Le site thegwpf.com est-il sûr ?

La confiance de WOT

Score de sécurité du site web

51%
Le score de sécurité de WOT est basé sur notre technologie unique et sur les avis des experts de la communauté.
Ce site est-il revendiqué ?
Non
Avis de la Communauté
★ 3
L'algorithme de WOT
59%
Sécurité pour les Enfants
N/A

Que dit la communauté ?

Laisser un commentaire

Quelle note entre 1 et 5 donneriez-vous à ce site ?
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
Faites part de vos commentaires et aidez la communautéLes commentaires doivent comporter au moins 15 caractèresChoisissez les tags qui décrivent le mieux ce site web
Logiciels malveillants ou virus
Mauvais service client
Hameçonnage
Escroquerie
Potentiellement illégal
Fallacieux ou contraire à l’éthique
Risques relatifs à la confidentialité
Suspect
Haine, discrimination
Escroquerie
Programme potentiellement indésirable
Publicités / fenêtres pop-up
Contenu pour adultes
Nudité accidentelle
Violent ou choquant
Annuler
Publier le commentaire
3
starstarstarempty-starempty-star

Basé sur 15 avis

Classer par :
Le plus récent
This site is a source of gossip, misinformation and deliberate spoofing of legitimate sources of information. Very untrustworthy.
Utile
No problems here unless you don't like free speech.
Utile
Honest presentation of facts. Dares to "tell it like it is." Challenges fake science, with facts. Great resource for lovers of Real Science, before it was hijacked by the lunacy of the Political Left/Greens. A pleasure to read.
Utile
Anything that questions "accepted and settled science" is a very good thing. But that is not what the proponents of climate alarmism want, so they down vote sites like this everywhere, including WOT ratings. This is not acceptable, and WOT should reset ratings for this site (if they are able to).
1
This site is being attacked by climate alarmists, which is quite pathetic.
2
There is nothing wrong with this site!
1
Totalitarian leftists attack. They are ruining WOT. Why do they fear free speech?
2
The site is clean (no malicious content, etc.). Red rating of this site appears to be motivated by ideology and politics which is an abuse of the WOT system.
2
Appears to be the site for the "Global Warming Policy Forum", a for-profit limited company confusingly with the same initials as its parent "Global Warming Policy Foundation" that has a site at hxxp://www.thegwpf.org/. Both .org and .com domains were registered by Benny Peiser in 2009, although the "Forum" was not incorporated as a limited company until ***** The same caveats about bias and untrustworthy presentation apply as discussed at ***** This is even more the case for the .com because as a trading arm the so-called "Forum" is not directly governed by UK charity law and so is relatively free to campaign for things which are not charitable causes. For explanation, see ***** It appears that much of the "sceptical" or contrarian content has already moved to the non-charitable .com site. IMHO, the title of the company is misleading since it it is not an open "forum" and seems to have no activity about global warming policy, whether mitigation or adaptation. The policy debate is elsewhere.
3
WoT is intended to warn of unsafe sites. Econutters give sites like this poor ratings because they disagree with the views expressed. It is abuse of WoT.
3
I have followed this site for and its predecessor CNET for 7 years and have found it to be accurate and careful. Poor ratings come from the Global Warming fanatics who don't want the public to know what is going on.
3
This site deals in facts, not opinions, and so is totally reliable.
2
They are the defacto lobby group for enlightenment scientists. The UNIPCC lobby group (Appendix E, point 3, read it) along with the Sierra Club are abusing their powers to make us think the planet is warming, when it is not. This website uses science and questions the UNIPCC's assumptions, so to see this website with a negative score only shows how creatively vindictive "religious people" are in the face of science and reason. Therefore I'd put this as a safe site, although I expect many well paid people will be voting otherwise.
3
Excellent, balanced ,authoritative content.
3
Blatantly anti-science propaganda site, disguising itself as 'concerned' and 'skeptical', but in reality twisting facts and straight out lying about anthropogenic global warming, in order to delay any action to mitigate it.
4
Vérifiez si vous avez été compromisConnectez-vous à Google pour analyser votre historique de navigation.
Se connecter avec Google
Tel que vu sur
En vous connectant, vous acceptez la collecte et l'utilisation des données telles qu'elles sont décrites dans notre site web. Conditions d'utilisation et Politique de Confidentialité
alternative-placeholder

À propos de WOT

Nous avons passé en revue plus de 2 millions de sites web et ce n'est pas fini. WOT est une extension légère conçue pour vous aider à naviguer rapidement et en toute sécurité. Il nettoie votre navigateur, l'accélère et protège vos informations privées.

C'est votre site ?

Réclamez votre site web pour accéder aux outils commerciaux de WOT et entrer en contact avec vos clients.
Réclamer ce site
Ce site utilise des cookies à des fins d'analyse et de personnalisation. En continuant, vous acceptez notre politique en matière de cookies.
Accepter