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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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/
@ur momisugly 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.]