When you give money to the Sierra Club, you’re doing three bad things.
The Sierra Club is a lawsuit factory. Responding to its legal assaults wastes mountains of public money.
The Sierra Club is swimming in money from affluent individuals, wealthy foundations, and blue chip companies. This is not a grassroots organization.
Green groups are perpetual outrage machines.
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.
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.
Why did Kumi Naidoo leave Greenpeace’s top job before a replacement was found? The Guardian prints clichés and asks no hard questions.
Greenpeace canvassers say their workplace is no compassionate, supportive utopia.
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.
Greenpeace activists have no respect for what others hold sacred – whether it’s Peru’s Nazca lines or a Roman Catholic cross in Canada.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
The IPCC acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. It has a long history of recruiting activist personnel, and is led by a man prone to exaggeration.
In Berlin this week, environmental activists were allowed to attend a four-day meeting that journalists were denied access to. This is normal IPCC procedure.
Ontario energy minister says we should wear sweaters in winter.
In a 23-minute interview, filmed in the UK last month, I talk about activists and the UN’s climate process.
A bona fide climate scientist tells US Senators we have no idea whether human-caused global warming will be a serious problem. The media doesn’t report it.
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.
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.
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.
If the UN were serious about a new climate treaty, it would turf the activists. They are a distraction no one needs.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
Greenpeace says 95% certainty is the same as 100% certainty. Tell that to people who die on the operating table.
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.
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.
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.
Environmentalists think Australian states can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. They want them overruled by bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
Activists & journalists insist that Canada’s climate policies have destroyed our international good name. But survey results released yesterday indicate – for the 3rd consecutive year – that we have “the world’s best reputation.”
Truth squads. Pushing “bitter pills” down other people’s throat. Democracy’s new enemies are green.
Politicians, having blindly parroted environmentalist rhetoric about green jobs, look increasingly foolish.
According to the vocal minority known as the World Wildlife Fund, governments shouldn’t be placating vocal minorities.
When a single gray wolf crossed into California in late 2011, four environmental organizations took leave of their senses.
The WWF thinks we should all “live in harmony with nature.” Sounds great – except for the flies, wasps, venomous snakes, storms, and floods.
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.
Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
The world’s largest environmental organization celebrates 4-year-olds as a fundraising mechanism.
A Canadian charity for which German school kids are raising money is the furthest thing from transparent.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society represents a return to humanity’s violent past.
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
Greenpeace says we should deprive ourselves and harm our communities.
The behaviour of green NGOs in the developing word resembles foreign adventurism: arrogant, reckless, and exploitative.
For Earth Hour’s eco-campaigners, barbaric oppression in North Korea is merely a talking point, something to casually make use of.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
The Sierra Club is “outraged” by a Keystone pipeline report. This is as newsworthy as saying the Pope is Catholic.
The National Wildlife Federation regards human beings as just another form of wildlife to be managed.
Greenpeace envisions a new system of global governance – in which unaccountable UN bureaucrats gain “real powers.”
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
Persecuted for decades? Poor? Green groups will still kick you when you’re down.
The Sierra Club took fossil fuel money. Lots of it. How dare it falsely accuse other people of doing this.
Greenpeace thinks President Obama should destroy lives now. Because of an ill-defined, generalized risk of climate change sometime in the future.
Green energy is expensive energy. In Europe, prices are rising and unintended consequences have followed.
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.
A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.
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.
Liberty. Freedom. These ideas inspire risk-taking and self-sacrifice. But the green movement offers the exact opposite.
A group that’s supposed to be saving animals thinks the global economy must be transformed.
Green activists accuse the government of waging a “war on nature and democracy.” But there’s nothing democratic about claiming to speak for future generations.
A splendid and disturbing investigative feature in Der Spiegel explains why the WWF doesn’t deserve your charitable donations.
The World Wildlife Fund is supposed to be saving endangered species. Instead, it’s writing reports about equality.
Companies that cozy up to the WWF in order to enhance their public image may find that the plan backfires.
Any group that’s wining and dining the Secretary of Defense – who just happens to be the former director of the CIA – is no grassroots operation.
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.
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.
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.
People who want to save the planet are fond of more laws and more red tape. They talk of silencing their opponents and sending people to prison.
Iowa scientists have signed a letter about climate change. News reports don’t mention their activist leanings.
A powerful lobby group supplied their meeting space, helped with their travel documents & subsidized their meals. Top IPCC scientists went along for the ride.
A collection of NGO brats, self-important rich folks, and UN bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to be the voice of future generations.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The list of people who’ve accepted $150,000 from an advocacy organization is a long one. There are lots of PhDs here, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with full-blown political activists.
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?
17 years ago a Greenpeace report titled The Climate Time Bomb tried to frighten us with lurid images and dire predictions that have since failed.
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?
Who knew that green groups – and those with business interests in renewable energy – have access to such obscene amounts of money?
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.
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.
Rajendra Pachauri does not display the aloof, dispassionate demeanour traditionally evoked by the term “scientist.” Instead, he repeatedly lends the good name of the scientific body he chairs to activist endeavours.
The mere presence of environmental activists undermines the integrity of scientific endeavours. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long embraced Greenpeace personnel.
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?
Environmental activist organizations are all grown up now. We need to adjust our thinking accordingly.
Nearly half a century after the first Earth Day, the chessboard has changed dramatically. The players with the power, the war chests, and the influence are different now.
Two activist scientists, both committed to the climate change fight, have starkly different views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One says it’s the most “rigorous scientific process” in which he has been involved. The other says it isn’t good science, but “lowest-common-denominator-science.”
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 account suggests Michael Oppenheimer is a class act. Rather than calling climate skeptics “deniers” he admits they might be smart people.
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?
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.
Greenpeace spends its time trashing corporations. Yet it solicits donations in the form of corporate stocks. Any kind of corporate stocks, apparently.
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.
Greenpeace recently dismissed the Canadian Senate as a 19th century institution. But it aggressively promotes wind power – a 12th century technology. While it accuses the Senate of being undemocratic, Greenpeace itself scored only 42% when evaluated from an accountability perspective.
First, UN researchers conduct a climate change survey. Second, they release a report that fails to provide even an overview of the results, never mind detailed evidence of the assertions being made. Next the report gets cited as though it were gospel by Canada’s Library of Parliament.
Koko Warner is a UN employee whose research has been funded and brazenly promoted by the UN in order to advance the UN’s climate change agenda. Now she is a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
At the age of 25, Richard Klein became an IPCC lead author. He held a Masters degree, and had spent a year working for Greenpeace.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
A Greenpeace spokesperson suggests that the only people concerned about the video in which kids are executed for insufficient eco enthusiasm are those with ulterior motives – “climate skeptics and think tanks funded by corporations.”
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.
Scientific investigation produces facts. But even when we have full confidence in the accuracy of these facts we must still choose how to respond to them. When activists insist there’s only one possible response they’re attempting to preempt important democratic discussions, to silence our voices, to substitute their own views for those of the community.
Greenpeace thinks climate skeptics should be silent because a “scientific consensus” has established that dangerous climate change is real. Yet Greenpeace’s active opposition to genetically modified foods flies in the face of another scientific consensus – the one that says such products are safe.
Skeptical climate scientists are often accused of being motivated by financial gain. So why does Al Gore charge $175,000 to deliver a speech? If global warming is really a planetary emergency, why won’t he deliver the same talk for $50,000?
Two professors (who believe human-caused global warming is a problem) argue that the Kyoto Protocol was doomed to fail & that pushing for more policies of this sort wastes precious time.
A pragmatic analysis that reveals common ground between moderate climate activists & moderate climate skeptics.
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.