Here we have a press release in 1999 (email 3384) from Environmental Media Services (Fenton Communications, operator of RealClimate.org) sent on behalf of the WWF to help bolster the Kyoto Protocol.
I loved this line:
Cities including New York and Tokyo may face flooding; large swathes of Latin America will suffer from drought and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed unless more is done to stop global warming, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature warned Tuesday.
There’s that weasel word “may” and of course no timeline is given. Here we are a decade later and this press release sounds like it could have been written yesterday for Durban. The gloom and doom hasn’t changed.
The other fun part is this:
WWF commissioned the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia to conduct research into various climate change scenarios over the next few decades.
It projected that sea levels would rise between three-quarters of an inch to four inches per decade. This would threaten low-lying U.S. coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami with flooding. The Japanese cities of Tokyo and Osaka among others would also be at risk, it said.
I wonder how that research was accomplished and how much money was involved. “Commissioning” a scientific study usually means a predetermined result. Anyone have any idea what these commissioned studies were?
I’m pretty sure New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Miami are still here. Ditto for Tokyo and Osaka.
Here’s the full email:
date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:24:57 -0400
from: Adam Markham Adam.Markham@WWFUS.xxx
subject: Nature Group Issues Climate Warning -Forwarded
to: m.hulme@uea.xxx
Received: from smtp-out.vma.verio.net ([168.143.0.23])
by smtp.wwfus.org (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.1 v3)
; Wed, 20 Oct 99 09:44:02 EDT
Received: from smtp-gw.vma.verio.net ([168.143.0.18])
by smtp-out.vma.verio.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1)
id 11dvzd-00027h-00
for jennifer.morgan@wwfus.org; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:41:29 -0400
Received: from local.fenton.com (local.fenton.com [199.245.22.2])
by smtp-gw.vma.verio.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12413
for jennifer.morgan@wwfus.xxx; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from SERVER1/SpoolDir by local.fenton.com (Mercury 1.43);
20 Oct 99 09:39:08 -0500
Received: from SpoolDir by SERVER1 (Mercury 1.43); 20 Oct 99 09:38:42 -0500
Received: from w206 (199.245.22.206) by local.fenton.com (Mercury 1.43);
20 Oct 99 09:38:33 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991020093833.008fe100@[199.245.22.2]>
X-Sender: savitha.ems@[199.245.22.2]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:38:33 -0400
From: Savitha Pathi savitha@ems.xxx
Subject: Nature Group Issues Climate Warning
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
> Copyright 1999 Associated Press
>
> AP Online
>
> October 19, 1999; Tuesday 11:47 Eastern Time
>
>SECTION: International news
>
>LENGTH: 441 words
>
>HEADLINE: Nature Group Issues Climate Warning
>
>DATELINE: GENEVA
>
>BODY:
>
> Cities including New York and Tokyo may face flooding; large swathes of
> Latin America will suffer from drought and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef
>may be destroyed unless more is done to stop global warming, the World Wildlife
Fund for Nature warned Tuesday.
>
> The environmental group urged governments meeting in Germany next week to
> honor earlier pledges to cut emissions of carbon dioxide one of the main
> greenhouse gases by implementing tough energy-saving policies.
>
> ”Evidence for the warming of our planet over the last 200 years is now
> overwhelming,” said a WWF statement. ”With no action to curb
emissions, the
> climate on earth over the next century could become warmer than any the
human
> species has lived through.”
>
> It said China’s Giant Panda and the Arctic polar bear were among the
>species
> at risk of extinction from global warming.
>
> WWF commissioned the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of
East
> Anglia to conduct research into various climate change scenarios over the
>next
> few decades.
>
> It projected that sea levels would rise between three-quarters of an
>inch to
> four inches per decade. This would threaten low-lying U.S. coastal cities
>such
> as New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami with flooding. The Japanese
>cities of
> Tokyo and Osaka among others would also be at risk, it said.
>
> Large areas of the Amazon would become more susceptible to forest fires.
> Drought would also likely affect Argentina, southern Mexico and Central
>America.
> Rising sea temperatures by 2010 threatened the very survival of the
>Australian
> Great Barrier Reef.
>
> Scientists generally agree that temperatures are rising with 1998
being the
> warmest year on record. But there is no consensus on how much man is to
>blame.
>
> ”Although the precise contribution of human activities to global warming
> cannot yet be stated with confidence, it is clear the planet would not be
> warming as rapidly if humans were not currently emitting about 6.8
>billion tons
> of carbon into the atmosphere each year,” said the WWF report.
>
> Under a 1997 agreement reached in the Japanese city of Kyoto,
>industrialized
> nations agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by five percent
>between
> 2008 and 2012.
>
> Representatives from 150 countries meet later this month in Bonn to
work on
> ways of implementing the Kyoto deal prior to a November 2000 meeting in the
> Netherlands.
>
> While President Clinton signed the Kyoto agreement, he has not sought its
> ratification because of widespread opposition in the Senate. Critics say it
>will
> cost too much to implement while developing countries will be allowed to
let
> greenhouse emissions grow.
>
>
>
>
>
>LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
>
>LOAD-DATE: October 19, 1999
>
___________________________________________
Savitha Pathi
Program Assistant
Environmental Media Services
1320 18th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 463-6670 / Fax: (202) 463-6671
E-Mail: savitha@ems.xxx
Follow the money.
So who funds the WWF and Green Peace?
China? Iran? Russia? Open the books. Let’s see who is really pulling the strings. Research with an agenda bought and paid for.
A lot of clueless people fund them:
The WWF, for instance, gets money from Coca Cola and numerous other companies as well as individual donors. Most people think they are giving money to save elephants from poachers and the like, unaware where their money really goes.
Greenpeace is more closely identified with anti-pollution and marine life preservation, fighting against whaling and nuclear weapons tests etc.
I think an investigation of the tens of billions of dollars flowing from private citizens to governments, corporations, NGO’s, universities etc as part of the AGW movement would take a team of forensic accountants years to do.
> Rising sea temperatures by 2010 threatened the very survival of the
>Australian
> Great Barrier Reef.
…and yet it’s still there and doing fine.
I am going to make a prediction… or is that a projection?
The Climate Fail for the next decade will be worse than we thought.
Oh no the very survival of the Great Barrier Reef by 2010. 2010 dateline – Barrier Reef – stlll great, Domesday prediction – not so great!
For the billions that have been thrown at climate research, they have really done very little. Where in h*ll does all the money go? These guys should be millionaires.
Thanks WWF and CRU/UEA for your worry, but no problem here.
ONE THING THAT SCARES THE POLITICIANS THAT HAVE SUPPORTED THE CAGW POLICY’S, IS EXPOSURE THEY WERE IN ON THE SCAM ALL ALONG = THE 7z HIDDEN FILES?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/pointman-a-dead-mans-hand-detonator-on-hidden-emails-may-protect-climategate-whistleblower/
Climategate 2
Pointman — A dead man’s hand detonator on hidden emails may protect ClimateGate 1 & 2 whistleblower FOIA
He points out there are no emails released yet between key scientists and people in power
We do not have a single one of those high-level political emails but they must of course exist.
I strongly suspect we now have them in our possession.
In the high-powered risky game of whistle blowing there are ways to make the Climategate 2 leaker a less attractive target.
Pointman analyzes the ClimateGate whistleblower’s tactics and explains why he, she or they probably released those other 200,000 emails but kept them hidden behind the 4000-8000 character almost unbreakable password.
He points out there are no emails released yet between key scientists and people in power, hence the worst, most damaging emails may be kept under a ” dead man’s hand detonator”. If politicians are afraid of what might be in those released-but-hidden emails, they may not want to expose or attack the whistleblower for fear of unleashing the other emails. The hidden emails buy the whistleblower protection.
Jo
Seeing as this was written in 1999 and here it is nearly 12 years later and not a hint of any of their predictions has come to pass, it would lead one to believe these people at Environmental Media Services (Fenton Communications, operator of RealClimate.org) are no better at precognition than the throwers of bones or the readers of entrails (though, I think I actually have more faith in the latter).
So we should give their words any credence today, why, again?
johnq, I’d put my money on the usual suspects: George Soros, the Tides Foundation, Peter Lewis and the Ford Foundation for starters.
Hmmm … here it is, nearly two years later, and the last I heard the Great Barrier Reef is still in place. Guess they forgot to keep its demise in some vague, nebulous near future.
Tides Foundation is a major source of funding. Major funds from Tides come from people such as the Heinz Foundation (John Kerry’s wife’s family foundation of the Heinz food fortune) and George Soros among many other foundations of various people.
Tides Foundation is interesting because its purpose is to “launder” donations so that your name isn’t attached to the donations to the target organizations. What you can do is to make a donation to Tides for them to use as they see fit to their “progressive” causes or you may “earmark” your contribution to go to specific groups. At regular intervals, Tides takes your donations, bundles them up with the donations of others, and makes lump sum donations to the target organizations.
In this way the target organization shows only a donation from Tides, not from the actual donors. Tides only shows amounts donated to it by people, not how they earmarked their donation. So in this way one may donate a large sum of money to a radical organization such as “Code Pink” but not have their name associated in any way with that organization or leave a paper trail back to them. It provides a mechanism for laundering donations. That is its primary purpose for existing.
This is how Soros and others can pump millions of dollars into various “causes” without having their name directly on the books.
This is gonna be a good one, but to be honest I don’t think that any of these countries fund Green peace or the wwf.
I don’t think that any of these countries fund green peace or the wwf, but guess we´ll have to wait to see what happens
if u read Bishop Hill’s thread and comments, u will see some of the wide-ranging (spooky) connections of mr. verolme. i posted a few updates on the guy in the comments and no doubt there is more online if one keeps digging:
Bishop Hill: Hans Verolme: your taxes at work
Hans Verolme, a Dutch national, was recruited into the UK’s diplomatic service in 2000, having previously worked for a Dutch environmental group called Ecooperation.
Verolme appears several times in the CG2.0 emails…
Verolme left the service of the British taxpayer in 2004, taking up the position of head of climate change at WWF…
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/30/hans-verolme-your-taxes-at-work.html
sharpest and well-read?
30 Nov: UK Daily Mail: Michael Hanlon: Climategate RIP
(Michael is Britain’s sharpest and most well-read newspaper science journalist.
As well as writing science features and comment for the Daily Mail, he is the author of five popular science books including ‘Ten Questions Science Can’t Answer (Yet)’ and ‘Eternity – our Next Billion years’ (Palgrave Macmillan).
With his support of nuclear power and dismissal of alternative medicine, Michael has never been afraid to court controversy, and he has managed to enrage both climate change sceptics and believers)
Then, last week, we had Climategate 2. I have deliberately waited a few days to blog about this because I wanted to see if I was right in thinking that this time the fuss would die down quickly. And it has…
This time they got their act together. The professor at the heart of the alleged scandal, Phil Jones, not only made himself available to the media he got on a train to London to address a press conference, at which he addressed every single awkward question the hacks threw at him. He came across as a bit fed up with the whole thing (as well he should be) but honest and very open. We all came away believing that there was no story here.
Scientists are people, not robots. They say things in emails which, quoted in the light of day and out of context, can sound damning, dishonest even. Saying something along the lines of ‘blimey, we’d better hope this climate change stuff is real or we’ll be strung up!” is the sort of thing I can imagine any climatologist saying after a few beers at a conference. It doesn’t mean there is a grand conspiracy, any more than it does if a tired MP confesses he has not always seen eye-to-eye with his party leader.
My guess is that Climategate is over. No doubt the hackers, whoever they are, have more emails to release, and I do not doubt that they will contain snippets which could be construed as interesting, damning even. But I do doubt whether Dr Jones will bother to take the slow train down from Norwich when it happens.
http://hanlonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/11/climategate-rip.html
——————————————————————————–
A couple of weeks ago I was fishing on parts of the Great Barrier Reef. I can confirm it’s still there!
Plenty of fish. Plenty of coral (in water 1 metre deep down to 40m, which was the maximum we were fishing in). Nice cool sea breeze blowing.
More like paradise than an acidic, overheated, man-made death zone.
“Mr Turnbull had predicted evil consequences, both in the House and out of it, and was now doing the best in his power to bring about the verification of his own prophecies.” Anthony Trollope and the opening quote of Sir Karp Popper lecture on Science: Conjecture and Refutations. With special relevance to Australia even if the present government losses in the next election.
aaahhh I’m reminded of the timeless wise words of the Late Great John L Daly
http://www.john-daly.com/banner.htm
Ah, Jennifer Morgan – additional important detail here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#comment-298859
misterjohnqpublic says:
November 30, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Follow the money.
So who funds the WWF and Green Peace?
The EU is a significant contributor to both WWF and Greenpeace.
First day of summer and it’s 20C. The GBR is thriving, our dams are 80% full and the Murray Darling system has been overflowing for a year. AGW is not following the script.
These CG2 emails are more damaging than the first yet Phil and the Team have shrugged them off. Durban struggles on and our Climate Commission has released the latest scary predictions. No one seems to give a ****. I just hope FOIA has a few really big ones up his sleeve.
Lawrie Ayres says:November 30, 2011 at 11:07 pm
It’s early days, Lawrie … CG2 has five times the number of emails to digest as CG1; and, (from what I’ve seen), far more context that will cause the prime Climateers and their merry band of doomsters to twist and choke on their very own words.
CG1 was a “thumbnail” … and IMHO, CG2 is the “big picture” from which many are drawing (much to the increasingly shrill dismay of the Climateers – and their acolytes and lesser lights) some unequivocal and incontrovertible conclusions.
My hat’s off to FOIA (whom I prefer to call The Saint) for implementing such a brilliant course of well-timed disclosures.
re post by: Dave says: November 30, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Ah, yes, speculation is an amazing thing. Heck, for all we know, FOIA didn’t release the password because he/she doesn’t actually have it! Many years ago a friend of mine who had just finished her first year at vet school (far more competitive and difficult to get into than med school) took a year off. She only told the dean (had to of course, to ensure that she could take the year and still return), and one friend, where she was going – and asked that friend to faithfully report any and all rumors stated as fact about her disappearance.
As you can imagine, the rumors were pretty amazing. She’d met an extremely wealthy Spanish nobleman who had wisked her off to his yacht in the Mediterranean (or some luxurious locale anyhow). She had gotten pregnant with an illegitimate child that the father would have nothing to do with, and skulked off to hide the pregnancy until she gave birth and gave the child up for adoption. She had gotten pregnant by a wealthy man who wouldn’t consider allowing his wife to be to work or be a veterinarian. She had been convicted of a crime and was in jail…. and on and on it went.
Where was she really? She was working on a horse farm mucking out stalls, turning out horses, etc., a lot of really hard work and long days, in return for riding lessons. She was also most unglamorously living in the horse farm owner’s basement with a bunch of other girls who also worked there at the farm.
Not one of the rumors over that entire year came anywhere close to the actual truth, but a lot of people were sure convinced they knew where and why she’d disappeared!
Who knows just how much of interest there may or may not be in those encrypted emails – or why FOIA released them in this particular fashion. Lots of good possibilities can be imagined – but it’s all nothing more than guesses and speculation.
pat @ November 30, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Yeh, no problem with your thoughts and or you point.
My point?…. They influenced people into beleiving by citing evidence that is dubious, by massaging data, my hiding data.
Millions has been spent, resources diverted away from more useful purposes, like stopping people starving, and the killer? They’re WRONG!
A very effective way of drawing attention to the political nature of RC would be to refer to it as Fenton’s RC at all times within the blogsphere. This would remind people that it is not the impartial bastion of true climate science that it sets itself up to be, but simply the mouthpiece of a wider political conspiracy to extort money from the masses in the cause of left wing agendas.
“Anyone have any idea what these commissioned studies were?”
From Mike Hulme to WWF on the contract for the brochures, planning the release right before COP5:
“The science will be consistent with the emerging IPCC Third Assessment Report and a range of IPCC models will be used to create the scenarios (for some countries/regions, e.g. Japan, Germany, Australia, national climate models may receive preference). The SRES forcings will be used.”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3169.txt&search=WWF
SRES models from the IPCC report (not released yet) were used. It is also where he changed from 2 Sigma to 1 Sigma in the models,
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4539.txt&search=WWF
changing it on the advice of Barrie Pittock from CISRO, and removing the 95% confidence interval, being worried about the ‘message’ (where have we heard that one before?!):
“Of course, we could define natural variability to be the 1 sigma rather than the 2 sigma level, or simply the interquartile range of control climates or even just the 40-60 percentile range.”
“Your concern about my message is well taken, however, and I intend to remove any reference to 95% confidence levels, to re-word the text to indicate that we are plotting precip. changes only ‘where they are large relative to natural variability’, and to reduce my threshold to the 1 sigma level of HadCM2 control variability (e.g. this has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in the B1 scenario).”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=5233.txt&search=WWF
It seems as though the WWF’s Adam Markham had some input into what was in the ‘report’ (including a report that he made), asking for Hulme to ‘be more specific’ in his vulnerability study, suggesting for the cities he use:
“It projected that sea levels would rise between three-quarters of an inch to four inches per decade. This would threaten low-lying U.S. coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami with flooding.”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3914.txt&search=WWF
Also, the scenarios were not peer-reviewed:
“2. Have these scenarios been peer-reviewed.
Not formally, but several colleagues have informally commented on the method and the presentation (Pittock from Australia, Carter from Finland, Barrow from Canada, Arnell from UK). And my approach comes out of years of working in this field.”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1230.txt&search=WWF
Also, Tom Wigley, in responding to Hulme about what is going on in the US with the IPCC scenarios and his use of them, tells Hulme that he has violated the warning on the CIESIN website that they were ‘not for citation or quotation’:
“At face value, it would appear that you have ignored the clearly-stated message that the CIESIN site data were “not for citation or quotation”.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0941483736.txt&search=WWF
So, the studies were the IPCC unreleased scenarios, which were used by Hulme before the IPCC released its report and Hulme then removing the confidence interavals to make it more extreme, thereby changing the the original IPCC scenarios, which he did against the stated desire of the CIESIN website.
This email to David Viner, and forwarded by him to someone else at UEA, shows how the EU and UN are funding a radical, left wing climate activist organisation to pursue an extremist agenda.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/david-viner-and-the-eco-campaigners/
@ Peter Plail:
Why should we beat about the bush, why can’t we say that RC is Soros-RC?
After al, he funds Fenton and all the rest of it …
Interesting stuff. When FOIA added the read me, a lot of people thought it was a bit wishy-washy, cherrypicking and pointed to someone not understanding the science.
I suggest now that FOIA is VERY aware of the links that hold together this house of cards. That is what the release is about – for us to piece together the people behind the science.
heres HOW and WHy the WWF greenbits and the rest get funding, its called intimidation and extortion I believe
http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/food-environment/publication/1918/naked-extortion-environmental-ngos-imposing-involuntary-regulations-on-consumers-and-business
Lawrie Ayres says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:07 pm
First day of summer and it’s 20C. The GBR is thriving, our dams are 80% full and the Murray Darling system has been overflowing for a year. AGW is not following the script.
These CG2 emails are more damaging than the first yet Phil and the Team have shrugged them off. Durban struggles on and our Climate Commission has released the latest scary predictions. No one seems to give a ****. I just hope FOIA has a few really big ones up his sleeve.
===========
yeah the climate CON missions getting a lot of media play.
funny that the Emails item got a tiny bit at the bottom inside column of page 36 in weds herald sun.
seems the Liars standover tactics on papers and radio etc is working for her.
Pat at 9:46pm, Nov. 30: Hanlon’s blog in UK Daily Mail (which may have been misunderstood as your own thoughts) is seriously questionable. I have posted (subject to approval) my acerbic comments on his “nothing to see here” attitude. Hanlon’s not up to the job – just another hack who thinks he can sum up a situation quickly, without reading too much. I bet the hacks invited by UEA were all “on-side” with patsy questions – maybe even a couple from the BBC – possibly Horror-bin.
WWF, FOE, Greenpeace ALL get money from those frightened people who listen to their scares and hope that their dollar/pound/euro will save the planet.
No scares no money.
“Cities including New York and Tokyo may face flooding; large swathes of Latin America will suffer from drought and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed unless more is done to stop global warming, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature warned Tuesday.”
“There’s that weasel word “may” and of course no timeline is given. ”
Why stop at ‘may’? New York and Tokyo WILL be destroyed sometime, as will the Great Barrier Reef. Granted, it may be thousands of years hence, but nothing is permanent.
Except human stupidity (vide Einstein)
If you look at the people working for/assisting wwf/greenpeace you will, almost inevitably, find an ex goldman-sachs “employee”
Rc: ‘The Climate Fail for the next decade will be worse than we thought’
I think you mean ‘may’
The Climate Fail for the next decade MAY be worse than we thought.
Then you are guaranteed to be correct.
Remembering ‘Green’ Enron (Part I: The Kyoto Moment)
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/12/enron-kyoto-moment/#more-17578
note: This week marks the 10th anniversary of Enron’s bankruptcy filing (December 2, 2001). Enron’s view of energy sustainability drives the Obama Administration’s “green ‘dream’ team” today, so such a look back at Enron’s crony capitalism is merited.
I read somewhere that the Saudis fund WWF. I will endeavor to find where I read that.
It is called a Ted Dansen – He predicted in 1988 that the oceans would be dead in 10 years. I have yet to see the funeral notice.
Jennifer Morgan is now at World Resources Institute where Al Gore is a director, http://www.wri.org/about/board/al-gore. She spent some time at E3G, a quasi governmental NGO in the UK (http://www.e3g.org/about/news-articles/jennifer-morgan-moves-to-the-world-resources-institute/) and has been an official adviser to Potsdam’s Schellnhuber and to Tony Blair.
Tarran:
>>A lot of clueless people fund them..
All of us are clueless. American tax dollars will ultimately be used to bail out European banks without any kind of vote by, or representation from, the American people. Much of the money we donate to political parties or charitable causes ends up in the pockets of people we never would have wanted it to go to. Apparently a considerable amount of funding for the CRU came from American tax dollars funneled through the DOE. Should the DOE be using our money to scare us about political issues like AGW? Most people haven’t any idea about what is going on. Hardly anything has been reported in the MSM. Why? Because the MSM is controlled by the same interests.
US taxpayers have been nothing but cash cows for the globalist financial interests that ultimately pull the strings, and many of these interests are, yes, carbon energy interests. Go figure.
Don’t think so, then read this from Wikipedia:
“Initial sponsors (of the CRU, my words) included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.”
Here is the link to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit
Now, why would any of these concerns be so interested in establishing the CRU? It seems to be basically designed to spread fear with the “big lie” of AGW, to attack carbon interests and maintain the on-going lie that skeptics are funded by big oil. If anyone has an idea, I’d love to hear it. In my opinion, it is all smoke and mirrors and done to manipulate and harvest the wealth of average people for whom the globalists have nothing but contempt. Misdirection, obfuscation and fear mongering are now, and always have been, their stock and trade.
When all is said and done, you can be sure that global warming alarmism has been promoted to achieve some ultimate end that none of us have a clue about.
@rationaldebate
“Lots of good possibilities can be imagined – but it’s all nothing more than guesses and speculation.”
ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 have 100 percent confirmed my guesses and speculation on the subjects covered except for the few instances where it was worse than I thought. Therefore it is quite rational to expect ClimateGate 3.0 will further confirm my theories regarding the rampant fraud and deception practiced by “the team” in support of “the cause”.
The team has been caught twice mucking up the science.
Finding them a third time in the stables with shovel in hand will be no surprise.
crosspatch says:
November 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm
It is called money laundering. That is how the money changes hands between non-profits and political advocacy groups. When all of the pertinent information is finally shaken out, it will show that a criminal enterprise is being operated, identify many of the players, and open the door for RICO prosecutions.
“I’m pretty sure New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Miami are still here. Ditto for Tokyo and Osaka.”
Picky, picky, picky….
;-p
Have you ever noticed that progressive only hate the corruption of big money when it doesn’t go to their pet causes? Any of these guys ever whine about the undo influence of George Soros upon the political process?
re post by: Jarrett Jones says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:40 am
Jarrett, you’re either taking me a bit out of context, or misunderstanding my point. I’m every bit as disgusted with the revelations of the Climategate emails as you appear to be. That wasn’t the issue – the issue was speculation over why FOIA hasn’t released the password for the remaining encrypted emails. Not whether those released so far have clearly shown egregious behavior by many of these ‘top climate scientists’ or not, or whether the remaining files, if we are ever able to access them, are likely to contain similar (or worse, or more trivial) content.
WWF conrolling UEA, with money, for subscription..
“UEA will get 10 key people to craft a European version of the US science
and economist letters. You will get it signed onto. Would like 750 of help
from us for that. Then you will send this to heads of state in November.
You want WWF to organise a press event around that at a suitable
location(s) (London/Geneva/Brussels).
There is money in the UK (SP5) budget here and I will discuss that with
Nick Mabey as mentioned. He should be your contact here. Otherwise
Lars Georg Jensen in WWF Denmark is a key contact for the TDA.
We will no doubt talk again soon about other things!
>>> Mike Hulme 12/September/1997 10:42am >>>
Merylyn,
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3275.txt&search=%40ozemail.com.au
Ilkka.
re: geoprof: “I read somewhere that the Saudis fund WWF. I will endeavor to find where I read that.”
Do a search with Saudi funding environmental groups and you come up with a lot. I found links back to 2002 on a cursory search. The Saudis have over a trillion dollars of western oil dollars that they need to spend somewhere. They also want to make sure that money stream does not stop. They need to eliminate competition for their product. One way to do that is to make sure the west is never self sufficient with oil or natural gas or coal production. How better to ensure this than to support the international environmental groups who oppose energy discovery and production at every turn? Cheers –
Big Oil (Saudi or otherwise) has no worries. It can fund the Greenewables Scams up the kazoo, confident that a) they won’t work (on any cost or scale sufficient to supply actual requirements), and b) when the dust settles hydrocarbons will continue to be the energy-dense, portable, dispatchable, affordable resource of (forced) choice.
Meanwhile, they slurp the gravy from “subsidies” just as eagerly as the most dewy-eyed Molto Perpetuo doofi
Big Oil (Saudi or otherwise) has no worries. It can fund the Greenewables Schemes up the kazoo, confident that a) they won’t work (on any cost or scale sufficient to supply actual requirements), and b) when the dust settles hydrocarbons will continue to be the energy-dense, portable, dispatchable, affordable resource of (forced) choice.
Meanwhile, they slurp the gravy from “subsidies” just as eagerly as the most dewy-eyed Molto Perpetuo doofi.
[Re-posted with verboten filter-word paraphrased.]
Royal Academy massaging observations.
“At 05:19 PM 10/5/00 +010 ???, you wrote:
>Hi Phil,
>
>Thanks for checking that — doing the same thing with Mann et al would
>obviously be interesting, but without subsampling and processing the
>controls in the same way the observations have been massaged in his
>reconstruction, I’m not sure how meaningful the results would be. Isn’t
>think pretty much what you’re doing with Keith and Tim on that NERC
>project I reviewed?
>
>The nice thing about the obs-minus-all-forcings case is that all the main
>sources of bias in the observed spectrum are to over-estimate the variance
>on all timescales, giving a defensible upper bound. I can imagine a lot
>of the processing the Mann et al series has been through rather bleaching
>the colour out of it.
>
>Myles
>
>———————————————————————-
>Myles R. Allen Phone (RAL): 44???
>Space Science & Technology Department Ph (Oxford): 44???
>Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Fax: 44???
>Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX e-mail: ???@rl.ac.uk
>United Kingdom http://www.climate-dynamics.rl.ac.uk/
*********************MIME > .txt, ***********Thats it, or Whatsup Wit That, Cheerio to Watts & John Daly.
and so many others, special thanks to Donna Lambfranboise.
********************************************************
Re: Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
Dear Colleague,
Attached is a draft Statement that has been informally drawn up by Joe Alcamo, Rob Swart and Mike Hulme working in Europe on climate issues. Its main purpose is to bolster or increase support for controls of emissions of greenhouse gases in European countries in the period leading up to Kyoto. The Statement is intended to be from European scientists, and is aimed towards governments, citizen groups, and media in European countries. The statement has specific goals in specific countries:
In European countries where the government supports controls of greenhouse emissions: In these countries, certain government ministries and other climate stakeholders in the country are trying to get the government to retreat on its policies before Kyoto. Here, the Statement is intended to be used by the government and citizen groups via the national media to support its position.
In European countries where the government does not support controls of greenhouse emissions: Here, the Statement is intended to help citizen groups and other stakeholders in the country to convince the government to support controls of emissions.
On behalf of my colleagues, may I request the following from you at this stage:
Your suggestions for changes in text.
Your recommendations for scientists to contact for commenting on the draft.
Having agreed on a form of words by consulting with a small number of colleagues (a process I am co-ordinating for the UK), we shall proceed to invite about 10 key scientists in the field in Europe (e.g. Crutzen, Houghton, Bolin, etc.) to sponsor the statement. Having gained this prestige endorsement, we shall then endeavour to invite as many additional scientists as possible (100s if not 1000s) to indicate their support for the statement which shall then be presented to the media at a press conference ‘ … with the support of “n” European scientists.’
Please reply as soon as possible at the below address. We look forward to your comments.
With best wishes,
Mike Hulme
email: m.hulme@ue
“So who funds the WWF and Green Peace?”
if you look at who runs the WWF (I checked Sourcewatch to save time) you see past and present CEOs & VPs of multinational corporations & banks such as General Electric, Goldman-Sachs, Cargill, Johnson&Johnson, Merck, Procter & Gamble. There’s even one of the top marketing agency, Ogilvy & something.
the WWF is a public relations firm specialized in greenwashing.
Jbird: “In my opinion, it is all smoke and mirrors and done to manipulate and harvest the wealth of average people for whom the globalists have nothing but contempt.”
you got it. they’re in it for the money, they’re years ahead of everyone.
If you want another example of a fraud similar to the climate change scare do a search on statins, the most lucrative drug of the pharmaceutical industry. It lowers cholesterol but cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease. Read the book Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, he goes back to the beginning of the cholesterol hypothesis and explains how it was never supported by solid science. There are so many holes in the cholesterol hypothesis that the supporters of the theory had to rely on getting involved into politics and official institutions to make people believe they were right. Big Pharma makes tens of billions every year because most people are afraid of their total and/or their so-called bad cholesterol. It’s crazy.
No scare, no money. If you scare people you can sell them anything.
Why is it that no body makes a FOIA request from WWF? In EU it’s a no brainer since it seems impossible unless you have very deep pockets, but in the US it seems to be very much so possible since they receive public funding and so has to follow FOIA legislation. That would mean GreenpeaceUS as well, and any other NGO corporation too.
The point being that the partial batches of email leaked is only from one side of the conversation so it stands to reason that the others sides of the conversations has a bunch of emails too that they might be required to release.
#3107:
date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:13:31 -0400
from: “markham/dompka”
subject: Climate scenarios
to: “mike hulme”
Hi Mike,
I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner on the global 2-pager. I went through it in detail over the weekend. I think it is really good, and very well written already, so I don’t have many comments. Here are a few though.
* Please refer to WWF just as WWF, since we have two different names.
The whole email is a PR guy telling the scientist to “sex it up”. Where’s the science, again?
As for $:
On contracts. I’m really sorry about the mess and will try to start sorting this out this morning when I get into work (you can call or e-mail me there). Just remind me though, this contract did not account for the publication, printing and distribution did it? WWF-UK seems to be confused about this and now I am too. Apologies again – maybe next time, I’ll pay the university overheads.
Don’t skeptics get slimed for allegedly writing “pay for play”?
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+______________________________________________________________