News organizations have turned their own journalists into WWF cheerleaders.
A year-long BuzzFeed investigation accuses the WWF of horrific human rights abuses.
The WWF may have a friendly panda for a logo, but amongst the poorest of the poor it’s known for something else: violent thugs called ecoguards.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the marine biologist who led the IPCC’s Ocean chapter, is a full-blown environmental activist. He recently wrote a politicized foreword to a WWF brochure, and has a long history of employment with both the WWF and Greenpeace.
Why doesn’t the World Wildlife Fund argue for its vision based solely on that vision’s merits?
Norway sent eight people to a recent polar bear conference. The WWF sent 10.
Any country in which a woman finds herself sentenced to 16 months after reporting a rape is barbaric and deserves to be shunned. Instead, the WWF is burnishing the image of this oppressive regime.
The US head of the WWF, when invited to choose a film to “help guide the way we think about the future,” selected the intellectually vapid Avatar.
When the World Wildlife Fund began, it aspired merely to ensure the well-being of particular species of animals. It now imagines that life itself would vanish without it.
According to the vocal minority known as the World Wildlife Fund, governments shouldn’t be placating vocal minorities.
The World Wildlife Fund has organized an event this week in the United Arab Emirates. You know, one of those countries in which political parties are banned.
The world’s largest environmental organization celebrates 4-year-olds as a fundraising mechanism.
In Pakistan, the WWF is enlisting university students to develop an “environmental conscience” among the poorest of the poor.
The behaviour of green NGOs in the developing word resembles foreign adventurism: arrogant, reckless, and exploitative.
If the IPCC had done the sensible thing and banned activist publications, would the institute run by its chairman still be receiving activist cash?
Last week, a sustainability summit organized by the chairman of the IPCC was held in India. The World Wildlife Fund provided funding.
The World Wildlife Fund is reaching into new corners of your life.
The World Wildlife Fund’s praise for electric cars demonstrates its profound disconnect from reality.
The World Wildlife Fund is deploying anti-poaching surveillance drones in countries with spotty human rights records and non-existent oversight mechanisms.
The World Wildlife Fund is supposed to be saving endangered species. Instead, it’s writing reports about equality.
The World Wildlife Fund is using ordinary Mexicans as pawns in a geopolitical chess game.
The World Wildlife Fund’s first corporate sponsor was Shell oil – which continued to fund it for the next four decades.
Most chapters in Working Group 1 of the 2007 Climate Bible contained at least one scientist who is affiliated with professional climate lobbyists. In one instance, four of the lead authors were tainted in this manner.
The World Wildlife Fund says the charge that scientists linked to its organization have infiltrated the IPCC is ‘ludicrous.’ I suppose it’s a total coincidence that more than 2/3rds of the IPCC report’s chapters included at least one WWF-affiliated individual.
40 people belonged to the IPCC’s 2007 ‘core writing team.’ 11 of them have documented links to either the World Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace.
The erroneous Himalayan glacier prediction was based on a WWF report. The IPCC chapter in which that mistake occurred was led by two WWF-affiliated scientists.
Two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters include personnel affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund. Fifteen chapters were led by WWF-affiliated scientists.
Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund recruited 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” to help it heighten the public’s sense of urgency.
Jennifer Morgan was recently recruited to help prepare the upcoming edition of the climate bible. Rather than being one of the world’s finest scientific minds she is a professional activist – as in chief climate change spokesperson for the World Wildlife Fund.
Why is a Vice President of an activist group taking part in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change workshops – and serving as a review editor for the upcoming edition of the climate bible?
A website called ScienceCentric.com contains more than 400 “articles” written by the World Wildlife Fund. Activist group press releases are not bona fide science news.
Like colonialists of old, affluent green activists impose their will on poor people in impoverished countries who have no means of defending themselves.
Plastics saved sea turtles, when tortoiseshell luxury goods became mass market items.
An influential report aimed at business leaders re-labelled an implausible, far-fetched scenario as ‘our current path.’
Ecology professor’s political opinions published repeatedly in scientific journals.
It’s absurd to say scientists are only now speaking up. Reuters publishes egregious climate propaganda.
You will be encouraged to believe things about weather-related deaths that are the opposite of the truth.
People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
When a journalist thinks for herself about climate change, insults & fabrications follow.
Allegations that mining threatens wildlife rely on activist ‘evidence.’
You’ll eat those vegetables – or else.
The natural world is more sophisticated than we imagine.
Politicians & 10-year-olds think banning drinking straws in rich nations will address improper garbage disposal in poor ones.
Some discoveries are easy to measure and easy to verify. But much of science is about groping in the dark.
How does encouraging scientists to criticize government policy enhance scientific integrity?
A tax that will take an extra $1,250 from the pockets of struggling Canadian families is applauded by corporations.
Nothing we do to protect the environment will ever be good enough. Like the Nazgûl in The Lord of the Rings, green lobbyists are relentless.
A US Senate committee hears that climate science is so intolerant and close-minded, the integrity and reputation of science itself is threatened.
A polar explorer is falsely described as a climate scientist in a news story; his activist connections aren’t reported.
Many of the scientists who signed an open letter against museums taking money from special interests are themselves linked to special interests. Part 3 of 3.
Tasked with assessing the achievements of others, a jury that includes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri heaps honour on one of its own.
Taking fossil fuel money is immoral. Says a science communicator who wore Shell logos to work.
Governments fund solar capacity in countries that receive little sun and install wind turbines in nations that get little wind. $100 billion has been squandered while green activists applauded.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
On page 25 of Chapter 2 and page 58 of Chapter 4 (Working Group 2 report of the AR5), the sole evidence the IPCC cites for a claim about the … Continue reading
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
Ontario energy minister says we should wear sweaters in winter.
Environmental activists have been declaring that the sky is falling since at least 1948. We aren’t the first generation to care – or to be raised on eco scare stories.
I’ve been invited to give oral evidence to a UK parliamentary committee – and have been offered a research fellowship at a think tank.
If the public is to be represented at climate negotiations by someone other than their own government, it has a right to elect and dismiss those representatives.
Greenpeace makes a show of rejecting government and corporate money. But it’s close pals with the WWF – which gets enormous funding from exactly those sources.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
The WWF utilized UN press conference facilities yesterday. It’s doing so again today.
Activist media events are a shockingly institutionalized part of UN climate negotiations.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
With attention focused on the IPCC’s imminent Working Group 1 report, a prestigious science journal has published a misleadingly-headlined profile of Working Group 3 co-chair, Ottmar Edenhofer.
The Guardian‘s environment correspondent couldn’t be more one-sided if she herself were on the IPCC’s payroll.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
Once again, people described as “leading scientists” turn out to be economists, UN officials, and those with links to activist organizations.
Environmentalists think Australian states can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. They want them overruled by bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
If carbon dioxide is pollution, every human being is a perpetual pollution factory. Every toddler in their sandbox generates CO2 every minute of every day.
It isn’t your imagination. You’ve been hearing that the world is “running out of time” for years.
What lessons will the rest of the world learn from Germany’s renewable energy disaster?
If the IPCC was a scientific body, the science section of its upcoming report would be summarized by scientists and that would be the end of the matter. Instead, the science summary will be the battleground at a 4-day political gathering.
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
The WWF thinks we should all “live in harmony with nature.” Sounds great – except for the flies, wasps, venomous snakes, storms, and floods.
Civilized debate appears to be an endangered species.
Climate skeptics don’t hire advertising agencies to help them manage their brand. Green groups do. So tell me again which side is lavishly funded?
Why are female leaders rarer than rubies in green organizations?
Earth Hour: 60 minutes of self delusion brought to you by IKEA.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
Canadian students are so jazzed about Earth Hour they need to be bribed to do volunteer work.
Where’s the scholarly press release highlighting Al Gore’s “longstanding ties to tobacco companies?” Where’s the study announcing that WWF’s tobacco ties extend back to the 1960s?
Persecuted for decades? Poor? Green groups will still kick you when you’re down.
The full text of an interview I recently gave to FoxNews – and a link to the story.
A majority of the 13 senior scientists responsible for a US government report are also associated with activist groups. (Eight of them have an IPCC connection.)
Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.
This blog will return in mid-September. In the meantime, here’s a video of a presentation I gave in Australia last month – and some thoughts on the bankruptcy of contemporary green analysis.
A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.
A group that’s supposed to be saving animals thinks the global economy must be transformed.
A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations.
Companies that cozy up to the WWF in order to enhance their public image may find that the plan backfires.
The World Wildlife Fund thinks its corporate logo should be plastered on children’s flesh.
How are green groups different from yesterday’s colonial powers? Their global agenda is paramount, their lack of empathy for ordinary people breathtaking.
For half a century green activists have insisted that their historical moment – and a particular generation – are the planet’s last hope.
Newspapers used to think their job was to help keep wealthy and powerful institutions honest. Now they climb into bed with them.
Mexico is crippled by corruption, violence, and poverty. But the World Wildlife Fund wants it to show leadership on climate change.
Earth Hour isn’t a volunteer, grassroots operation. The World Wildlife Fund pays its US and Canadian CEOs so handsomely they are part of the economic elite – the top 1% of income earners.
When you dim your lights for Earth Hour, you’re protesting in a manner approved by multinational corporations. You’re allowing banks and insurance companies to tell you how to spend your Saturday night.
Earth Hour was brought into this world by corporations. Fairfax Media Limited – whose newspapers, magazines, and radio stations are supposed to report impartially on environmental issues – owns one-third of this annual green event.
Nine papers are being distributed by an upcoming save-the-world conference. They’re explicitly intended to influence the behaviour of world leaders at the Rio summit in June. But the claim that they represent the latest scientific thinking is a gross distortion.
The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?
How many more reports highlighting the IPCC’s flaws will it take before politicians draw the obvious conclusions? How many additional scandals must surface before political leaders realize that this body doesn’t deserve their trust?
When I describe the surreal world of climate science to people who are strangers to that world I know it sounds fantastical. But there are strong parallels with the recently destroyed economies of Iceland, Greece, and Ireland.
The blogosphere is putting professional journalists to shame with its investigations into, and analysis of, groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
There is now a small army of experts, activists, and bureaucrats whose economic lives depend on there being a climate crisis. Without such a crisis their jobs, their travel to exotic places, and their moments in the media spotlight would all disappear.
The scientists on this list either played some role in the 2007 Climate Bible or are helping to write the next one expected to be completed in 2013. In many cases, they’re doing dual duty.
All of them have a documented, public relationship with professional lobbyists.
In a single IPCC chapter we find an author affiliated the WWF, another with Greenpeace, and a third with the Environmental Defense Fund. Sure, this is a scientific document.
An activist group has been funding a particular corner of scientific research to the tune of $1 million a year for more than two decades. Do we really think this hasn’t influenced how those working in that field see the world?
When hundreds of Canadian scientists – and 12 science bodies – joined a World Wildlife Fund ad campaign they undermined their own authority. They became politically-motivated actors in a political discussion.
Where, on the CV of a person employed by Greenpeace for the past 17 years, does it say distinguished scientist?
When activists hoodwink the media – and questionable environmental scare stories are the result – why don’t we care?
When did it become acceptable to pen violent fantasies about people with whom you disagree? When did it become OK to talk – luridly and out loud – about their death?
One of the most senior authors for the upcoming climate bible has spent the past 17 years cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
New Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines declare that blogs “are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports.” Yet these same guidelines say nothing about advocacy literature published by groups such as Greenpeace.
Actions speak louder the words. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims to be impartial and evenhanded – but that’s not how it behaves.
If much of the world were to snap out of it and realize that global warming has been over-hyped, large companies would lose hundreds of billions.
A news story tells us we should believe a report because a “Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist” is associated with it. But the Nobel turns out to be the same Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore – and the report’s findings are highly improbable.
Why does the media keep interviewing a meteorologist about droughts & floods instead of those with genuine expertise?
Environmental advocacy groups strive to influence government. In 2006 a senior WWF executive simultaneously became chairman of a UK government body. Meet the Defence Ministry’s idea of propriety.
For every green idea that truly makes sense, there’s half a dozen dumb ones. When bureaucrats promote these dumb ideas communities lose their bloodmobiles.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
As the author of two books about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I am well placed to evaluate its 2013-2014 Assessment Report (aka AR5 – which stands for … Continue reading
The World Wildlife Fund raises half a billion dollars a year. What does it do with this abundance? Short answer: it behaves much like any other large corporation.
Earth Hour is a project of the World Wildlife Fund. The truckloads of free publicity this event attracts may be the primary reason the WWF is now the world’s wealthiest environmental organization.
30 years ago Greenpeace rented creaky fishing boats. These days it purchases $22-million custom-built mega-yachts. The shoestring voices in the environmental debate now belong to skeptical bloggers.
Drug trial results are closely scrutinized. Corporate financial statements are routinely audited. Yet science academy bureaucrats – and a lot of others who should have known better – have advised us to blindly trust IPCC reports.
If the climate bible includes significant mistakes, if it uses newspaper & magazine articles to make its case, if it relies on literature generated by activist organizations – then it is rather a different animal from the uber-respectable paragon of virtue so many journalists have described. Bamboozled by the PR machine that is the IPCC, they’ve passed along bad information to the public.
The relationship between Greenpeace and the IPCC is so close that not only are the activist group’s documents cited by the climate bible, the IPCC chairman has written a forward for a Greenpeace publication. Meanwhile, a senior Greenpeace official (whose entire career has been devoted to political activism), has served as an IPCC “scientific expert reviewer.”
The climate bible cites numerous documents written by the World Wildlife Fund to back up its arguments. But this document is supposed to be a rigorous, wholly scientific assessment.
A few weeks before the IPCC admitted its Himalayan glacier predictions were dead wrong, Time magazine profiled the glacier expert at the center of the storm. Rather than being hard-nosed & rigorous, the magazine fell for him hook, line & sinker.
After a steady diet of climate hysteria, I’ve reached my limit. I consider myself a sensible person who is now speaking up & pushing back.