World Bank, Global Warming, Journals, and CRU

Gail Combs writes in comments:

Oh, BOY ~ I think I may have struck GOLD!

Do not forget Friday Mukamperezida: http://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.

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4628

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…..

Question 2:

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?

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4953

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

World Bank

…..

from: Hadi Dowlatabadi

subject: Re: [New] Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.

Dear Ken,

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.

Hadi

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4953

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
125 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pete in Cumbria UK
November 24, 2011 10:22 am

So not only do the warmista turkeys constantly ‘vote for Christmas’ with their cap-n-trade, carbon taxes and windmill subsidies – they also invite the fox into the chicken shed.
Certifiable is just one word of many..

Reed Coray
November 24, 2011 10:32 am

Gail, the two words that best describe my feelings after reading your post are: THANK YOU..

JohnWho
November 24, 2011 10:38 am

ChE says:
November 24, 2011 at 8:36 am
I’m trying to think of a legitimate reason for the World Bank to be involved in any of this.
Thinking … thinking …
I’m as stumped as Phil Jones with an Excel spreadsheet.

Hey, ChE –
Did the word “conspiracy” pass through your “thinking…thinking…” mind?

jason
November 24, 2011 11:02 am

The problem is nobody cares and the green machine is now so powerful it cannot be stopped. Read the utter crap coming out of cop17 on twitter and green bloggers. Its a steamroller.

Buffy Minton
November 24, 2011 11:03 am

They are quite keen on bankers
4092.txt
date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +0100
from: Trevor Davies
subject: goldman-sachs
to: j.palutiko p.jones,m.hulme
Jean,
We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They
now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing
energy futures market.
G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ‘strategic
alliance’ with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)
for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean
– he needs a date from us). Thanks.
Trevor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

theduke
November 24, 2011 11:07 am

There’s a lot of people in the AGW bed.

crosspatch
November 24, 2011 11:11 am

Grepping through the original file, I see 32 emails that reference “worldbank.org” but if I do a different search:
grep -i “world bank” * | cut -d”:” -f1 | sort | uniq
Those would be files that MENTION “word bank” (in either upper or lower case). What is interesting is that MOST of the emails that mention “world bank” do not have a world bank email address in them. For example this one from Phil Jones where he is copying around some information from an publication called “Carbon Trader” 0073.txt
Also there is one to Briffa Re: Carbon trading in the Middle East that ends with “See you in Abu Dhabi.” 0225.txt
So the emails that mention “World Bank” but do NOT contain any worldbank.org addresses (those are for some reason a more interesting set to me but I have only looked at the two mentioned above) are:
0073.txt 0225.txt 0563.txt 0660.txt 0864.txt 1265.txt 1353.txt 1636.txt 1776.txt 1854.txt 2192.txt 2345.txt 2634.txt 2704.txt 3303.txt 3515.txt 3550.txt 4127.txt 4795.txt 4992.txt 5071.txt 5107.txt
5154.txt 5161.txt 5199.txt 5277.txt 5280.txt 5340.txt

crosspatch
November 24, 2011 11:14 am

This all makes me very curious about any “Green” investments made by members of “the cause” as they would have insight into this particular market and could directly influence these markets with their work.

RockyRoad
November 24, 2011 11:22 am

Would it be too much of a stretch to say the World Bank would be supportive of One World Government?
Only if you have a reading comprehension problem.

Viv Evans
November 24, 2011 11:34 am

A big Thank You, Gail, for your hard work.
The information you dug up is truly scandalous.
As many of us have maintained for some time now, it isn’t just about the abuse and perversion of science, it is about politics.
This new batch of e-mails makes it abundantly clear that they work for a “cause”.
Now you’ve dug out the money providers who implement the politics of the “cause”, with the post of scizzorsbill above illustrating what that looks like in detail.
I hope the Thanksgiving turkey will stick in the throat of all those World bankers.

JohnWho
November 24, 2011 11:35 am

Gail Combs –
The emails you’ve highlighted seem to be only a part of both previous and follow-on conversations, do they not?
Wonder where the “rest of the story” is.

Steeptown
November 24, 2011 11:45 am

Bob Watson, ex World bank, ex IPCC chair, now UK Defra chief scientific advisor. Corruption in high places. Follow the money.

Gail Combs
November 24, 2011 11:47 am

meemoe_uk says:
November 24, 2011 at 10:21 am
breaking news : international bankers directly fund & express personal interest in AGW religion !!!
date of news : 18th Nov 1987 : by George Hunt
______________________________________
As a farmer I was well aware of Hunt’s Report thanks to Derry Brownfield, a reporter who tangled with Monsanto.
As you said George Hunt’s report was torpedoed That is why these emails are important. It is tougher to kill them. They make a strong link in the chain.

RayJ
November 24, 2011 11:50 am

Nicholas Stern of the UK Stern Report fame was Chief Economist at the World Bank – what a small world these people occupy!

crosspatch
November 24, 2011 11:54 am

Well, I am not going to have time to dig into this as we have some family activities scheduled but something is starting to get a funny smell to it. On one hand, members of “The Cause” are in direct contact with members of the World Bank. On the other hand, they have apparently keen interest in various investment news mentioning the World Bank. Now, I don’t believe they would be so sloppy as to use their work accounts for managing their personal investments (would they?) and while I have seen no smoking gun, there is kind of a whiff of smoke in the air. 2428.txt is interesting. Pay attention to emails with “co2.org” in them. Some of them seem to be about manipulation of things in Russia but there seems to be a money angle with some of them.
Actually, john.ashton with co2.org seems to be in a lot of emails. And why is “Bronnert Deborah [FCO] – Moscow, Russian Federation” (apparently an embassy staffer at the UK embassy in Moscow) in these discussions?
Did I say 2428.txt is interesting? That is where they start talking about using the G8 to advance their agenda. There’s money here someplace, but we probably won’t find it in their work emails.
4631.txt to e.l. jones (probably some UN staffer) is told that “carbontrader.org” is a good site to follow and apparently is also mentioned in 3432.txt where her bona fides were being established “. 3432.txt is kindof hilarious:

Phil,
No – this is bona fide. We have had 2-page entries in previous COP booklets (as have lots of organisations in science, policy) although we negotiated a lower rate than the one you cite. The woman we (elaine jones) negotiated with was an ENV graduate!
Mike
At 16:47 27/07/2004 +0100, you wrote:
Mike,
Just had a very odd phone call from someone purporting to be in a UN Agency
called something like ‘Raising the Awareness of Climate Change’. She asked me
about our research projects and then said I could take out a 2 page piece on CRU
for distribution to all govts and all attendees at the COP meeting in Buenos Aires
later this year. She gave me a long list of orgs. who do this – included CNRS,
Uni of Berne and the Tyndall Centre ! Then said it would cost 6500 to do this !
Are you doing this?
I got more alarmed when she said they expect 10K people to go to Argentina
because Russia will sign Kyoto at the meeting !
Sounds like a scam. Is it?
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

Jimbo
November 24, 2011 11:56 am

World Bank, BP, Shell, hey what’s the problem?

13:34:27 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: BP
to: shackley
Simon,
Have talked with Tim O about BP and he knows Paul Rutter but reckons he is junior to his two contacts Charlotte grezo (who is on our Panel!) and Simon Worthington.
Tim is meeting Charlotte next week and will do some lobbying and we will also make contact with Simon Worthington.
So I guess there is no necessity to follow up on Paul right now (I’ll wait for Tim’s feedback), but if you feel there is a strong enough UMIST angle then by all means do so (but bear in mind that we will be talking to some other parts of BP).
We’re getting a few letters back from people here too which I will copy onto you – two water companies, Shell and the Foreign Office (the latter is not really business though).
All for now,
Mike
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=246

looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
this largesse?
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4767

…> Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via
> IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate
> of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. ………
> Bestw ishes
>
> Geoff
http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/0277.txt

Lady Life Grows
November 24, 2011 11:58 am

I clicked on the middle reference, giving RWatson’s thoughts. It was very badly formatted, which made it hard to read.
I did not get so much an impression of conspiracy so much as a very intelligent and powerful man who sincerely believes the AGW claptrap and is trying to be as responsible as possible. It seems quite clear that most of the world’s fabulously wealthy or politically powerfull elites actually believe that AGW hysteria will save the world.
His gardeners mow his lawns in Summer, not winter, just as yours do. The hockey stick is a COMPLAINT that the Earth’s biosphere seems to be more vigorous than it used to be. We know that both CO2 and warmer temperatures benefit life. If we ever get these simple realities across to these people, it will be an important step toward REALLY saving the world for living organisms.

crosspatch
November 24, 2011 12:00 pm

Pay attention to emails referencing co2.org, too. You see a lot of message manipulation in those.

TomRude
November 24, 2011 12:07 pm

Great find!

crosspatch
November 24, 2011 12:18 pm

It seems quite clear that most of the world’s fabulously wealthy or politically powerfull elites actually believe that AGW hysteria will save the world.

Or give them an excellent investment opportunity if they are politically connected and know in advance where the money will be flowing and what the message is going to be.

Al Gored
November 24, 2011 12:20 pm

Great detective work Gail.
This does not actually surprise me in the least. Fits the big picture. But so much better when detailed puzzle pieces like this are found.

Al Gored
November 24, 2011 12:24 pm

Lady Life Grows says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:58 am
” It seems quite clear that most of the world’s fabulously wealthy or politically powerfull elites actually believe that AGW hysteria will save the world.”
Don’t think so. They believe that the AGW hysteria will make them more rich and powerful, and create a better system for maintaining or enhancing their position.
They only care about saving THEIR world.

Gail Combs
November 24, 2011 12:24 pm

JohnWho says:
November 24, 2011 at 11:35 am
Gail Combs –
The emails you’ve highlighted seem to be only a part of both previous and follow-on conversations, do they not?
Wonder where the “rest of the story” is.
_______________________________
There is plenty of digging to do on both sets of emails. Not only on the World Bank but the IMF, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase ……
There is also the Farmland grab that Scizzorbill mentioned: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/world-bank-global-warming-journals-and-cru/#comment-807254
It gets even better if you follow the strings.
US universities in Africa ‘land grab’
Institutions including Harvard and Vanderbilt reportedly use hedge funds to buy land in deals that may force farmers out http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/us-universities-africa-land-grab
And here is the US government involvement again. (This is the tree of choice for carbon credits an aggressive invasive plant)

Genetically Modified Eucalyptus Trees Ignite Controversy
Eucalyptus trees are good for making paper. They are terrible for just about everything else – soil, insects, plants, and water.
A paper company teamed up with ArborGen, a biotechnology organization, to genetically modify the trees to withstand freezing temperatures. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has just approved ArborGen’s request to plant various test forests across seven southern states.
Nicknamed “America’s Largest Weed,” it comes as no surprise that communities are worried about introducing the eucalyptus into new environments, which include 300 acres of test sites in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.
…… Worse, they create toxic conditions in the soil and their canopies block out sunlight for underlying plants. They hog water and yet easily catch fire, relying on fire to spread their seeds …..

I can not believe the liberals (or conservatives) would continue to support these people.
Oh and just to make it more fun, a eucalyptus can sprout and grow up to twenty feet in a year from a fresh stump, and I thought sweet gum was bad……

G. Karst
November 24, 2011 12:25 pm

Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who attended the conference, reported:
“The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises — whether real or not — is expected to lead to compliance.”

They forgot to add:
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Gail Combs:
I think everyone is aware that there is a larger, behind the scenes, hand manipulating the duped AGW scientists and environmental NGOs (in fact most). To speak of it, however, places the speaker automatically in the whacko room with UFO & Sasquatches. I really don’t think anything can be done to alter the final solution. Happy Thanksgiving! GK

JohnWho
November 24, 2011 12:26 pm

/sarc
Note “sarc” is off –
It really is worse than we thought.
World Bank, Big Oil, WWF, BBC, and more.
And the complacent main stream media which should be all over this.