thegwpf.orgは安全ですか？

GWPF is a registered educational charity. Their site should be, and is, perfectly safe. Marked down by some simply because they do not share their opinion. What happened to freedom of expression and tolerance of opinion in this country? 'Post-normal science' does not rule, as yet.

Overall: Pretty typical conservative think tank, same rhetoric and cheerleading as usual. Seems to be basically what it claims to be. Opinions/Politics: Should be obvious. Misleading: -The "science" is complete junk, as usual with these groups. Then again, they never claim to be scientific. - Calls its reports "dispassionate", which is a curious advertisement for their accusations of "fraud", "propaganda", and "brainwashing" against its opponents. Child Suitability: No complaints.

The GWPF is an independent organization that is attempting to have a constructive debate on climate change issues. It is disappointing to see activists try and smear this organization simply because they disagree with their scientific and policy based positions relating to climate change. Those who are intellectually honest should read their articles with an open mind.

Well written and considered, but unfortunately heavily biased. Some content is innaccurate, and many outright lies are published on the site without question. Questionable references in many articles, and mis-quotes and cherry-picked data are presented.

The site provides an alternative viewpoint to AGW, some of which is based on scientific basis. AGW is not 100% proven and remains a theory, it is therefore important to challenge theories to progress our civilization, regardless of whether or not we agree with the differing viewpoints. I have rated this site green, and I have also rated AGW sites green, all viewpoints should be heard.

As has been noted in the MyWOT forums, this site is safe to visit. Further, they do not sell anything (that I found with a very cursory search); as such, rating its vendor reliability as poor is deliberately deceptive. Rating the site for child safety does not even merit comment.

At the moment lacks content, but organisation's funding is not transparent, and I've seen many front groups (see ***** ) presenting suspect and selective information about climate change. In the past, there have been various criticisms of the accuracy of the site and of statements by the charity's officials: ***** ***** Given the nature of the site, on balance it deserves a low rating and warning on trustworthiness. Further discussion at *****

This site takes an objective view of all the data, and acknowledges that while AGW is a valid hypothesis, there is insufficient data available to make it a validated conclusion. If a site should be downgraded because it is objective, that is no longer science, that is just dogma.

This site is being blackened (or reddened...) by politically-motivated people supporting global warming, who want to put off people from visiting the site. It has always been interesting in its comments, giving a good critique of the dodgy science being purveyed by the Met Office and Al Gore.