Talk:The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Bias?
The article (especially the introduction) implies this is an educational charity, while the reality seems very different. Shouldn't the intro be rewritten, or at least its focus needs to emphasis its climate-denial activities... Lionfish0 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, "climate-denial activities" tells us something about your POV.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems very clear that the members and the push of the organisation is to discredit/delay any response to anthropogenic climate change. It is odd that this is not clearly mentioned in the introduction. My 'POV' is completely irrelevant! Instead it concentrated on 'education' etc.
 * I'd say the changes that have been made since yesterday solve the issue I was concerned about, and it's a much more clear and correct introduction.Lionfish0 (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (removed my bit of unhelpful ranting!)
 * There's nothing "POV" about calling the GWPF a climate denial organization. That's exactly what it is and what the sources call it.  Tillman has a habit of telling people it's raining when the sun is shining and that it's warm when it's snowing.  You get used to it after a while, like a crazy old grandma.  No big whoop.  The wacky verbiage in the lead alleging that the organization is only interested in "challenging 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming" with no clarification, is extremely dishonest and lacks objectivity.  There is a consensus in the scientific community that the only thing "extremely damaging and harmful" is the denialism of groups like the GWPF.  Keep in mind, these people will never, ever, ever change their minds.  There were scientists who literally went to their graves refusing to accept the paradigm shift in geology that accepted plate tectonics as a workable theory.  You've got the same thing going on here.  It doesn't matter how much evidence they are given, they will never accept it.  For a good laugh, check out Plate Tectonics - Assessments and Reassessments (1974).  That's the last anyone ever heard of them.  So the real question becomes, why are we still hearing from groups like the GWPF, and when will they release their list of donors? Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked more closely at the articles on their website. Although the introduction to this article is now technically true, it doesn't mention that their actual activity goes far beyond their 'stated aims' of responding to mitigation policies. It seems their actual main focus is to discredit the underlying science, not just respond to mitigation. I'm not sure how much should go into the introduction though? Lionfish0 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from one or two paragraphs that discuss the stated aims of this organization, the balance of the article suggests bias against the organization that would be better articulated somewhere else. I recommend removing most of the text dealing with funding etc except that which is factual - most of the commentary appears designed to suggest conspiracy and isn't really helpful. Surely editorial of this nature is outside of the purpose of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Br14 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bob Ward's opinions overweighted?
We have at least five opinion pieces by Bob Ward (communications director) currently used and cited in the article, which seems to be a WP:WEIGHT problem, as Ward is a well-known partisan opposing the GWPF. I removed one that seemed particularly egregious. Ward is repeatedly and redundantly named as the "policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change", which also needs cleanup.

I also removed an unsourced bit of editorializing from the "Call for an independent inquiry" subsection: "This contradicts the articles on their website which are often attempt to cast doubt on the science of climate change." --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ward is a reliable published source giving mainstream views of the topic, and as such is suitable for giving due weight to majority views of the GWPF and its fringe views. The info you removed was more appropriate in the section about the GWPF's charitable status, so I've moved it there. Unsourced info can of course be deleted, the GWPF claims appear to be shown out of context but as The Times is paywalled I'm not going to change that for now. . dave souza, talk 09:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ward is certainly well-published: IB he's a regular op-ed columnist at the Guardian, and regularly publishes opinion pieces elsewhere -- which is a standard part of the job of a pubic-relations man. He's certainly a RS for his own opinions, which (presumably) reflect the opinions of his employer. Here are some outside opinions of the merits of Ward's columns and so forth:


 * Here's Roger Pielke, Jr.: "Ward, who serves as a spin doctor for the climate science community, does not seem to realize that if you are caught out in public saying things that are demonstrably untrue, then your credibility will suffer. Even though Ward is a PR official at LSE, his statements reflect poorly on the Grantham Institute which employs him and the climate science community more generally."   -- a sample of a number of unfavorable opinions that Pielke has writen re Ward.


 * Christopher Booker calls Ward the "chief attack dog for the global warming industry, firing off incessant complaints, letters and articles savaging anyone who dares question its cherished dogmas" . . . . "but it is uncanny how often he falls flat on his face. "


 * Andrew Montford remarks re Ward's Guardian column:  "Does the Guardian really want to look like a private press for the Grantham Research Institute?"


 * Now, this is another set of opinions, from people who Ward has attacked in print. But it seems noteworthy that Ward has been accused of what he's accusing others of: getting his facts wrong. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! The usual crew of "skeptics", Pielke Jr. is the most reputable but seems prone to pushing minority views, and the blog post you link showing his conspiracy theory about CRU emails fails to note that his research wasn't, in the event, excluded from the IPCC report. His claims haven't stood up in court, as I'm pretty sure they would have featured in challenges to the EPA. Booker is a satirist and journalist known for "white asbestos is safe" and claims that the SAR has a graph showing the MWP, and the blogger Montford's book has blatant factual misrepresentation about the FAR. These are exactly the people who shouldn't get undue weight. . dave souza, talk 08:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

James Wilsdon, Bob Ward's successor at the Royal Society, has some pungent remarks about Ward at The Guardian:
 * I'm also pleased to note that my time as director of science policy was less controversial than Bob's own; years later, we were still clearing up problems caused by Bob's ham-fisted approach to the communication of climate science and climate policy; a service which he now provides with his unique brand of terrier-like tenacity for the LSE's Grantham Institute.

(Note: Ward posts his comments there as "reward")

Once again, Bob Ward is NOT a RS! --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of RSs, you should know better than expecting anyone to base article content on quotes you find in the personal comments section under a public article. --Nigelj (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you don't feel comments from Ward's successor at the RS are relevant to Ward's credibility? Note that this is a discussion of whether to retain (imo) excessive quotes from Ward, a rather notoriously over-the-top PR man. No proposal to use the Guardian discussion in article space! -- Pete Tillman (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All you have shown is that James Wilsdon and Bob Ward don't get on together. A nonsensical benchmark (and a clue to why it isn't one). — TPX 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, but unsurprised, at the spirited defense of what I see as the over-reliance on the published opinions of a single paid political activist in this article. Bob Ward has been described by critics as "a spin doctor for the climate science community", an "attack dog for the global warming industry", and criticized for the  "problems caused by Bob [Ward]'s ham-fisted approach to the communication of climate science." Is PR man Ward really the best source for criticisms of the GWPF? --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Global Warming Policy Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091223022853/http://timesonline.typepad.com:80/science/2009/12/climate-sceptics-get-it-wrong-1.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/12/climate-sceptics-get-it-wrong-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global Warming Policy Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713101752/http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/checking-the-hockey-team/ to http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/checking-the-hockey-team/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

GWPForum vs GWPFoundation
I removed the 2021 rebranding section:


 * The group rebranded as Net Zero Watch in 2021. Website DeSmog reports that the Net Zero Watch website says that it was set up and is managed by the Global Warming Policy Forum and had called for the COP26 UN climate summit to be cancelled. The rebrand was criticised by climate change experts from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and Greenpeace and came at the same time as Craig Mackinlay MP and Steve Baker MP launched a similarly named group within Parliament, the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, which also plans to campaign against the cost of moving to green energy. Board member Benny Peiser told Politico that "dozens" of MPs had inquired about the Net Zero Watch campaign.

because as far as I can tell, this is about the GWPForum, not the GWPFoundation. And this is the GWPFoundation article William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Isn't it just semantics? The Forum is owned by the Foundation. Also, of those sources only desmog says that it was the Forum - the others all say the Foundation that rebranded. We should definitely include these sources somehow and currently we have zero information on Net Zero Watch even though it redirects here. Is there someway we can rewrite instead of removing entirely. SmartSE (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Companies House, Global Warming Policy Forum is a company limited by guarantee i.e. it has no shares. Since there are no shares, it cannot actually be owned by anyone. So it looks like the sources are confused about this. But I don’t know whether this kind of inf at Companies House can be used as a source.
 * But there is some connection, and I think we should mention the Forum/Net Zero Watch.
 * The source I added earlier today says of Net Zero Watch: Recently, the foundation started Net Zero Watch, a campaigning platform highlighting what it calls the “costs of net zero”. The campaigning arm of the foundation was set up after a previous investigation by the Charity Commission found that it had breached rules on impartiality. Perhaps this could be used.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It isn't just semantics, because the distinction between the Forum and the Foundation matters to their charitable status. And even if it were just sematics, our article should still make the distinction William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that the distinction is not semantics. What about my suggestion to add something about Net Zero Watch? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Since NZW (and GWPForum) redirect here (presumably on the grounds that they aren't notable enough themselves) there should be subections for each of them, I think (or one section, if anyone can work out whether NZW and GWPForum are the same thing or not...) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * dave souza, talk
 * dave souza, talk
 * dave souza, talk
 * dave souza, talk


 * Oh noes, now you've added NZSG to the list :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is all a bit murky, with poor sourcing, but I think I mostly blame the GWPF being underhand for that; you'd think they could just say what they're doing. However, it is pretty clear that NZW==GWPForum. FFS: their "who we are" page (https://www.netzerowatch.com/who-we-are/) last year said copyright GWPForum; it's hard to know if that's just incompetence or if they really don't care. Presently it says "Meet the Team / Board Members of the Global Warming Policy Forum" which is definitely not a very cunning disguise William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a source saying ‘Forum’ had been ‘rebranded’ as ‘Net Zero Watch’, and added this to the article yesterday. My guess is that ‘Net Zero Watch’ is a sort of ‘trading name’ for the Forum, and has no separate legal identity. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The opinion of their opponents are hardly relevant
Under "Climate change denial" most of the text is concerned about what other people say about them and very little about what the GWPF has actually done to deny climate change. I propose the entire thing be rewritten so that it focuses on what the GWPF has done or said that would qualify as climate change denial, not that people who don't like them have said that they are climate change deniers. Alternatively, the title of the section should be reworded so that it matches the content. 5.186.78.167 (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what is said about the subject by reliable sources. (See WP:RSP.) If you have additional information about this entity from reliable sources, please present it here for discussion about adding it to the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)