Sunday
Oct232011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill WWF denies it has infiltrated IPCC
Oct 23, 2011 Climate: IPCC Greens From here.
WWF has refuted as "ludicrous" claims in a new climate change denial book that it had "infiltrated" the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the respected international body charged with advancing knowledge on climate change and its impacts.
Reader Comments (49)
That would be "rebuts". Not "refutes".
in a new climate change denial book
I must have missed that bit. Which chapter was that?
Yep, it's ludicrous.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Does the IPCC endeavour to "advance knowledge" or simply report it?
So they got a reaction?
Hmmm... the book does has some weight and legs then... good news...
" ... infiltrated ..."
See the end of chapter 31.
The book claims that one third of IPCC chapters were led by WWF-affiliated scientists. Two thirds of chapters included at least one person affiliated with the WWF and all the chapters in WG2 included at least one WWF-affiliated scientist. Some chapters were led by two such people.
Refuted and Rebutted - the distinction appears to be getting lost. There is of course that other non-synonym much loved in climate circles: Debunked. Presumably Joe Romm is preparing the debunking.
Ludicrous, certainly. But unfortunately absolutely correct.
The WorldWildLiesFund's grubby little fingers are all over the IPCC as Donna accurately points out. And, from a source that even "Scottish Ruinables" should recognise:-
"All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."
WWF established the Climate Witness scheme to bring attention to the serious impacts climate change already is having on people and communities, particularly in the developing world. The Scientific Advisory Panel was set up to ensure that the climate impacts related in the articles were consistent with current scientific knowledge of impacts.
What a strange press release.
Is it just me, or is there a strangely fascist tone in this "we know what is best for the planet and we will decide what science is acceptable".
Sort of "Ve haf vays of saving ze planet und for you, sceptic, ze war iss over".
(Will I be Godwinned for this?)
The NGO's have not infiltrated the IPCC, they bought and paid for it, and they don't need no denialist scum messing with their property.
@Scots Renewables... I thought you said it was peurile?
Ludicrous could mean it may be well written but it is totally unbelievable...
If it was totally unbelievable, I doubt the WWF would bother with a reply...
Have you read the book yet SR? No one on your Amazon review seems to think you have... and you haven't clarified that point yet for them.
'Ludicrous' - what a coherent argument by the scientific organization WWF.
When the WWF was approached by North and Booker for their role in Amazongate, they issued a statement that they cannot be responsible for how other people (as in, the IPCC) use their reports.
Does this qualify the WWF as ( gasp ) "deniers?"
And of course, this has nothing to do with the reported $60 billion carbon offset options that the WWF and partner organisations have negotiated.......
Protesting too much already?
The full quote: Ladies and gentlemen, the IPCC has been infiltrated. It has been wholly and entirely compromised. (PDF, p79).
So it appears the WWF agrees at least with the fact that the IPCC has been wholly and entirely compromised.
ps such a poor and completely unsubstantiated press release doesn't bode well for the WWF. They're making a...Dickie of themselves!
Donna's book must have hit some vitals to get such ludicrous response back from the AGW Alarmists.
Way to go Donna.
The more they deny they haven't infiltrated the IPCC, the more they look like Deniers.
The fact that the WWF press release refers to "Teenager" as "climate change denier book" speaks volumes about their attitude and lack of self-awareness.
The book hardly addresses the issue of climate change directly at all. It is primarily about activist-driven science and unaccountability in the UN/IPCC
Facinating. Not that WWF is trying to deny IPPC infiltration, but that the 1930's defensive line of 2,700 9-ton concrete pyramidal concrete dragons teeth at Gland in Switzerland was called the Toblerone Line after the chocolate bar.
In my country the national WWF organization has 17000 paid up members. The right to vote is limited to just 17. If this setup is repeated elsewhere what we have is a top down elitisti structure, which has no machinery in place to determine what problems the locals face, nor does it offer them representation in prioratising their responses. Someone, not the afflicted, determines that what ails them is due to AGW and sets procedures in motion. So much for the "concern" of WWF for people.
The reflex action "blame it all on AGW" has been proven by professor Reiter to be unscientific to the point of recklessness.
And the word "infiltrated" is not hyperbole. When your people are all over the organogram of an organization and this fact is not up front, then the right verb for the situation is indeed "infiltrated".
Well done Donna!
Nik
Scots Renewables
Why do you have a problem with WWF infiltrating IPCC?
Friends of the Earth drafted the Climate Change Act after all.
Without their support, where would you be?
"The sole evidence offered for the claim", well, I guess a mountain of evidence is still just one mountain. Seems fairly disingenuous, though why am I not suprised.
What is it with Switzerland? Quite a good political setup to my mind but it gives homes to these rather scuzzy corrupt International Organisations.
In the present world of "universal CEOs" I wouldn't be surprised to see Sepp Blatter of FIFA moving in to WWF territory.
Infiltration and entry-ism are standard tactics of political zealots and extremists - from what I've read elsewhere about the fruitloops getting their knees under the (nice) tables at WWF, that organisation has a bad case of ideologically driven mission creep, perpetrated by some pretty unwholesome careerist NGO creeps...
'"Presenting WWF's Climate Witness stories for independent review by senior scientists was the entirely proper and correct way for WWF to proceed, and in no way commits those scientists to endorsing or supporting any of WWF's views or positions relating to climate change," said Smith.'
No doubt Smith is rushing to publish all the reviews and follow-up discussion on the WWF website so that the whole world can ponder the innocence of the program. I am especially interested in seeing the powerful critical reviews of Climate Witness stories and learn what happened to the stories that were heavily criticized. WWF does have this means to fully protect its reputation.
Can you imagine the noise that the warmists would make if they thought that Big Oil had infiltrated the sceptic movement?...
Actually, it's the polar bears that did it. WWF is just a front for the polar bears.
Seems to be a good time to include a link to the standard Jennifer Morgan comment (ex. WWF Climate Change Department supremo).
From the WWF "press release" ...
According to WWF's "International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith":
Oh, how nice! They have "protocols" in place. Too bad that the IPCC still lacks such protocols. And maybe Smith would care to explain how these "protocols" ensure the "independence of [the] scientific opinions" of WWF affiliated IPCC authors are not coloured by their aceptance of - and concurrence with:
From the WWF's "guidelines" for prospective participants in their illustrious Science Advisor Panel (SAP):
Source
It's also curious to note that in a somewhat related matter [h/t Tom Nelson] in an AP article on Greenpeace's launch of their spanking new:
One also finds:
They seem to want things both ways, don't they?! So we have "theatre and diplomacy" ruling the negotiation roost - with "science" taking a back-seat (but protected by "protocols"). Come to think of it, considering the BEST brouhaha, perhaps a "back-seat" for "science" is just as well!
But it does leave the IPCC in the somewhat sticky position of having so many of its boosters and advocates prove the validity of Donna's well-argued case!
From Hilary's link above
Here is what is really ludicrous:
You must be aware of the WWF Scientific Advisory Panel, the panel it put together mainly from IPCC authors, which Donna correctly diagnoses as:
The WWF collected comments from these experts. It even provides a helpful example of what their comments should look like:
That's it, right there.
Take the above three paragraphs and copy-paste it a thousand times. Just go on replacing the 'Aitutaki' with different regional names from all over the world and the word 'corals' with 'glaciers', 'forests', 'rivers', 'estuaries', 'deserts', 'wetlands', 'swamps' etc. You'll have the IPCC WGII report in your hands.
These guys have climate alarmism down to a tee, obligatory faux caveats pre-cooked right into their template.
Ever wondered how Greenpeace and WWF strut around with their chests puffed up, not just for doing the right thing, but also as if they are doing the correct thing. That is because they have the world's environmental scientists on their panels. Hardly a word/press release emanates where they will not only be doing the right thing, but also always, doing 'what the science says'.
But if you are a scientist and you want to brag/boast that you worked with the WWF, can you just do so?
No.
Here is what you would need to do:
In other words, you need to ask their permission.
Shub - I read that bit too. Cut and paste template which even has a multi-choice tick box presumably to help the WWF collate "relevant" information.
It's one step from a computer-generated propaganda machine
How is it that a book which calls out the IPCC for shoddy process be labelled "climate change denial". Its bad enough when folks actually talking about climate attract that label. Even worse when things that do not even consider climate attract it as well. Apparently, AGW folks have taken the nuanced view of labelling anyone who causes trouble a climate change denier, however disconnected from climate or denial the critic is.
'$33 million marvel, part helicopter-capable warship equipped to do battle with "environmental criminals" and part high-tech PR vessel, with widescreen conference facilities and state-of-the-art communications'
Lol so all Greenpeace have to do is make sure all the climate villains live under volcanoes with their carbon death rays, fluffy cats /pits full of crocodiles and their childish world police "warship " stunt might be taken for having some creditability instead of being a joke !
'Given the relatively pristine nature of the Aitutaki lagoon, it is quite possible that the observed event was the result of high sea surface temperatures and/or excessive sunlight.'
As it happens, I know Aitutaki quite well. My wife and I were married on Rarotonga, and used to visit Aitutaki as a retreat form the hustle and bustle of Rarotonga. Aitutaki is a beautiful lagoon, with many uninhabited motu and a small population on the volcanic island to the NW. But it is most definitely NOT pristine. It has a landing strip built from crushed coral along the eastern side, which is how we tourists arrive. The strip was built by the US during the war, and some of the earthmoving equipment used to do this lies abandoned between the strip and the edge of the reef. The lagoon itself was also used by flying boats which used to 'hop' across the Pacific between New Zealand. It is vulnerable to cyclones, and these damage the freshwater lens under the sand of the motu.
It is most definitely NOT 'relatively pristine', though it is stunningly beautiful. Any explanation of change would have to eliminate the many alternative explanations (including mining the reef for the airstrip) before ascribing the cause to climate change.
Any account that ignores these factors and describes the atoll as 'relatively pristine' is misleading.
Does Donna mention that ExxonMobil regularly send representatives or 3M or Shell or the Cato Institute ? No . It does rather bring into focus what kind of independence Donna is looking for in an IPCC contributor. By the standards proposed in Donna's opus one could just as easily make a case that the IPCC has been 'infiltrated' by Exxon.
But why should we take Donna's book seriously anyway whilst the egregious errors in Chapter 3 are uncorrected ?
"the respected international body"
You mean there's another one?
Two things spring to mind...
The WWF said "some overlap between the thousands of scientists that work for the IPCC"..... Did they read the book or D.F's blog as she has ripped that false claim apart over the last year or two?
Secondly, these groups claim to be charities and get the tax breaks that go along with that claim. Is it not time that these groups were seriously investigated by the Inland Revenue or am I being naive and the fact is the I.R. is making enough off of windmills etc to leave them alone?
One thing I do know is anyone shaking a tin in my face on the high street gets a very unpleasant remark! Oh what a tangled web!
But why should we take Donna's book seriously anyway whilst the egregious errors in Chapter 3 are uncorrected ?
Oct 24, 2011 at 3:21 PM | Hengist
If you are correct the lawyers will make money. I suspect, as yesterday comments proved that D.M's expertise will prove you wrong. Did you get past the free preview or have you bought the whole book?
"WWF has refuted as "ludicrous" claims in a new climate change denial book that it had "infiltrated" the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),"
Well they would wouldn't they.
Pete H. "If you are correct the lawyers will make money."
I don't see how they could, she described three scientists, all of whom believe the IPCC is a stench in the nostrils of honest men as "outsiders", they have all contributed to the IPCC but in a puerile attempt to smear the book someone on this thread, I forget who, has claimed that DL had told committed egregious errors. Hardly errors and certainly not egregious.
Hengist,
Of course your attempt to distract the conversation, and pretend the book is about the Cato Institute is great, but your assertion begs the question:
When did Cato become a UN chartered body speaking for governments?
And, also:
Is the book about the IPCC or Cato?
As to your disagreement with her regarding Chapter 3, please stop conflating your opinion with 'truth'.
Hunter,
I believe Hengist is the same person who thinks it is perfectly ok to go back and alter posted information after the fact. His defense - "Show me the rule for blog editors that says you can't."
Tough to argue with logic like that.
It's hard to take hengist seriously after the "you cannot edit my comment" disaster. I was rather hoping he would be listening in for a little while longer.
I am half-way through Donna's book. It is a riveting, well-written tour de force exposing an organinzation whose authority is derived from PR and media complicity, not from it's scientific and professional standards. A good part of this books strength is its feel of common sense sanity. One can only ask, rhetorically,after reading chapter after chapter: Has the civilized world gone mad? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Snake oil salesmen never had it so good.
timg and maurizio dont know what youre on about.
Hunter asks a sensible question "When did Cato become a UN chartered body speaking for governments?" Well it seems they did when the IPCC put together AR4 Pat Michaels is credited 'University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute' .
Hengist
Are you seriously suggesting that all the establishments quoted in that link are "UN chartered bodies speaking for governments"?
If so, then I finally sussed it. You are stupid. Either that or you are deliberately giving a damn' good imitation.
Guys
Just encourage Hengist to keep posting. Rverything he writes seems designed to bring the IPCC into disrepute.
Don P...your hypothesis starts to get more compelling.
For posterity, hengist is the guy who defended Cook's right to deliberately change other people's comments, only to get upset when somebody deliberately misquoted him. Tsk tsk.
I was under the impression that "infiltration" rather implied actiosn of a clandestine nature, in which case the WWF are quite right - it's been fairly open that they're in cahoots with the IPCC.
To paraphrase Mandy Rice -Davies " Well he would anyway!"