Environmental activism taints research

Environmental activism is tipping the balance

Environmental activist groups should not be allowed anywhere near scientific research. Such groups have a set of beliefs which will almost invariably skew any such research in which they are involved – whether intentionally or inadvertently.

WWF Australia’s web site sets out its policy with regard to climate change:

Today, because of greenhouse gas pollution, the planet is heating up at a much faster rate than ever before and our oceans are becoming more acidic. Temperature rises can appear small, but small increases translate into big changes for the world’s climate and natural environment.

Hotter days, more severe storms, floods, snowfalls, droughts, fire and higher sea levels are expected in the foreseeable future. These changes threaten jobs, agricultural production, water supplies, industries, human lives and, ultimately, the survival of species and entire ecosystems. Scientists predict that a global temperature rise of close to 2°C (above pre-industrial levels) could result in 25% of the Earth’s animals and plants disappearing because they can’t adapt fast enough. (source)

Leaving aside the obvious errors in those paragraphs, in the view of the WWF, there is no room for doubt. Humans are to blame for climate change and we must do something to stop it. The science is settled, and the debate is over. WWF Australia also strongly supports the “Say Yes” campaign for domestic action on climate change, with links on its home page. There is no ambiguity: WWF has a very rigid political and environmental agenda.

So how can you expect such an organisation to be impartial when assisting with or carrying out scientific research, which, by its very nature, should be impartial and apolitical? There will be little or no incentive to consider the possibility that man’s influence is less than they already “know” to be the case.

We have seen the close links between WWF and the IPCC exposed (see here), which severely damages the credibility and impartiality of the IPCC’s reports, and today we have another doom-laden report, liberally sprinkled with alarming imagery:

The Greenland ice sheet can experience extreme melting even when temperatures don’t hit record highs, according to a new analysis by Dr. Marco Tedesco, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at The City College of New York. His findings suggest that glaciers could undergo a self-amplifying cycle of melting and warming that would be difficult to halt.

Professor Tedesco likens the melting process to a speeding steam locomotive. Higher temperatures act like coal shoveled into the boiler, increasing the pace of melting. In this scenario, “lower albedo is a downhill slope,” he says. The darker surfaces collect more heat. In this situation, even without more coal shoveled into the boiler, as a train heads downhill, it gains speed. In other words, melting accelerates. (source)

Sounds pretty dramatic. But what do we read at the very end?

The World Wildlife Fund is acknowledged for supporting fieldwork activities.

I am not making any suggestion of wrongdoing, or that WWF’s contribution to this work was anything other than entirely proper. What I am suggesting, however, is that not only should science be impartial and apolitical, it should be seen to be impartial and apolitical. There must be a level playing field and consistent standards applied to the involvement of advocacy and activist groups in scientific research. If it’s OK for WWF to be involved in the preparation of an alarmist report about Greenland ice sheets, it should also be OK for an oil company to assist with a report that challenges the consensus position.

That is clearly not the situation we find ourselves in today, which is more like “WWF – good, Exxon – evil.”

So, here’s the deal. Either vested interests (whether consensus or sceptic) should exclude themselves from involvement in scientific research altogether, or both sides must be treated equally. It has to be one or the other.


  1. Streetcred says:

    “and our oceans are becoming more acidic”

    Bzzttt! Wrong! The ocean is mildly alkaline and considering the enormous buffering potential of the oceans, acidification is next to impossible. Besides, it would have to move through a neutral state first.

    Typical Greenie trash to hook the great unwashed hordes.

    • Aert Driessen says:

      Spot on! Just because you slow the car from 10 km/h to 5 km/h doesn’t mean that you have started reversing.

  2. I’d reckon the snowball started rolling about 40 years ago when environmentalism became popular with the rise of the hippie cult. Since then environmentalism has been allowed to distort the science curriculum in secondary schools, with fashionable myths and misanthropy allowed to insinuate themselves into children’s learning. It is not a stretch at all to realise that those who have pursued environmental sciences and, eventually, the climate sciences, are as likely to be save-the-earth idealists and eventually activitists first and scientists second. Good science is the foundation of our highly successful human civilisation; now we’re imperilling it by damaging the evidence-based objectivity of science and replacing it with fashionable beliefs that defy physical observation. That is why it is so important for society in general to win the current battle with the corrupt cargo-cultists at the UN, who are attempting to divert trillions of dollars of income raised by the cult to the Third World. Donna Laframboise’s new book lays out the techniques being used by the IPCC to achieve that objective.

  3. The IPCC’s charter is to find evidence of AGW on the premise that it exists before even looking for the evidence. Since the WWF works on a similar premise, their affiliation comes as no surprise.

    The solution is to fix the IPCC so that it is actually scientific. When they are truly so, the WWF would automatically be excluded from any involvement.

  4. Here here!

  5. Rick Bradford says:

    I guess there was a time when WWF was a group which sincerely tried to help wildlife; now they are simply another anti-capitalist hate group, for whom actual science is an optional extra.

  6. this is s taste of what it will look like a few years from now if the anit-civilisation lunatics who dont realise that humans are top of the food chain

    • The video reminds me of a group of IPCC climate change scientists at a government grants handout.

  7. One only needs to look at organisations like CANA (Climate Action Network Australia – a network of over 70 Australian non-government groups working for action on climate change) and their list of member organisations . It’s a veritable who’s who of Australian consensus alarmists.

    And their objectives … (pdf)
    -CANA members believe that it is essential to coordinate our efforts on climate change to maximise our chance of success. We have a small window of opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change.
    -CANA participates in the international climate change negotiations, positively influencing the process, and provides CANA Members with an in depth understanding of what is happening at these most important negotiations.
    -CANA facilitates CANA Members participation in the international negotiations, and coordinates joints positions and joint lobbying for these negotiations.

    In other words, CANA influences climate change negotiations, both nationally and internationally, through joint positions and lobbying. Hardly what you’d call impartial or apolitical given their position of avoiding ‘dangerous climate change’!

  8. Sorry Rick, science is NOT optional to WWF, because it is not a capability.
    They are purely agenda driven, and science has very little to do with their agenda.

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

  9. Exxon make their money, by real work and keeping the cars on the road. On the other hand WWF, the more people they scare – the more money they make. When the price of marijuana goes up – they increase the noise by few decibels. beats working in the mineshaft or the farm.

  10. rukidding says:

    “The darker surfaces collect more heat”
    Gee I thought the world was heating up because the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was trapping more heat from escaping into space.
    Come to think of it the ocean looks pretty dark from space it couldn’t be to blame could it.

  11. Richard N says:


  12. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    The problem with climate science is politics.

    The politics of climate change has hijacked the science. The IPCC has been responsible for bringing the field of climate science into disrepute. One scientist releases a peer reviewed paper claiming once thing… another scientist (of the opposing side) then comes up with another peer reviewed paper that claims another thing. It then becomes a slanging match. Everyone becomes confused.

    What is infuriating is when world experts have demonstrated one thing (e.g. sea level is not rising, or rising Co2 is not causing more hurricane activity) but non-eperts in that field get their way claiming otherwise, and they are listened to in preference to the world experts because they are with the IPCC. That is disgraceful. That is not not science. And it certainly is not professional.

    The situation has not been helped by the fact that science academies, like the Royal Society, forgot their neutral role and instead became advocates for government policy on global warming (they smelt the $$$$$$$$).

    The scientific world has now become so divided and dysfunctional, the peer review process is suspect, too many scientists now appear untrustworthy, the whole field of climates science is now a bloody expensive mess.

    The only way to stop this nonsense is simple… cut off the head of the snake. If countries stop funding the IPCC, it will die. And that is the only hope left for any chance of real change.

  13. Learnt about The Delinquent Teenager on Sunday at 4 p.m.
    Downloaded the book by 4.30
    Finished reading it by Monday afternoon

    Never have I read a more intelligent and detailed argument against the hysterical “world warming” mob and the idiotic governments who blindly support it.
    THANK you Donna a million times.
    Can hardly wait until the book becomes available at Amazon to distribute it among those parroting the “scientific” message of the bum UN IPCC activists.

    No scientist just a common or garden accountant
    who doesn’t allow herself to be brainwashed by anyone.

%d bloggers like this: