WWF squeals at IPCC links

Squealing

Donna Laframboise’s book The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (see review here) has clearly touched a number of raw nerves. The WWF huffs and puffs in a press release:

“It is ludicrous to suggest that in seeking ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent with the best scientific knowledge WWF is seeking to influence the IPCC,” said WWF’s International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith.

“It is also ludicrous to suggest that IPCC reports are or could be influenced by the fact that some scientists have generously contributed some input to WWF’s climate witness scheme.” (source – h/t Bishop Hill)

But unfortunately, it is far from ludicrous. It is scandalous.

The IPCC is portrayed as this impartial, aloof body which calmly considers the state of climate science and issues pronouncements every five years or so. Governments then make policy decisions, costing billions (possibly trillions) of dollars, based on the recommendations in those reports. But, as Donna’s book reveals, the IPCC is nothing of the sort. Its sole purpose is to find evidence of human-caused climate change, as required by the UNFCCC – and it makes sure that it finds it with a broad range of tactics that undermine the integrity of climate science.

It is utterly scandalous and disgraceful that scientists involved in the IPCC process have anything whatsoever to do with an extreme environmental activist group like WWF. The WWF has a clear agenda on climate change – it is a blatant conflict of interest for lead authors of IPCC reports to be involved in any WWF project, such as the climate witness scheme. And the wilful blindness of the mainstream media and national governments around the world to this hypocrisy is staggering.

Can you even begin to imagine the hysteria that would result from an IPCC lead author being associated with Big Oil? It would be screamed and shouted from the rooftops 24/7. “How dare an IPCC author have such a clear conflict of interest?” they would shriek. “This is just more evidence of the influence of Big Oil and their band of well-organised climate deniers, spreading misinformation in order to derail the proper work of an impartial body like the IPCC.”

Or how about this as an alternative, if we turn it around?

“This is just more evidence of the influence of Big Green and their band of well-organised climate alarmists, spreading misinformation in order to derail the proper work of an impartial body like the IPCC.”

But we never hear that, ever. EVER. And Big Green has far deeper pockets than Big Oil when it comes to climate propaganda. The reason? Because it’s perfectly fine for the head of the IPCC to endorse Greenpeace documents, or for IPCC lead authors to cosy up to environmental advocacy groups – they have the politically correct high ground. They’re “saving the planet” after all!

The more one thinks about this, the more outrageous it seems.

The reality is the IPCC is utterly compromised, corrupted and politicised. Nobody should take the slightest notice of ANYTHING it says.

Comments

  1. Mike Bromley via Facebook says:

    interestingly, the first paragraph presented: ““It is ludicrous to suggest that in seeking ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent with the best scientific knowledge WWF is seeking to influence the IPCC,” said WWF’s International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith.”, makes no grammatical sense.

  2. How do people like Samantha Smith treat the IPCC like it is some kind of independent unbiased organisation when people who are part of the WWF climate witness program are also lead authors of IPCC chapters.

  3. Also indicates how desperate the WWF is to make sure that the IPCC is influenced ‘correctly’…

  4. @Mike, I think there should be a comma after “suggest that” and a comma and “the” after “knowledge”. I assume some branding wonk told them they have to refer to it as “WWF” not “the WWF”… Also raises the question as to how you “ensure” observations are “consistent with” scientific knowledge… hmm

  5. According to the WWF’s own observations they are “the world’s leading science-based conservation organization.”

    Yet they are also a ‘CHARITY’ as listed under the Charities Aid Foundation Australia website. They received over $17 million in revenue for 2010 and spent $6 million on fundraising and administration, or 35%.

    Other Australian Government, global warming, assisted charities include:
    – OzGREEN / -Planet Ark / -The Wilderness Society / -Total Environment Centre / -Greenfleet Australia / -Greenpeace Australia Pacific / -Earthwatch Institute / -Friends of the Earth / -Futureworld / -Great Barrier Reef Foundation / -Australian Conservation Foundation / -Climate Action Network Australia + many more and all donations to these institutions are tax deductible, which means every Australian taxpayer is helping to support these supposed global warming ‘charities’.

    Nice job, if you can get it!

  6. Rick Bradford says:

    WWF *had* to complain — to the Green/Left, “the truth” is defined in terms of a power struggle, and so Donna’s analysis had to be (and will continue to be) attacked.

  7. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    The IPCC’s work is supposed to be an impartial and objective assessment of the climate science… and not about also engaging in advocacy.

    How can anyone involved with the IPCC, who is also involved with an environmental activist organization, be considered objective?

    This is the problem with the likes of people associated with WWF, and Greenpeace… they just don’t get it. They approach the climate science with their pre-conceived tunnel vision and bias, rather than maintaining an open mind. They push their own agendas as a priority over and above any other.

  8. If they don’t want to be linked to the IPCC, maybe they should get all of their members out of the IPCC, and take all the Greenpeace ones with them.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: