I’ve written a number of posts in which I’ve made fun of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). This is largely because a great deal of what they do is particularly silly, even if that isn’t their intent. According to this article, however, they’ve gone and outdone themselves.
At a press conference to annouce the release of a new report, it became clear that the report author, a law professor from Lancaster University, had used a draft version of the Paris agreement and that his report was based on something that was not in the final document. Brilliant; at least the GWPF doesn’t disappoint.
On a more serious note, this is probably not surprising if your position is so at odds with reality that you’re forced to select your “experts” from the amongst the few who are willing to hold a minority view. In this case we’re talking about someone who has never been to a climate conference, didn’t bother speaking to anyone who took part, and based their report on secondary documents, failing to recognise the difference between a draft version, and the final version.
Maybe the GWPF should consider expanding their pool of experts, but that may be tricky if they’re trying to avoid those who would be unwilling to be dismissive of the need to do something about climate change. Maybe they’re just going to have to accept that they’re stuck with those who struggle to download the correct PDF.
Bob Ward will have a blast with this one!
“Maybe the GWPF should consider expanding their pool of experts”
But everyone is tired of experts, they keep telling us what the GWPF doesn’t want people to hear.
Wheeler in the room is interesting. I presume that means he’s the one of the main funders of the GWPF.
On the substance, there are really only three options.
1) They’re as stupid as they seem. Very unlikely.
2) Their confirmation bias is so strong that their Morton’s Daemon makes them fail to realise how stupid they appear. Possible
3) They cynically know none of this matters; their purpose is to defeat climate policy politically because it conflicts with their ideology. Having any “expert” report published, however obviously wrong, is sufficient because their friends in the press (Ridley in the room note) will push it regardless. Most likely.
I suspect that it’s some combination of 2 and 3, with the caveat that I would guess that they actually believe that by conflicting with what they believe to be the ideal ideology, it has to be wrong. What does Willard say .. . Grrrrowth?
As soon as I read the header, I thought: “This must be about the GWPF”.
@verytallguy: Cynicism is not incompatible with stupidity.
verytallguy says: On the substance, there are really only three options.
4. They are agent provocateurs of Greenpeace?
Or at least some members of their “academic” council.
David Campbell deserves to be better known, and it pays to look deeper:
see section Controversy…
Lots of econ, essays on end of Marxism, i think…
And a bunch of comments on climate agreements, such as:
Surely the name itself must be a giveaway as to what they believe?