Comments on: The Well Funded World Wide Fund for Fear http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/05/well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:05:43 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: George Carty http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/05/well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear.html/comment-page-1#comment-355 George Carty Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:45:30 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear/#comment-355 What do you make of the fact that a <a href="http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/G8_Scorecards_2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">recent report by WWF and the Allianz insurance company</a> comparing the CO2 emissions of the G8 countries deliberately rejected nuclear power as a way of reducing CO2 emissions, and counted nuclear plants <i>as though they were really powered by natural gas</a>? Why the the WWF anti-energy rather than anti-CO2? Hat tip to <a href="http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1625" rel="nofollow">Klaus Allmendinger</a>... What do you make of the fact that a recent report by WWF and the Allianz insurance company comparing the CO2 emissions of the G8 countries deliberately rejected nuclear power as a way of reducing CO2 emissions, and counted nuclear plants as though they were really powered by natural gas?

Why the the WWF anti-energy rather than anti-CO2?

Hat tip to Klaus Allmendinger…

]]> By: The Deniers’ “multi-million-dollar funding machine” « AGW Doubter http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/05/well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear.html/comment-page-1#comment-354 The Deniers’ “multi-million-dollar funding machine” « AGW Doubter Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:18:53 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear/#comment-354 [...] by the Government. But even with these examples it’s pretty clear where the money really is. The World Wildlife Fund does quite well too and clears roughly the same [...] [...] by the Government. But even with these examples it’s pretty clear where the money really is. The World Wildlife Fund does quite well too and clears roughly the same [...]

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/05/well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear.html/comment-page-1#comment-353 Anonymous Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:07:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear/#comment-353 I'm sure those folks at www.desmogblog.com who are so keen on 'clearing the air' about PR spin and the funding behind Global Warming studies will certainly be all over this too, right Mr. Hoggan & Mr. Grandia and co? :)<br/><br/>*crickets* I’m sure those folks at http://www.desmogblog.com who are so keen on ‘clearing the air’ about PR spin and the funding behind Global Warming studies will certainly be all over this too, right Mr. Hoggan & Mr. Grandia and co? :)

*crickets*

]]> By: ab http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/05/well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear.html/comment-page-1#comment-352 ab Wed, 28 May 2008 16:12:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-well-funded-world-wide-fund-for-fear/#comment-352 # 'denial lobby' had influenced public opinion # <br/>Can one deny what science is not able to define<br/>as discussed on: http://www.whatisclimate.com . Concerning the failure of the “Framework Convention on Climate Change” , 1992 (FCCC), to offer any definition of “CLIMATE”, and the science community not to recognize this ever since, it might be worthwhile to listening what an eminent scientist, the late Kenneth Hare, had said in 1979: “This is obviously the decade in which climate is coming into its own. You hardly heard the word professionally in the 1940s. It was a layman's word. Climatologists were the halt and the lame. And as for the climatologists in public service, in the British service you actually, had to be medically disabled in order to get into the climatological division ! Climatology was a menial occupation that came on the pecking scale somewhat below the advertising profession. It was clearly not the age of climate”. (Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1124). Further information at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ .<br/><br/>Concerning CO2, IPCC, and skeptics it might be reasonable to reproduce an excerpt form a text on: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/ , as follows: <br/>QUOTE__ Under the editorial guidance of the eminent climatologist S. Fred Singer, a group of about 30 scientists published a paper: „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, 2008). By all respect for the work, the paper title is grossly misleading, if not erroneous. They actually review the extreme narrow question of carbon dioxide (CO2), but do not hesitate to make the pompous announcement that „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.<br/> Presumably science would serve the general public better when they would listen to Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who said: “Water is the driver of nature”. Not nature rules climate, but water rules the nature on this earth, and the water on earth is so much synonym with the oceans and seas that it can be said: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means” __UNQUOTE # ‘denial lobby’ had influenced public opinion #
Can one deny what science is not able to define
as discussed on: http://www.whatisclimate.com . Concerning the failure of the “Framework Convention on Climate Change” , 1992 (FCCC), to offer any definition of “CLIMATE”, and the science community not to recognize this ever since, it might be worthwhile to listening what an eminent scientist, the late Kenneth Hare, had said in 1979: “This is obviously the decade in which climate is coming into its own. You hardly heard the word professionally in the 1940s. It was a layman’s word. Climatologists were the halt and the lame. And as for the climatologists in public service, in the British service you actually, had to be medically disabled in order to get into the climatological division ! Climatology was a menial occupation that came on the pecking scale somewhat below the advertising profession. It was clearly not the age of climate”. (Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1124). Further information at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ .

Concerning CO2, IPCC, and skeptics it might be reasonable to reproduce an excerpt form a text on: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/ , as follows:
QUOTE__ Under the editorial guidance of the eminent climatologist S. Fred Singer, a group of about 30 scientists published a paper: „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, 2008). By all respect for the work, the paper title is grossly misleading, if not erroneous. They actually review the extreme narrow question of carbon dioxide (CO2), but do not hesitate to make the pompous announcement that „Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.
Presumably science would serve the general public better when they would listen to Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who said: “Water is the driver of nature”. Not nature rules climate, but water rules the nature on this earth, and the water on earth is so much synonym with the oceans and seas that it can be said: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means” __UNQUOTE

]]>