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". Peiser was also 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." "[1]" accessed 15.11.10</ref>.

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even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in order to scare the public into submission for costly policies".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"". McKie clearly has a very different view to that of Peiser and really believes that what scientists are saying about Global Warming trends is accurate, and that people should listen and rely on that information in order to do our best at protecting and preserving the environment.

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 GWPF however do believe and accept that Global Warming is taking place and agree that there is evidence of this through rising temperatures however they do not believe that it is happening as fast or severe as some scientists have been predicting.

They also do not agree with all of the policies the government are trying to put in place to reduce or slow down the effects of global warming. An article released on May 12th 2010, showed some of the GWPF's concern. "In the national interest, the Global Warming Policy Foundation wishes the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government every success. We welcome the fact that its first priority is to reduce substantially the alarming and unsustainable deficit in the public finances, which is leading to a rapidly-growing burden of public debt. In the circumstances, it is clear that the UK cannot afford, above all unilaterally, to move to a low carbon, let alone a zero carbon, economy. "A low carbon economy means a high energy cost economy". It might be possible to make a case for decarbonisation if it were undertaken on a worldwide basis. But the recent Copenhagen Summit showed that there is no prospect of this."For the UK, which accounts for less than 2% of global carbon emissions, to go it alone is not merely suicidal but pointless," said Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Again what this article represents is the GWPF's involvement and interest in Global Warming and climate change. Here Beeny Peiser and Lord Lawson are clearly concerned with the policies of the governement and how these policies could affect the people of the UK, their concern is not solely on the issue of climate change its self but also the policies involed, which they claim is there main purpose anyway. They are more interested in political, economic and social spects with regards to climate change.