Globalisation:Global Warming Policy Foundation: Press Releases

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: Activities of the GWPF

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is an information and educational resource on the issue of climate change. The GWPF say that there primary purpose is to restore peoples faith and trust on the climate debate by providing a balanced view free of prejudice. They provide their views by analysing analyse global warming policies and there economic implications. The first act the GWPF took was to call for an independent inquiry into what they termed “leaked” emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The Universities climate system was hacked and the hacker obtained data from the Research unit and published it on the internet. The leaked information showed that scientists had been manipulating information, in that they changed the temperatures to show a rising global warming trend. The Scientists have at the University had consistently refused to allow outsiders access to there raw data. This questioned the integrity of many of the scientists who government advisors and policy makers had been listening to when it came to big decisions on global warming policies. These are the scientists who have been extremely influential in driving through the panic and urgency of global warming. The role they play on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows the influence they have on world leaders and policies an influence which they manipulated. What is most disturbing about the Climategate scandal is that Dr Jones and the other scientists at East Anglia had been discussing for years the various deceitful tactics they could use to prevent themselves from releasing there true information under freedom of information laws. Also the emails that showed scientists were told to delete large amounts of data after even after a receipt of freedom of information request shows that not only were the scientists morally wrong but they had committed a criminal offence. The fact that these scientists manipulated data to “point in only the one desired direction to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming”. Shows the disturbing lengths these scientists would go to gain attention on the issue of climate change. (Booker, 2010, The Telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-sientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html ). There was a number of inquires set up in response to the Climategate scandal. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee held a short investigation into the scandal. Whilst the University of East Anglia itself held two investigations under Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell. Yet all three inquiries found the University Of East Anglia’s scientists of no wrong doing. The GWPF in contrast looked at the separate investigations and found that they themselves were severely flawed. The GWPF found that the way in which the inquires were conducted was highly biased. For example Lord Oxburgh’s Panel has been criticized for taking on the Panel whilst having specific business interests in wind farms and green capital investments firms. The Russell Panel also has several vocal campaigners for global warming cause.

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."

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.