WWF deeply sorry for nameplate incident at climate meeting

I just read about the incident today and whilst I believe it was a silly prank, I see nothing wrong with the dismissal of the offenders.

However, the article states that Saudi Arabia "Saudi Arabia then demanded that both organisations be banned from attending any UN climate talks for five years"

Is it just me or is that really, really selfish? The WWF is doing fantastic conservation work, to suggest banning them from talks for five years at the expense of 3 naive pranksters is ultimately worse for the environment!

Sure, they got offended by a tasteless joke - but to bar the efforts made by 99.9% of the WWF organisation who DO make a difference simply because they let an insult get to their heads? Not smart. Sometimes it's better to think of the benefits of the talks, and the bigger picture, rather than act rashly at the expense of everyone else.

Zoe Caron

Sorry but you can't try and sweep the whole sorry affair under the carpet using that so called apology. The Amazongate debate continues over in the UK, with the Sunday Times being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission about the article which you link to here. Any reader wanting to know a bit more should start here, it's fascinating:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/29/richard-north-response-george-monbiot

Of course, if you are not interested in proper debate don't bother!

Dick
Truth Seeking Conservationist

Zoe Caron:

Nice link. Unfortunately it has now transpired that the correction was, ummmm, incorrect. The Amazon claim, like that of the Himalayan glaciers, is not based on peer reviewed science. Still no explanation from WWF, so far as I can see.

Mr.T,

To answer your question re: "Amazongate" = the story was wrongly reported on. See here:

http://wwf.panda.org/?193909/Amazongate-evaporates-as-newspaper-apologises-for-story

Zoë Caron
Climate Policy & Advocacy Specialist
WWF-Canada

Whatever happened that the World Wildlife Fund has did, and is sorry for..... should be accepted. WWF should not be put in shame or seen as an community outlaw. I defend our WWF conservation organisation with great pride and respect. Just like Mr James P. Leape stated: "we will make sure nothing like this ever happens again", is real. It was just a mistake, and let me assure you... mistakes ALWAYS happen. Take me for example when i have written spelling errors all the time. Anyways... WWF is NOT to be seen as an outlaw in this case. We are working so hard to address wildlife or environmental issues. So it is with a heavy heart that i can help donate some money to help our wonderful conservation group as much as I can. And MR James P. Leape.... You my friend...just like many people here in the WWF team are doing a GREAT and FANTASTIC amount of work to keep this conservation team going again. On behalf of WWF members including myself..... WE say a very big THANK YOU!!!! :) And i wish you all the best on helping WWF with a hard time like this. If u whould like to comment back to me, simply do so on my email address: francis.harpy2@gmail.com Thank you!!!

While you're at it and in the 'sorry mode', are you going to apologise for the mess you made re: "Amazongate" claims?

A complete and utter lack of respect from a thug who should be disciplined. Oxfam are doing just that with a co-conspirator that works with them.
"hello" says that it was "just a nameplate". Wake up you dunce! This was an action taken deliberately to offend a delegate and I think that the Saudi's have actually been very reasonable about it when they have every right to be publicly furious.
This sort of behaviour does nothing to promote the climate change political agenda now that much of the science behind the theory is so discredited. Fools.

I agree with the comment that the WWF news release doesn't explain what exactly the "incident" was. Yes WWF must make clear
it believes the action was "offensive" to the RSA delegation but the release is sorely lacking in information and seems to have been written hastily without a clear goal, or with only the goal of apologizing and not addressing the issue head on.

The Oxfam news release is way better -- whoever wrote it is a pro. Strongly worded, explicit about what happened and confident that the issue is a speck of dust in the war against poverty and global warming!

I also agree with the other comment that the WWF employee should work for PETA or Greenpeace. That kind of passion is a strength!

Maybe he just had enough of the hedging and hawing of officials, or maybe his temperament is naturally like that. Whatever the case, he has reached a point where he must shift his advocacy in the direction his heart is going.

This guy should work for PETA or GREENPEACE :))

its just a nameplate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate