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.
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.
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!
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?
A WWF press release? That means it is qualified to be referenced in the next IPCC AR.
In Britain, whence this press release came, a “scheme” means merely a project.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
WOW!
@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.
@ur momisugly Coalsoffire: Noted the reference to The Princess Bride. Inconceivable!
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.
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.
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”?
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
Robert of Ottawa says: October 24, 2011 at 2:20 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 😉
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/24/wwf-issues-press-release-about-my-book/
The first review I read outside of Amazon.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10/17/book-review-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert-an-ipcc-expose/
That is a typo – they are actually being dissed by “Ludacris” whose CD sales are being affected by all this climate change.
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?
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.
She was trying to be polite. What she meant was “infest”.
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.