London, 2 September 2014
Five years after its inauguration in 2009, the Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce the launch of its new campaigning arm, the Global Warming Policy Forum.
The new organisation will be able to conduct campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the Foundation’s remit as an educational charity. This arrangement reflects those used by other organisations with dual structures, such as Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace UK.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s news and opinion pieces will henceforth be covered by the new website of the Global Warming Policy Forum, as will the CCNet newsletter, founded and edited by Dr Benny Peiser since 1997.
The Foundation will continue to advance its charitable objects by commissioning and publishing reports and papers and by organising lectures and debates on key matters relating to climate science and policy.
“While the Foundation will continue to publish our reports and videos, the Forum will campaign in a way that will make our work even more effective,” said Dr Peiser, the Director of both arms of the GWPF.
Lord Lawson, the chairman of both GWPF arms said: “This reorganisation will enable us to build on the progress of the past five years and make substantial further progress over the next five – years which may well be decisive in the evolution of climate change policy.”
The new organisation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
In recent years, the GWPF’s influence has grown rapidly, among both UK and international policy makers and the news media and is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading think tanks on global warming policy issues.
Key campaigning issues
For balanced science & policy research
Climate science and climate policies are faced by rising doubt and criticism. There is growing concern about the integrity of climate scientists and the maltreatment of sceptical researchers. The Forum will be campaigning for more balanced and more transparent assessments of climate science and policy research.
For open & sceptical science
Climate alarmism suffers from a manifest lack of scientific scrutiny. Instead of carefully assessing the quality and reliability of climate data, many climate scientists cherry-pick numbers and interpretations that seem to confirm their alarmist conviction. Reliable and trustworthy science requires a sober and detached consideration of all relevant evidence. The Forum will campaign for an open scientific debate which allows for all reasonable arguments and criticism to be voiced and published.
Against bias and alarm
The coverage of climate change in the news media has been stromgly biased in favour of alarm. For far too long, scientific organisations and the mainstream media have failed to give appropriate space to authoritative critics of climate alarmism. The Forum will campaign for more objective media reporting.
For economic scrutiny & realism:
European and other governments have burdened their countries with unilateral and hugely expensive climate and green energy targets. As a direct result, energy prices and fuel poverty are rising in many countries, making them poorer and less competitive. Rejecting economically damaging climate and energy policies, the Forum will be campaigning for cost-effective alternatives that will help to make our societies more resilient and more competitive.
Against green unilateralism
The international deadlock on a new UN climate treaty shows that unilateral climate policies have failed. The Forum will be campaigning for the development of alternative approaches that are politically realistic and economically feasible.
Funding
The Global Warming Policy Forum will be funded by private donations. In order to make clear their complete independence, neither the Foundation nor the Forum accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.
The Global Warming Policy Forum Team Board Members
Lord Lawson (Chairman)
Nigel Lawson (Conservative member of the House of Lords) was Secretary of State for Energy (1981-83) and Chancellor of the Exchequer (1983-89). He is author of An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, 2008.
Edward Atkin CBE
Edward Atkin founded and created Avent in 1994, the world’s No 1 in Baby Feeding hardware. He is a multiple Queen’s Award winner for Technology as well as Exports. Mr Atkin helped create what is now the Reuters Institute for Journalism at Oxford University and owns a R&D centre in Cambridge dealing advanced transport technologies.
Neil Record
Educated at Oxford and London Universities, Neil Record started his career as an Economist at the Bank of England. He is the chairman and founder of Record plc (1983). Mr Record is a Visiting Fellow and Investment Committee member of Nuffield College (Oxford), a Trustee of the Institute of Economic Affairs (London) and a Governor of Magdalen College School (Oxford).
Director
Dr Benny Peiser
Science Editor
Dr David Whitehouse
Senior Researcher
Daniel Mahoney
Is it really sensible to lauch a new body with the same initials and the same logo (despite a slightly different set of colors)?
Logos per se never ever sold anything. It is the quality of the product and the marketing of it that makes a product great. Launching a campaign arm in itself does nothing, however clever the logo. What matters is the strength of the effort to get the message across to the biggest worldwide audience. Yes, much of the MSM who are committed to AGW will initially ignore the GWPF argument, but if every stupid GW statement in the press, radio and television is challenged with a well argued follow up letter, then the message might just begin to get through. Only this morning there was a discussion on BBC Radio about the decline of Beluga whales off the coast of Canada, which it was stated, was the direct result of GW and the melting of the Arctic ice. These are the stupid statements that should be challenged immediately by the ‘Campaign’. It might not have all that much effect immediately, but it might just make them stop and think before making such blatantly false statements in the future.
At the end of the day, the quality of the product makes the logo, no matter how bad the logo might be considered to be, whereas the best logo in the world will fail if the product and its marketing are bad.
GWPF has quite a challenge ahead of it. So many government funded climate organizations are dug into the alarmist position. Pols see warming advocacy as a means of reelection. How can all these rent seekers now say “sorry we got it wrong”. Best of luck!
Echoing Steveta_uk’s comments: they need to differentiate! This new arm needs a slightly different name, otherwise who knows the difference?
Lofty goals like theirs are either a bridge too far and window dressing or a rare set of standards among the vast and slanted policy swamp.
So, now that the GWPF brand has an established reputation with the brainwashed, green-mentality, market segment of the general public, the sustainability (cunningly restyled, “resilient”) gang is going to use GWPF to promote their doomed (DOOMED, I say) windmills (and solar, no doubt):
The crux of the matter is windmill promoters using GWPF’s brand without sacrificing its status as a tax-exempt charity:
Hm. What a coincidence. “Forum” and “Foundation” both begin with an “F.” LOL.
Follow
the
money.
Janice, May I suggest you take another look at the GWPF?
The Guardian believes they are in the pay of big oil, not big wind.
I think they could be paid a lot more by the other side (to misquote Claude Rains).
Perhaps…. the Guardian portrays GWPF that way in an attempt to shore up their credibility with their readers (if “Big Oil” is saying it, then, well! Sustainability must be a real issue (cough)).
Steveta and cheshirered …. That is the whole point. They have the same aim, but one is a tax efficient charity, but barred by the charity commission from certain activities. The other arm is seperately funded, and not a charity,(though more costly to fund) and hence can do things (lobbying) in ways a charity is not allowed to behave, The fact you are unaware this is how many “green” organisations are already structured, shows how effective this approach is. The only people who will really care (and do care and check) about the difference are the charity commission auditors. This is to permit more lobbying freedom.
For open & sceptical science: May I suggest that their aims ought to include “Use of appropriate statistical expertise in the generation of scientific papers”.
So much of the poor quality of AGW science is due to poor understanding of statistics.
Maybe get the UK Statistics Authority to have look at some of the Mannian claims about the accuracy of climate models?
(In a dream-world, if we’re lucky).
Oh, Anthony — I LOVE this new format — the blockquotes are SUPER cool!
And being able to “reply” directly is really neat!
Also, love the fresh, bold, colors in the new headline/logo and like the “magazine” format.
Good show!
Wish I had more time (still bogged down searching for a job…) to spend on WUWT!
Keep up the EXCELLENT work!
So glad WUWT is here. The world needs you.
Janice
#(:))
Very well said, I agree entirely.
Yes, me too.
Auto
Me three.
Here are a few campaign-ideas I’ve had that would make good billboard ads, or 15-second TV spots, or even print ads:
1. A flip-flopped hockey stick, looking like this /””, to reflect the current Plateau in the temperature trendline. The caption would be, “Who’s in Denial Now?”
The stick would be transparently overlaid on a graph of the running mean of GASTA (Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly), averaged from five sources. Flipping over the hockey stick turns the tables on our opponents in a clever and memorable way.
2. Left-side text: “97%”
Right-side text: “WRONG”
Center graphic: the IPCC’s early-draft graphic of its four predictions vs. the observed Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly (GASTA), showing its line near the bottom of the 95% confidence envelope of its projections. (There should be bold text: “95% confidence envelope.”)
3. “CO2 limits—Brought to you by the people who gave you the 55 MPH speed limit.”
Accompanied by a picture of Gore (who presumably was in favor of that speed limit at the time).
4. Caption: “Chicken Little’s Inconvenient Goofs”
Four or six images with line graphs showing items Gore’s movie mis-predicted, such as:
Hurricanes / tornados
Polar Bear population
Sea ice
Drought / Flood
Climate refugees from threatened islands
Malaria
5. A chart of emissions of the developed vs. the developing world under two scenarios.
Caption: “If it’s affordable, it’s ineffective; if it’s effective, it’s unaffordable.”
6. A chart of the percentage of renewable power worldwide (under 5% and growing slowly.) A chart of the growth rates of coal vs. renewable worldwide.
7. Picture of a ruined wind turbine. Caption: “14,000 whirlygigs have been decommissioned since the 1980s in the US. Adding more is insanity.”
The GWPF is a pro-fossil fuels lobby organisation which has now had to split into 2 following an investigation by the UK Charity Commission who found that its political activities were contrary to its aims – which are as “an educational charity”.
Their articles, mostly re-posted from elsewhere, are relentlessly pro-fossil fuels, anti-renewables – and tellingly – anti nuclear.
They also have a tendency to take articles and change the titles to suit their purpose, without asking the authors or publishers.
How do I know this ? I researched them for 2 years and supplied info to the Charity Commission as part of their investigation.
Relying on the GWPF for meaningful “science” on climate change is a poor choice.
Interesting write up from someone who seems to never actaully read anything from the GWPF. I suspect someone is telling porkies, as we say in the UK.
I withdraw my previous slur – clearly this is someone with no bias nor any axe to grind!
How’s that campaign against “Light Pollution” coming along James??
http://www.physics.org/featuredetail.asp?id=58
Soapbox: To light or not to light
http://tlmagazine.co.uk/features-2/soapbox-to-light-or-not-to-light/
http://tinyurl.com/mvxkws5
Looks like N. Korea is leading the world on light pollution prevention!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg
“…neither the Foundation nor the Forum accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”
—
So they only accept gifts from aliens? I don’t know of any living human with money who doesn’t have interest in an energy company. There may be some tribes in temperate climates that don’t have electricity or get energy from a company, but I doubt they have the money to make donations to charitable foundations or forums.
Methinks you are being disengenuois by pretending to not know the meaning of “interest” in this context.
Watch the pea:
To belabor the obvious. They mean someone who has a substantial financial stake (ie: stockholder or bondholder) in an energy company.
Any organization, without very careful design, will drift left. The rate at which this happens is greatest for advocacy organizations. Add to this, progressives who are masters in the art of subversion, I fear that it will not be long before the GWPF is crawling with crypto-marxists. Its bad enough that they use Marxist vocabulary, probably without even realizing it.
I agree with DesertYote. Right of centre Organisations always drift left as they are inclusive… Left wing organisations do not drift right as they exclude anyone with opposite views. See BBC and their ABC. (
Thanks Anthony for a truly wonderful site .