climate change’” Not to mention volunteering to confer their “scientific” seal of concurrence on personal anecdotal material?

    As I wrote a few hours ago on my own blog, the WWF’s “interests, vision ‘n “values” far too cosily coincide with those of the IPCC”.

    If the IPCC were upfront about an author’s affiliation with WWF (or Greenpeace, or EDF etc), that would be one thing. However, if you examine the IPCC’s own documentation on its selection of authors, these affiliations are not disclosed.

    Furthermore, if you examine (for example) the list of participants at the May Abu Dhabi confab at which the SRREN was “reviewed and approved” by WG III (and any “panel” IPCC members that happened to attend the WG III session) you will see that the list of participants does include people who are identified as being affiliated with “Organizations” (as opposed to being a member of a “National Delegation”). As far as I can determine, the “Organization” people don’t have a vote.

    So a reasonable person would be led to conclude (well, this reasonable person was,at least!) that … OK, WWF has a few seats at the table. But they don’t get to vote. I could live with that.

    But, as Donna noted in her book, the WWF recruited IPCC authors to their SAP! And as I think she also noted (either on her blog and/or in the book) these SAP Guidelines include the following:

    4.3 Other organisational issues
    [...]
    We ask that you seek prior consent from your CW SAP Liaison person if you wish
    to use the WWF or Climate Witness Programme logo or names, or make a reference to your participation in the Climate Witness Programme [emphasis].

    The WWF Press Release attempts to paper over the glaringly obvious potential for bias and/or conflict of interest by insisting that “protocols” are in place to preserve the “independence of [these 'senior scientists'] scientific opinions”.

    Apart from the fact that the IPCC has no such “protocols” in place, perhaps part of WWF’s unspecified protocols’ “fine-print” is a “don’t show, don’t tell” policy (pursuant to 4.3 above) – thereby providing a made-to-order excuse for this particular aspect of the IPCC’s utter lack of transparency and accountability.

    Admittedly, that last paragraph may be somewhat of a stretch (and it was written partially tongue-in-cheek!) But considering positions the IPCC powers that be have taken on other matters (cf Solomon and Manning vs McIntyre!), this may not be so far-fetched!

    So, before I step down from my soapbox, Roger … in light of the foregoing (and much more that I could have written!), I respectfully disagree with your thought that Donna “went a bit overboard with her condemnation” :-)

  72. As for donating copies, PDFs are 1/4 the cost. And if that format (direct from the WH) was good enough for his (clumsily Photoshopped) long form BC, I’m sure they’ll be able to handle a properly composed and published book!

  73. Brian H says on October 25, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    … Start with Obama and Chu, then take then next 8 members of his cabinet at random.

    Nice try; her intimation, by an attempt at citing the figure ‘535’ would be to our congress, but our dear often off-the-cuff Gail either muffed the correct number or has ten additional, specific individuals in mind when she cites “545 People”; those ten additional ppl I would like detailed. I doubt you can name them as she has them in mind, unless you perhaps bunk, room or converse with Gail daily.

    BTW, attempting a conversion of the hard-core AGW apostles e.g. Chu would be a waste of time; too much is tied up in their AGW belief systems regarding ‘money, fame and fortune’ to make any changes.

    .

  74. Gail Combs says on October 25, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Pete it is worse than that. If you are American YOU “Donate” to them!

    “….Profile: The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money

    I think, if you look closely, those government ‘monies’ are for specific studies and the like (paying for manpower and salaries to conduct that work) as opposed funds simply transferred *to* WWF for use willy-nilly as WWF see fit.

    No?

    .

  75. hro001 says on October 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Books are good in my books, too! But you may find that, in this particular book, the handy-dandy links to the source material with which Donna substantiates her arguments are not, well, quite as accessible as they are in either the Kindle or PDF version ;-)

    *IF* those references are on the web, *THEY* are but a web-search away …

    .

  76. _Jim says:
    October 26, 2011 at 6:47 am

    I think, if you look closely, those government ‘monies’ are for specific studies and the like (paying for manpower and salaries to conduct that work) as opposed funds simply transferred *to* WWF for use willy-nilly as WWF see fit.

    No?

    Especially with an outfit as large and “flexible” as WWF, unless there’s very detailed follow-up accounting and audit, there’s really just one “pocket” that the money goes into.

  77. Brian H says:
    October 25, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Gail and Robert;
    Paper is nice for casual reading, but good luck with checking the references. Unless you live next door to a university library. Hyperlinks rule!
    ______________

    That is why I plan to get both but I want the hard copy for the first read through.

  78. Gail Combs says on October 25, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Pete it is worse than that. If you are American YOU “Donate” to them!

    “….Profile: The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money
    _____________________________________________
    _Jim says: @ October 26, 2011 at 6:47 am

    I think, if you look closely, those government ‘monies’ are for specific studies and the like (paying for manpower and salaries to conduct that work) as opposed funds simply transferred *to* WWF for use willy-nilly as WWF see fit.
    No?
    _________________
    NO!

    Straight from Donna via Anthony
    IPCC: Resistance is futile to WWF Document:

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwKfjKsXaxaGMDZlNGNkZTUtOWJlOC00ODI4LTlkYTQtYTJkOTBlMGYxOTJh&hl=en_US

    (In Euros)
    Operating income……………………..2009………………….2010

    Individuals (1)…………………………221,479…………….242,078

    Legacies and bequests……………..44,873……………….56,940

    Other donated income………………51,913………………56,030

    Corporations……………………………35,233……………..31,595

    Trusts and foundations……………..96,545……………..88,919

    Public sector finance………………….3,812………………6,175

    So “Public Sector Finance” IE public taxes DO pay for operating income.

    Actually I do not give a rat’s behind if the money was “Grants” for “studies”. If the Tea Party set-up a foundation and grabbed grants from the US government you would hear the HOWLING from California to DC as well you should.

    The government should not be giving money to a Politicial Activist group of any stripe. Especially since we are SUPPOSED to have separation of Church and State and Churches are forced to be apolitical thanks to Johnson and his change of the Tax Code. That also goes for ANY other Nonprofit. If you are nonprofit you are SUPPOSED to stay out of politics or lose the nonprofit status.

    Giving WWF nonprofit status AND tax payer money adds insult to injury in my book.

  79. Gail Combs says:
    October 27, 2011 at 6:51 am

    _Jim says:
    October 25, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    Gail Combs says on October 25, 2011 at 11:46 am

    I would b[u]y a copy for each of The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes …

    Who are the the extra 10 copies for?

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_there_is_535_congress_members

    Select politicians I think will be running in the up coming elections.

    Which brings up a point: you need to double the 535, as each sitting Congresscritter has an opponent to educate, too.

Comments are closed.