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.
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: @ur momisugly
September 26, 2011 at 7:42 pm
“Gail Combs says September 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm
R. de Haan says: @ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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