Globalisation:Global Warming Policy Foundation: Views on climate change

The GWPF are not concerned with the science behind climate change, they are more interested in political, economic and social aspects of climate change "Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice".

On Sunday February 7th 2010, a number of leaked e-mailes between GWPF's director Benny Peiser and the Observers Science editor Robin McKie were released. The row that broke out over these e-mails was over the veracity of research into some aspects of global warming and inaccurate predictions about melting glaciers. Benny Peiser and Robin McKie have opposing views in terms of climate change and climate change policies and one of the opening statements made by Peiser in the chain of e-mails stated "What we are witnessing is a growing backlash over the suppression of scientific data, the exaggeration of global warming impacts and the maltreatment of climate critics", he later went on to say " The problem with climate science and climate policy in the UK is that it is completely controlled by a group of individuals who are convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in order to scare the public into submission for costly policies". Here Peiser is clearly against the views of scientists in terms of climate change and what will happen to the environment in the future, he believes that what the public are told is very exaggerated and that these scientists ignore the views of others in this climate change debate such as climate change sceptics. Robin McKie clearly takes an opposing view with this matter, agreeing with the scientific views and in his response back states "You and other climate change deniers claim that there is no connection between rising carbon levels and global warming and so spend your time nitpicking at every assumption and claim made by scientists about the climate over the next 100 years". "scientists say there is strong risk temperatures will rise by 5C by 2100. If that happens, the planet will roast, deserts will spread, ice caps will melt, coastal regions will suffer devastating floods and billions will be left homeless. The world's misery will be unparalleled. You say this will not happen. But how sure are you? Can you demonstrate with the same confidence and transparency as climate scientists that we have absolutely nothing to fear? And if you say you can, point to studies that underpin your argument that everything is tickety-boo and will continue to be so for centuries. Let me be plain. I believe you and your colleagues are behaving in a hugely irresponsible manner and are putting future generations at immense risk"".

A more recent debate (11th June 2010) between sociologist and New Labour philosopher king Anthony 'Third Way' Giddens, former director of the London School of Economics, and former Chancellor Lord Nigel Lawso also represents opposing views on climate change. Giddens began by arguing "'the science' showed humans were wreaking terrible havoc on natural systems, that this science was robust, and the science also had a clear policy message: we must change our ways. "We're interfering in the climate in a radical and irreversible way ... We must take action now". However Lawson argues "the science was anything but robust ("It's more uncertain the more you look"), but that didn't matter so much as choosing the right policy responses. For Lawson, efforts to reduce CO2 emissions were all futile gestures - they wouldn't work, and they'd only end up costing us dearly. That's because China and India will not halt economic development, which for now, is largely dependent on abundant and cheap fossil fuels". For Giddens, "the scientific elite makes the policy: and the One True Policy is to stop emitting carbon now! But the science doesn't really favour any policy"".

This debate briefly represents that the GWPF are not focused on the actual science its self in terms of Global Warming but the policies, this is further repsented through an article where the Royal Society review climate change at the GWPF. The Royal Society " a fellowship of 1400 outstanding individuals who represent all areas of science, engineering and medicine and who form a global scientific network of the highest calibre". In this review, the most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public. In particular they were unhappy that the long term effects of greenhouse gases were being oversimplified. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, admitted that the case for man-made global warming has been exaggerated in the past. He emphasised that the basic science remains sound but agreed to issue guidance so that it better reflects the uncertainties. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said it was about time the sceptics were taken more seriously. "I think it is a very significant development in that it is no longer one or two eccentrics but a wide group of fellows so it is taken more seriously".

"The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years," said Dr Benny Peiser"

GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said the foundation believed carbon dioxide in the atmosphere did have a warming effect, but said: If we are sceptical in one area, it is the predicted impacts or disasters. That s where we think the science is not good enough.