Global Warming Policy Foundation

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Background

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change. The group was established on November 22 2009, just three days after the first set of “Climategate” emails were released on the University of Tomsk's server.  [1][2]

Nigel Lawson describes the GWPF as an “all-party and non-party think-tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.” Although Lawson claims to be “open minded” on global warming, the GWPF website has a banner depicting a short-term temperature graph that suggests the world is not warming. [3]

In an interview with The RegisterNigel Lawson said that the Global Warming Policy Foundation “will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where the are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that.” The article also notes that the average age of the Trustees at the time of the group's formation was 74. [4]

Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics said that “Some of those names [on the GWPF's Academic Advisory Council] are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics … To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US. It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny,” reports The Guardian[5]

The Global Warming Policy Forum 

The similarly-named Global Warming Policy Forum (thegwpf.com) describes itself as “a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.” The Global Warming Policy Forum” and is a “London-based think tank which conducts campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s remit as an educational charity.” Its director is Dr Benny Peiser, the same as the Global Warming Policy Foundation. [6]

The reason for the formation of the Global Warming Policy Forum as a seperate entity can be traced to a report by the UK Charity Commision (PDF) that looked into the Global Warming Policy Foundation when “Concerns were raised with the commission that the charity was promoting views that were of a political rather than an educational nature.”  [7]

The Commision examined the GWPF's website, blog, and publications, and came to the conclusion that the GWPF lacked its claimed neutrality, as it “promoted a particular position on global warming.” The Charity Commission also ruled that the GWPF did not constitute as an educational resource:  “The [GWPF] website could not be regarded as a comprehensive and structured educational resource sufficient to demonstrate public benefit. In areas of controversy, education requires balance and neutrality with sufficient weight given to competing arguments. The promotion of a particular view or position would not equate to education.” (Emphasis added). [7]

As an impact of the Charity Commision's involvement, the Global Warming Policy Foundation split off the Global Warming Policy Forum in September, 2014, as a non-charitable entity that would act as a “campaigning body fully able to promote the opinions and policy change.” [7]

American Friends of the GWPF

DeSmogUK reports that the GWPF set up a new 501(c)(3) fundraising arm titled the American Friends of the GWPF in April 2015 so as to “enable supporters in the USA to enjoy tax relief on donations.” [71]
The new Friends of the GWPF was created after donations dropped significantly from £377,979 ($547,219) in 2014 to £207,019 ($299,711) in 2015. The GWPF's most recent Companies House filing shows that the average number of staff dropped from four to three, with membership fees down more than £3,500 ($5,067). [72]
Company details show that American Friends of the GWPF is represented by Los Angeles lawyer, Paul Tosetti, who has handled several mergers of large pharmaceutical companies. [73], [74]

Stance on Climate Change

According to Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, “We are certainly not taking a critical stance on the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are having an effect on the climate.” He said the foundation exists to help restore a less “hysterical” and “emotional” debate on the subject and promote what he calls a more “flexible and long-term approach” to the problem. [8]

The following are excerpts from a 2015 GWPF “Report” on Climate Change by Andrew Montford:

“Policies to ‘stop climate change’ are based on climate models that completely failed to predict the lack of warming for the past two decades. Observational data show clearly that the predictions of unacceptable warming caused by more carbon dioxide are wrong. Economic discount rates aside, policies designed to save the planet from more carbon dioxide are based on failed computer models.

[…] Human emissions of carbon dioxide, a transparent, odorless, non-toxic gas, essential for plant growth and contained at about 40,000 parts per million (ppm) in our own breaths. Carbon dioxide has been mercilessly demonized as ‘carbon pollution’, when in fact it is a benefit to the planet. Agricultural production has increased substantially and the Earth is greener today with the 400 ppm current levels of carbon dioxide than it was with preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm. And two or three times higher levels would be even better. [9]

Funding & Membership

According to Companies House disclosures, the Global Warming Policy Foundation generated only £5,409 in income from membership feeds for the year ending September 30, 2016. As the Independent  reported, this number was the lowest annual total in the history of the foundation. With membership fees of roughly £100 per year, per member, this would also suggest that the group has fewer than 60 members, however this is speculative considering GWPF does not publish details on its membership. [106], [107]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is registered as a charity in the UK (Number 1131448), which gives it certain tax advantages. Below are its financial details at  the UK Charity Commision (charitycommission.gov.uk) as of August, 2015: [10]

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Funding Info

According to the GWPF, “We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from our Members and Supporters.” They describe their members as “part of a growing international community of like-minded people who are helping to restore balance and accuracy to the climate debates.”  They suggest that by becoming a paying member, one can “actively help to inform and shape these debates.” [11]

According to SourceWatch, The Global Warming Policy Foundation will not reveal its funding sources. Lord Lawson, when interviewed by BBC Radio 4, said that he relied on his friends who “tend to be richer than the average person and much more intelligent than the average person.” [12], [13], [14]

The GWPF has rejected FoI (Freedom of Information) requests on at least four different occasions. Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on climate Change and the Environment comments:

“These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by…the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves…The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders.” [15]

GWPF has defended their funding secrecy, claiming that “the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity.” According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. [16]

This leaves the question of who provides the rest of their funding. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100. According to The Guardian, the foundation received £12,161 from membership fees in the year ending 31 July 2012. That would suggest a membership of 120 members at the most. The GWPF's main source of income remains donations, having received over £1m in the past three years. The Guardian investigated further, and found that one of the foundation's secret donors is Michael Hintze, a businessman who has also given large sums of money to the Conservative party.  [17][18]

In 2014, Niel Record, the founding chairman of his own specialist currency management company, and trustee of the free market Institute of Economic Affairs think tank, was named for the first time as a financial backer.[19]

Asked how much he gave to Lawson’s charity, he replied this was “a private matter on which I am not prepared to comment further.” DeSmog UK estimates the donations to be higher than £100,000. [19]

DeSmog UK also reported that Lord Vinson, who was instrumental in the rise to power of the late Margaret Thatcher, was also a backer of GWPF. He donated at least  £15,000 to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the first five years through his own charity, according to documents submitted to the Charity Commission.  [19]

Global Warming Policy Foundation Companies House & Research Docs

Global Warming Policy Forum Companies House Docs

Key People

Board of Trustees

As of August, 2015, the GWPF listed the following on their Board of Trustees[20]

*Stringer and Lilley are the only currently-elected MPs to be listed as GWPF trustees. View DeSmog UK coverage here[21]

Academic Advisory Council

As of August, 2015, the GWPF listed the following on their Academic Advisory Council: [22]

Other People

  • Lord Barnett — Former trustee [25] 
  • Henri Lepage — Former trustee [25]
  • Anthony Kelly — Former Member, Academic Advisory Council (as of 2011)
  • Alan Peacock — Former Member, Academic Advisory Council (as of 2011)
  • B P Radhakrishna  Former Member, Academic Advisory Council (as of 2011)
  • Hal Lewis — Former Member, Academic Advisory Council (According to Sourcewatch)

Location

The GWPF was previously located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. [26][27]
The current address of both the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Global Warming Policy Forum is listed as: [28], [29]
10 Upper Bank Street
London E14 5NP
United Kingdom

Actions

August 10, 2017

The GWPF's Nigel Lawson appeared on BBC Radio 4 in a five-minute-long interview, asked to respond to an earlier interview with Al Gore where Gore had introduced his new film. Carbon Brief reported that Lawson, who has appeared on the program before, made several inaccurate claims during the interview. [90]

According to the transcript, via Carbon Brief, Lawson claimed that England had some of the highest energy costs in the world: [91]

Webb: What do you make of that point? That people like you, who have been saying the costs are too great, are now on the back foot, because the costs of doing what Al Gore wants us to do are fast reducing.

Lawson: Well, look, the point is not, just the costs – although we do have in this country, in England, one of the highest energy costs in the world, which is very hard on the poor and hard on business and industry, which is because of our absurd climate-driven energy policy. The energy in – renewable energy, so-called – is heavily subsidised, and, if they say it’s economic, well then, let’s get rid of the subsidies…[crosstalk]” [91]

Carbon Brief noted that England has some of the lowest gas prices in the EU, based on data from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), as well as below-average domestic electricity prices. [91]

Lawson disputed points on fossil fuel subsidies: [91]

Webb: But the point Al Gore makes is that we subsidise all energy, including fossil fuels…[crosstalk]

Lawson: No, we don’t. That’s not true. We tax fossil fuel energy. Anyway, we subsidise renewable energy. But the main point is that the conventional energy is reliable and cheaper, and that is important. What is the reason for Al Gore, I listened to the interview you had with him, and he was talking complete nonsense. I’m not surprised that his new film bombed completely, it’s a complete fiasco…” [91]

Lawson said that the section on Extreme weather in Al Gore's interview was “nonsense”: [91]

Webb: Which bit of [Gore’s interview] was nonsense?

Lawson: What?

Webb: Which bit…

Lawson: For example, he said that, er, there had been a growing increase, which had been continuing, in the extreme weather events. There hasn’t been. All the experts say there haven’t been. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is sort of the voice of the consensus, concedes that there has been no increase in extreme weather events. Extreme weather events have always happened. They come and go. And some kinds of extreme weather events of a particular time increase, whereas others, like tropical storms, diminish… [91]

Climate Feedback also analyzed Lawson's statements. With regards to his claims on extreme weather, they consulted Andreas Prein of the National Center for Atmospheric Research who said, “This is a false statement since the IPCC AR5 even states in its Summary for Policymakers that ‘Human influence has been detected [… ] in changes in some climate extremes’. […]” (View their full review of Lawson's claim here.) [92], [93]

On the global temperature record, Lawson had this to say:

“And as for the temperature itself, it is striking, [Gore] made his previous film 10 years ago and—according, again, to the official figures—during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined.”  [92]

As DeSmog UK reported, the Global Warming Policy Foundation shared what it later admitted was an “erroneous” temperature dataset to support Lawson's claim. GWPF later Tweeted that it was “happy to correct the record” and since removed the tweet after a request by climate scientist Ed Hawkins. [94]

June 1, 2017

GWPF sent out a press release shortly after Donald Trump announced withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement in which it included the following statements by GWPF director Benny Peiser and chairman Lord Lawson. [88], [89]

Benny Peiser said:

The Paris climate agreement was pushed through against the declared will of America’s elected representatives. US leaders and critics had warned international leaders repeatedly that the US Senate rejected Obama’s deal and that a Republican president would shred it to pieces. Now the Paris accord faces the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol which also ended in failure.” [88]

Lord Lawson said:

US industry already enjoys a huge energy cost advantage over the UK and other EU countries, so the US move can only make things harder for us in Europe. The next government must take a long, hard, look at whether we can afford our own Climate Change Act any longer. It is clear that the costs imposed on British businesses and households are now entirely unsustainable.”  [88]

December 11, 2016

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) released a new report (PDF) claiming that Britain's Climate Change Act would cost £319 billion. [78], [79]

Britain has been gulled by false assurances that decarbonising our economy would be costless into signing up to a stupendous bill of over £300 billion up to 2030,” said Peter Lilley MP, the study’s author. Lilley had voted against the Act in 2008.

According to the GWPF press release, “the Government can no longer be complacent about the rising cost of Britain’s unilateral climate policies.” [78]

Lilley contends that the costs of the act have been concealed. ““A sensible debate,” Lilley writes, “has been averted by pretending that the Climate Change Act is virtually costless, that there are not more cost-effective ways of meeting these targets and that the climate risks averted are imminent, not centuries hence.” [80]

Carbon Brief outlined the path of the report, noting that it was first reported on by the Mail on Sunday's David Rose, who appeared the next day on GWPF TV to note he was “proud to be a friend” of GWPF. It was subsequently shared in a Telegraph editorial that claimed that the cost of meeting UK's climate goals was “not possibly sustainable.” It was also promoted by climate change denier Matt Ridley in his regular Times column, which did not note his position on the GWPF's academic advisory board. Carbon Brief writes that the connection had been edited out of a letter to the Times prior to publication. [80][81], [82], [83], [84]

A final website to cite the paper was the right-wing Breitbart, where James Delingpole used it as support for climate policy being “Pointless.” Carbon Brief noted that Delingpole had sat down with Rose at the GWPF's annual lecture, which was given by Ridley. [85]

October 17, 2016

At the Annual GWPF Lecture at The Royal Society in London, Matt Ridley accused Professor Ranga Myneni of Boston University and his 31 co-authors of delaying publication of a paper in order to avoid it being taking into account by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [95][96]

The Independent reported that climate scientist Michael Mann responded to the lecture by accusing Lord Ridley of buying “into the sort of conspiratorial thinking uttered by Donald Trump.” Mann also criticized the Royal Society for allowing the presentation: [97]

The Royal Society’s decision to host the speech was 'presumably as a gesture of ‘open-mindedness’', Professor Mann told The Independent.

The motto of the Royal Society is ‘Nullius in verba’, which translates to ‘take nobody's word for it’. It is an affirmation of legitimate scepticism, but not the sort of pseudo-sceptical, anti-scientific, bad-faith contrarianism displayed by the Matt Ridleys of the world,” he added. [97]

Mann also said that Matt Ridley's suggestion that scientists were deliberately exaggerating the danger of climate change was “classic projection”: [97]

It is the technique of accusing your ‘opponent’ of doing the very same thing you are doing, in the hope of confusing honest observers and deflecting attention from the awful things you are doing,” he said.

Matt Ridley is a coal baron who profits directly from the sale of fossil fuel reserves while the rest of us suffer the consequences. You couldn’t invent a better climate-change-denier villain.”

Video of Ridley's presentation below.

According to Ridley's lecture:

Myneni’s results, however, remained unpublished. I was puzzled by this. Then I realized that one of the IPCC’s periodic assessment reports was in preparation, and that probably Dr Myneni and colleagues might delay the publication of their results until after that report was published, lest 'the skeptics have a field day' with it.

That last phrase, by the way, is from one of the Climategate emails, the one on 22 September 1999 in which Dr Michael Mann approves the deletion of inconvenient data.

Sure enough, Myneni’s results were eventually published three years later in April 2016 in a paper in Nature Climate Change, with 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries – when the IPCC report was safely in the public domain and the great Paris climate jamboree was over.”

Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science notes that this is a serious allegation against Professor Myneni and his co-authors. However, he also notes that “Viscount Ridley misrepresented Professor Myneni’s work in order to make this claim.” [98]

Ward notes that Matt Ridley had stated in his lecture that he had first heard of Professor Myneni's work in December, 2012, by someone who directed him to a video of a lecture that was delivered on 19 July 2012. [99]

The original video Ridley referred to showed that Myneni was reporting 20.5% of the Earth’s vegetated land had ‘greened’ — Something that Ridley himself had indicated in a January 4, 2013 article in the Wall Street Journal. [100]

Ridley claimed to have reproduced two slides from that July 2012 lecture showing the main results. Ridley claimed that  Myneni had found that 31% of the Earth’s vegetated land had ‘greened’ between 1982 and 2011, and that there had been an increase in gross productivity by 14%, about half of which could be attributed to carbon dioxide fertilization.

Ward notes that, in Professor Myneni's video, this is not the case. The video clearly shows Myneni reporting 20.5% of the Earth’s vegetated land had ‘greened’ (As Ridley reported in the Wall Street Journal). In additionl, the slides Ridley reproduced were not from the July 2012 lecture, but rather from a different lecture delivered at a meeting on July 4 - 5, 2013 (PDF). [101]

In addition, Ridley does not make it clear that Myneni had suggested that 42% of the 14% increase in annual productivity “can be attributed to relaxation of climatic constraints to plant growth,” with “57% to other ‘anthropogenic factors',” whereas the paper published in the journal ‘Nature Climate Change’ in April 2016 did not present a figure for annual productivity, instead concluding that 25% to 50% of the Earth’s vegetated area had greened, with about 70% of this trend attributable to carbon dioxide fertilization.  [98]

Ward writes:

Crucially Viscount Ridley also failed to mention that Professor Myneni states clearly at about 42 minutes during his recorded 2012 lecture that “The attribution to fertilisation is somewhat speculative and not on very solid ground and we have to further refine this before this paper goes out to publication”.

Hence, despite Viscount Ridley’s false claims, it is clear that Professor Myneni presented only preliminary results in July 2012, and so there is no justification for the allegation that he and his co-authors delayed publication in order to avoid its inclusion in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Indeed, it appears that Viscount Ridley obscured the truth about Professor Myneni’s work by showing slides from his July 2013 lecture, but claiming they were part of his earlier 2012 lecture.” [98]

Ward also notes that, to be considered for contribution by the IPCC working group I to the Fifth Assessment Report, papers had to be submitted by no later than July 31, 2012 and accepted by March 15, 2015 (PDF). Professor Myneni's preliminary results were presented on July 19, 2012—just 12 days before the deadline for submission—and his July 2013 lecture was long past the cutoff date. [102]

Notably working group I's report, Published in September 2013, does explicitly address the issue of carbon fertilization (pages 501-2, Chapter 6 — PDF):

Warming (and possibly the CO2 fertilisation effect) has also been correlated with global trends in satellite greenness observations, which resulted in an estimated 6% increase of global NPP, or the accumulation of 3.4 PgC on land over the period 1982–1999 (Nemani et al., 2003).” [103]

Despite this, Ridley chooses to ignore the contribution of IPCC working group I. According to Ward, It is apparent, therefore, that the allegations Viscount Ridley made against Professor Myneni and his co-authors, and against Professor Betts, are entirely untrue and based on misrepresentations of the facts.” Myneni himself published a statement directly refuting the allegations Ridley made against him[104]

Despite this, Ridley since published another artilce in The Spectator titled “The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?” based on his original GWPF lecture: 

Global greening is the name given to a gradual, but large, increase in green vegetation on the planet over the past three decades. The climate change lobby is keen to ensure that if you hear about it at all, you hear that it is a minor thing, dwarfed by the dangers of global warming. Actually, it could be the other way round: greening is a bigger effect than warming,” Ridley writes. [105]

February 3, 2016

The Independent revealed that a number of inter-related groups, many with direct connections to the “Brexit” ovement, all share a 55 Tufton Street address with the Global Warming Policy Foundation: [75]

  • Global Warming Policy  Foundation
  • Global Vision
  • The European Foundation
  • Civitas
  • Taxpayers’ Alliance
  • Business for Britain
  • Big Brother Watch
  • UK2020

DesmogUK tracked the connections between climate science deniers and those compaigning for Britain to leave the European Union, and created the interactive map below. [76]

(Zoom in and out to see the web of relationships between the residents of 55 Tufton Street and its neighbours. Hover over the lines to see the type of relationship between the two entities, and click on the person or organisation’s name to find out more (this will open up a new tab where you can find out more information about all of this entity’s various relationships and stance on climate change):

December, 2015

An undercover Greenpeace investigation revealed details on the Global Warming Policy Foundation's peer review process.  Professor William Happer, who sits on the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF, was asked by undercover reporters if he could put a (fictional) oil-industry-funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF foundation reports that had been called “thoroughly peer reviewed.” [70]

Happer said the GWPF's peer review process consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal.

I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review,” Happer wrote in an email to undercover reporters.  [70]

While Happer claimed that the review of the paper was “more rigorous than the peer review for most journals,” he also told undercover reports that most members of the Academic Advisory Council were too busy to comment:
“I know that the entire scientific advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was asked to submit comments on the first draft.  I am also sure that most were too busy to respond,” he said.   [70]
Happer also noted the challenges in submitting a paper promoting CO2 benefits to a more mainstream journal would be a challenge:
“That might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly [as] your client would also like,” he said. [70]

July, 2015

Internal documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) may have been “wasting taxpayers' money through the inappropriate use of parliamentary questions,” DeSmog UK reports. [30]

Lord Donoughue, a member of the GWPF board of trustees, put forward a total of 25 questions over 15 months to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) relating to obscure climate models. [31]

June 30, 2015

The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Indur Goklany (member of their Academic Advisory Council) authored a GWPF paper titled “The Pontifical Academies' Broken Moral Compass” (PDF) in response to Pope Francis's Encyclical on the Environment. [32]

According to the GWPF's press release, the paper “finds the Vatican is being led astray by its advisors by statements on climate change that are scientifically lacking and ethically dubious.” They also conclude that using fossil fuels is beneficial to the environment “the beneficial impact of fossil fuels has not only been on human well-being but also on nature, because fossil fuel use has allowed more intensive use of land, thus reducing the amount of wilderness that has to be diverted to agricultural use. This means that the Vatican’s backing of reductions in fossil fuel use would actually reduce human well-being and increase the human impact on the planet” [33]

Goklany said, “The academies say that sustainability and resilience are being destroyed by over-consumption and that fossil fuels are to blame, yet almost every indicator of human well-being from life-expectancy to health to standard of living has improved beyond measure largely because of our use of fossil fuels.”

“[…]Climate change is a moral and ethical issue, but it is a strange ethical calculus that would justify wiping out the gains we have made in human well-being over the last few centuries at the same time devastating the natural world. The Vatican’s advisors appear to have lost their way.”

June 15, 2015

The Global Warming Policy Foundation invited climate change skeptic Judith Curry to speak at the House of Lords about climate change, reports DeSmog UK.  [34]

According to her presentation notes (PDF), her main message was to emphasise the uncertainty in the climate change science: “The punch line is this,” she said in the House of Lords, “Any impact of human caused global warming is lost in the noise of climate variability.” 

June, 2015

The Global Warming Policy Foundation published a research paper (PDF) by Susan Crockford titled “The Arctic Fallacy.” [35]
According to the GWPF press release, the paper “accuses scientists of systematically misleading the public, saying that they are blaming changes in polar bear populations on global warming despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” [36]
April 26, 2015
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) launched a “major inquiry into the integrity of the official global surface temperature records.” The group would be chaired by the GWPF's Terence Kealey. [37]
Kealey said:
“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested. We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.” [37]
The “International Temperature Data Review Project” is hosted at tempdatareview.org. “The Panel” includes the following: [38]

March 1, 2015

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) issued a briefing paper titled “The Small Print: What the Royal Society Left Out” (PDF) that accuses the Royal Society of “presenting a misleading picture of climate science.” [39]

As an example, the Royal Society addresses the question of why Antarctic sea ice is growing,” says Prof Ross McKitrick, the chairman of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, “but in doing so they present a recently proposed hypothesis as if it were settled science. Failing to admit when the answer to an important question is simply not known does a disservice to the public. We believe that this new paper does a much better job of presenting the whole picture to the public.” [40]

The paper was written/endorsed by the following “experts”:

An analysis by DeSmog UK found that Peabody Energy had cited the March, 2015 report at least 16 times in an official submission to the White House addressing the company's concerns regarding new policies on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. [41]

July, 2014

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Chairman Nigel Lawson accused the BBC of silencing the debate on global warming. He wrote his criticisms in an article in the Daily Mail titled “'I've been banned by the BBC!': Ex-Chancellor Lord Lawson, a passionate climate change sceptic, accuses BBC bosses of silencing debate on global warming.“ [42]

In his article, Lawson wrote: “If there is to be a ban on non-scientists discussing climate change issues (which I do not, of course, support), this should in the best BBC tradition be an even-handed one. That is to say, they should also ban non-scientists such as energy secretary Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, Lord Deben (chairman of the government’s climate advisory committee), Lord Stern (former adviser to the government on the economics of climate change and development) and all the others who are regularly invited to appear.” [42]

The Guardian reports how BBC rejected Lawson's claims that BBC had been silencing the global warming debate. The BBC statement read: [43]

“Nigel Lawson has not been banned and nor is there a ban on non-scientists discussing climate change. We have also not apologised for putting him on air. The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage, whatever the subject, and would not bow to pressure from any quarter whatever the story. This ruling found a false balance was created in that the item implied Lord Lawson’s views on climate science were on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins.
“Our position continues to be that we accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly. We do however on occasion offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate as part of the BBC’s overall commitment to impartiality.”

May 14, 2014

The Global Warming Policy Foundation released a press release titled, “Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF voices shock and concern at the extent of intolerance within the climate science community.” Three weeks prior to this announcement, Bengtsson had just joined the GWPF, but due to what he wrote in his letter of resignation as “enormous group pressure,” and “no limit and end to what will happen,” he decided that there was “no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF.” [44]

In response to Bengtsson's letter of resignation, Benny Peiser replied, “The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.” [44]

David Henderson echoed similar sentiments: “Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.” [44]

May 7, 2014

A Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) report by Willem de Lange and Bob Carter suggest that, with regards to sea level change “adaptation is more cost-effective than mitigation.” [45], [46]

November, 2013

John Howard, former prime minister of Australia, spoke at the GWPF's Annual Lecture, contending that those who believe that global warming could be catostrophic have adopted a “substitute religion.” [47]

September, 2012

The Global Warming Policy Foundation published a pamphlet critical of the Stern Review (PDF) — an influential report on the economics of climate change published in October 2006. The GWPF pamphlet, titled “What is wrong with Stern?” was written by Peter Lilley, the Conservative Party Member of Parliament. Peter Lilley was one of 5 MPs (out of 646) who voted against the UK Climate Change Bill in 2008 which would have set legal targets for reducing emissions. [48]

According to a critical review (PDF)  by Bob Ward at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the GWPF pamphlet uses a “combination of misrepresentation, bad economics and fundamentally flawed science, and simply recycles erroneous allegations that were made, and debunked, six years ago.” A number of experts agree that Lilley's pamphlet makes a number of errors and assumptions in an attempt to make a case against the Stern report. [49]

May, 2011

The GWPF distributed a leaflet (PDF) written by their “Academic Advisor” Matt Ridley (with a forward written by AGW skeptic Freeman Dyson) promoting the supposed benefits of shale gas. According to the report's summary, the development of shale gas would be superior to the development of renewable resources.

Ridley writes that “A surge in gas production and use may prove to be both the cheapest and most effective way to hasten the decarbonisation of the world economy, given the cost and land requirements of most renewables.”[50]

April 14, 2011

The GWPF presented “900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of 'Man-Made' Global Warming (AGW) Alarm.[51]

The blog Carbon Brief analyzed these papers and found that nine of the top ten authors had ties to ExxonMobil. They also discovered that prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming. [52]

Additionally, the most-cited journal on the list was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor, and whose editors are AGW skeptics. [52]

December 2010 – February 2011

According to records of the Public Relations Consultants Association (PDF), the GWPF retained the lobbying services of Bell Pottinger, a group that gas generated controversy for its claims of influence over senior government members. It is unclear what these services were. [53]

November, 2011

Lord Nigel Lawson of the GWPF backed Price Philip after he branded wind farms as “absolutely useless”: [54]

If you tried to devise the most costly and inefficient means of generating electricity imaginable, you would choose wind power,” Lawson said. He continues, stating that wind power is “an environmental monstrosity, desecrating ever more of our English landscape. And the cost of all this – to no benefit except to the wind power industry itself – is paid by all electricity consumers, including the poorest, and damages the British economy which is fragile enough as it is.”

September, 2010

When the three British Government enquiries into the CRU emails were completed, Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation immediately announced that he wanted to investigate further. Independent reviews had already exonerated the CRU scientists from any misdeads, and found that climate scientists involved in the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit had not “manipulated and suppressed key climate data” as some climate change skeptics had claimed.

Even though the panel concluded that the allegations were unfounded, the GWPF would not accept the findings. Peiser stressed that “the issue would not go away with the report,” and that “We (the Global Warming Policy Foundation) have now commissioned our own inquiry into the way these three inquiries have been set up and run.” [55]

The GWPF commissioned Andrew Montford, author behind the Hockey Stick Illusion and the man behind the skeptic blog Bishop Hill, to write the “enquiry” into the Climategate emails. Montford was paid £3000 for his efforts. The results were released in September 2010 — See the GWPF's full report here (PDF)[56], [57][58]

The Guardian noted that the choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in The Hockey Stick Illusion, which has also been criticized by numerous reviewers. [59], [60], [61], [62] 

Furthermore the Global Warming Policy Foundation's own funding faced controversy while it enjoyed charitable status, yet Montford himself is critical of what he calls “fake charities.” [63]

According to Sourcewatch, Montford criticized the official enquiries for not including known skeptics on their panels. This is not entirely true, however, as the Parliamentary Enquiry included Graham Stringer, a man who has consistently voted very strongly against laws to respond to climate change. [64], [65]

Montford knew this, as evidenced by a recorded conversation he had with Stringer on his blog, Bishop Hillwhere he describes Stringer as a “dissenter from the majority opinion represented by the report.” [66]

May 12, 2010

After the UK general election in May 2010, the Global Warming Policy Foundation began lobbying the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government to stop subsidies for alternatives fuels and encouraged the government to abandon the UK's emissions reductions targets. 

“At the very least, given the financial and economic state we are in, the new Government should phase out all energy subsidies of all kinds, and suspend unilateral targets until such time as all other major nations have signed up to the same course,” said GWPF Chairman Nigel Lawson. [67]

November 22, 2009

In an Op-Ed in The Times announcing the GWPF launch, Nigel Lawson called for “A high-level independent inquiry” into the e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). [68]

Related Organizations

Resources

  1. Ed Miliband clashes with Lord Lawson on global warming,” BBC News, December 6, 2009. Archived August 17, 2015.

  2. COPENHAGEN WILL FAILAND QUITE RIGHT TOO,” The Global Warming Policy Forum, November 22, 2009. Archived August 17, 2015.

  3. GWPF Launched Today!” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, November 23, 2009. Archived January 4, 2012.

  4. Nigel Lawson: Climate science has turned into religion,” The Register, November 25, 2009. Archived August 17, 2015.

  5. Caroline Davies and Suzanne Goldenberg. “The voices of climate change sceptics,” The Guardian, November 24, 2009. Archived August 17, 2015.

  6. Who We Are,” The Global Warming Policy Forum. Archived August 17, 2015.

  7. Operational Case Report: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (1131448). The Charity Commission, September 30, 2014.

  8. James Randerson. “Climate sceptics: are they gaining any credence?“ The Guardian, December 4, 2009. Archived August 17, 2015.

  9. Andrew Montford. Unintended Consequences of Climate Change Policy. Global Warming Policy Foundation, January 2015. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  10. 1131448 - THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION,” Profile at charitycommision.gov.uk. Accessed August 17, 2015.

  11. Membership - Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived December 27, 2011.

  12. Global Warming Policy Foundation,” SourceWatch Profile.

  13. Lawson still won’t come clean about sceptic foundation’s funding,” Left Foot Forward, June 10, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015.

  14. Climategate Revisited,” BBC Radio 4, October 21, 2012.

  15. Damian Carrington. “Chris Huhne blasts Lord Lawson's climate sceptic thinktank,” The Guardian, November 22, 2011. Archived August 17, 2015.

  16. Leo Hickman. “Global Warming Policy Foundation donor funding levels revealed,” The Guardian, January 20, 2011. Archived August 17, 2015.

  17. Secret funding of climate sceptics is not restricted to the US,” The Guardian, February 15, 2013. Archived August 17, 2015.

  18. Michael Hintze revealed as funder of Lord Lawson's climate thinktank,” The Guardian, March 27, 2012. Archived August 17, 2015.

  19. Brendan Montague. “Exposed: Lawson’s Climate Denial Donors’ Links to Tobacco and Oil Backed Think Tank,” DeSmog UK, September 2, 2014.

  20. Board of Trustees,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived August 17, 2015.

  21. Kyla Mandel. “Labour and Tory MPs Join Lord Lawson's Climate Denial Global Warming Policy Foundation,” DeSmog UK, July 17, 2015. 

  22. Academic Advisory Council,” Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived August 17, 2015.

  23. Kyla Mandel. “Leading UK Sceptic Group Promotes Koch-Funded Canadian Climate Denier,” DeSmog UK, January 13, 2015.

  24. Anthony Watts. “The GWPF Responds To New IPCC Report,” Watts Up With That, November 18, 2011. Archived August 17, 2015.

  25. Board of Trustees,” Global Warming Policy Foundation, Archived March 1, 2012.

  26. Contact: The Global Warming Policy Foundation,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived May 3, 2012.

  27. Caroline Davies and Suzanne Goldenberg. “The voices of climate change sceptics,” The Guardian, August 17, 2015. 

  28. Contact,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived August 17, 2015.

  29. Contact,” The Global Warming Policy Forum. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  30. Brendan Montague. “Peers Attack Government Climate Scientists at Taxpayers' Expense - Official Memo,” DeSmog UK, August 17, 2015.

  31. Energy Files: Documents reveal UK govt frustration with climate sceptic pressure,” Energydesk, August 5, 2015. Archived August 17, 2015.

  32. Indur M. Goklany. The Pontifical Academies’ BROKEN MORAL COMPASS (PDF). Global Warming Policy Foundation, July 2015. Archived August 17, 2015.

  33. “On Climate Change & Energy, 'The Vatican’s Advisors Have Lost Their Moral Compasses'” (Press Release), Global Warming Policy Foundation, June 30, 2015. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  34. Ben Lucas. “UK Climate Deniers Invite American Sceptic Judith Curry to Speak in the House of Lords,” DeSmog UK, June 16, 2015. 

  35. Susan Crockford. THE ARCTIC FALLACY: Sea ice stability and the polar bear (PDF). The Global Warming Policy Foundation, June, 2015.

  36. Polar Bear Scientists 'Willfully Blind to the Facts” (Press Release), Global Warming Policy Foundation, June 8, 2015. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  37. “Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity” (Press Release), Global Warming Policy Foundation, April 25, 2015. Archived August 17, 2015.

  38. The Commissioners,” The International Temperature Data Review Project. Archived August 17, 2015.

  39. The Small Print: What the Royal Society Left Out (PDF). The Global Warming Policy Foundation, March, 2015. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  40. “Royal Society Misrepresents Climate Science” (Press Release), the Global Warming Policy Foundation, March 1, 2015. Archived August 17, 2015.

  41. Kyla Mandel. “Coal Baron Matt Ridley is Top Source in Peabody Climate Report to the White House,” Desmog UK, July 20, 2015. 

  42. Nigel Lawson. “'I've been banned by the BBC!': Ex-Chancellor Lord Lawson, a passionate climate change sceptic, accuses BBC bosses of silencing debate on global warming,” Daily Mail, July 9, 2014. 

  43. Adam Vaughan. “BBC rejects claim that climate sceptic Lord Lawson is being silenced,” The Guardian, July 9, 2014.

  44. Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF voices shock and concern at the extent of intolerance within the climate science community,” GWPF, May 14, 2014. Archived August 17, 2015.

  45. Sea Level Change: Living With Uncertainty” (Press Release), Global Warming Policy Foundation. May 7, 2014. Archived August 17, 2015.

  46. Willem P. de Lange and Robert M. Carter. SEA-LEVEL CHANGE: Living with uncertainty (PDF), Global Warming Policy Foundation, May, 2014.. Archived August 17, 2015.

  47. John Howard. One Religion is Enough (PDF). The Global Warming Policy Foundation, November 5, 2013. Archived August 17, 2015.

  48. Peter Lilly MPWhat is Wrong with Stern: The Failings of the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. (PDF) September 2012, the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  49. Bob Ward. Critics of the Stern Review present both a case of bad economics and fundamentally flawed science,” London School of Economics and Political Science, October 3, 2012. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  50. Matt Ridely. “The Shale Gas Shock” (PDF), GWPF, May 2011. Archived August 17, 2015.

  51. 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of 'Man-Made' Global Warming (AGW) Alarm,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, April 14, 2011. Archived April 20, 2011.

  52. Energy and Environment – 'journal of choice for climate skeptics' Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers part III,”,The Carbon Brief, April 21, 2011. Archived August 17, 2015.

  53. PRCA Public Affairs Register – December 2010 to February 2011” (PDF), PRCA.org.ok. Archived August 17, 2015.

  54. Ex-Chancellor Backs Prince Philip Over Attack On Wind Farms,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, November 21, 2011. Archived August 17, 2015.

  55. Richard Black. “CRU climate scientists 'did not withhold data',” BBC News, July 7, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015.

  56. James Randerson.”'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules,” The Guardian, September 14, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015.

  57. The Climategate Inquiries,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, September 14, 2010. Archived October 24, 2010.

  58. Andrew Montford. The Climategate Inquiries (PDF), The Global Warming Policy Foundation, September 2010. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  59. Bob Ward. “Did climate sceptics mislead the public over the significance of the hacked emails?“ The Guardian, August 19, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015. 

  60. The Montford Delusion,” RealClimate, July 22, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015.

  61. Nick Hewitt. “Climate change scepticism,” Chemistry World, September, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015.

  62. Alastair McIntosh. “THE HOCKEY STICK ILLUSION,” Scottish Review of Books, Volume 6, Issue 3 (2010). Archived August 17, 2015.

  63. Entries in Fake charities,” Bishop Hill. Accessed August, 2015.

  64. Graham Stringer MP, Manchester, Blackley,” the public whip. Archived August 17, 2015.

  65. UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE: To be published as HC 444-i: Reviews into the Climatic Research Unit's E-mails at the university of East Anglia,” www.parliament.uk, September 8, 2010 . Archived August, 2015.

  66. A chat with Graham Stringer,” Bishop Hill, April 10, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015.

  67. GWPF CALLS FOR SUSPENSION AND REVIEW OF UNILATERAL CLIMATE TARGETS,” Global Warming Policy Foundation, May 12, 2010. Archived August 17, 2015.

  68. Nigel Lawson. “Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too,” The Times, November 23, 2009. Republished by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived January 11, 2012.

  69. Brendan Montague. “Lawson’s Hot and Cold Affair with the Institute of Economic Affairs,” DeSmog UK, September 2, 2014.

  70. Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan. “Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding,” GreenPeace EnergyDesk, December 8, 2015. WebCiteURLhttp://www.webcitation.org/6deZxlWnq

  71. Kyla Mandel. “UK Climate Denial Think Tank Global Warming Policy Foundation Sets Up US Fundraising Arm,” DeSmogUK, May 6, 2016.

  72. THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION: Company number 06962749,” Companeis House. Archived May 10, 2016. WebCite URLhttp://www.webcitation.org/6hP9HskvU

  73. THE AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE GWPF INC in GILLETTE, NJ 07933,” NonProfitStorm. Archived May 10, 2016. WebCite URLhttp://www.webcitation.org/6hP6ycitt

  74. “Paul D. Tosetti,” Latham & Watkins LLP. Accessed May 10, 2016. WebCite URLhttp://www.webcitation.org/6hP8oXKYg

  75. The address where Eurosceptics and climate change sceptics rub shoulders,” Independent, February 10, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Dp4D4

  76. Kyla Mandel. “Mapped: The Cosy Climate-Euro Sceptic Bubble Pushing for Brexit and Less Climate Action,” DesmogUK, June 13, 2106.

  77. PROFESSOR GARTH PALTRIDGE JOINS GWPF’S ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, November 2, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ci7dM

  78. (Press Release). “REPORT REVEALS £300 BILLION COST OF BRITAIN’S CLIMATE CHANGE ACT,” Global Warming Policy Foundation, December 11, 2016. Archived December 19, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/9xjrp

  79. Peter Lilley. “£300 BILLION: The cost of the Climate Change Act,” Global Warming Policy Foundation, December, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  80. Simon Evans. “UK Climate Change Act: Understanding the costs and benefits,” Carbon Brief, December 16, 2016. Archived December 19, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/u8tBC

  81. Hot air: Bombshell report shows green levies backed by government will cost the economy £319bn by 2030,” The Mail on Sunday, December 11, 2016. Archived December 19, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/tVErW

  82. DAVID WHITEHOUSE & DAVID ROSE DISCUSS REACTIONS TO GLOBAL COOLING POST-EL NINO,” Global Warming Policy Forum, December 12, 2016. Archived December 19, 2016. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/7qdWV#selection-471.0-471.78

  83. Leo Hickman. “Telegraph editorial describing LIlley's report as a 'study', rather than a non-peer-reviewed report for climate sceptic lobby group GPWF,” Twitter, December 11, 2016. Archived image on file at DeSmog.

  84. Matt Ridley. “Climate Change Act has cost us the earth,” The Times, December 12, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/RB3vN

  85. James Delingpole. “Delingpole: The £300 Billion Climate Change Act is Costing Britain the Earth,Breitbart, December 13, 2016. Archived December 19, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ALd3Y

  86. (Press Release). “ANDREW MONTFORD APPOINTED GWPF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, May 2, 2016. Archived May 3, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/d0Hm7

  87. Dr Benny Peiser,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived May 3, 2017. Archive.is URL:https://archive.is/gYq8t

  88. (Press Release. “GWPF: Failure Of Paris Climate Deal Was Inevitable,” GWPF, June 1, 2017.

  89. Mat Hope. “How the UK’s Climate Science Deniers (and Government) Reacted to Trump’s Paris Agreement Withdrawal,” DeSmog UK, June 2, 2017.

  90. 10/08/2017,” BBC Radio 4. Archived August 14, 2017. Archived .mp3 on file at Desmog. (Lawson begins at 2:33:25).

  91. Factcheck: Lord Lawson’s inaccurate claims about climate change on BBC Radio 4,” Carbon Brief, August 10, 2017. Archived August 14, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/W75P2

  92. BBC Today airs false statements by Lord Lawson in the name of balance,” Climate Feedback, August 10, 2017. Archived August 14, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/oZd4p

  93. Some extreme weather events are clearly becoming more common, in contrast to Lord Lawson’s claim,” Climate Feedback, August 10, 2017. Archived August 14, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VCsug

  94. Kyla Mandel. “Climate Science Denial Group GWPF Admits It Used False Temperature Graph,”DeSmog UK, August 14, 2017.

  95. MATT RIDLEYGLOBAL WARMING VERSUS GLOBAL GREENING,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, October 18, 2016. Archived October 20, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/nD0fM

  96. Greening of the Earth and its drivers,” Nature Climate Change, 6, 791–795 (2016). Archived October 20, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/KAyu2

  97. Ian Johnston. “Royal Society accused of allowing ‘anti-scientific coal baron’ to preach benefits of global warming,” The Independent, October 20, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/529l1

  98. False allegations by climate change 'sceptic',” Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/wTtyo

  99. Ranga Myneni 2012,” YouTube Video uploaded by user NASA Earth Exchange, May 12, 2016. Archived .mp4 on file at Desmog.

  100. Matt Ridley. “How Fossil Fuels Have Greened the Planet,” The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2013. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/jKjOg

  101. The Greening Earth: Probing Vegetation Conference From Past to Future” (PDF), July, 2013. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  102. Cut-Off Dates for literature to be considered for AR5” (PDF)IPCC.ch. Updated December 12, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  103. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles” (PDF)IPCC.ch. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  104. Vegetation Remote Sensing & Climate Research,” Boston University Department of Earth and Environment. Archived October 20, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/EwfCQ

  105. Matt Ridley. “The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?” The Spectator, October 22, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/b8B7c

  106. THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION: Company number 06962749,” Companies House. Accessed October 19, 2017. Documents on file at DeSmog.

  107. Bob Ward. “The UK's main climate sceptic club's membership is dwindling – yet they still hold power in certain arenas,” The Independent, January 30, 2017. Archived October 19, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/DQG2F

Other Resources