Gail Combs writes in comments:
Oh, BOY ~ I think I may have struck GOLD!
Do not forget Friday Mukamperezida: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
At http://foia2011.org I searched for worldbank.org and found 32 e-mails going back as far as 1998. I have only looked at three so far. Looks like the good old World Bank may be something of a puppet master.
Summary for Policymakers to: Rwatson
Dear Bob, [Robert Watson of World Bank]
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to react to your thinking. It forces us to think more clearly about the main messages. I must admit that I am somewhat confused about the 26 page summary, since this comes very close to (although it is different from) the full-scale document the various teams are currently writing. My view would be that those teams take their own text as the starting point and try to improve/shorten it on the basis of your text. Here, I only respond to your main messages in italics and mainly focus on WG3 issues…..
I would not include a WG3 paragraph, like “The Kyoto Protocol has led to thecreation of new market mechanisms”……
Long but worth reading. Seems Robert Watson of the World Bank was TELLING good old Rajendra Pachauri and the crowd what to put into the Summary for Policymakers
I wonder what the crowd at Occupy Wall Street would think of this e-mail?
is about drumming up CAGW projects for the “USAID on the Supplemental Grant Program” and R. Watson at the World Bank is copied.
Here is another goodie where Kenneth M. Chomitz of the World Bank is interfering with how a peer reviewed journal is run.
Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.
…. Dear Michael,
I really like the solution of presenting view and counterview articles. I retain some reservations about your proposed editorial. It seems to me that you have the difficult problem of wearing two hats: one as the advocate of particular policies and viewpoints, and the other as an editor of a journal which aspires to be a neutral forum for policy discussion. I appreciate and sympathize with the depth and grounding of your personal views. However, as editor, it seems to me, you have to bend over backwards to be neutral. The editorial uses charged words like ‘demonize’ and could easily spark the war of words you wish to avoid. A strongly worded editorial risks associating the journal with a particular viewpoint, and hence reducing the journal’s value and reputation as a neutral forum….
Kenneth M. Chomitz
Development Research Group
from: Hadi Dowlatabadi
subject: Re: [New] Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.
I agree with your perspective, but why not set a realistic target? The editorial columns at Science, Nature and New Scientist have rarely hidden their subjective perspectives. I think there are shades to this, and Michael can be a shade grayer, but the passion is also important.
The dialogue approach allows him to be editor, hold strong opinions, but still be viewed as someone who is willing to listen. This is how Steve Schneider has conducted his reign at Climatic Change and I believe despite his well known personal perspectives he has been able to draw on many in the community to contribute to the dialogue that defines the differences in perspectives permeating this subject.
So it seems the Professional journals are also getting direction from the World Bank.
Climategate the present that just gives and gives. I can not wait to get back to the other 29 e-mails.
My search is here: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4&search=worldbank.org&sisea_offset=0