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.
If it had been within his power to take the steps he insisted were necessary, the human rights abuses would have been horrendous.
A tax that will take an extra $1,250 from the pockets of struggling Canadian families is applauded by corporations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ontario energy minister says we should wear sweaters in winter.
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.
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.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
A news clipping from 1995 – concerning an earlier IPCC report – was hilariously wrong.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
According to the vocal minority known as the World Wildlife Fund, governments shouldn’t be placating vocal minorities.
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?
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.
Why are female leaders rarer than rubies in green organizations?
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.
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
Earth Hour: 60 minutes of self delusion brought to you by IKEA.
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.
Canadian students are so jazzed about Earth Hour they need to be bribed to do volunteer work.
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
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?
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.
Persecuted for decades? Poor? Green groups will still kick you when you’re down.
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.
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.
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.
Since the 1970s UN officials have tried to frighten us. Repeatedly, their predictions have failed. Repeatedly, their time frames have been preposterously inaccurate.
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.
For half a century green activists have insisted that their historical moment – and a particular generation – are the planet’s last hope.
The World Wildlife Fund’s first corporate sponsor was Shell oil – which continued to fund it for the next four decades.
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.
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?
A collection of NGO brats, self-important rich folks, and UN bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to be the voice of future generations.
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.
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 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.
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.
When activists hoodwink the media – and questionable environmental scare stories are the result – why don’t we care?
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.
As a young woman I embraced feminism because I didn’t want to be bossed around by men. These days it’s greens who want to regulate my behaviour.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Invited in May to join a new Canadian television station, I was supposed to be a contrarian voice on topics such as global warming and David Suzuki. By October, the broadcaster had lost its nerve.
I’m a bit player in this drama. The bigger picture is that Canadians will continue to be fed the same old pablum.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
In June the IPCC put Alistair Woodward in charge of the climate bible’s health chapter. He thinks doctors should “educate and encourage” their patients in “climate change action.”
The British government says 99% of the sources on which the climate bible bases its arguments should be peer-reviewed. But only 70% are.
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.
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 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.