Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Snippets from the BMJ conference | Main | The BEST on offer - Josh 123 »

WWF denies it has infiltrated IPCC

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.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (49)

That would be "rebuts". Not "refutes".

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Jones

in a new climate change denial book

I must have missed that bit. Which chapter was that?

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterandyscrase

Yep, it's ludicrous.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterScots Renewables

Does the IPCC endeavour to "advance knowledge" or simply report it?

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

So they got a reaction?

Hmmm... the book does has some weight and legs then... good news...

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

" ... 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.

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergraphicconception

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.

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Harvey

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."

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

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?)

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

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.

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

@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.

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

'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.

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Does this qualify the WWF as ( gasp ) "deniers?"

Oct 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

And of course, this has nothing to do with the reported $60 billion carbon offset options that the WWF and partner organisations have negotiated.......

Oct 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

Protesting too much already?

Oct 23, 2011 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

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!

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

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.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred from Canuckistan

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

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterandyscrase

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.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

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!


Oct 24, 2011 at 12:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterNik

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?

Oct 24, 2011 at 12:24 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

"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.

Oct 24, 2011 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered Commenternano pope

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...

Oct 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterTom

'"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.

Oct 24, 2011 at 1:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Can you imagine the noise that the warmists would make if they thought that Big Oil had infiltrated the sceptic movement?...

Oct 24, 2011 at 2:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh.

Actually, it's the polar bears that did it. WWF is just a front for the polar bears.

Oct 24, 2011 at 2:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Seems to be a good time to include a link to the standard Jennifer Morgan comment (ex. WWF Climate Change Department supremo).

Oct 24, 2011 at 4:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

From the WWF "press release" ...

According to WWF's "International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith":

"Senior scientists provide their expertise to a wide variety of organisations, and keep in place many protocols to ensure the independence of their scientific opinions."

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):

4.1 Benefits of being a SAP member

The principal benefit of participating in Climate Witness is to be part of an innovative community that is increasing the public awareness of climate change and building the political will to prevent 'dangerous climate change’. [emphasis added -hro]


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:

$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

One also finds:

Nongovernment organizations "are playing a very important role" in the negotiations, says Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's climate action commissioner and the former Danish minister who organized the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago.

Not only are the NGOs "very knowledgeable people," but they are well-coordinated and have made alliances with businesses, giving them maximum leverage on negotiators, she told The Associated Press.

"They come with constructive proposals and they know exactly where the difficulties are," she said.

Climate talks show the interplay between theater and diplomacy, and activists say both are necessary.
The problem is that advocates are not neutral, as scientists are supposed to be. "Science becomes linked to particular positions, and this gets to the whole politicization of science," said Betsill, author of the book "NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations."

In a subject as complex as climate change, it is often the NGOs who compile the necessary research.

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!

Oct 24, 2011 at 4:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

From Hilary's link above

4. What it means to be a SAP member
The primary function of a SAP member is to verify the scientific basis of the Climate Witness stories WWF collects from around the world to ensure they are consistent with peer-reviewed literature about climate change impacts already happening today in a particular region.
This requires writing a short scientific review (one page or less) of stories that correspond to your area of expertise.
Participation in the Climate Witness Programme is voluntary and in return we acknowledge your contribution on our global website as well as featuring your name below every Climate Witness stories you review. WWF is also seeking opportunities to promote new climate change research so please feel free to contact the Climate Witness Manager for more information

Oct 24, 2011 at 5:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterandyscrase

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:

Work for us for free and, in exchange we’ll take your pristine scientific reputation and link it to our scientifically bankrupt campaign to frighten and manipulate the public.

The WWF collected comments from these experts. It even provides a helpful example of what their comments should look like:

The observations Linda describes for Aitutaki are consistent with the response of corals to environmental stresses. 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. The observations are thus consistent with peer-reviewed literature describing climate related impacts already being experienced by reef ecosystems.

The observations for Rarotonga reflect past bleaching events and highlight the delayed recovery of such reef systems when they are suffer stresses, including high pollutant loadings and high sedimentation rates. The latter may be related to climate conditions, but indirectly.

Based on the information provided, my conclusion is that the observations for Aitutaki in particular appear somewhat consistent with peer-reviewed literature about climate impacts already happening today.

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?


Here is what you would need to do:

We ask that you seek prior consent from your [Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel] Liaison person if you wish to use the WWF or Climate Witness Programme logo or names, or make a reference to your participation in the Climate Witness Programme.

In other words, you need to ask their permission.

Oct 24, 2011 at 6:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

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

Oct 24, 2011 at 6:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterandyscrase

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.

Oct 24, 2011 at 7:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterben

'$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 !

Oct 24, 2011 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered Commentermat

'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.

Oct 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

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 ?

Oct 24, 2011 at 3:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist

"the respected international body"

You mean there's another one?

Oct 24, 2011 at 3:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

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!

Oct 24, 2011 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

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?

Oct 24, 2011 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

"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.

Oct 24, 2011 at 4:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

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'.

Oct 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


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.

Oct 24, 2011 at 8:56 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

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.

Oct 25, 2011 at 12:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

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.

Oct 25, 2011 at 2:39 AM | Unregistered Commentermbabbitt

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' .

Oct 25, 2011 at 5:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist

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.

Oct 25, 2011 at 8:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson


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.

Oct 25, 2011 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

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.

Oct 26, 2011 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

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.

Oct 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterOllie

To paraphrase Mandy Rice -Davies " Well he would anyway!"

Oct 26, 2011 at 8:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterdave38

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>