Profiles in Wanktankery: GWPF

This is why the wanktanks (thanks, Brett!) anger me, and why they should anger you. In today’s Obscurer:

The intriguing fact that the global warming trend of the late 20th-century appears to have come to a halt for the time being has led to growing public scepticism about claims of impending climate catastrophe.

In view of what increasingly looks like an unbridgeable stalemate and after years of inflamed global warming alarm, we are beginning to see a period of sobering up, where national interests and economic priorities are overriding environmental concerns and utopian proposals. It seems reasonable to conclude that the diplomatic impasse cannot be overcome in Copenhagen or, indeed, anytime soon. Global CO2 emissions, as a result, will continue to rise inexorably.

What is needed in these circumstances is a calm deceleration strategy that will cool future climate negotiations…

It’s Benny Peiser, “director” of the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”, still hawking the intellectually dishonest, busted on its own terms talking point about “no warming for 10 years”.

We mean it, maan!

The “Foundation” has existed for all of a week. It has no staff other than Peiser and no publications and no thoughts other than worn-out old US Republican talking points. And instantly it has apparently open and uncritical access to the pages of a national newspaper.

These people can’t handle it, can they? They have no resistance to this tactic at all. Just show them some headed notepaper and they’ll slurp, slurp, slurp up any old nonsense you choose to tell’em.

Who is Benny Peiser? Sourcewatch knows. He’s a social anthropologist specialising in sport, and a fan of worrying about near-earth objects. He has published a total of three peer-reviewed papers, none of them on anything remotely relevant.

He also does things like this:

Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.[1] Peiser originally stated in January 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that “in light of the data [Peiser] presented… Science should withdraw Oresekes’s study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science. On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.


  1. Simon

    Blimey, have you seen who they’ve persuaded to lend their names to the whole enterprise?

    On the ‘Academic Advisory Council’ they’ve got:
    Freeman Dyson
    Richard Lindzen
    Ian Plimer
    Philip Stott
    (and these are just the names I recognise)

    Meanwhile, Nigel Lawson is on the board of trustees (as is Emma Nicholson – I’d have assumed she’d have had more sense).

    Surely one look at that list is enough to tell a journalist just what sort of outfit they’re dealing with?

  2. EWI

    And Richard Tol, who has spent the past week here in Ireland having his regretful (but of course) pieces published in the Irish Times on how the (same few misrepresented) results from the theft from CRU undermine the whole case for anything to be done about AGW.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: