Who leaked the Hintze correspondence?
Mar 28, 2012
Bishop Hill in Ethics, Greens

There is some fascinating web-sleuthing going on in the comments on the Hintze email post, as readers try to work out who leaked the correspondence to the Guardian. Some clues have come from the correspondence itself, redacted versions of which have been published by the Guardian.

The original letter reveals that the requester was involved in the relationship between climate and health:

We assume that our previous letter to you, attached, somehow slipped your attention as we realise that you are really busy and may have been away. We do assure you that we will not be writing to you repeatedly.

However, because of the urgent need for action on climate change and health, illustrated by events in the last few months, we are taking the liberty of contacting you again to request support for the XXX.

And also that they had a representative at the Durban climate confrerence.

We would be happy to provide you with any other information you require, set up a conference call with you, or meet face-to-face. XXX is will be attending the Durban conference on Climate Change and Health in December and XXX will be in the UK again in February 2012.

Some googling suggested one plausible source of the letter as being the Climate and Health Council, an offshoot of the British Medical Journal.

Now, Barry Woods Maurizio Morabito has discovered this:

The Climate and Health Council supports Nasa scientist James Hansen as he joins the campaign to uncover secret funders bankrolling climate sceptic Nigel Lawson and his lobbying think-tank (Climate experts back unveiling of Lawson thinktank donor, 23 January). The public may finally discover who is secretly influencing UK climate policy – contrary to scientific consensus – today (27 January), when the Information Rights Tribunal hears this key freedom of information case. Some anti-climate lobbyists routinely misrepresent and cast doubt on the work of climate scientists. Although Lawson and his Global Warming Policy Foundation have been discredited and attacked by numerous scientists and senior politicians, his thinktank continues to receive significant coverage, wrongfully distorting the public and policy debate over climate change.

Well, well, well.

The signatories of the letter were:

Dr Fiona Godlee Editor-in-chief, British Medical Journal
Dr. Richard Horton Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet
Professor Ian Roberts Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health
Professor Hugh Montgomery Professor of Intensive Care Medicine
Professor Anthony Costello Professor of International Child Health
Rachel Stancliffe Director, Centre for Sustainable Healthcare
Dr. Robin Stott Co-chair, Climate and Health Council
Maya Tickell-Painter Director, Medsin Healthy Planet Campaign

 

I've written to Dr Godlee to ask for a comment on this post.

Update on Mar 28, 2012 by Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Maurizio Morabito has found an unredacted version of the letter to Hintze. See here.

Interestingly, the financial values, which are now visible, are denominated in $. There is much talk of Australian politics too:

The carbon price legislation before the Australian parliament still faces much political and public opposition even though Australia is one of the heaviest carbon emitters in the world. Meanwhile, the capricious climate and extreme weather events in Australia this year, including severe flooding, especially Queensland, and ferocious bushfires in WA, make it clear we cannot afford to delay preventive action further. Drought and famine in Sub-Saharan Africa and floods again in Pakistan illustrate the disadvantage of developing countries and the imperative of more help from the developed world.

Does this point perhaps to an approach from Australia's Climate and Health Alliance instead? They were at Durban too.

Update on Mar 28, 2012 by Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Leopard in the comments notes this from the CaHA website:

Demonstrating Better Practice: scoping paper on developing a set of criteria for voluntary accreditation of health care institutions in the area of environmental sustainability.

Which looks a bit like this from the begging letter (emphasis added).

Breakdown of this funding need is:

Website = XXX

Policy/position papers = XXX

Health effects of fossil fuels report = XXX

Scoping paper on voluntary accreditation for health care organisations = XXX

Administrative and operational costs, including office and phone = XXX

I'll try contacting CaHA to see what they have to say.

Update on Mar 28, 2012 by Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Fiona Godlee responds as follows:

There is no truth in your allegation that the letter in this case came from the Climate and Health Council. I am surprised that you would speculate publicly about this without first checking with a member of the council's executive. We are firmly committed to transparency but were in no way involved in this episode.

Article originally appeared on (http://www.bishop-hill.net/).
See website for complete article licensing information.