Money to Burn

Given that the World Wildlife Fund raises half a billion dollars a year, one wonders what they do with this abundance. A peek inside the Economist magazine provides a revealing example. On page 22 of the March 27th - April 2, 2010 edition appear two half-page executive recruitment ads. (Click the image above for a larger view.)

The top one has been paid for by the WWF - which is searching for someone with 10-15 years experience to lead its global climate initiative. The successful candidate will orchestrate "intensive national efforts to promote low-carbon development in key countries" and will guide "policy interventions."

Directly below is an ad purchased by the International Monetary Fund. This organization is using the same amount of ad space to recruit - count 'em - 20 individuals (each with a minimum of 10 years of experience). As public financial management specialists, these people will advise national governments in various parts of the world.

To the right, over on the next page, two more ads appear. One has been placed by the UK's MI6 - which is looking for intelligence officers, language specialists, administrators, and technology professionals. The other has been purchased by the Competition Commission - "one of Europe's foremost competition agencies" - and advertises for two positions.

(The following three pages of the magazine are devoted to four recruitment ads apiece. One of these quarter-page ads seeks a president and chief executive officer for a "leading international reproductive health provider." Another has been purchased by a hedge fund. A third seeks someone to serve as secretary general of the German Council of Economic Experts. Two of the 12 quarter-page ads were purchased by United Nations organizations.)

What does all this mean? First, in five pages of ads devoted to executive recruitment, the WWF ad represents the largest spend to fill a single position. Second, the company it keeps tells us a great deal about how the WWF both behaves and regards intself. The IMF, MI6, the United Nations, a hedge fund. These are large, influential, high-profile heavy hitters. There are no shoestring operations here - no small, volunteer-run, community groups battling the establishment like David against Goliath.

When it comes time to fill a senior position, the WWF doesn't place ads on Craigslist or in the back pages of left-leaning Rolling Stone. It goes where the big boys hang out. It behaves, in other words, exactly like any other large corporation.

see a closeup of the WWF ad here

see a closeup of the IMF ad here

..

>> Earth Hour 2010
>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists
>> More dodgy (WWF) citations in the Nobel-winning climate report

Climate Skepticism is Free Speech

I've been researching the global warming debate since April 2009. I'm still fitting together the pieces of this multi-dimensional puzzle. The big picture hasn't yet come fully into focus. But I am now certain of one thing. Climate change skepticism is free speech.

Some people disagree with climate skepticism. Good for them. But that doesn't give them the right to deny their friends, neighbors, or fellow citizens the opportunity to hear about it.

In democracies, various parties present their ideas and the public gets to choose from amongst competing analyses and visions. At election time, all who meet minimum criteria are allowed to participate - to argue their case before the electorate.

We'd take a dim view of any candidate who insisted that one or more of his opponents should be prevented from running for office.

But that is precisely the position of many who promote global warming theory. Rather than giving skeptics their turn at the podium, such people want to banish skeptics from the candidate's list. They say skeptics aren't simply mistaken but are equivalent to the most reprehensible amongst us - Holocaust deniers.

[Click for larger version of this screengrab of the first part of a
Boston Globe column by Ellen Goodman, dated Feb. 9, 2007.
The column no longer appears to be available online.]

They say skeptics are mentally ill. They call them "climate killers" and "the planet's worst enemies."

[Click image for full article]

They describe skeptics as "heinous climate villains" and "bastards who are responsible for subverting public understanding of climate change."

[Click image for full article]

They strive hard, in other words, to disqualify skeptics from the race itself - to convince the world that skeptics are too evil or unstable to even be permitted to take part.

Global warming proponents are, therefore, trying to cheat. Rather than competing against the skeptics on an even playing field, out in the open, so that the public can make its own decisions, they insist theirs is the only perspective that deserves to be heard, that anything else amounts to "subverting public understanding" - an Orwellian turn of phrase if ever there was one.

Not everyone who believes in global warming acts this way. But those who are appalled by such behavior need to speak up. Every time we hear the words "denier" or "denialist" in a climate context we need to distance ourselves from such pejorative, silencing language.

We need to declare, loudly, that all points of view have a right to be heard - that climate change skepticism is, in fact, free speech.

..

>> Why the Munk Debate proves the debate isn't over
>> If we don't agree, you're crazy
>> Bullies need not apply
>> Al Gore thinks your brain is too primitive