Climategate 3.0: Worries about public learning that WWF funded the list of scientists; ‘It will be perceived to be biased’

So maybe the Union of Concerned Scientists could do the distribution instead?

The e-mail is below.

###

from: Mike Hulme
subject: Re: Climate Statement Version 4
to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de
Joe,
OK, I will make contact with 4-5 people (including John Mitchell) and see what
comments I get back. Does Bert Bolin rank as one of your top scientists? He is
receiving an Honorary Degree from our University today and if I see him when he
calls by I could mention the idea to him. What do you think? or do you wish to
wait until we have an initial reaction from people?
About WWF …. I still feel a little uncomfortable using a ‘loaded’ organisation
like WWF to distribute the statement. It may well detract from the statement as
it will be perceived to be biased. But it’s difficult to know how else we can
enlist widespread support. Is there not an organisation called the Union of
Concerned Scientists – would this do the job?
I will think some more about it.
Mike

3 thoughts on “Climategate 3.0: Worries about public learning that WWF funded the list of scientists; ‘It will be perceived to be biased’”

  1. Of course it’s biased. The alarmists are attempting to use a “fear based meme” to encourage a political response. If “global warming” doesn’t work, brace yourself for the next one … the “shortage of potable water” on the planet.

    The usual nostrums are required: More “social justice” and statist/collectivist action to quash individual rights and liberties. The key focus is always on solutions requiring far left policies. That explains why there are always biases in these various disaster scenarios.

    If the folks behind this crap were truly committed to their goal of “reducing human’s footprint on the planet” they’d be the first volunteers to off themselves. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about all these fake “coming disasters.”

  2. For more background on how this pre-Kyoto Statement came into being (and Hulme’s role – as well as that of Joe Alcamo, Rob Swart and WWF), there were a number of very interesting emails in CG2 (although the Statement had appeared in CG1).

    The climate consensus coordinators’ cookbook

    In case you’re wondering, Hulme and his co-writers seemed to overcome any qualms about working with WWF on this:

    [Excerpt from Rob Swart to WWF’s Merilyn McKenzie-Hedger, Aug. 28/97:]

    I think we have reached that step. What would be needed is WWF distrbuting a message/letter from WWF accompanying the scientists’s letter explaining the plan on their behalf. The letter should be relatively “objective” not to scare scientists that they are used in an unscientific ngo advocacy action.

    That is why we have approached you rather than Greenpeace, Climate Action Network or Friends of the Earth. I am sure you have your own network of climate scientists, screening the IPCC reports for IPCC lead authors would be an important second step. The people that are in the process now (like Mike Hulme, Joe Alcamo, Jill Jaeger, Pier Vellinga and others) will also provide you with as many names and addresses as they can come up with.

    I’ll talk to Adam Markham about it next week. I propose that we start providing you with names/addresses now. In addition, other ways of collecting signatures may be through leaflets distributed during scientific climate meetings in Europe? Several hundreds of signatures would be the goal, including key people. Unfortunately, sofar we only came up with few names outside Germany/UK/Netherlands.

    Hilary Ostrov

Comments are closed.