View source for Globalisation:Global Warming Policy Foundation: Criticisms

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has received much support in the past year, however it has also received much criticism. 

David Aaronovitch, a British journalist, wrote in The Times on 24 November that “Lord Lawson’s acceptance of the science turns out, on close scrutiny, to be considerably less than half-hearted. Thus he speaks of “the (present) majority scientific view”.  He goes on to say that “people like Lord Lawson” are not sceptical about climate change and are only sceptical about “what they don’t want to be true”.<ref>The Times "[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6928868.ece Strip Away the Figleaf and Reveal Naysayers]" accessed 10.11.10</ref> David Aaronvitch is claiming that Lord Lawson and his colleagues are claiming that there is no issue with climate change as this is what they would like to believe.

Although the Global Warming Policy Foundation has clearly stated they are not climate scientists as Peiser has been quoted saying,"People do question my credibility, but I'm not a climate scientist and have never claimed to be one," he said. "My interest is in how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that." <ref>Melanie Newman,’[http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=403382&sectioncode=26]’ “Times Higher Education” 4 September 2008, accessed 15.11.10</ref>. However this is contraversial with the research done in 2005 and his "claim to fame"
Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes. Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.Peiser originally stated in January, 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.<ref>“[http://www.desmogblog.com/benny_peiser Periser makes invalid claims on scientific concensus]” accessed 15.11.10</ref>.


In October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself. <ref>“[http://www.desmogblog.com/benny_peiser Periser makes invalid claims on scientific concensus]” accessed 15.11.10</ref>. Peiser's "Claim to fame" and later his admission of articles in this research and the lack of his article being peer reviewed brings in further questions as to what really are the interests of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.



Another question which has risen about the Global Warming Policy Foundation is the fact that they refuse to reveal the identity of donors that fund it. This raises doubts about the charity’s agenda. Statements such as "we do not accept gifts from anyone with a significant interest in an energy company" will always lead to suspicion when operating in such a distrustful environment. It is not fully understood why the GWPF do not just nip the suspicions in the bud and reveal the identity of the donors or reveal the identity of the donors who for their names to be given?<ref>The Guardian "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/09/global-warming-policy-foundation-job-advert Wanted: GWPF assistant director to reveal thinktank's funding]" accessed 10.11.10</ref>


Benny Peiser once stated that the GWPF does not recieve funding "from people with links to energy companies or the companies themselves although this might be true (however as they do not relase the names of donors we cannot be sure) Peiser has strong ties with to institutions in the US such as the Heartland Institute which have, over the years, received significant sums of money from companies such as Exxon Mobil, the world's leading publicly-owned energy company and operates facilities or markets products in most of the world's countries<ref>[http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/UK-English/about.aspx Exxon Mobil]", accessed 18.10.10</ref>. Although this is not a donation to the GWPF themselves Peiser is representing them as an organisation and thereofer the view of the GWPF should stand with him aswell. The fact that he has strong ties with this instituion and they are receiving large donations from companies such as Exxon Mobil, does not give a good image of Peiser or the GWPF to members of the public. 

Further more, it is a well known fact that Peiser also used to be on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Scientific Alliance, that was set up to counter the environmental movement by Scottish quarryman, Robert Durward. <ref> "[http://www.spinwatch.org/blogs-mainmenu-29/andy-rowell-mainmenu-30/5334-beware-sceptics-bringing-balance-to-the-climate-debate Beware Sceptics Bringing “Balance” to the Climate Debate]" accessed 16.11.10</ref> Peiser's past employer; The scientific Alliance also has links with ExxonMobil who are already said to have connections with Peiser through institutions like Heartland Institute. In January 2005 a report by David Adam stated that, 'Last month the Scientific Alliance published a joint report with the George C Marshall Institute in Washington that claimed to "undermine" climate change claims. The Marshall institute received ?51,000 from ExxonMobil for its "global climate change programme" in 2003, and an undisclosed sum this month.' <ref> David Adam[http://www.spinwatch.org/-news-by-category-mainmenu-9/150-climate-change/634-the-climate-sceptic-chorus-spin-profiles Oil firms fund campaign to deny climate change]"Spin Watch", January 27 2005, accessed 16.11.2010</ref> This goes on further creating doubt in the eyes of the public.


Another criticism of the GWPF it could be argued are their views on climate change. They are more focused on the policies introduced by the government. They claim to 'Our main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant'<ref> "[http://thegwpf.org/who-we-are.html Who We are]" accessed 16.11.10</ref>. However if the Global Warming Policy Foundation dont believe in some of the claims made by scientists then how can they bring reason and balance to the debate of climate change, surely they are creating more of an imbalance within this debate.