$60 billion scam

[Ruinous]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-on-trees.html

Or how the WWF would have liked to fuck us to the tune of $60 billion (and still might). And who was the guy who said there was no money / vested interested in AGW? This is ONE organisation, tip of the iceberg of how they are shafting us buddy.

[Nunz]

Sorry, I don't watch wrestling.

[zato`1]

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

omfg

wwf wrestling hasnt been wwf for years, its wwe

[Bissen]

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

omfg

wwf wrestling hasnt been wwf for years, its wwe

You knowing this makes me feel sad for you.

[Sqarak]

So basically the idea that the rainforest is in anyway significant, was a fabrication as well. I hope they cut that shit down, it's good for the economy. Money sells, trees just grow.

[Pumpkin]

So basically the idea that the rainforest is in anyway significant, was a fabrication as well. I hope they cut that shit down, it's good for the economy. Money sells, trees just grow.

And money doesn't grow on trees.

[Bawlin]

What does wrestling have to do with trees?

[Rossco]

Money doesn't grow on trees. Money is made from trees. Which grow. So fuck you.

[Corpsepoker]

And money doesn't grow on trees.

It comes from trees.

[Rossco]

It comes from trees.

GOOD JOB NOTICING MY POST, WHICH ALREADY RESPONDS TO THAT.

Insolence.

[Reckun]

good job noticing my post, which already responds to that.

Insolence.

aaaaaaaaah raaaaaage!!

[PrimalSign]

I couldn't dig up more about Christopher Booker's claims about a scam but after this gem I'm not going to take anything he says seriously as it's clear he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and eager to prove there's a conspiracy:

WWF, which already earns £400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

From: http://www.whrc.org/assets/scientists_amazon_response.pdf

The IPCC must be held accountable for the best scientific information that is available in the peer-­ review literature at the time of its writing. The passage in the IPCC that refers to the susceptibility of the Amazon forest to drought cites a World Wildlife Fund review report which, in turn, cites an article in the journal Nature. Ideally, the IPCC should have cited the Nature article as well as several other existing articles in support of its statement, and not a WWF report. The point is, however, that the statement made by the IPCC about the sensitivity of Amazon forests drought was consistent with our knowledge at that time, and has been reinforced by new studies.

Additionally Scott Saleska has responded on RealClimate.org:

Samanta et al. misrepresents our work on many levels (one of which is to assert, falsely, that we did not filter out atmosphere-corrupted observations when in fact we did), and we intend, of course, to present an appropriate response in the peer reviewed literature, where the technical details of our differences may be evaluated by anyone who wishes. But for the moment we will, for the sake of argument, accept their analysis at face value and ask: even if Samanta et al. are 100% correct in their critique of our methods (which we of course dispute), what are the implications? Does the alternative to our method which Samanta et al. advocate, or the recent update in the MODIS satellite data (to version 5 from version 4), make any difference for the main conclusion of our paper? With due respect to our friends and colleagues at Boston University, the answer is no, it does not.

Further details can be found at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/saleska-responds-green-is-green/

He feels that there is no conflict between the Samanta study and his group's.


Now, it may turn out that there indeed was a problem with the IPCC report and Saleska's study, but Booker's accusation that the IPCC report was based on WWF propaganda and not scientific evidence is at best a crude misrepresentation, at worst a flat-out lie.

EDIT: What do you know. Christopher Booker has a file on http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Christopher_Booker

This guy is a real piece of work.

[MattMystrieo]

You knowing this makes me feel sad for you.

I <3 John Cena!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Honorius]

Ric Flair is cool.

[Ruinous]

Those links don't respond AT ALL to the accusation that the WWF is trying to scam us out of $60billion, Primal. Just some vague statement from several scientists saying the amazon rainforest is under threat, and some character assasination on the author of the Telegraph piece.
The assertion that the IPCC was flawed comes from many directions, not just Samanta's study. Doesn't change the fact that WWF has been trying to set up this scam in the name of saving the climate, when in fact IT DOES NOTHING OF THE SORT, but cost us to the tune of $60 FUCKING BILLION.

Makes my blood boil and these jokers are probably the tip of the scam iceberg. Doesn't it bother you in the slightest? Explain to me how Carbon trading is helping reduce emmissions and show some evidence? Come on, I'll be fascinated to see it.

[FastEddy]

And money doesn't grow on trees.

As a south Alabama pine tree farmer I got a good laugh out of that one.

[Valaska]

Money doesn't grow on trees. Money is made from trees. Which grow. So fuck you.

No it doesn't you moron it comes from Cotton.

[nate4449]

Money doesn't grow on trees. Money is made from trees. Which grow. So fuck you.

Omfg, this just made my day for some reason. Almost sigg'd it. Almost.

[zato`1]

You knowing this makes me feel sad for you.

sorry i socialize with people that arent just over the internet

try it sometime you fucking loser, you might learn something about the world

[Teth]

try it sometime you fucking loser, you might learn something about the world
Why would he want to do that, though? The world is a cold and terrifying place, and the less any of us have to do with it, the better.

[Zezune]

Capitalism at its finest.