WWF sides with Shell and Enron
4 August 1999
Amidst great controversy, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and (MBG) recently agreed to support a gas pipeline project proposed by Enron and Shell Eastern Bolivia.
..........
US-based WWF, WCS, MBG as well as Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza and the Museo Noel Koempff Mercado in Bolivia have agreed to administer a US$20 million conservation program funded by the project sponsors.
.............
Ironically, WWF initially drew attention to the problems created by the pipeline proposal in a voluminous response to the Enron-Shell consortium's environmental impact assessment (EIA) and supplementary environmental analysis (SEA). However, as part of the US$20 million agreement, WWF and the other groups accepted most of the project sponsors' proposed routing......


Thats how you get corporate donations....

Im surpised you havent accused me of being paid by the coal industry yet

>>Thats how you get corporate donations....<<

You have that wrong: donations have no influence on decisions.

(Sources: Keneally, Sartor, Rees, ALP)

At least WWF don’t shoot you if you argue with them...

I couldn't possibly comment.

Sussex Street has my address..................

I live on Sussex Street. I can see the Politbureau from my bedroom.

and smell the cordite.

Didn't they agree to administer a large sum from Enron to be used towards conservation to minimise the impact of the pipeline (as they couldn't stop it) and then later pulled out of the project because of further issues with Enron and Shell that were impacting the conservation work?

AGW is real. Fact.

And your evidence of that is???????

(forget the IPCC - they publish any old crap that find lying around, and the CRU are under investigation so forget them too. NASA seem to have stuffed up its measurements, so they are out of the game, and the oceans are cooling according to measurements.)

Got anything else?

Let me make this incredibly clear....


THERE IS NO UNDERLYING SCIENCE MAKING THE CASE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

There is also NO UNDERLYING SCIENCE MAKING THE CASE AGAINST GLOBAL COOLING

Nor is there any underlying science for it.

Resulting in stalemate.

Which is fine, except those protagonists who believe it "must occur” are demanding that those who do not support the idea must change their lifestyle to meet their theory.

Which isn’t really fair is it?

Not that environmentalists and activists give a shoot about fairness. They are more interested in socialist ideals about smashing industry, giving money to the third world and smoking dope in Byron Bay.

Environmental issues didn’t stop thousands of them flying to Copenhagen for a wunkfest did it.

Global warming was ditched in favour of climate change because the american administration of the time decided that was a far more apt name,also note at the time the americans were the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. CFC's have pretty much nothing to do with carbon emitions. I would suggest that anyone who proudly describes themselves as a climate change sceptic read the IPCC reports, they can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/. To try and suggest that climate change is solely attributable to man made pollution and emmisions is ridiculous and this has not been suggested in any IPCC report. All science contained in the IPCC reports is peer reviewed and a the majority by independent scientists, sometimes there are minor mistakes, but so far the core body of the science has not seriously been challenged.
Anyone who seriously considers that the pollution caused by the very inefficient burning of fossill fuels is not a problem should buy themselves a ticket to china, download the 4th IPCC report, read it on the plane and when you get to china see the problems first hand.

Bob

You really seem to have a problem with people who want to protect the environment.

Interesting Poll results 50-50 in the end

Half say all or majority human caused
and
Half say minimal or no human cause.


I am curious which way Slapphead_otool voted, given that he actually seems to supports neither side, just disagrees with the way it is argued.