Hypocrisy Regarding Climate Change

[cfimages]

For the last time, you're the only one talking about volunteers.

No, we were also talking about "nonsalaried workers" at your request. Would you care to offer a definition of this?

Despite having already explained this 4 or 5 times, I'll do it again. Most NGO workers are part time / casual workers earning an hourly wage.. Only a few are salaried. I don't know how to explain it any simpler.

If you don't agree with the figures, then go and prove it, expose it and demonstrate that there is creative accounting going on. Their finances are audited every year and it's all available in black and white for anyone who wants to peruse the data.

The WWF has posted that 9% or even 4% on some sites goes toward administration. How is this possible?

If you don't believe it, show it to be untrue. I'm sure you're better at auditing than the auditors who do the job every year. If you can prove there's creative accounting, the IRS will love you.

Considering the WWF themselves state they have over 5000 workers worldwide and you state 725, I think that at least some of your sources are very wrong indeed.

Sorry, but can you give me the 5,000 workers worldwide site? Can you supply a link? I never found anything of the kind.

It's on the one of the graphics or reports on their website.

Now, you have done precious little but claim experience from Australia. IF this is all that you can contribute, let's just say nothing else that you have done has better proven the reasons why you were only volunteering.

Last time I looked, volunteering didn't mean getting paid for every hour you worked.

Now, one task is for you to show 5,000 workers worldwide AND show that these would be "volunteers" or perhaps per your preference indicate that they are "nonsalaried" workers whatever that means and then show what they earn on average. I have done all of this to prove my point. I don't think that it is too much to ask for you to do the same if you feel you have a point to prove... then prove it!

No actually, that's not my task. You're the one who doesn't believe the official audited figures not me.

I would prefer to wait and see what CF Images has to say, especially since it was he not you who raised WWF's 9% administrative expense as proof sure and true that NGOs were somehow better managed and key contributors to something.

Once again, read what I said. I didn't say NGO's were better managed. I said that among NGO's, the WWF is one of the more efficient ones. That's ALL I said. Here's my original reply just to refresh your memory.

Money raised is only half the issue. You need to look at money spent as well to see whether it's being wasted through hands-in-the-trough approach (as you seem to suggest) or is actually being used correctly. An efficient charity / NGO should have an administrative cost of less than 15%. According to the most recent financial report, the World Wildlife Fund spent 8% on admin costs. This places them at the very top of the list in terms of financial efficiency and shows that they are spending money where they should be and not enriching themselves.

[fred smith]

It's on the one of the graphics or reports on their website

Sorry, I missed that. Post it and LINK it.

Well, my goodness, who would have imagined that the debate would have come around to such a twirling display of definitions regarding salaried vs. unsalaried workers and how this relates to volunteers. Your definition is gibberish. You are clutching at straws and you know it.

YOUR original post was that WWF is an exemplar because it spends only 9% on administrative fees. I tend to scoff at NGOs. BUT when we examine the official OFFICIAL web site of the same, we see a very large increase in costs that are NOT accounted for under administrative expenses. Why would the IRS care? This should be about people like you who THINK that these organizations are living up to their CLAIMS to be so wonderful. YET clearly programs include a large part of the rent and salaries paid or how else can we account for them? And lest you start, I worked on this PERSONALLY and I know the tricks hence my amazing ability to smell them out. Wow!

So the OFFICIAL site of WWF claims 725 workers with 300 some in the US. It does not matter how many are UNSALARIED or VOLUNTEER (hahah) because it does not factor into WWF's claims of how much it spends on administration. I have laughed at these claims and I laugh at the lefties who continue to think of NGOs as some kind of sainted privileged group that is doing good but BUT I know that their CEOs and country leaders and such are all in it for the money but so happy to know that they are doing so for a good cause... haahahahahahaha

Summary:

1. There is no way that WWF has only 9% in administrative costs.
2. Whether there are volunteers or your wonderment of "nonsalaried" workers is irrelevant. The official site does NOT include them.
3. Lefties like those of the religious persuasion continue to prance about a great deal on faith-based merits. The irony that you do not see this makes you a very LIKELY candidate to believe in global warming and I believe (hahahahaah) very much that you do. Get it? The joke is on YOU!

[cfimages]

FS, seeing as you still don't seem to understand the difference between salary (a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a monthly basis but often expressed as an annual sum) and wage (payment usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis ), and continue to try and equate it with volunteering, there's really not much point in continuing this. Most people learn the difference in about grade 7 but I guess you were asleep that day.

[fred smith]

Oh no you don't.

Show the link showing 5,000 volunteers at WWF.

AND AGAIN for those who cannot read, it does not matter how many volunteers or nonsalaried or other workers you have because WWF did NOT count them in its 9% administrative assessment.

Back to you.

[cfimages]

Not back to me at all because I'm done with this. You are still going on about volunteers even though I've repeatedly said I'm not referring to volunteers, so this is my last post on the subject.

[fred smith]

Not back to me at all because I'm done with this. You are still going on about volunteers even though I've repeatedly said I'm not referring to volunteers, so this is my last post on the subject.

You said the WWF site had information as to volunteers. I couldn't find it. I asked you to produce it. You have not. I therefore question the claim that 5,000 volunteers work for WWF.

Second, you were the one who submitted WWF as an example of an NGO that did "good" because its administrative costs were kept to 9%. I have showed that this is clearly not possible and that it is using creative accounting to put a lot of this under Programs (expense).

Third, I have repeatedly pointed out that the discussion is not affected by however you choose to call these workers whether volunteers, nonsalaried or other because WWF on its OFFICIAL site lists only those who are apparently salaried and this is the key element in determining the 9% administrative cost.

You can run off like a crybaby if you want but we all know that you have not demonstrated anything that you set out to prove. Rather than concede gracefully, you attempt to obfuscate by repeatedly discussing definitions of categories that are NOT relevant to the determination of the 9% administrative category that again was important only because you believed that it showed NGOs to be responsible policy actors.

You have failed across the board to prove your point.

Finally, regardless of your much vaunted (self) involvement in NGOs in Australia, I know how they really work. This is precisely why it did not take me long to find the weakness in your argument. Now, English teaching in Taiwan can be a noble profession and don't let people demean it and don't sell yourself short BUT I know what I am talking about and you CLEARLY do not. Let it go. Be a good role model to your kindergarteners. Hello Chewy? Are you out there? I am channeling you and for VERY GOOD reason.

[fred smith]

and for all those well-meaning souls out there who are sacrificing their lives along the lines suggested by CF Images, well, well, well, average salary paid for those working in professions dealing with climate change?

$88,000! $88,000? Sound like a sacrifice to you or a scam?

Average Salary of Jobs with Titles Matching Your Search
In USD
climate change $88,000

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=climate ... 1=USA&tm=1

and, of course, this most important statistic...

Average climate change salaries for job postings nationwide are 23% higher than average salaries for all job postings nationwide.

23% higher? oh what a noble, long-suffering group of selfless individuals paying for their mortgages with climate change funding! Bah!

[cfimages]

Not back to me at all because I'm done with this. You are still going on about volunteers even though I've repeatedly said I'm not referring to volunteers, so this is my last post on the subject.

You said the WWF site had information as to volunteers. I couldn't find it. I asked you to produce it. You have not. I therefore question the claim that 5,000 volunteers work for WWF.

Oh ffs, I never mentioned volunteers. Seeing as you're not going to let this go - here. Last page of the 2010 annual report. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/int_ar_2010.pdf

Finally, regardless of your much vaunted (self) involvement in NGOs in Australia, I know how they really work. This is precisely why it did not take me long to find the weakness in your argument. Now, English teaching in Taiwan can be a noble profession and don't let people demean it and don't sell yourself short BUT I know what I am talking about and you CLEARLY do not. Let it go. Be a good role model to your kindergarteners. Hello Chewy? Are you out there? I am channeling you and for VERY GOOD reason.

Why should I believe that you know how they work? You seem to doubt me, so why should I believe you? Don't bother answering that because I'm not at all interested.

And FWIW, I own a business that's not in the slightest bit related to English teaching and I'm not an English teacher.

[headhonchoII]

You didn't make yourself look good there Fred, I would think about motivation a bit more.

[fred smith]

You didn't make yourself look good there Fred, I would think about motivation a bit more.

Oh really? Well, let's see. I have been told that I don't understand things... and that this is all about my insisting on volunteers (it isn't) or the confusion of what is a nonsalaried worker.

AGAIN. The CHIEF point of this whole discussion is that CF Images raised the point of NGOs like WWF being exemplary in maintaining administrative costs to 9%. I have shown convincingly that this could not possibly be the case. THIS was and remains the MAIN issue.

Whether nonsalaried or volunteer, it is not important because the nonpaid workers are NOT factored by WWF into its overall assessment of how its administrative costs to total are calculated. The fact that CF Images keeps going back to definitions of what is a volunteer (but I was NEVER talking about those is his refrain) or nonsalaried is IRRELEVANT to the MAIN point here.

So what do you think his motivation is? and what do you think that my motivation is? and would you suggest that we all need to engage in some large kumbayah hug or something to get past this with us agreeing "to split the difference?" But what would that be exactly? My admission that the issue of nonsalaried or volunteer workers has any kind of bearing while CF Images goes ... yeah well WWF could be more efficient in its spend? Hell no. This is about an organization that claims 9% as administrative expense or in some cases it claims 4%. This is dishonest. How exactly should we split the difference so that both sides "feel good about themselves?" CF Images is WRONG and the WWF is NOT an examplar based on the figures provided.

What is my motivation then? to disabuse foolish and earnest types from thinking that just because an organization puts a panda bear on the front of its annual report (or a polar bear) it is not sufficient stamp of enlightenment to stop asking the tough questions. Oh, if only Bush had invaded Iraq with a panda force, the idiotic left would no doubt have been screaming against any Iraqi bullets that nipped any ears of any of the precious cute cuddly little beasts especially since we have all seen the latest animated movie where incredibly!!! pandas sing, talk, dance and have feelings JUST LIKE YOU AND ME.