Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Kevin Trenberth is a very naughty boy | Main | On the meaning of ensemble means »

GWPF and the Charities Commission

The Grantham Institute for Climate Change continues to spend its time pursuing GWPF rather than doing anything constructive with the money it receives from Mr Grantham and the Global Green Growth Institute. Bob Ward has issued a complaint to the Charities Commissioners about something or other.

It feels a bit desperate to me.

As an aside, the GGGI looks interesting, apparently having morphed from a Korean non-profit organisation into a fully fledged transnational organisation. The relevant order for legal immunities is apparently being rubber-stamped in Westminster.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Football is definitely 1 of the greatest sports in America. It has a important following.

Reader Comments (43)

The GGI:

"This Order confers the legal capacities of a body corporate on the Global Green Growth Institute (‘GGGI’), an international organisation established with the aim of promoting sustainable development of developing and emerging countries ... A full regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen."

Personally - and admittedly speaking merely as an unimportant thicko taxpayer - I would quite like to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council about the scale of any aniticipated impacts on the UK *public* sector.

None? Lots? Dunno? Who cares?

Jun 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

"...a Korean non-profit organisation."
Why not just call themselves "North Korea"?

Jun 14, 2013 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

What Ward seems to be confusing is 'policy advice/making' with 'informed opinion'. He also complains that the inaccuracies purveyed by GWPF relate to nothing more than them saying something will/will not happen, and then, according to Ward, being shown to be wrong in their prediction.

If you substituted Greenpeace for GWPF in the complaint you'd be able to make a better case of it.

Jun 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterSnotrocket

Ward's complaints may be warranted if the GWPF had said those things. Nigel Lawson said them, however, presumably in his capacity as a member of the House of Lords.

Jun 14, 2013 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

I see The Independent is up (or down?) to its usual standard of reporting. Rather sad, really, recalling the high ideals with which that paper was founded.

Jun 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

I cannot be arsed to read about Bob Ward's latest desperate "tactics". Entirely to be expected when people like him fear they are losing the argument.

Was his complaint along the lines of : "All must kneel before Zog!" ?

I despise that man. I do not despise many men...but I really despise that man. Ugh!

Jun 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage


“The foundation Team arrogantly ignores any challenges to the accuracy of the information it spreads, and has not been held to account for misleading the public. As I have discovered on numerous occasions, when the foundation Team is notified of inaccuracies, it simply refuses to admit it is wrong or to apologise,” said Mr Ward, who is a reviewer for the forthcoming International Governmental Panel on Climate Change report that will shape the action the world agrees to combat global warming."

Jun 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

Well the word charity has been stretched beyond all reasonable meaning in recent years. I would actually agree with Ward (first time for everything) and scrap any tax breaks for the GWPF...along with all those other pseudo charities peddling their dubious wares.

And whilst we're at it scrap all those NGOs that get government money to lobby them to do what they wanted to do in the first place. Wasn't there supposed to be a Bonfire of the Quangoes a while ago. Whatever happened to that?

Of course this will leave armies of the Great and Good (and Smug) to find employment more suitable to their talents be it entrepreneur or burger flipper.

Jun 14, 2013 at 3:24 PM | Registered CommenterSimonW

It would nice to know where the £400,000 sitting in the GWPF coffers came from. The donations are recorded, but most are anonymous. Like the Register of Interests for MPs and their Lordships, transparancy of donations would help assess the GWPF's contribution to the debate.

Jun 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man

Entropic, Your comment is really just another variant of an ad hominem accusation. Why not leave the funding source discussion for a moment, and concentrate on the integrity of the arguments advanced by the GWPF?


Jun 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Ratliffe

Anthony Ratiffe

The GWPF webiste reads like any other special interest political lobby group. If they revealed their donors and showed that they were not being financed by sources with a sceptic financial interest I would take them more seriously.

Jun 14, 2013 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man

Entropic Man, whoever you are, I am a donor to the GWPF. I do not want our civilisation destoyed by idiots.

Kind regards

Mike Post

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

EM, it would be nice to know where GWPF's opponents go their 4 Trillion Dollars.

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Entropic, Perhaps you could borrow an elementary book on the traditional formal logic from your local library so that you could better understand what I have said.


Jun 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Ratliffe

Hey EM - you hound of truth, what do you think of the budget that GGGI are running? Any thoughts on what they are trying to achieve? How do you feel about their funding of Grantham's boys and girls?

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:07 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Lord Stern is an employee of Grantham and was when he wrote his famous report.

Jeremy Grantham wrote this in his recent newsletter

"Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it."

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

"showed that they were not being financed by sources with a sceptic financial interest I would take them more seriously." Entropic Man

Every body has a sceptic financial interest if they've ever paid a bill or received cash from a company that uses fossil fuels. Should they be exempt from having an opinion?

Only 'green' companies and climate scientists benefit from CAGW being right. Are they just saying there's a crisis in order to make money? Should they be silenced?

Should the people who make money from both sides be silenced altogether or be the only ones allowed to express an opinion?

Why do warmists prate on about sceptics and conspiracy theories when they're the ones who see double dealing at every turn?

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I certainly wouldn't want my identity to become public knowledge if I was a GWPF sponsor. You never know what crazy will come after you with a knife and meat cleaver?

On the other hand we are only talking about a few hundred k. You cannot tell me that a mass-media disinformation campaign that the catastrophiliacs fantasise about is funded by that kind of money...especially when hundreds of billions of dollars is being p1ssed away on Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

So either the evil deniers are getting massive funding somewhere and are keeping it quiet OR, more likely, that massive coordinated funding doesn't actually exist.

Ill leave it up to you to decide which it is.


Jun 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Jack Savage


Bob Ward is a small piece of irrelevance floating in a sea of ignorance and arrogance. We all look forward to the day he sinks beneath the waves and is never seen or heard again.

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdhominer

doubt Bob Ward would attack you with anything clever, Mailman.

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterntropywins

Bob Ward's Grantham Institute has "persistently disseminated inaccurate and misleading information about climate change as part of its campaign for the implementation of ruinous climate policies in the UK and overseas"

This about sums up the truth of the matter.

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Policy advice example 1:
The London School of Economics and Political Science is a School of the University of London. It is a charity and is incorporated in England as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Acts (Reg no. 70527).
Policy advice example 2:
Imperial College London is an exempt charity under the laws of England and Wales by virtue of the Exempt Charities Order 1962 and the Second Schedule to the Charities Act 1993.

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Many Church of England parishes are registered as charities yet they keep pedalling the God myth. I do not think they should lose charitable status for that. So if GWPF have said anything erroneous they should similarly be able to keep their charitable status.

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterson of mulder

Fixed link for Imperial:

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Demanding information on the sources of funding is always the diversionary tactic of choice for those unable to dispute the statements coming from any organisation with which they disagree. It has been ubiquitous in the climate change field and has, frankly, become laughable, pointless, and boring.
If Ward were actually in a position to dispute anything of any import that the GWPF says then he would do so. The fact that he can't pisses him off and the fact that he is deprived of the alternative warmist bleat, namely that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry, pisses him off even more.
Worshippers at the Church of Climatology have always been identifiable by their uncharitable and blinkered approach to those who disagree with them but in recent years their tunnel vision has become so marked that it really is time they consulted an ophthalmologist.

Jun 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

To complain to the Charity Commission? Well, you have to be in real despair.

Jun 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM | Unregistered Commentermichel

Have the Koreans succeeded in cloning Bob - or just given him a makeover and a personality transplant?

Jun 14, 2013 at 5:44 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

There's a great deal of focus on Ward here. One assumes that it's Nicholas Stern pulling his strings though.

Jun 14, 2013 at 6:07 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

It annoys me that Bob Ward is taken seriously when he is the only person, AFAIK, who is paid solely to represent warmist causes. He isn't a scientist, he isn't an enquiring layman, he takes money to spout his stuff. And if he then goes on about other groups' funding all the more reason to suspect everything he writes. How he gets published is beyond belief. Does the Guardian give space to paid apologists for evil corporations without pointing it out? I suggest we refer to him by the portmanteau term 'paid mouthpiece Bob Ward' every time we mention him.

Jun 14, 2013 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda


To be fair, I'm not worried about the comical Ali of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) either.

No, it's the other crazies who believe in the religion Mann Made Global Warming (tm) that would concern me about my personal safety.


Jun 14, 2013 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Jun 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM | not banned yet

You have a broken link.

Is this the paper that you wanted us to see?

"Reducing CO2 emissions from heavy industry:
a review of technologies and considerations for policy makers".

If so, here it is:

Jun 14, 2013 at 6:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

“The foundation arrogantly ignores any challenges to the accuracy of the information it spreads, and has not been held to account for misleading the public. As I have discovered on numerous occasions, when the foundation is notified of inaccuracies, it simply refuses to admit it is wrong or to apologise,” said Mr Ward, who is a reviewer for the forthcoming International Governmental Panel on Climate Change report that will shape the action the world agrees to combat global warming."

"Stupid boy!"

Perhaps Ward wants the CC to look for the big oil money. It will probably be in the same place as the "missing heat."

Jun 14, 2013 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterAllan M

rhoda what annoys me even more is when some hairy unwashed sandal-wearing democracy-hating hippy-throwback representing Greenpuke stands up and tells us he is a 'scientist' and then goes on to spout utter activist drivel. At least the paid mouthpiece Bob Ward does not try to give the impression he knows anything.

If vacuous wanted embodiment it would have no further to look.

Jun 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdhominer

One assumes that it's Nicholas Stern pulling his strings though.
You may very well be right, Bishop, but as any customer will tell, the girl behind the counter is the company.
If you choose to be, as rhoda describes him, a paid mouthpiece then you are the one that will take the sticks and stones. In fact I'm not sure that he is anything other than Grantham's foghorn. If he had the standard issue number of brain cells he would have realised by now that he talks rubbish and that the speed with he pops up vainly attempting to rebut the obvious only makes him more of a laughing stock with every day that passes.

Jun 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Jun 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM | Mike Jackson

One might infer that spouting drivel on behalf of Grantham must be sufficiently lucrative to make being a laughing stock worthwhile.

Jun 14, 2013 at 8:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

Zaphod Beeblebrox- "Who in the Galaxy would want to bomb a publishing company?''

Marvin (the paranoid android)- "Another publishing company?"

Jun 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Browned off - thanks for that fix, that is the paper I was referring to. :-)

Jun 15, 2013 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

As far as I know, the identities of the donors who comprise the WWF's '1001 Club' remain secret to this day. Perhaps Bob Ward could turn his attention to that matter:

Wikipedia entry here

What we do know is that Shell Oil was the WWF's first corporate sponsor:

The WWF's Vast Pool of Oil Money

Jun 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterDonna Laframboise

Someone recently came up with the superb descriptive encapsulation of the classic Bob Ward bluster - retwardian (from his tweet handle).

I'm still enjoying this retwardian gem of his on UKIP energy policy.

Jun 15, 2013 at 8:48 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Surely if GWPF is hindered and exposed, then it is money well spent?
In any case isn't GWPF a waste of money?
It is currently being subisdised by tax payers.

Jun 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPomps

Pomps - subsidised by taxpayers? really?

Do you mean that the donations come from taxpayers?

Or are you implying that if they are somehow not being taxed on these donations then that somehow amounts to a subsidy? Now had you claimed that windmills are being subsidised, I might have agreed.

Can you clarify what you mean and what you object to?

Jun 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Pomps, would you please document precisely how the GWPF is being "subsidised" by taxpayers in ways that every other registered charity in the UK is not identically being "subsidised".


Jun 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Ratliffe

What a great discussion... I may follow the latest comment in my spare time after working as jasa seo consultant.

Jul 29, 2015 at 6:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterRomio

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>