Head of parliamentary science and technology committee: are there bigger players involved in the Global Warming Policy Foundation?
- 02 Mar 2011, 15:00
The Chair of the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee
has launched a scathing attack on Lord Lawson's climate sceptic
charity the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
The Science and Technology Committee's enquiry into the
climategate affair cleared the University of East Anglia of any
scientific wrongdoing, and at a 'Science of Climate Change
held at the University of Liverpool on the 10th February Andrew
Miller MP said that "none of [the enquiries] found any evidence
whatsoever that there was anything other than honesty at UEA".
The GWPF had called for the enquiry to be reopened. But Mr
Miller, who heads the committee, sharply criticised them for
misrepresenting the committee's conclusions, and for their refusal
to reveal who their funders are:
Let me say: when the GWPF declares the
source of their funds then I'll re-open the enquiry. I want to see
a balanced debate about what's going on, because that worrying
point I started with about the language that is used rather
suggests to me that there are bigger players involved in the GWPF
than is declared in their published accounts - with half a million
pounds declared as anonymous donations for example.
released their annual accounts at the end of last year.
Accounts filed at Companies House show that a total of £503,302 was
raised by the charity during their first year of operation. Just
£8,186 came from membership contributions. In the report, GWPF
director Lord Lawson wrote: "It is understandable that donors do
not wish to be publicly engaged in controversy.
"This is particularly true of the GWPF,
where 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."
In other remarks, Mr Miller praised science journalism in
general, but suggested that news editors needed to reflect on
whether they are doing a good job of portraying where the weight of
scientific opinion lies. He also noted that there were important
issues around freedom of information raised by the UEA affair. His
had concluded in their report:
"On the mishandling of Freedom of
Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of
the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The
leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU
and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid
disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics."