How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC – Parts 1 & 2
The WWF is an activist lobby group. On its website one finds declarations such as:
WWF’s vision of an eco-friendly future includes an entirely new layer of regulation, bureaucracy, and international law. Or, as the WWF phrases it:
Members of the voting public have never been asked if they want to pay for this new layer of bureaucracy, if they want to live under its restrictions, or if they think it’s even a good idea. The WWF you see, knows what’s best for all of us.
It is important to understand that while the WWF might once have been a humble, shoestring operation this is no longer the case. It has grown into a business entity with offices in 30 countries that employs a staff of 5,000 (see the last page of this PDF). The US branch of the WWF alone employs:
- a Managing Director of International Finance
- a Vice President of Business and Industry
- a Senior Vice President of Market Transformation and
- a Government Relations Program manager
That same branch also includes a:
- a Director of International Climate Policy
- a Managing Director of Climate Change
- a Managing Director of Climate Adaptation
- a Director of Climate Change Communications
- a Senior Scientist, Climate Adaptation and
- a lead specialist on Climate Change
In 2010, the WWF’s US arm had operating revenues of $224 million – just under a quarter of a billion dollars. Yes, that’s a B.
By way of comparison, operating revenues for Amnesty International’s US affiliate amounted to $36 million – one-sixth that amount (see page 29 here).
According to its 2010 annual report, the WWF’s international network had operating revenues of €524,963,000. Converted to US dollars that’s just shy of three-quarters of a billion. In one year.
When hiring someone new to lead its global climate initiative recently the WWF did what hedge funds and the International Monetary Fund do when seeking high-powered personnel – it took out a half-page advertisement in The Economist magazine.
In other words, the WWF is an obscenely wealthy organization. And money, as they say, talks. When one is in the lobbying business and cash is abundant, one treats one’s friends very well, indeed. Nice meals, nice hotel rooms, trips to exotic locales – and heaven only knows what else.
Which brings me to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Recruitment Drive
In late 2004, around the time that work was beginning on what would become the IPCC’s landmark 2007 report, the WWF launched a recruitment drive. It established a parallel body – the Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel – and then systematically targeted IPCC-affiliated scientists.
It’s not clear what the courtship process involved, precisely – or who joined in what year or in what order – but by late 2008 the WWF says it had recruited 130
leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change… [see p. 2 of this PDF]
An eight-page document prepared in 2008 advised scientists whom the WWF was still wooing that there were “opportunities for further involvement in a number of other WWF activities” including “attendance at conferences, forums or workshops and interaction with the media.” Moreover, “future collaboration between WWF and research institutions” was a possibility.
It is difficult to believe that any self-respecting scientist would have anything to do with the Climate Witness Panel after reading those eight pages. The WWF states baldly, right up front, that the purpose of the panel is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency. That particular phrase is used four times on the final page.
In remarkably candid fashion the WWF says it wants to
inspire stronger action on climate change in the community. We aim to build a movement of individuals…who want to be active in addressing this threat.
No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement.
Scientists who join the WWF’s panel are required to complete a form that indicates their willingness to evaluate testimonials the WWF collects from ordinary people who believe that they themselves have detected human-caused climate change.
The glorified public-opinion-poll the WWF uses to assemble these testimonials may be seen here. Declaring it an embarrassing, unscientific load of rubbish is putting it mildly.
People are asked if they have personally observed changes in rainfall, snowfall, sea water temperature, and ocean currents. But sensible inquiries – such as Have you kept a lengthy, careful, written record? – are nowhere to be found.
The WWF invites these people to assign “consequences” to the changes they believe they’ve personally witnessed. It poses all sorts of questions the average woman-on-the-street or grandma in a rural Third World village would hardly be in a position to answer reliably. Have there been changes in marine biodiversity? How about species distribution and migration?
Next the WWF invites its respondents to tick off which human health consequences they think are directly linked to the climate changes they believe they have witnessed. Has malaria increased? How about water-borne diseases? And here’s my personal favourite – has there been a change in ultraviolet radiation?
The WWF explains to the scientists it’s trying to recruit that the only thing they need do is “peer-review” these testimonials
for levels of consistency with current scientific knowledge of climate change impacts…The primary function of a [Scientific Advisory Panel] 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.
The public fills out five pages of questions, but the scientists are informed they’ll be asked to evaluate
one-page ‘Climate Witness stories’ submitted to us by members of the public.
In other words, the data the scientists receive will first have been packaged by activists. This fact, on its own, invalidates the entire exercise.
The WWF advises these scientists that, for their trouble, they’ll receive a handsome reward:
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 [sic] you review.
So why can’t people who are smart enough to earn a PhD figure out that this is a spectacularly bad deal? 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.
We’ll do you the great service of advertising, on our global website, that no one should ever again mistake you for someone with sound judgment. We’ll use our multi-million-dollar budget to announce to the world that you must either be a political hack or an unsophisticated rube.
Ah, but perhaps I’m not being entirely fair. There’s one more line to that paragraph. It reads:
WWF is also seeking opportunities to promote new climate change research so please feel free to contact the Climate Witness Manager for more information.
to be continued…
While the WWF is shockingly cavalier about tarnishing the reputation of the scientists it recruits it is nevertheless keenly aware of the need to carefully manage its own image.
The 8-page recruitment document aimed at scientists includes a section that reads:
We ask that you seek prior consent from your…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.
How’s that for chutzpah?
On page one, the Climate Witness Interview Form asks members of the public two questions that give them enormous incentive to exaggerate their observations. First they are asked:
Are you prepared to travel to your capital for Climate Witness event if the costs were reimbursed? [sic]
Translation: How would you like a free trip to somewhere you might never get to visit otherwise?
Shamelessly, the WWF then ups the ante:
Are you prepared to travel internationally for a Climate Witness event if the costs were reimbursed?
September 26, 2011
Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) persuaded 130 scientists to join its Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel. As I explained in Part 1, the Climate Witness campaign has an overtly political purpose. The WWF openly admits it’s trying to increase the public’s sense of urgency about climate change. Fear, alarm, anxiety – that’s what they’re pushing.
The campaign involves collecting testimonials from ordinary people who believe they are witnessing the dire effects of climate change in their own backyards. In an attempt to imbue these beliefs with an aura of scientific respectability, scientists on the WWF advisory panel examine these 1-page testimonials and decide if they are consistent with published research.
The IPCC, however, is supposed to be a neutral, objective scientific body. A judge presiding over a murder trial cannot party with the prosecution team during the evening. Similarly, IPCC personnel who are entrusted with the job of determining whether or not humanity is responsible for climate change should remain aloof from the lynch mob outside the jailhouse door.
In a 2008 document, the WWF said its panel of 130 “leading climate scientists” were “mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” These particular scientists, therefore, are more than merely sympathetic to the WWF’s point-of-view. They have a formalized relationship with that organization. They were wooed, they were won over, and then they stepped inside the WWF tent.
What does this mean for the celebrated 2007 IPCC report – the one that secured the IPCC its Nobel Peace Prize? Let me give you a quick snapshot:
It means that nearly two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters – 28 out of 44 (which works out to 64%) – have at least one individual on their roster who is affiliated with the WWF.
It means that WWF-affiliated scientists helped write every last chapter in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them.
It means that 15 chapters in the 2007 Climate Bible were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead authors are members of the WWF’s panel. In three cases, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors. In one instance eight personnel in a single chapter have WWF links. In another there are six.
It means, ladies and gentlemen, that the IPCC has been infiltrated. It has been wholly and entirely compromised.
I’ve spent untold hours completing all the searching, cross-checking, and tabulating that led to these findings. In the coming days I’ll take each of the above statements in turn and back them up with clear, incontrovertible evidence. As usual, I’ll link directly to my source material so that anyone can readily verify my claims.
Stayed tuned. This is going to be a wild ride.