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
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=+______________________________________________________________