You almost couldn’t make this up

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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, Comedy, Satire and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to You almost couldn’t make this up

  1. Marco says:

    Bob Ward will have a blast with this one!

  2. “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.

  3. verytallguy says:

    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.

  4. vtg,
    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?

  5. Lars Karlsson says:

    As soon as I read the header, I thought: “This must be about the GWPF”.

  6. Magma says:

    @verytallguy: Cynicism is not incompatible with stupidity.

  7. 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.

  8. Tim Roberts says:

    Surely the name itself must be a giveaway as to what they believe?

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