Donna Laframboise has an excellent piece on how the IPCC has been assimilated by influence from the WWF.
Apparently hawking the threat of dead panda bears is quite lucrative, Donna writes:
It is important to understand that while the WWF might once have been a humble, shoestring operation this is no longer the case. It has grown into a business entity with offices in 30 countries that employs a staff of 5,000 (see the last page of this PDF). The US branch of the WWF alone employs:
- a Managing Director of International Finance
- a Vice President of Business and Industry
- a Senior Vice President of Market Transformation and
- a Government Relations Program manager
That same branch also includes a:
- a Director of International Climate Policy
- a Managing Director of Climate Change
- a Managing Director of Climate Adaptation
- a Director of Climate Change Communications
- a Senior Scientist, Climate Adaptation and
- a lead specialist on Climate Change
In 2010, the WWF’s US arm had operating revenues of $224 million – just under a quarter of a billion dollars. Yes, that’s a B.
By way of comparison, operating revenues for Amnesty International’s US affiliate amounted to $36 million – one-sixth that amount (see page 29 here).
According to its 2010 annual report, the WWF’s international network had operating revenues of €524,963,000. Converted to US dollars that’s just shy of three-quarters of a billion. In one year.
Read it here. Well worth a read.
=============================================
That thing is a fiscal monster.
And the crash will be grand.
Michael Crichton was a prophet!
I always think WWF is World Wrestling Federation. I never think of these guys.
I think that Daniel H, ex-WWF employee summed the situation up well a while back in comments on this site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#comment-298859
Might be interesting for Donna to interview Daniel H….
Apparently, being a charitable tax-exempt non-profit is quite profitable.
Very much looking forward to Part 2 of this piece. She ended with quite a teaser.
Good grief! $224 billion! How on earth does a charity created by well-meaning amateurs grow to become such a behemoth?! Where does that mountain – wrong metaphor – that tsunami of loot come from? And with such financial clout comes real power. This is Orwellian.
“…The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money… $24,589,994 in 2001. “
http://www.undueinfluence.com/wwf.htm
Isn’t it nice to know you are donating money to WWF whether you want to or not???
Daniel mentions Jennifer Morgan, an ex-WWF acolyte [Noun 1. acolyte – someone who assists a priest or minister in a liturgical service] dedicated to ‘a carbon-free future’. As biomass (food) is 50% carbon this will be an interesting achievement.
“She is a Review Editor for Chapter 13 on “International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments” for the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ”
http://www.wri.org/profile/jennifer-morgan
Daniel’s description of the database WWF has of companies who, if they contribute enough, will not be targeted by a media campaign vilifying them, is chilling. It is reminscent of the actions of governments described by John Perkins in, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” and its sequel.
Wild life does not seem to be very important to this organization, does it?
Brent:
“Where does that mountain – wrong metaphor – that tsunami of loot come from?”
I wondered the same thing. – Apparently most of it comes from blackmail. The link supplied by ZT at 9:01 explains their scheme.
Nature is capital. Natural capital needs management and protection just like social
and economic capital. There are a certain of employees for that. The scandal is in
your minds?
“Where does that mountain – wrong metaphor – that tsunami of loot come from?”
I think the big stars of radio, TV, movies etc are required to tithe to the WWF.
correction: a certain NUMBER of employees
ZT ,
I remember that comment – it all came back to me as soon as I read the first sentence . Darn sorry I clicked the link , though .
Not to worry, when things get really bad, something will happen. It always does. (One step forward is almost always followed by two steps back; more or less.)
“Good grief! $224 billion”
Please guys, if we’re going to give them hell, get the details right. It’s 224 million, not billion…
Donna is marvellously adept at finding the inconsistencies in the IPCC juggernaut. The WWF is a frightening expose. Of the ‘environmentalists’ I’ve met in my travels, all seem to possess this penchant for uber-moralistic fanatacism, even if they are merely armchair-variety world-savers. What causes this nasty characteristic? Mixed in with this type of thing is a ‘healthy’ dose of conspiracy-theorizing and socialist doctrine disseminated by means of ‘shoulds’ and ‘oughts’, with apparently no consideration of the economic or social impact. Bloody hell. Democracy is nice, but using its facade to energize these charades means the end of freedom.
Anthony, I hope you have complied with the full current terms for use of the WWF logo. 15 pages of practice are here: http://www.climatetrackers.net/press/files/1198.pdf I do not think Naomi “NO LOGO” Klein will be on your side.
For the full flavour of WWF power and sophistication, it is worth Googling “WWF branding” and browsing some of the results such as: http://www.panda.org/standards/5_2_communications_strategy/
A favourite quote:
“Examples of why your target audience might be willing to act
Governments could be willing to change policy or regulations based on your project results because:
……
• It makes them look good on international level
Donors might support conservation strategies your project has found useful because:
• They hold potential for other areas
• The results gained are high, relative to the investment needed
• There is a need to test them in other settings “
As Carbon has been conflated with just about everything then the title “Director of International Climate Policy” pretty much covers anything one can link to CO2. As we have seen, one can link CO2 to just about anything. That many of these organisations still operate as charities while pushing an agenda that bites into every area of life is a disgrace. “Saving Polar Bears” is one thing, pushing the Kyoto protocol (from which your organisation may make billions) is quite another.
The panda is the perfect emblem for this organization as it represents so precisely the eternal triumph of style over substance. Over the years more millions have been spent to preserve this species than almost any other, based solely on the fact that they are cuter than a pair of lace panties on Scarlett Johansson. From the beginning it has been intuitively obvious that pandas are an evolutionary deadend. Even in unmolested natural environments they are reproductively incompetent. They have developed a specialized diet that depends on bamboos that regularly cycle through periods when they are fatally toxic for the pandas. But they are such adorable mobile teddy bears that we will probably continue to rathole millions on their preservation until their saga reaches its inevitable conclusion and they are reduced to a population of zoo specimens kept around because they always going to be good for the gate receipts. At that they will still have much more value than most of the other “endangered” species whose endangerment derives from being the same kind of evolutionary mistakes.
Of course for the modern environmental movement any expense or other human costs required for the mostly futile attempts to foil Mother Nature’s inevitable scythe are completely justified and even suggesting otherwise is considered sufficient cause for you to be targeted for near homicidal rage. At bottom the implicit reality of the enviros is that humanity is not an integral part of nature but a parasitic virus on the planet, more in need of reduction and control than Ebola, Bird flu, or malaria
Brent Hargreaves, read it again. It was a quarter of a billion. — John M Reynolds
“Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 9:36 am
Nature is capital….”
No it isn’t.
Which green brainwashing cult told you that one?
From that well-known, right wing, redneck propaganda organ – Wikipedia
…..capital consists of any produced thing that can enhance a person’s power to perform economically useful work – a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is an input in the production function. Homes and personal autos are not capital but are instead durable goods because they are not used in a production effort.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Big Oil is the one that only cares about money.”
Environmental groups are hypocrites. They rail against the profits of corporations that make life easier and better, while taking large sums of money themselves. The difference between Big Oil and Big Environment is that Big Environment’s goals are to make life harder. The biggest trick they have is to make people think they are poor saints struggling to make ends meet while they are trying to open our eyes while being actively suppressed the evil corporations and evil conservatives. Big Environment is not struggling financially. Big Environment is the one suppressing information. There is no conspiracy against them.
Mikael Pihlström says:
“Nature is capital.”
Wrong, but not surprising considering the source. Money is capital. Assets owned by people are capital. From my handy internet dictionary:
capital 1 |ˈkapitl| noun: 2. wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing : the senior partner would provide the initial capital | rates of return on invested capital were high.
Capital is never defined as “nature”.
One of the hallmarks of the eco fringe is the deliberate misuse of words.
The IPCC grew with “EU” money
Greenpeace, I believe grew with “EU” money.
Over the last couple of years, they have been discredited for several well know reasons. Now it is WWF’s turn. Same speeches, same slogans, same senior staff connections to innocent German research, PR, and related institutions.
You have probably seen
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/secret-history-climate-alarmism
and
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291
What I can say, from my failing country, is that the world as we know it is falling appart. For the last 50 years we have had electricity from lignite and hydropwer. 2 years ago, wholesale electricity was at roughly $45-50/Mhr, demand is dropping, and our German Saviors plan to cover Greece with wind and solar gadgets pushing electriciy prices to over twice the previous levels. A mini Desertec. WWF has replaced Greenpeace as the key proponent of Green but they have identical promotional verbiage, straight out of Siemens’s marketing brochures.
Smokey says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:14 am
Mikael Pihlström says:
“Nature is capital.”
Wrong, but not surprising considering the source. Money is capital. Assets owned by people are capital.
——-
Smokey, I suggest you gather all your force and take a giant leap. Cause, you are
about hundred years behind. Even the World Bank uses the concepts: economic, social,
human and natural capital.
Mikael Pihlström,
Read Foxgoose’s post above. Even Wikipedia disagrees with you. You stated “Nature is capital.” And contrary to my dictionary definition, you offer up a vague, nebulous phrase from the World Bank [which is part and parcel of the same gang pushing carbon credit trading] proving my point: One of the hallmarks of the eco fringe is the deliberate misuse of words.
Going by your opinion, “capital” can mean almost anything. That is, of course, nonsense. [My minor was in econ, so maybe the correct use of the word is especially important to me.]
At Number 1 of the Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition:
“Once you have their money, never give it back”
(A Star Trek: Deep Space 9 reference.)
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:23 am
“Smokey, I suggest you gather all your force and take a giant leap. Cause, you are
about hundred years behind. Even the World Bank uses the concepts: economic, social,
human and natural capital.”
If that makes me human capital, then, to get rid of capitalism, you first have to get rid of me.
I doubt that this helps your cause much.
I believe Michael was saying that nature has value. Quibble with his choice of words if you must, but at least argue with the actual point he was trying to make.
Mr. Pihlström. Please.
Darrell,
Words matter. The mendacious eco crowd misuses words deliberately [just like you misuse “quibble”]. “Post-normal science” is not science at all. The name of the propaganda blog “Skeptical Science” is an outright lie. Words matter, and that is not a quibble.
DirkH says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:55 am
Foxgoose says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:08 am
Smokey says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:37 am
I don’t know – maybe you should all get out more? Because, now you are
afraid of words and dependent on outdated/low quality dictionnaries.
Smokey, is William D. Nordhaus economist enough for you?
“To avoid the zero problem for assets, we first need to use the marginal valuation
principle, whereby the value of the stock is the quantity times the marginal value.
Additionally, we may want to measure the stock relative to a recent base period,
the last period, or use chain indexes. These assumptions will ensure that natural and non-market capital are measured consistently in the income, production, and asset
accounts; that they are treated consistently with market accounts; and that their size
does not overwhelm the value of capital for other sectors.”
… just an example…
My point however was that the operating costs of WWF are peanuts in relation
to the task they perform. Whatever your politics or worldviews are, you have to admit
that the capacity of modern man to impact nature necessitates balancing investments in
safeguarding nature, which is our common capital: forest and fields, food and fibres,
ecosystem services, water …
For the budget cited in the post you would not be able many drone carrying aircraft,
to bomb the hell of some human capital
be able to buy, sorry
…. better go to sleep now
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:12 am
“I don’t know – maybe you should all get out more? Because, now you are
afraid of words and dependent on outdated/low quality dictionnaries.”
I must have missed the official redefinition of the word capital; maybe the World Bank should have things like that announced by the heads of state.
I have no problem with individuals and corporations donating to WWF. I’m sure that some good results from it.
However, look at the list of Public Sector Partnerships. We U.S. taxpayers support WWF not through just one agency but through USAID, USFWS and NOAA and probably via UN as well.
And to think, back when I still referred to myself as an environmentalist, I used to make financial conributions to the WWF. The activities of the WWF were the reason why I stopped. That was a long time ago.
At Pharygula there is a piece about how the IPCC has underestimated how bad things are and our ice caps are receding even more than their worst estimates predicted. Since the IPCC grabs hold of any information, no matter how spurious its source, that supports their agenda and rejects anything that is the slightest bit critical of their position, I find this a little hard to believe. If the situation is worse than even the IPCC predicted then we really are screwed.
mkelly ironically the WWF did use the Wrestling federation which is way it changed its name .
A shame in way becasue who not wont to see a match up between Panda bear and human wrestlers .
Mikael Pihlström says:
My point however was that the operating costs of WWF are peanuts in relation
to the task they perform.
I don’t think you see the problem most of us have. It’s not that they are big.
It is that it is a political organisation, which pretends not to be. It is that it holds great political power, but is more or less totally unaccountable to the people it claims to represent.
The greatest scandal is that these “charities” get government money in order to lobby government. That is truly mental.
The Republican Party in the US is a huge organisation. It is, however, plainly political. It actually stands for elections externally — and has internal structures that allow members a say. What the fans of WWF cannot accept is that there is little difference between it and the GOP, except the WWF is far less transparent and accountable.
And WWF never actually runs on its platform, in a way that would expose all the contradictions and impracticality of it all.
And never were those funds worse directed.
While we pass through an era in which there is an orgy of habitat destruction, eliminating some species and pushing others to the brink, on what is the WWF spending a major part of its efforts? Climate change, whose effects are marginal at most and which may not be stopped by any of WWF’s proposed “remedies”. The same amount of effort directed at the immediate, obvious problems would surely have a major payback,
WWF’s activities are little short of insane even from an environmentalist perspective.
The word ‘capital’ is a much abused term that has come to mean whatever you want it to mean. Groups talk of ‘human capital’ when they mean ‘labour’, while economists talk about the assets used in generation of wealth. To an accountant, capital is the net assets of a business – the value of assets after all liabilities have been settled, except when they talk about capitalising expenditure, in which case they are referring to acquisition of those assets that are used in the production or supply of goods and services.
And then the word ‘capitalism’ was originally coined by Marx as a derogatory observation on the free market system.
What is capital then? Your guess is as good as anyones.
Mikael Pihlström,
Capital ≠ nature.
I find it objectionable that many who give to charity have no idea where their money goes – and far more importantly, how much of the actual donation ‘reaches’ the intended ‘recipient’.
Here in the UK, the charity hawkers on the street are ‘paid’ to get signatures. Many charities have been exposed as essentially ‘false’ – often paying ‘directors’ wages at high rates from donations and only a fractional percentage getting to the intended. Of course, these directors are the ones who often set up the charities in the first place! Funny that!
5,000 employees in the WWF? – that’s an awful lot of ‘administration’ costs!
BTW – ditto for Greenpeace and other such blood sucking green giants!
NATURE = CAPITAL
WAR = PEACE
FREEDOM = SLAVERY
IGNORANCE = STRENGTH
(with apologies to George Orwell)
A Premise: the WWF leadership has a philosophy (philosophies) which forms the fundamental basis of popular modern ideological environmentalism; WWF being a typical example of a modern ideological environmentalist organization.
Whether pro-WWF or con-WWF, do you agree with this premise?
Identification of the philosophy/philosophies behind ideological environmentalism and thus also behind the WWF leadership would provide knowledge of possible false premises, irrational/illogical concepts, internal inconsistencies and contradictions of observed reality. After philosophic identification we could tap the knowledge base of the history of philosophy. Knowledge of their philosophic views allows explicit statement of their view of reality, of human nature, of ethics, politics, economics and esthetics. Without that info critics of the WWF are likely to be ineffective; without it we could just be swatting at their PR.
I think a key philosophic view/system behind the WWF leadership and modern ideological environmentalism is nihilism. In addition, because nihilism is not good press, they sometimes eclectically cloak themselves in terms of the philosophy of pragmatism for the purpose of making their positions palatable for press releases and public discussions.
Overall, I view their philosophy as inimical to human life and destructive of scientific knowledge.
John
Stonyground says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm
You’ll be screwed because you’re gullible. Why listen to a bunch of alarmists trying to cause alarm; do you believe everything they say?
I noticed on their ‘board of directors’ page, about 5 or so of them are bankers or were in the banking profession. WRI also has a number of bankers or former banking employees on their board.
Must have something to do with carbon derivatives and the $20 trillion dollar a year cap-and-trade program some want to implement.
Chris D. says:
September 26, 2011 at 9:15 am
And wait until her new book about the IPCC comes out. very soon.
This is where I usually pipe up and point out that the actions of greenpeace are indistinguishable from those of a terrorist organization.
Wade says:
There should be.
These leftist/communist created “charities” need to be harshly and strictly restricted… their funding and activities dragged into the bright light of day for all to see, their goals and leadership exposed. I doubt anyone would ever voluntarily contribute to them if the actually knew what they were doing. Well, a few democrats would.
WWF / Greenpeace == White Collar Terrorists (Hipster edition)
Bit ironic that the panda is now doing fine. They need a new logo.
The WWF has been lying and exaggerating for decades. It is one of the core institutions using the junk pseudoscience called Conservation Biology – which is WORSE than AGW climastrology.
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:23 am
“Smokey, I suggest you gather all your force and take a giant leap. Cause, you are
about hundred years behind. Even the World Bank uses the concepts: economic, social,
human and natural capital.”
A clear sign of a communist coup at the World Bank. No doubt Van Jones is their chief adviser.
Dave Wendt says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:02 am
“The panda is the perfect emblem for this organization as it represents so precisely the eternal triumph of style over substance. Over the years more millions have been spent to preserve this species than almost any other, based solely on the fact that they are cuter than a pair of lace panties on Scarlett Johansson. From the beginning it has been intuitively obvious that pandas are an evolutionary deadend. Even in unmolested natural environments they are reproductively incompetent.”
Why does this remind me of Al Gore? Style over substance? More millions have been spent to preserve this species? Cuter than a pair of lace panties on Scarlett Johansson? Evolutionary dead end? Reproductively incompetent? Or is it just knowing that Al is dying to get in on this scam?
No, he isn’t. He is a crusader attempting to apply economic methods to the valuation of “Nature”, whatever that might mean. His goal is to provied an economic fig leaf to the CAGW crowd to justify their policies on economic grounds.
…
So, who died and left the WWF a contolling interest in Nature? I don’t recall anyone from WWF asking my opinion of their stewardship supposedly for my benefit. I can’t see much good coming from an organization that uses eco-thuggery to extort money from private business. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” Which, oddly enough, appears in a warning against false prophets.
And to think that as a school boy I did voluntary work for WWF……….
In the 1980’s I thought they cared about the planet.
I still do, but they gave it all up for corporate greed
Theo Goodwin says:
September 26, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Why does this remind me of Al Gore? Style over substance? More millions have been spent to preserve this species? Cuter than a pair of lace panties on Scarlett Johansson? Evolutionary dead end? Reproductively incompetent? Or is it just knowing that Al is dying to get in on this scam?
I was pretty much with you until you decided to include that Scarlett Johansson line in your analogy. Algore? Cute? Poor Al’s stuck with his Poley Bears, which Coke may be able to CGI into Christmasy cuteness, but Al has only been able to make look pathetic. A cruel calumny on a noble but extremely deadly beast. Al may be jealous of WWF’s ability to generate income but, though the climate pickings may be getting slimmer for him, he’s still doing incredibly well off his very productive scam.
Can part 2 be anything about WWF’s ambitions for the future?
Donna Laframboise is far more articulate than me – so you might want to wait. However, here is my take. 🙂
http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/wwf-aims-for-world-domination/
Dave Wendt;
Your “no extinctions!” comment reminds me of a little scenario I retro-projected for myself a while ago.
Imagine that a fleet of spaceships full of alien Greens was in the vicinity of Earth when it got plastered with the K-T asteroid. In horror, they observe the imminent dying off of all those lovely vigorous dinos, etc., and spring into action. The sequester and protect as many species with breeding groups as possible, meanwhile implementing several geo-engineering projects to return the environment to its previous benign state as quickly as possible.
Success! In a few k-years, the biosphere is well established again, and things carry on as before. They depart, with many google-bytes of heart-warming 3D and 4D documentation.
The Rise of the Mammals and of pestiferous Mankind are averted. Hooray!
Dave Wendt says:
September 26, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Sorry, it’s just that I have always wanted an excuse to write ‘Scarlet Johansson’ on the internet. I just did it again.
The EU has been feeding WWF for years. The EU sees global warming as a justification for the EU elite’s power and role, as a reason why Europe needs the EU to act on matters that affect all of Europe.
My theory is that the EU and the Global Warming Scam will collapse together. If the Euro goes first, probably because of Greece, then the EU elites will be so hated that Europeans won’t listen to their rubbish about Global Warming. Talking about using more debt to build windmills will just make people angry. When the Germans find out how much Merkel has committed them with guarantees, they won’t be listening to talk of spending on windmills. Or the scam could end first. This winter is likely to be very cold in Europe. Germany has shut down nuclear power stations. Britain relies on power from France as Britain has no spare capacity for cold weather. France’s nuclear power stations can’t supply France, Britain, Spain and Germany during a freeze. If there are extensive brownouts and blackouts this winter, no-one will be in a mood to listen to the EU elites. Talk of giving money to the PIGS while factories are shut and people freeze due to power outages will make people angry.
Either way, this northern winter should be the end of the Euro and the Global Warming Scam. The scary bit is what the EU elites will do to hang onto power. Will they try a fascist power grab, silencing all criticism, as part of an emergency?
The EU, the Euro, and the global warming scam are all the one thing, as in Tim Blair’s Blair’s Law “the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force”.
The EU elites use the Euro to justify their role in a “uniting Europe”, and they use the global warming scam in the same way.
“a Managing Director of Climate Change”…
How can you be a managing director of climate change? It can’t be managed and it can’t be directed? …by anyone?
“It is important to understand that while the WWF might once have been a humble, shoestring operation …”
That’s where you’re wrong.
http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/search?q=wwf
I once read something more indepth (maybe one of the linked articles) about the origin of the WWF, but can’t find it at the moment.
Threw me off too. “Al Gore” and “panties” shouldn’t be used within a few hundred paragraphs of each other.
Although if he were to don a pair, I suspect he would look like a Poley Bear in panties.
Hilarious, but not pleasant thought.
Carl Chapman says: @ September 26, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“The EU, the Euro, and the global warming scam are all the one thing, as in Tim Blair’s Blair’s Law “the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force”.
The EU elites use the Euro to justify their role in a “uniting Europe”, and they use the global warming scam in the same way.”
Unfortunately the EU is now seen as a template for the future by the “Elite”. This is a quote from an article written by Pascal Lamy, Director, World Trade Organization (WTO): http://www.theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
It offers the political reason for the popularization of CAGW, environmentalism and sustainablity (Agenda 21) All three are seen as being GLOBAL problems needing GLOBAL solutions and therefore advance the GLOBAL governance agenda (Also see Global Governance 2025: http://www.acus.org/publication/global-governance-2025 )
Pascal Lamy:
“I define global governance as the system assisting human society to achieve common objectives in a sustainable (i.e., fair and just) manner. Growing interdependence means that our laws, standards, and values, as well as the other social mechanisms that shape human behaviour, need to be analyzed, discussed, understood, and articulated in the most coherent way possible. This, in my opinion, is the condition for truly sustainable development in economic, social, and environmental terms…..
….the European Union, the very incarnation of an international organization of integration in which Member States have agreed to relinquish sovereignty in order to strengthen the coherence and effectiveness of their actions….
Our challenge today is to establish a system of global governance that provides a better balance between leadership, effectiveness, and legitimacy on the one hand, and coherence on the other….
A new paradigm of global governance exists, and its name is Europe.
If there is one place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tested since the Second World War, it is in Europe. European integration is the most ambitious supranational governance experience ever undertaken. It is the story of interdependence desired, defined, and organized by the Member States…..
Today, globalization is a major challenge to our democracies, and our systems of governance must address this challenge. If our people feel that global problems are insoluble, our democracies risk being weakened and eroded from within by populism with xenophobic tendencies…..”
These two documents put CAGW in the context of todays politics:
“…The final lesson for global governance that we can derive from European integration is that insofar as the demos policy is essentially national, the legitimacy of global governance would be greatly enhanced if international issues were more integrated into the national political debate, i.e., if national governments were held accountable for their behaviour at the international level. To establish the legitimacy of international organizations, it is not enough that states are represented by elected governments at the national level, nor that decisions within an organization are taken by consensus on the principle “one state, one vote,” as is the case at the WTO. It will require erasing the borders of democracy between the local, national, and global. National actors—political parties, civil society, parliaments, trade unions, and citizens—must ensure that the issues relevant at the global level are debated at the national and local levels. The good news is that many of these issues are already being examined and we need not wait for a big bang in global governance. The economic crisis we are experiencing has accelerated the transformation of global governance toward a new architecture…..”
It is clear that we are being herded toward a Global superstate similar to the European Union. CAGW and the financial crisis are parts of the tricks used to do the sheep herding. And yes the financial crisis WAS a trick.
The collapse of the US economy can be traced to the ratification of NAFTA, WTO and the signing of five banking acts into law. (see: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/important/index.html ) This included laws repealing the McFadden Act of 1927, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 leading to the Formation of interstate Mega Banks (To Big to Fail.) The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was responsible for marginal mortgage loans and the worst of the bunch, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act allowing banks cleanup big time if they could force those loans into foreclosure with taxpayers footing the bill through the AIG bailout. (See: http://www.realtytrac.com/content/news-and-opinion/how-the-aig-bailout-could-be-driving-more-foreclosures-4861 )
I Really, Really hate feeling like a Sheeple with a wolf pack herding me towards a cliff but that is the present state of world politics. Science has nothing to do with CAGW and that is why Climategate has not killed CAGW and the silencing of honest scientists is part of the agenda.
Baa Humbug says: September 26, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Hear! Hear! But, dammit, you beat me to it, Baa Humbug 🙂
Anyway, while folks are waiting for part 2 (and the book!) … I followed some of Donna’s links to WWF’s “Climate Witness Program”, including the “interview questionnaire” for climate witness wannabes. Brian H’s “scenario”:
seems to be quite in keeping with their venture into the realm of science-fiction! Details at:
ET please call WWF
Nothing about the initial founder of WWF, Prins Bernard of the Netherlands and his background.
Do some research and find out there is nothing new about WWF.
WWF is a driving force behind the new GLOBAL (ECO) DICTATORSHIP
Abuse of science and the misuse of the meaning of words is typical for any totalitarian doctrine.
And this is the biggest doctrine in our history.
http://green-agenda.com
Tony Mach says: @ September 26, 2011 at 4:48 pm
” “It is important to understand that while the WWF might once have been a humble, shoestring operation …”
That’s where you’re wrong.”
This gives a good look at exactly WHO started WWF: http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/whit-man-game-wwf.htm
WWF has never been a “Humble, shoestring operation” it has been Royalty and the rich (1001 Club) from the get go.
Also read this CFP article about Agenda 21 and Open Government to understand how the First Global Revolution described in detail at http://green-agenda.com looks like.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40686
My point however was that the operating costs of WWF are peanuts in relation
to the task they perform.
The WWF’s task, apparently, is to seize political power and then hold on to it.
Donations to political parties aren’t tax-deductible.
Of course the IPCC is influenced by the WWF. What would you do if you woke up in the middle of the night and found a panda’s head in your bed?
A number of years ago every other day and for some time everyday for at least two months I got a plastic sticker sent from WWF. I never asked them to send them. I suspect they just sent them out. It was clear to me that the WWF was not a true environment organization otherwise they wouldn’t waste so much paper and plastic. The WWF is nothing more than a fund raising organization.
James Delingpole’s Water Melons
R. de Haan says: @ September 26, 2011 at 6:01 pm
“Also read this CFP article about Agenda 21 and Open Government to understand how the First Global Revolution described in detail at http://green-agenda.com looks like.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40686 “
___________________________________________________________________________
Another trigger word is “Harmonization” That is laws being harmonized through out the world to facilitate trade and “Globalization”
An excellent example is a recently passed law that handed control of our food supply over to the World TRADE Organization and the food cartel (Monsanto, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, André, ConAgra, IBP, Nestlé, Unilever, Philip Morris and ADM/Töpfer) It is no coincidence that ADMs CEO, Dwayne Andreas, was the biggest political donor to both the Republican and Democratic parties for years contributing millions of dollars to both parties. Or that Cargill’s VP Dan Amstutz wrote the WTO Agreement on Ag and the USDA and FDA are headed by Monsanto puppets.
The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 was rammed down our throats during a lame duck session of Congress. The act expressly puts the WTO in control:
SEC. 404. <> COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization… http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247548.htm
The documents, SHIELDING THE GIANTS and Legislators overlook serious flaw in USDA’s HACCP food-safety system shows the dirty politics used to hoodwink Americans into thinking they needed this law that compromises their food supply.
Illness and death of children is considered the “collateral damage” needed to put in place the law and policies for the up coming US farm land grab. I plotted the food borne illnesses (CDC) for the five years before and after WTO/HACCP and found the illness rate more than doubled.
See: Farmageddon: America’s War Against Small Farmers and Rogers and Soros are snapping up farmland
Slight edit & typo fix for “scenario”, above:
A very timely Part 2 is just posted. Wow!
Possibly could one of you direct me to the ‘head’ or lead conspiracy website on the internet?
I know Alex Jones of infowars.com tries to ‘act’ as conspiracy HQ, but falls short in many respects …
(Populism, it seems, is still ‘alive and well’ among the … the term used to be ‘chattering classes’ but I don’t think that term quite fits anymore. Apology beforehand mods; I can’t help myself when I see these postings. They appear to me as the writings/the rantings of the unhinged. The individual I mentioned earlier, Alex Jones, started out with a rant-program late-night on Austin Community Access Center’s (ACAC, formerly ACTV) cable channels and has tried to ‘fan’ every conspiracy story that had a chance of enhancing his stature and appeal as a modern day Paul Revere on a ride shouting “The Globalists are coming” on initially Austin CAC, then via purchased airtime on several shortwave stations and now via the internet, YouTube, et al.)
Alex Jones backgrounder:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-07-14/77932/
The Political Crisis of the 1890s – Populism:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=157
.
Can you make reference to primary documents to support this claim?
Any?
The reason I ask: I only found an unsupported, unsubstantiated ‘claim’ on that website as follows: “with 20% of its revenue from government tax money”.
Not the kind of ‘primary document’ that exactly lends itself as ‘proof’ to the asserted claim … I know you seem to accept that tidbit as some kind of ‘truth’; others may require some sort of tangible, corporeal, identifiable proof.
.
“”Nature” and “natural” are not the same thing. The definitions speak of natural capital, not nature capital. Mikael is conflating terms here. A barrel of oil is natural capital. The number of able bodied workers in a geopolitical realm is natural capital. Logged timber is natural capital. The forest is not.
What!? No mention of the sub-prime loan fiasco imposed by our legislators on financial institutions?
You’re slipping (over over-looking things) …
Seriously now, you didn’t draw any correlation between the spike in gas prices (oil prices) over the summer of 2008 and the beginning of the collapse of our economy (major impact on commuting for instance – as this affects real estate decisions – as well as raw material cost for manufacturing)?
I love you ‘conspiracy types’, pointing out everything BUT the prime, key factors that actually precipitate ‘a collapse’ in the ‘real world’ …
.
D Jim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature
In 2010, 17% from government sources. Reference given is WWF’s annual report.
A claim and assertion not much different from the other; what is the differentiating feature again?
Would you call this a ‘primary document’, acceptable as proof for government funding?
.
ZT says: (September 26, 2011 at 9:01 am) “I think that Daniel H, ex-WWF employee summed the situation up well…”
Thank you (or perhaps not) for that wholly depressing link, ZT.
Daniel H told us something. Not enough of us heard; or at least not enough of us took any action.
Drawing our attention to it now is a service.
Jim
From the WWF’s Annual Report, p. 40
Financials:
17% Public Sector/Finance
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwKfjKsXaxaGMDZlNGNkZTUtOWJlOC00ODI4LTlkYTQtYTJkOTBlMGYxOTJh&hl=en_US
So is the WWF making a “claim and assertion” about their own sources?
Kev-in-UK said
“I find it objectionable that many who give to charity have no idea where their money goes – and far more importantly, how much of the actual donation ‘reaches’ the intended ‘recipient’.”
* * *
Right on the money. ( Literally.) How did we get to the point where we are just willing to hand off our hard-earned money to some corporation, ( make no mistake, WWF and the likes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are corporations,) without bothering to do some basic fact checking about where our donation is going?
Maybe I should get a picture of a sad-eyed gopher or something, make up a name that sounds important; some combination of World, Forest, Defense, Foundation, Enviroment, Planet, or something close will do, and then solicit as much donations as I can.
Hmmm, how about the ” Saviors of Humanity and Indigenous Trees.”
I can see the acronym now…..oh oh.
Gail Combs: Prescient and articulate as usual.
Oops! I wrote a stupid thing above, misrepresenting WWF’s revenue as billions not millions. Perhaps that’s what is meant by a “mindboggling” amount of dosh.
This means that WWF isn’t bigger than Finland, just bigger’n Samoa. Phew!
In the UK our Energy & Climate change minister has regular meetings with Greenpeace and WWF about energy policy in which they press for policies that increase the cost of energy. Other meetings are with the Energy companies.
Consumer groups do not have representation at these meetings.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/27/decc-ministers-meetings.html
Plus you have conflicts of interest
IPCC vice-chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele was working for Greenpeace while in position at the IPCC.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/2/in-the-pay-of-big-green.html
Democracy my arse
The most damning accusation against the IPCC was that it used activist literature instead of peer-reviewed science.
Donna Laframboise’s great article highlights the WWF’s drive to recruit scientists to peer-review ‘Climate Witness’ stories it collects from ordinary people who believe that they themselves have detected human-caused climate change (although the peer-reviewing only takes place once the WWF activists have ‘edited’ each story down from five pages to one).
It’s worth wondering if the purpose on this little scheme – which the activist WWF calls the ‘Science Advisory Panel’ – is to feed the IPCC with future material which can be claimed as ‘peer-reviewed by scientists’ and therefore legitimately included in its Reports.
The WWF’s website helpfully lists the 125 scientists (ordered alphabetically by country) it has recruited to ‘peer-review’ the climate change stories it collects from the public. It’s a long list to work through, but if we take a sample of the first 35 names and do a little research, we discover that at least 32 of them all have something in common…
Mohamed Senouci
IPCC – Review Editor.
Vicente R. Barros
IPCC – Co-Chair.
Juan Carlos Leiva
Contributor to “Climate Change. The IPCC scientific assessment”
Claudio G. Menéndez
IPCC- Lead Author.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
IPCC – Coordinating Lead Author.
Lesley Hughes
IPCC – Lead Author.
Roger Jones
IPCC – Coordinating Lead Author.
David Karoly
IPCC- Lead Author.
Barrie Pittock
IPCC – Lead Author.
Leonard Nurse
IPCC – Coordinating Lead Author.
Ulric Trotz
IPCC- Review Editor.
Ulisses Confalonieri
IPCC – Coordinating Lead Author.
Philip Fearnside
IPCC – Contributor.
Jose Marengo
IPCC TGICA – Co-Chair.
Carlos Nobre
IPCC – Lead Author.
Jim Bruce
IPCC – Co-Chair and Review Editor
Michael Demuth
IPCC – Contributing Author.
Chris Furgal
IPCC – Contributing Author.
Paul Kovacs
IPCC – Lead Author.
Ken Minns
IPCC – Contributing Author.
Monirul Mirza
IPCC – Lead Author.
Mark Nuttall
IPCC – Contributing Author.
George Rose
IPCC – Contributing Author.
Zong-Ci Zhao
IPCC – Lead Author.
Ren Guoyu
IPCC – Reviewer.
Lin Erda
IPCC – Lead Author.
Li Yu’er
IPCC – Contributing Author.
Zhang Chengyi
IPCC – Expert Reviewer
Erik Jeppesen
IPCC – Contributing Author.
Samar M. Attaher
IPCC – Contributing Author.
Mahmoud Medany
IPCC – Coordinating Lead Author.
Patrick Nunn
IPCC – Lead Author.
NGO’s are anti-democratic ways to impose policy changes on the public.
They are no longer our friends.
They are undisciplined by a need to run good finances.
They have interlocking leadership and most dangerously interlocking relationships with governments.
Instead of simply trying to save Pandas or whales, they seek to exercise political influence. Very little of what they do goes to actually helping people or the causes they claim to exist for.
Instead they pay themselves very well, and place their supporters in positions of power.
Look at the former Senator who helped stage the original global warming special effects of over heating a hearing room to falsely give an impression of credibility to Hansen in 1988: He now works for a big UN non-profit and makes a living lying about climate.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
NGO’s are not fuzzy and nice and doing good work. They are tax exempt political machines enriching themselves at our expense.
The “green” bay tree.
Galileo Movement Australia http://www.galileomovement.com.au/political_scam_exposed.php
has a link new publicly available data
including grants to Dept Climate Change and EE
Note:- not verified rough check only
http://tome22.info/DCCEE-Grants/ (source: http://tome22.info/)
Grants.xl
Row 19 & 20
Australian Carbon Trust June 2010 Value 94906000
Australian Carbon Trust Feb 2010 Value 6000000
Australian Carbon Trust
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/rudd-puts-carbon-trust-in-brisbane-20090721-drm5.html
In May 2010 reported that there was no website but substantial adminstrative change
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2910192.htm
a search for the Australian Carbon Trust provides initially
Low Carbon Australia –
Board Members
http://www.lowcarbonaustralia.com.au/page/board
The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg.
Cap’n Stormfield must have given him the name.
============
All the years of corporate ‘right-wing’ organizations doing much of what these ‘left-winged’ organizations are doing today has caught up and is giving the ‘old’ corporate world a run for their money. Nonetheless, as the battle of AGW carries on, it becomes more and more apparent that there really is no difference between the ‘left’ and the ‘right.’ Just sheep and wolves. Each side is run by crooked, massive multi-national corporations that want to manipulate, lie and control the populice. However, this time though the average citizen is eating it up and handing over power blindly along with their hard earned cash. And the corporate world is not putting up much of a fight either. Repent, repent, but hand it over first!
As expressed by WWF, a ‘sense of urgency’ is indeed upon us.
Kev-in-Uk says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“blood sucking green giants!”.
——————–
They are that, for sure – sent out by the mean green, global greed machine, as part of a carefully crafted plan to enslave humanity.
Seriously though, who are the people behind the employees’ names cited in the article? Who’s really pulling the strings here?
This is, as Gail Combs is indicating, something to be taken seriously.
Part Two of Donna’s WWF series is out:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/26/how-the-wwf-infiltrated-the-ipcc-part-2/
Tells us next to nothing.
1. Does not indicate sources(s) (if more than one), 2. does not indicate for what reason or what purpose ‘funds’ were received …
I want (‘would like’, for the purposes of debate here; I’m not demanding they be shown, obviously, as this is not a courtroom and I am not a judge) to see a primary document; do they not exist? I want to see a primary document in lieu of either hearsay or a condensed, sanitized ‘annual report’ which is not specific as to (governmental) monetary sources and for the/any purpose(s) for which funds were received, if any …
Is that hard to do?
.
_Jim says: @
September 26, 2011 at 7:42 pm
“Gail Combs says September 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm
R. de Haan says: @ September 26, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Another trigger word is “Harmonization” That is laws being harmonized through out the world to facilitate trade and “Globalization”
Possibly could one of you direct me to the ‘head’ or lead conspiracy website on the internet?…”</b.
I would be very happy to. You go direct to the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/InternationalPrograms/HarmonizationInitiatives/default.htm
“Harmonization and Multilateral Relations
FDA’s role in harmonization and multilateral relations is to coordinate and collaborate on activities with various international organizations and governments on international standards and harmonization of regulatory requirements.
Recognizing the considerable synergy between its domestic policy and its international policy priorities, FDA is sharpening and focusing its planning for enhanced alignment of FDA and international standards. In recent decades, great changes in the world economy, together with expanded working relationships of regulatory agencies around the globe, have resulted in increased interest in international harmonization of regulatory requirements……”
There are also Good Farming Practices from FAO and OIE ( from a jointprogram of WTO and the UN)
FAO – GAPs (fruits and veggies)
“What are Good Agricultural Practices?
A multiplicity of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) codes, standards and regulations have been developed in recent years by the food industry and producers organizations but also governments and NGOs, aiming to codify agricultural practices at farm level for a range of commodities….” http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/
OIE Good Farming Practices: Livestock
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Food_Safety/docs/pdf/GGFP.pdf is the GUIDE TO GOOD FARMING PRACTICES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTION FOOD
http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D7201.PDF is the Good Dairy Farming Practices.
From there you can go on to :A GUIDE ON THE HARMONIZATION OF
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW – http://www.nyulawglobal.org/Globalex/Unification_Harmonization.htm
New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers: Updating American Administrative Law: WTO, International Standards, Domestic Implementation and Public Participation
“Abstract
The World Trade Organization has encouraged harmonization of domestic regulatory standards and policy in order to promote further liberalization of international trade. This harmonization agenda has come under sharp attack from critics arguing that it will result in a regulatory race to the bottom while eroding the opportunity of ordinary stakeholders to participate in the regulatory process. Despite the speculation, little is known about the actual impact that harmonization activities have on domestic regulatory law and policy. This paper offers the first systematic analysis of the impact that harmonization activities have had on domestic US regulatory policy. Finding that international regulatory activities, in particular the domestic use of international standards and mutual recognition agreements have had an impact on US administrative law and policy, the paper analyzes whether the internationalization of regulatory policy has also adversely impacted the ability of public stakeholders to participate in the regulatory process. Concluding that the internationalization of regulation has undermined public participation in regulation and administration, and threatens to return the United States to the regulatory environment that existed prior to the Ralph Nader-led participatory revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, the paper concludes by offering a few potential solutions to the legitimacy crisis facing international regulation.”
There is a lot of info out there on the harmonization of laws, you just have to look.
_Jim says: @ September 26, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Gail Combs says on September 26, 2011 at 9:18 am
“…Isn’t it nice to know you are donating money to WWF whether you want to or not???
Can you make reference to primary documents to support this claim?
____________________________________________________________________
Straight from the Panda’s mouth:
“2008 Annual Report
Funding and Financial Overview
2008 Annual Report
This article is a part of WWF’s 2008 Annual Report.
See more articles
In FY08, with increased income from operations, a healthy balance sheet and continued revenue source diversification, WWF directed over $160 million to conservation.
Operating revenues grew to $196.5 million, a 22 percent increase over the FY07 total of $160.8 million. This growth was made possible through the contributions of our many valued supporters. We received $85.7 million from our members and donors, $26.1 million in government awards….. “ http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/financialinfo/2008fundingandfinancialoverview.html
_Jim says:
September 26, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Gail Combs says on September 26, 2011 at 5:21 pm
…
The collapse of the US economy can be traced to the ratification of NAFTA, WTO and the signing of five banking acts into law.
What!? No mention of the sub-prime loan fiasco imposed by our legislators on financial institutions?…..
___________________________________________________________________
That was the five new banking laws. But you can go all the way back to President Reagan and the Leveraged Buyouts and Hostile Takeovers that raped our decent, well financed domestic corporations. Most of our domestic midsized corporations are now gone or foreign owned. see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_ownership_of_U.S._corporations
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/TakeoversandLeveragedBuyouts.html
descriptive: http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/leveraged_buyout.htm
Today: Whitewashed Windows and Vacant Stores
That statement might bear some weight were it not for the fact a) that boards of directors are voted on by something called common stock b) shareholders who hold voting shares in those corporations. Shareholders in most companies may also introduce motions, called Shareholder motions to be voted on by the other shareholders.
As it is, it bears little weight given b) above. Anything beyond, below or to either side of that is just rant sans any real basis.
.
Jim, I certainly agree that the spike in oil prices was a contributing factor.
You need energy, raw materials and labor to produce goods. The WTO and other trade agreements did away with import duties that made imported goods and domestic goods competitive in price. Add trade treaties abolishing quarantine and inspection as “trade barriers” at the border. All that is added on top of the leveraged buyouts that stripped the wealth from domestic corporations making it harder for them to weather down turns in the economy. This set the stage.
Then add China to the trade treaties and suddenly it made financial good sense for the foreign owners of American corporations to move factories overseas were TRAINED labor is cheap and regs were nonexistent. Add marginal loans and AIG credit default swaps on those loans and you had a recipe for disaster when the actual unemployment rate skyrocketed to over 20%. see Shadow stats: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
FDIC – Important Banking Legislation: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/important/index.html
Some Descriptive References:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
http://tkcollier.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/joe-cassano-the-guy-who-sank-aig/
http://www.realtytrac.com/content/news-and-opinion/how-the-aig-bailout-could-be-driving-more-foreclosures-4861
By the way I never read or listen to Alex Jones… YUCK!
J. Felton says: @ September 26, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Maybe I should get a picture of a sad-eyed gopher or something, make up a name that sounds important; some combination of World, Forest, Defense, Foundation, Enviroment, Planet, or something close will do, and then solicit as much donations as I can…..”
L.Ron Hubbard had the right idea he started a Religion (Scientology) Jean Berman allegedly said “I knew L.Ron when he was a small time crook” (snicker) It is something of a joke in S.F. circles.
_Jim says:
September 27, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Schaeffer says on September 27, 2011 at 10:18 am
…
Each side is run by crooked, massive multi-national corporations
That statement might bear some weight were it not for the fact a) that boards of directors are voted on by something called common stock b) shareholders who hold voting shares in those corporations…..
_________________________________________________________________
That was in the “Old Days” Jim, now that has been “Fixed”. For example 85% of the stock in Monsanto is held by Mutual Funds/ Pension Funds. The people who vote the stock are the owner/managers of the funds and not the people who hold “Title” to the stock.
I have not bothered to investigate other corporations but given the popularity of mutual funds these days I would not be surprised to see over 50% of the stock owned by Mutual funds.
I think some where I read that 5% is now considered a “Controlling Block” of stock. The Johnson family (Fidelity) controls over 7% of Monsanto.
[SNIP: This is a good example of innuendo. If you want to make these assertions, supply references. -REP, mod]
I should also add the book “Bank Control of Large Corporations in the United States” By David M. Kotz
It explains how banks use pension funds to buy controlling interest in large corporations among other strategies.
Here’s a cute ‘drinking game’ to play; searching the EPA website for mentions of “world wildlife” (ostensibly for World Wildlife ‘Fund’ or ‘Foundation’ or ‘… for Nature’ or whatever their name has morphed into now):
Search EPA.gov.
It showed “1,240 [hits] for “world wildlife” within all areas of the EPA.”
.
What has changed; you have given another ‘assertion without proof’ or substantiating cites/facts.
I still have the ability to vote my common stock shares of TI stock and make motions if so desired.
You’ve not made your case with that last ‘thrust’ into the aether …
.
I’m (and by extension, those visiting WUWT are) supposed to view this through some sort of jaundiced, conspiratorial mindset?
On another note, when did you begin reading The Nation? Home to lib -er- commies like David Corn and that raving loony hurricane Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Have you ever seen or heard the ideas expressed by these individuals? Both she and Corn used to appear on ABC’s Sunday morning talking-head show. These two are not just simply progressives (as admitted) or even socialists, we’re talking full-blown communist (this as observed by their arguments as witnessed while they appeared on the aforementioned ABC program).
The reason I bring this up, it turns out David M. Kotz is a contributor to that rag owned and published by Vanden Heuvel? Here’s his ‘bio’ over there: http://www.thenation.com/authors/david-m-kotz
I notice that David has a presence over at Truthout.org too, an organization I would rank up there with WWF … but I have digressed too much already.
Well, I don’t have infinite time to address these ‘buckets of stuff’ that, like an Alex Jones proxy you’re inclined to continue to heap against a blank canvas until ‘something forms up’ in the way of continued nefarious ‘acts’ by anyone in this country above the pay-grade/position of clerk.
I’m just wondering out loud now, have you ever heard this expression: “Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them“? I’m thinking the latter part of this fits rather than the former, but that’s just this poster’s opinion …
.
Insufficient; vaporous as to specifics; please see response to another poster up thread …
(IOW, pls identify which governments, which agencies … the ‘report’ looks like whitewash. You need something more specific to even be considered close, or even hope to approach the level of ‘actionable’. I doubt you can do this, BTW.)
.
Jim says
“I want (‘would like’, for the purposes of debate here; I’m not demanding they be shown, obviously, as this is not a courtroom and I am not a judge) to see a primary document; do they not exist? I want to see a primary document in lieu of either hearsay or a condensed, sanitized ‘annual report’ which is not specific as to (governmental) monetary sources and for the/any purpose(s) for which funds were received, if any …”
* * *
I understand the point you are trying to make, and yes, I agree with you.
However, the link I supplied is the WWF’s own annual report. It is presumable that when their own report lists funding from ” publicservice/finance ” then that means exactly what most would think it is. As deceptive as the WWF can be, I think it would be foolhardy for them to claim they have government support when they do not. I also cannot see a motive for that.
Maybe an email to the WWF on what exactly they mean is in order?
OT but illuminating:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/armed-troops-burn-down-homes-kill-childen-to-evict-ugandans-in-name-of-global-warming.html
Try this link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/armed-troops-burn-down-homes-kill-children-to-evict-ugandans-in-name-of-global-warming.html