WWF

WWF is short for the World Wide Fund for Nature. It sounds like a worthy cause. It is meant to sound that way. The reality is rather different. A lot of single issue movements are break aways from communism after the 1956 invasion of Czechoslovakia. The communists moved on without a backward glance, far less any apology. Then they popped up in Feminism, the Race relations racket, inciting Homosexuality. The Global Warming Industry is taking us not for mere billions; they are going for trillions. Perhaps serious money is why the WWF went that way. They are a bunch of liars with an agenda. See the  Skeptical Environmentalist on the point. Here are sources on their track record. Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.

 

World Wide Fund for Nature ex Wiki
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organization founded in 1961, working in the field of the wilderness preservation, and the reduction of humanity's footprint on the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund, which remains its official name in Canada and the United States.

It is the world's largest conservation organization with over five million supporters worldwide, working in more than 100 countries, supporting around 1,300[4] conservation and environmental projects. WWF is a foundation,[5] with 55% of funding from individuals and bequests, 19% from government sources (such as the World Bank, DFID, USAID) and 8% from corporations in 2014.[6]

The group's mission is "to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature."[7] Currently, much of its work concentrates on the conservation of three biomes that contain most of the world's biodiversity: oceans and coasts, forests, and freshwater ecosystems. Among other issues, it is also concerned with endangered species, sustainable production of commodities and climate change.

 

Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg
Professor Lomborg was a statistician at Aarhus University in Denmark and a man with rock solid credentials as a greenie. He came across a critique of environmentalist positions and gave it to his students to refute. They failed to his surprise and being an honest man who could not either, wrote a book which uses government statistics to give the lie to various people whose agendas come ahead of the truth. More people have access to good drinking water, not fewer. The number of starving is down too, according to the people who go there and see what is happening. He is very unpopular with the management of the WWF [ World Wildlife Fund for Nature ]. He says in some detail that they are liars. They could sue for libel but seem to have decided not to.  Oil is not going to run out any time soon. He tells us why not. The numbers are out there. His position on global warming is that the case is unproven. The Scientific American is a well known magazine which devoted eleven pages in one edition to abusing him but stopped just short of saying that he was wrong. You might wonder why they were annoyed.

 

Global Warming Racket, The WWF And The $60 Billion Fraud [ 8 April 2010 ]
QUOTE
Billions of dollars in carbon credits are at stake in an Amazonian scheme.... a scheme to claim $60 billion in carbon credits for keeping intact a large chunk of the Amazon rainforest which is not under any threat, The architects of this imaginative project are the environmental campaigners of the WWF and their close ally the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts. "an environmental advocacy center, not to be confused with the far better known Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution", a genuinely respected scientific body.

It was a shock claim by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest is threatened by global warming which gave rise to "Amazongate", one of the many scandals lately battering the IPCC, when it emerged that this prediction was based only on a propagandist claim by the WWF, unsupported by any scientific evidence........

But if Woods Hole and the WWF fail to promote a concern over a climatic threat to the Amazon, they might miss a chance to share in that $60 billion prize (a figure worked out by Woods Hole itself) for keeping parts of the rainforest just as they are – in what would amount to the most lucrative set-aside scheme that human ingenuity has ever devised
UNQUOTE
You have to hand it to these single issue advocacy groups; they do think big. A lot of them are splinter groups and ex-Marxists, the sort that were going to save the world - after they had murdered 100 million or so they said.
PS Bjorn Lomborg an honest greenie and a Skeptical Environmentalist told us very publicly that the WWF are a bunch of liars. They complained loudly then did not sue for libel, an admission of guilt.

 

Climate Panel Admits Glacier Gaffe [ 24 January 2010 ]
QUOTE
The head of a United Nations panel of climate scientists [ who is not a scientist - Editor ] has said that a prediction in one of the Nobel-prize winning panel's reports that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was "a regrettable error". Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Saturday dismissed talk of his resignation over the claim, but promised to tighten research procedures............. The prediction was included in a 2007 UN report on global warming, in which scientists said the probability of glaciers in the Himalayas melting "by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high".

The IPCC now says it took the exaggerated prediction from a 2005 report by the WWF environmental group. The error was compounded by the accidental inversion of the date - 2035 instead of 2350.
UNQUOTE
If they can't write numbers down properly they can't be much as scientists. They are a bunch of chancers on the make and using fraudulent data is part of it. Lots of money ride on this racket. Bjorn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist told us that the WWF are liars on the make. They did not sue for Libel which is an admission of guilt.

Pachauri is a railway engineer with light fingers NOT a scientist. See Global Warming Racketeers Exposed for more and better details.

 

Greenie Hypocrite Has Jet Set Life Style [ 11 November 2016 ]
QUOTE
Mark Lutes , pictured above taking a selfie of himself flying in business class luxury, is the Global Climate Policy Advisor for the World Wildlife Fund's Global Climate and Energy Initiative. As such he is set to be their lead representative at the upcoming COP22 conference in Marrakesh.

The WWF has been campaigning to stop people flying, arguing that video conferencing should replace the need to travel. WWF criticises governments for the amount of flying they do. Lutes has also been a vocal critic of Heathrow expansion. Yet analysis of his social media shows Lutes living it up with his own jet set lifestyle. He has recently made overseas trips to Canada, South Korea, Morocco, Zambia, South Africa, Italy, South Korea and France (twice). We calculate that he has flown some 121,000 miles – almost five times around the world – no Skype video links for him… His Facebook is full of pictures of him attending worthy gatherings of environmental activists around the globe as well as enjoying luxury holidays. Totally green hypocrisy…
UNQUOTE
The WWF is a crooked bunch of chancers on the make. Every movement begins as a cause, becomes a business then a racket.

 

WWF, World Wildlife Fund Finances Death And Torture  [ 15 August 2020 ]
QUOTE
Down the road from the crocodile ponds inside Nepal’s renowned Chitwan National Park, in a small clearing shaded by sala trees, sits a jail. Hira Chaudhary went there one summer night with boiled green maize and chicken for her husband, Shikharam, a farmer who had been locked up for two days.

Shikharam was in too much pain to swallow. He crawled toward Hira, his thin body covered in bruises, and told her through sobs that forest rangers were torturing him. “They beat him mercilessly and put saltwater in his nose and mouth,” Hira later told police.

The rangers believed that Shikharam helped his son bury a rhinoceros horn in his backyard. They couldn’t find the horn, but they threw Shikharam in their jail anyway, court documents filed by the prosecution show.

Nine days later, he was dead.

An autopsy showed seven broken ribs and “blue marks and bruises” all over his body. Seven eyewitnesses corroborated his wife’s account of nonstop beatings. Three park officials, including the chief warden, were arrested and charged with murder.

This was a sensitive moment for one of the globe’s most prominent charities. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) had long helped fund and equip Chitwan’s forest rangers, who patrol the area in jeeps, boats, and on elephant backs alongside soldiers from the park’s in-house army battalion. Now WWF’s partners in the war against poaching stood accused of torturing a man to death.

WWF’s staff on the ground in Nepal leaped into action — not to demand justice, but to lobby for the charges to disappear. When the Nepalese government dropped the case months later, the charity declared it a victory in the fight against poaching. Then WWF Nepal continued to work closely with the rangers and fund the park as if nothing had happened.
UNQUOTE
The WWF is another charity gone bad, just like the RSPCA and the far more evil Criminal Charities such as Save The Children, which  run major people smuggling operations across the Mediterranean. Buzzfeed News feeds us the dirt. In fact there is a lot more of it. See WWF's Secret War
PS On 9 June Ian Hislop announced the Paul Foot Award winner for 2020. It was not this particular, splendid example of investigative reporting of deep seated evil but on 14 August 2020 the Daily Mail ran an article, entitled Ex-soldier founds Zimbabwe's female-only anti-poaching tribe. Cause and effect? Were they bribed paid?

It is all part of an ugly reality, Western tourists fetch in big money. Having animals to show is worth millions, lots of them; it might be billions. Read the reports about airlines going broke because customers are staying home due to the Covid-19 pandemic and make the connection. WWF declared it a victory after a prisoner was tortured to death.

Every movement starts as a cause then becomes a business and then a racket.

 

What's Wrong With The WWF?  [ 30 September 2021 ]
QUOTE
THE offices of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Woking, Surrey, were recently occupied by a loose coalition of groups called ‘WTF WWF’ protesting about WWF denying indigenous peoples’ rights in protected areas in many parts of the world. One of the leading bodies was ‘XR Youth Solidarity’, part of Extinction Rebellion.

The action wasn’t much covered in the mainstream press (criticism of WWF rarely is) but it was noticed by Alexander Stafford, the first Tory MP for Yorkshire’s Rother Valley and a former WWF employee. He unleashed a bizarre Twitter fury, calling the youth group nihilistic, extremist, wannabe thugs, bullies, selfish, and an extremist group that care more for their own egos than for the planet.

If the occupation enraged him, it mystified others. WWF, with its cuddly panda logo, is supported by David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg and prominent royals. Surely it is a major player in protecting the environment from industrial ravage and climate change, and so be above reproach?

I should declare my own interest: I’m the former CEO of Survival International, the tribal peoples’ rights charity, and I have criticised WWF for over 30 years. I was instrumental in bringing a formal complaint against it under the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations, the first mounted against any NGO: it was ‘admitted’ for consideration and resulted in two days of high-level mediation in Switzerland. I’ve pressed the US government and the EC not to fund environmental NGOs which violate human rights (something which had not previously been thought necessary!) and cheered at the subsequent withholding of funds destined for WWF projects.

To understand why, one has to look behind the relentless WWF publicity machine and be prepared to challenge deeply-embedded beliefs.

WWF, then called the World Wildlife Fund, was conceived in April 1961 to save wildlife by raising money – largely from governments, corporations and wealthy individuals – to secure land ‘where wildlife treasures are threatened, to send out experts, disseminate propaganda and train helpers in Africa and elsewhere’.

Africa was always key, and the jewel in the crown was East Africa. The articles by Julian Huxley which led to WWF’s founding were focused there. WWF was started just two months after Kenya’s first election in which all, including Africans, were allowed to vote: unsurprisingly, independence followed two years later. The idea that African wildlife needed saving from Africans as colonial rule faded wouldn’t have been far from the minds of WWF founders.

That remains the nub of the problem facing conservation in the Global South today, and it explains the protests against WWF. However, the idea that ‘Protected Areas’ needed clearing of the people living there long predates WWF: it was seeded in the 1860s USA with the removal of Native Americans to make the Yosemite and Yellowstone parks. A century later, colonial Britain embraced the ideology in Kenya when it banned the Waliangulu people from their traditional hunting lands in Tsavo, at one stage imprisoning about a third of all their men and largely destroying them as a tribe.

So it has continued. ‘Pygmy’ peoples in the Congo Basin were, and still are, pushed out to make way for national parks, and beaten, imprisoned, even killed if they try to return, if only to collect medicinal plants. Not a single sizeable African protected area has been established without evicting the locals, and it’s still happening, not only in Africa but throughout Asia as well. Adivasi (tribal) peoples in India and Nepal are kicked out of parks and tiger reserves, and even their children risk being shot if they so much as wander back in to pick up firewood.

It’s not just WWF which is behind all this: their own ‘people-friendly’ rhetoric aside, all the major conservation NGOs follow the same creed, known by critics as ‘fortress conservation’: that is, build a wall around ‘nature’ and don’t let local people in, even – often especially – if they’ve been there since time immemorial. Paying tourists, on the other hand, are OK.

The belief is founded on two key articles of faith: one is that these areas are ‘pristine’ and ‘untouched’; the second, that indigenous land use, including undergrowth burning, subsistence hunting and grazing, harm biodiversity – in other words, local people damage nature.

The fact that neither of these is true is now becoming accepted in scientific circles, but has yet to gain media or public attention. The reality is that indigenous land use usually enhances, not destroys, biodiversity in ways the colonial West failed to understand for generations and largely still does. Tigers thrive where the Adivasi communities in India have stayed put. Undergrowth burning helps the propagation of more diverse plants. Subsistence hunting keeps game healthier and stronger than if it’s banned, when herds grow to outstrip the food supply. Elephants for example can double their numbers every twelve years or so; the massive culls routinely needed in southern Africa had to be kept away from public gaze. The classic ‘out of Africa’ grass plains beloved of wildlife documentary makers are the creation of centuries of grazing, partly by pastoralist tribes such as Maasai and Samburu.

The fact is that humankind has changed the landscape almost everywhere for tens of thousands of years, and the only truly ‘wild’ places on land are high mountain tops and glaciers. About 80 per cent of the planet’s land biodiversity is now found in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples, and that’s no coincidence: it’s because the people are enhancing the environment and, in their own way, caring for it.

This makes the act of evicting them in the name of conservation doubly criminal, both a violation of their rights – often their right to life itself – and an assault on Earth’s biodiversity. It turns out that biodiversity depends on human diversity, people with different ways of life managing an environment they have long understood. The conservation NGOs wanting everyone removed from their fantasy ‘pristine’ nature have consistently opposed people who feed themselves directly from the land. Yet what could be more sustainable?

‘Fortress conservation’ is really anti-nature and has actually begun to threaten protected areas; just as local people had enough of land grabs for colonisation, so they are beginning to have had enough of land grabs for conservation. Herders in Kenya for example are pushing back against their land being cordoned off for ‘conservancies’: they are cutting fences and leading their livestock back in.

Many conservationists know they can no longer enforce protected areas against the hostility of a local population, even with more money thrown at militarising ‘rangers’.

The solution is simple but will require a huge change in ideology. Traditional inhabitants must be supported in their diverse ways of life, and offered help and resources only when and if they want it: that’s the only real future for 21st century conservation. That’s why there are protests against WWF, and that’s why this story has only just begun.
UNQUOTE
The WWF has gone bad; a money spinner with some very well paid jobs, remuneration packages, pensions schemes, luxury travel and an excuse for claiming Moral Superiority.