Ist thegwpf.com sicher?

Vertraut von WOT

Sicherheitsbewertung der Website

51%
Die Sicherheitsbewertung von WOT basiert auf unserer einzigartigen Technologie und den Bewertungen der Community-Experten.
Wird diese Website beansprucht?
Nein
Community-Rezensionen
★ 3
WOTs Algorithmus
59%
Jugendschutz
N/A

Was sagt die Gemeinschaft dazu?

Eine Bewertung hinterlassen

Wie würden Sie diese Website auf einer Skala von 1 bis 5 bewerten?
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
Teilen Sie Ihr Feedback und helfen Sie der GemeinschaftBewertungen müssen aus mindestens 15 Zeichen bestehenWählen Sie die Tags, die diese Website am besten beschreiben
Malware oder Viren
Schlechter Kundenservice
Phishing
Scam
Potenziell illegal
Irreführend oder unethisch
Risiko für die Privatsphäre
Verdächtig
Hass, Diskrimination
Spam
Potenziell unerwünschtes Programm
Werbung / Pop-ups
Inhalte für Erwachsene
Zufällige Nacktheit
Grausam oder schockierend
Abbrechen
Bewertung veröffentlichen
3
starstarstarempty-starempty-star

Basierend auf 15 Bewertungen

Sortieren nach:
Neuestes
This site is a source of gossip, misinformation and deliberate spoofing of legitimate sources of information. Very untrustworthy.
Hilfreich
No problems here unless you don't like free speech.
Hilfreich
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.
Hilfreich
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
Prüfen Sie, ob Sie kompromittiert wurdenVerbinden Sie sich mit Google, um Ihren Browserverlauf zu scannen.
Mit Google verbinden
Gesehen bei
Mit Ihrer Anmeldung stimmen Sie der Datenerfassung und -nutzung zu, wie sie in unserer Nutzungsbedingungen und Datenschutzrichtlinie
alternative-placeholder

Über WOT

Wir haben mehr als 2 Millionen Websites überprüft, Tendenz steigend. WOT ist eine leichtgewichtige Erweiterung, mit der Sie schnell und sicher surfen können. Es bereinigt Ihren Browser, beschleunigt ihn und schützt Ihre privaten Daten.

Ist das Ihre Website?

Melden Sie Ihre Website an, um Zugang zu WOTs Business-Tools zu erhalten und mit Ihren Kunden in Kontakt zu treten.
Diese Website beanspruchen
Diese Website verwendet Cookies für Analysezwecke und zur Personalisierung. Indem Sie fortfahren, erklären Sie sich mit unseren Cookie-Richtlinie.
Akzeptieren