Difference between revisions of "Globalisation:Global Warming Policy Foundation: Press Releases"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Just as the main goal of the Global Warming Policy Foundation is to educate the interested public, they have isued many press releases which give an account on the debates which are taking place around the world on climate change and renewable energy. Some of these press releases and the views which the GWPF have on them will be shown below:
 
Just as the main goal of the Global Warming Policy Foundation is to educate the interested public, they have isued many press releases which give an account on the debates which are taking place around the world on climate change and renewable energy. Some of these press releases and the views which the GWPF have on them will be shown below:
  
LONDON, 30 September - The Global Warming Policy Foundation has welcomed the Royal Society's decision to revise and tone down its position on climate change. Its new climate guide is an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and triggered a review and subsequent revisions.
+
London, 14 September 2010- The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations. The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate. In particular, the report finds that:none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence none managed to be objective and comprehensive none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics terms of reference were either vague or non-existent none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:
 +
"The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims." "All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place," Andrew Montford warned. Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said:
 +
"The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence." "The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford's report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified." "Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need," Lord Turnbull said. Lord Turnbull also called on the Government to look at the serious criticisms of the IPCC made in the recent InterAcademy Council Report. He said: "The Government should demand that the fundamental reforms recommended by the IAC in the practice, governance and leadership of the IPCC are implemented immediately for its Fifth Assessment." <ref>GWPF"[http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/1532-damning-new-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries.html GWPF Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries]" accessed 16.11.10</ref>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
LONDON, 30 September 2010- The Global Warming Policy Foundation has welcomed the Royal Society's decision to revise and tone down its position on climate change. Its new climate guide is an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and triggered a review and subsequent revisions.
 
The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. "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, the Director of the GWPF.
 
The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. "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, the Director of the GWPF.
 
Dr David Whitehouse, the science editor of the GWPF said: "The biggest failing of the new guide is that it dismisses temperature data prior to 1850 as limited and leaves it at that. It would cast a whole new light on today's warming if the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm Period were as warm as today, possiblity even warmer than today. A thorough discussion of the growing empirical evidence for the global existence of the Medieval Warm Period and its implications would have been a valuable addition to the new report."
 
Dr David Whitehouse, the science editor of the GWPF said: "The biggest failing of the new guide is that it dismisses temperature data prior to 1850 as limited and leaves it at that. It would cast a whole new light on today's warming if the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm Period were as warm as today, possiblity even warmer than today. A thorough discussion of the growing empirical evidence for the global existence of the Medieval Warm Period and its implications would have been a valuable addition to the new report."
 
In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
 
In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
 
"If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all along, its message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's unilateral climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world," Dr Peiser said.<ref>GWPF "[http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/1618-gwpf-welcomes-royal-societys-toned-down-climate-stance.html GWPF Welcomes Royal Society's Toned Down Climate Stance]" accessed 3.11.10</ref>
 
"If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all along, its message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's unilateral climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world," Dr Peiser said.<ref>GWPF "[http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/1618-gwpf-welcomes-royal-societys-toned-down-climate-stance.html GWPF Welcomes Royal Society's Toned Down Climate Stance]" accessed 3.11.10</ref>

Revision as of 13:47, 16 November 2010

Just as the main goal of the Global Warming Policy Foundation is to educate the interested public, they have isued many press releases which give an account on the debates which are taking place around the world on climate change and renewable energy. Some of these press releases and the views which the GWPF have on them will be shown below:

London, 14 September 2010- The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations. The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate. In particular, the report finds that:none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence none managed to be objective and comprehensive none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics terms of reference were either vague or non-existent none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said: "The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims." "All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place," Andrew Montford warned. Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said: "The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence." "The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford's report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified." "Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need," Lord Turnbull said. Lord Turnbull also called on the Government to look at the serious criticisms of the IPCC made in the recent InterAcademy Council Report. He said: "The Government should demand that the fundamental reforms recommended by the IAC in the practice, governance and leadership of the IPCC are implemented immediately for its Fifth Assessment." [1]


LONDON, 30 September 2010- The Global Warming Policy Foundation has welcomed the Royal Society's decision to revise and tone down its position on climate change. Its new climate guide is an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and triggered a review and subsequent revisions. The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. "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, the Director of the GWPF. Dr David Whitehouse, the science editor of the GWPF said: "The biggest failing of the new guide is that it dismisses temperature data prior to 1850 as limited and leaves it at that. It would cast a whole new light on today's warming if the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm Period were as warm as today, possiblity even warmer than today. A thorough discussion of the growing empirical evidence for the global existence of the Medieval Warm Period and its implications would have been a valuable addition to the new report." In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.

"If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all along, its message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's unilateral climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world," Dr Peiser said.[2]