Benny Peiser

Benny Josef Peiser


  • Ph.D. , University of Frankfurt (1993). Peiser studied political science, English, and sports science. 1Benny Peiser,” Wikipedia (German)Entry. 2 Peiser, Benny J., Trevor Palmer, and Mark E. Bailey (editors) (1998). Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilizations, BAR International Series 728. P. 251.


Benny Peiser is a sports anthropologist/historian, and past Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University.3Staff Profiles: Dr Benny Peiser – Senior Lecturer,” Liverpool John Moores University. Archived July 17, 2010. URL: Peiser describes himself as a “historian and anthropologist with particular research interest in neo-catastrophism and its implications for human and societal evolution.”4Comparative Stratigraphy of Bronze Age Destruction Layers around the World: Archaeological Evidence and Methodological Problems,” Society for Interdisciplinary Studies. Archived October 12, 2017. URL:

Benny Peiser is the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF),5Dr. Benny Peiser,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived February 7, 2016. URL: an “all-party and non-party think tank and registered educational charity” he founded in 2009 with former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson.6The GWPF: History and Mission,” Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived February 7, 2016. URL:

The foundation describes its main purpose as being to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant. […] Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.”7The GWPF: History and Mission,” Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived February 7, 2016. URL:

Although the group does not disclose its funding sources, they claim to be “funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.” The organization also claims that it does not “accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”8The GWPF: History and Mission,” Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived February 7, 2016. URL:

Peiser is a Visiting Fellow at the private University of Buckingham, which, along with the GWPF, has received funding from Lord Nigel Vinson‘s charitable foundation.9This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy | Cambridge Union,” YouTube video uploaded by user “The Cambridge Union,” November 17, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

Peiser is the past co-editor (as of 2010) of the skeptical journal Energy and Environment, also edited by climate change skeptic Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen.10Energy and Environment,” Archived August 19, 2010. URL: In 2011/2012, Peiser was listed on the journal’s “editorial advisory board,” and also under contacts for paper submissions.11Energy and Environment,” Archived May 31, 2011. URL: In 2012 he was only listed on the journal’s “editorial advisory board”12Energy and Environment,” Archived June 1, 2012. URL: and as of 2016 he is no longer listed on the Multi-Science profile for E&E.13Energy and Environment,” Archived January 12, 2015. URL:

Energy and Environment has been described as the place climate change skeptics go to when they are rejected by the mainstream peer-reviewed science publications. The journal has also drawn sharp criticism for their abuse of the peer-review process, including one from Michael Mann regarding a criticized study co-authored by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

Stance on Climate Change

April 26, 2022

The Steamboat Pilot, a U.S. newspaper based in Colorado, published a letter to the editor titled “No climate crisis –  why imperil our electrical system?”, which quoted Peiser saying: 

“It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been changing in the last 30 years. The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling, rather than observational evidence.”14Letter: No climate crisis – why imperil our electrical system?”, Steamboat Pilot, April 26, 2022. Archived May 23, 2022. Archive URL:

October 30, 2006

Although Peiser has stated “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact,” he also states that “[…] this majority consensus is far from unanimous,” and that “there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active.”15Bolt’s Minority View,” ABC transcript from episode 38, 2006. Archived October 12, 2017. URL:

Key Quotes

May 7, 2022

In an article for Spectator Australia titled “Global Warming: Time to put net zero on ice”, Peiser referred to people “who are trying to stop domestic energy extraction” in Europe as “Putin’s useful idiots”.16Benny Peiser. “Global Warming: Time to put net zero on ice”, Spectator Australia, May 7, 2022. Archived May 7, 2022. Archive URL:

He also blamed high energy bills on net zero policies, labelling the energy crisis as the “the Net Zero cost crisis”.

Peiser also argued that the late Bob Carter, who was an advisor to multiple climate science denial organisations around the world, was the “first victim of James Cook University’s notorious cancel culture which cancelled him because his scientific research findings violated their dogmatic stance and entrenched views”.

March 1, 2022

Net Zero Watch published a press release titled “Banning Russian energy is just the start: Britain needs to ratchet up domestic gas production if it wants to win the war”. The press release stated that:

“Britain’s most important contribution to Europe’s gas crisis and the strengthening of the Western alliance in face of Putin’s war on Ukraine has to be a radical increase in domestic gas production, both in the North Sea and through onshore hydraulic fracturing”.17Banning Russian energy is just the start: Britain needs to ratchet up domestic gas production if it wants to win the war,” Net Zero Watch, March 1, 2022. Archived April 5, 2022. Archive URL:

Peiser was quoted saying:

“In continuing to oppose the development of the UK’s massive shale gas resources, as if nothing has happened, Kwasi Kwarteng is failing not only the British people, but the efforts of democratic European nations desperate to find alternatives to Russian gas.”

February 25, 2022

Peiser was quoted in a Net Zero Watch press release, published in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which argued that “one of the most effective responses to Russia’s war efforts […] is for the UK to revitalise North sea exploration for oil and gas and finally kick-start a shale gas revolution to enhance Britain’s energy supply and national security”.18Stop funding Putin’s war, Boris!Net Zero Watch, February 25, 2022. Archived February 25, 2022. Archive URL:

Peiser added:

“The government’s suppression of North Sea exploration and failure to develop the UK’s enormous shale gas wealth has been incentivising Putin’s energy wars and has become a major disaster for national security.”

July 1, 2020

Peiser appeared on a Heartland Institute podcast hosted by Anthony Watts, the Institute’s senior fellow for environment and climate, discussing energy poverty in Africa.19Benny Peiser, Anthony Watts. “Africa’s Energy Poverty is a Problem,” The Heartland Institute, July 1, 2020. Archived.mp3 on file at Desmog

When asked by Watts if Western environmentalists advocated for the use of renewable energy in Africa, Peiser responded:

“A lot of Africans are fed up with this kind of green virtue signalling, and they are beginning to rely on themselves. So, I think that there will be increased opposition to this kind of  renewed eco-colonialism and Africans will, just like countries like India and China are doing, rely on their own resources and decide for themselves what is best for them.”

Disputing the efficiency of renewable energy, Peiser stated: 

“Europe, with its green obsession, is making itself poorer as it is, and Africans will increasingly look to Asia for investments, factories, technology. Europe is, in many ways, shooting itself in the foot with these green measures, because they are losing friends around the world, they are making their economies less competitive, and they are unable to help Africans where they need it most.”

October 26, 2017

Writing at the GWPF’s blog about his recent debate at the Cambridge Union, Peiser made the following statement (which doesn’t appear to have been included in the debate itself):

“Denying the world’s poor the very basis on which Britain and much of Europe became wealthy — largely due to cheap coal, oil and gas — amounts to an inhumane and atrocious attempt by green activists to sacrifice the needs of the world’s poor on the altar of climate alarmism.”20BENNY PEISER: WHAT I TOLD CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY’S SPOILED GREEN STUDENTS,” The Global Warming Policy Forum, October 29, 2017. Archived August 15, 2019. Archive URL:

June 1, 2017

In a GWPF press release21(Press Release. “GWPF: Failure Of Paris Climate Deal Was Inevitable,” GWPF, June 1, 2017. URL:  shortly after Donald Trump announced withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement Benny Peiser said:22Mat Hope. “How the UK’s Climate Science Deniers (and Government) Reacted to Trump’s Paris Agreement Withdrawal,” DeSmog, June 2, 2017.

“The Paris climate agreement was pushed through against the declared will of America’s elected representatives. US leaders and critics had warned international leaders repeatedly that the US Senate rejected Obama’s deal and that a Republican president would shred it to pieces. Now the Paris accord faces the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol which also ended in failure,” Peiser said.

January 20, 2016

After two members of the GWPF lost bets that 2015 would see record-breaking temperatures, Benny Peiser told Reuters:23Kyla Mandel. “Two Members of Lord Lawson’s Climate Denial Think Tank Lose £2K In Climate Science Bet,” DeSmog, January 21 2016.

“You win some, you lose some,” he said, adding that the pace of warming “is not something that people […] need to be greatly concerned about.”24Alister Doyle. “In global warming bets, record 2015 heat buoys mainstream science,” Reuters, January 20, 2016. Archived October 12, 2017. URL:

September, 2008

“I’m not a climate scientist and have never claimed to be one. […] My interest is in how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that.”25 Melanie Newman. “Debate is an endangered species, says climate critic,” Times Higher Education, September 4, 2008. Archived October 12, 2017. URL:

March, 2005

“Lamentably, many climate change researchers have exaggerated the potential health risks due to global warming. While magnifying the probable risks to health and mortality as a result of warmer temperatures, many underrate or simply ignore the possible heath benefits of moderate warming.”26 Benny Peiser. “It is cold that kills,” Spiked-Online, March 1, 2005. Archived February 10, 2006. URL:

Key Actions

September 7, 2022

Peiser was quoted in a Scottish Daily Express article titled “The great wind farm rip off”, which referred to him as “one of the UK’s leading energy experts”. In the article, Peiser criticised wind energy, arguing that “the more wind farms we have the more expensive the [energy] costs will be”.27Ben Borland. “The great wind farm rip off: greedy energy giants sell us wind electricity at wholesale gas price”, Scottish Daily Express, September 7, 2022. Archived September 7, 2022. Archive URL:

Peiser also insisted that the drive to build more wind turbines would never lead to lower energy bills, saying: “There’s no evidence that these wind turbines are getting cheaper and a lot of evidence to show the more we have the higher the costs”.

He summed up by describing the push to build more wind farms as “a utopian dream which is not going to work”.

July 25, 2022

A Spectator article co-written by Benny Peiser and Andrew Montford titled “Can the new PM survive the looming winter energy disaster?” outlined their support for Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman’s “desire for meaningful change” after they both called for a “suspension of net zero targets” during the Conservative leadership election.28Benny Peiser and Andrew Montford. “Can the new PM survive the looming winter energy disaster?”. The Spectator, July 25, 2022. Archived July 25, 2022. Archive URL:

Peiser and Montford continued by arguing that climate and energy policy “has been built on the unfair demonisation of dissenters” and that while “most people assume that climate and environment policy emerge at the end of some rational decision-making process”, we are, they claim, “in the grip of an irrational race to the bottom”. 

They also agreed with the statement that “only a rapid return to fossil fuels will be able to stave off civil unrest and economic disaster” and accused the UK government of “a fit of virtue signalling” for allowing a recently closed coal-fired power station to be demolished.

They concluded by calling on the next Prime Minister, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak, to “be the one who frees the economy from the green shackles that are threatening to bring the country to its knees”.

December 4, 2021

In an interview with GBNews, Peiser claimed that the idea that the UK would create “green jobs” in the transition to net zero is a “myth”. Peiser also said that solar panels and wind turbines are mainly built in Asia where “work is cheap and energy is cheap,” and that most green jobs would continue to be created abroad.29’This idea of green jobs is another myth… most of these jobs will be abroad,’ expert says,” YouTube video uploaded by GBNews Live on December 4, 2021. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

May 29, 2021

Speaking to The Mail on Sunday, Peiser was quoted in an article criticising the expansion of solar panel farms, which it described as “woefully inefficient at their only job – which is to generate electricity amid the cloud and rain of north-west Europe”. The article quoted Peiser as saying: “Perhaps in the Sahara, where no one lives, having these huge, tens of miles of solar panels may make sense.” He added: “Obviously they don’t work at night. They leave a huge ecological footprint.”30 Amy Oliver, Simon Trump. “A toxic blot on the landscape: Solar farms are ruining views and causing misery for residents – and, critics say, they’re filled with noxious chemicals, many are made by Chinese prisoners… and don’t even work in gloomy British weather,” The Mail on Sunday, May 29, 2021. Archived June 1, 2021. URL:

Suggesting that decommissioned solar panels would not be adequately recycled, Peiser stated: “Often, old panels are not recycled, just dumped.” He added: “Dig a hole, dump them, cover the hole. The countries with a lot of sun, particularly in the developing world, don’t have the recycling facilities. And they don’t really care.”

April 7, 2021

In a talkRADIO interview with host Mike Graham, Peiser criticised the government’s proposals to replace 600,000 gas boilers with heat pumps by 2028, as part of a strategy to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. He said: “it is very unlikely that this is going to work for a variety of reasons. For a start it will be extremely unpopular, because it’s so costly.”31Heat Pumps & Net Zero – Benny Peiser on Mike Graham’s Talk Radio show. 05/04/21,” YouTube video uploaded by user talkRADIO, April 7, 2021. Archived.mp4 on file at Desmog

Peiser also stated that as a result of efforts to decarbonise the economy, “electricity prices will continue to rise,” adding: “therefore, what you can save today will be an additional cost tomorrow because as electricity prices rise, the cost of heating your home by electricity rather than natural gas will double.”

Peiser characterised net zero decarbonisation as a “utopian, or dystopian, pipe dream” that was “impossible, other than in a dictatorship, to enforce.” Disputing whether the decarbonisation  of the housing sector was possible, he said: “you have to basically rip out all of your gas heating, gas boilers, insulate your home from top to bottom, you have to spend tens of thousands of pounds. People simply can’t afford that.”

June 22, 2020

During an interview with anti-wind farm activist and climate science denier James Delingpole, Peiser stated in reference to environmental policies that “there is a growing realisation that unilateral policies that burden your own economies more than anyone else’s will, in the end, damage your competitiveness, your economy, and the living standards of people.”32The New Culture Forum Channel, “What Impact with the Covid-19 crisis have on the Green Movement?” The GPWF, 22nd June 2020. Archived September 14th, 2020. Archive URL:

April 1, 2020

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Peiser and Andrew Montford stated that, “The coronavirus pandemic has dramatically demonstrated the limits of scientific modeling to predict the future”, arguing that scientific predictions based on nebulous data could lead the adoption of draconian measures to curtail civil liberties.33 Benny Peiser and Andrew Montford, “Coronavirus Lessons from the Asteroid that didn’t hit Earth”, The Wall Street Journal, April 1st, 2020. Archived November 16, 2020. Archive URL:

March 10, 2020

In a TalkRADIO interview with Mike Graham, Peiser argued that a government-funded report “just shows you how crazy, how unbelievably utopian this net-zero madness is.”34Can the UK go climate neutral by 2050,” Youtube video uploaded by user “talkTV,” March 10, 2020. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

May 21, 2019

Appearing on a Heartland Institute podcast, Peiser acknowledged a warming climate but claimed that it does not pose a threat to humankind or the environment:35H. Sterling Burnett. “Bringing Sound Science to the Climate Debate (Guest: Benny Peiser),”, May 21, 2019. Archived May 29, 2019. URL: Archived .mp3 on file at DeSmog.

“The warming is very gradual. […] There’s no increase in the extent or the number of these extreme weather events. So for the time being we are absolutely fine and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. […] I don’t see any problem in the foreseeable future.”36H. Sterling Burnett. “Bringing Sound Science to the Climate Debate (Guest: Benny Peiser),”, May 21, 2019. Archived May 29, 2019. URL: Archived .mp3 on file at DeSmog.

Peiser also expressed his belief that scientists holding the consensus viewpoint on climate change are stifling debate and displaying autocratic tendencies:37H. Sterling Burnett. “Bringing Sound Science to the Climate Debate (Guest: Benny Peiser),”, May 21, 2019. Archived May 29, 2019. URL: Archived .mp3 on file at DeSmog.

“The most troublesome feature is the authoritarian attempts to stifle anyone raising these issues. […] Anyone asking questions is regarded as a hurdle to salvation. […] It is destroying the culture of scientific objectivity and openness.”38H. Sterling Burnett. “Bringing Sound Science to the Climate Debate (Guest: Benny Peiser),”, May 21, 2019. Archived May 29, 2019. URL: Archived .mp3 on file at DeSmog.

April 10, 2019

Peiser wrote an article in the Conservative Woman based on accusations from a well-known climate science denier that a recent documentary by David Attenborough was “a thinly-veiled fundraiser for WWF” which “seriously misleads the public.” Referring to a scene in the Netflix series Our Planet, Peiser quotes Susan Crockford as saying:39Benny Peiser. “Attenborough and a shaggy walrus story,” Conservative Woman, April 10, 2019. Archived April 24, 2019. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

“The idea that walruses are being driven on shore by sea-ice decline is entirely incorrect. They have always done so. In fact there are reports of walruses falling over cliffs from long before the age of global warming too. Sir David’s story about climate change appears to be just that – a fable.”

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has published a number of pieces of work by Crockford, largely revolving around Crockford’s claim that polar bear populations are “continuing to thrive” and changes in their populations are not linked to climate change. Crockford has worked for the free-market, Koch-funded thinktank the Heartland Institute and gave a presentation to the 2019 annual meeting of the Canadian climate science denial group, the so-called Friends of Science.

The director of the documentary explained the “heartbreaking” scene in a Telegraph article,40Joe Shute. “Our Planet’s director reveals the heartbreaking truth behind its dying walrus scene,” The Telegraph, April 9, 2019. Archived April 24, 2019. URL: while the climate sceptic blogger, Andrew Montford, wrote a similar article to Peiser the day before for The Spectator, again quoting Crockford.41Andrew Montford. “Has Netflix’s Our Planet hidden the real cause of walrus deaths?The Spectator, April 9, 2019. Archived April 24, 2019. URL:

March 7, 2019

Peiser gave a presentation in Amsterdam entitled “Energy Revolts: The Crisis of Europe’s Green Energy Agenda,” arguing that European climate policies had “increased division between Western Europe and Central & Eastern Europe,” as well as causing “widespread public discontent and the rise of populist parties opposed to the green energy agenda.”42Energy Revolts: The Crisis of Europe’s Green Energy Agenda,” Global Warming Policy Forum, March, 2019. Archived April 18, 2019. URL:

The presentation was reposted by the influential American Enterprise Institute, a free-market, Koch-funded thinktank.43Wednesday afternoon links,” American Enterprise Institute, March 13, 2019. Archived April 23, 2019. URL:

October 26, 2017

Benny Peiser participated in a Cambridge Union debate, on a motion titled “This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy.”44This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy | Cambridge Union,” YouTube video uploaded by user “The Cambridge Union,” November 17, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

Peiser, whose affiliation with the GWPF was not mentioned when he was introduced, later posted his talk at the GWPF blog titled “What I Told Cambridge University’s Spoiled Green Students.”45BENNY PEISER: WHAT I TOLD CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY’S SPOILED GREEN STUDENTS,” The Global Warming Policy Forum, October 29, 2017. Archive URL:

During the debate, Peiser repeated the often-used “energy poverty” argument:

“I am opposing today’s motion because I regard it as perhaps the most inhuman and amoral motion ever proposed at the Cambridge Union. […] in short, economic growth and development should be sacrificed in the name of climate protection,” Peiser said, describing the motion as “extremely dangerous.”

“If today’s motion were ever to be implemented by some radical green government or tinpot dictator, it would lead to the death of millions of poor people in the developing world, astronomical mass unemployment, and economic collapse.”

He argues that “this whole agenda has led to the biggest wealth transfer in the history of modern Europe from poor to rich”, saying to “Just imagine who is reaping the hundreds of billions going into renewables.”

He concluded, “This motion is very wicked and should be rejected by everyone who takes the urgent needs of the world’s poor into consideration rather than prioritizing an intolerant if well-meaning green agenda that is hurting millions of people. Thank you.”46This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy | Cambridge Union,” YouTube video uploaded by user “The Cambridge Union,” November 17, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

Peiser’s post at the GWPF’s blog included the following statement, which he doesn’t appear to have included in the debate: 

“Denying the world’s poor the very basis on which Britain and much of Europe became wealthy — largely due to cheap coal, oil and gas — amounts to an inhumane and atrocious attempt by green activists to sacrifice the needs of the world’s poor on the altar of climate alarmism.”47BENNY PEISER: WHAT I TOLD CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY’S SPOILED GREEN STUDENTS,” The Global Warming Policy Forum, October 29, 2017. Archive URL:

Climate change denier Nir Shaviv, an advisor to the GWPF as well as to the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also argued for the opposition side of the argument earlier in the same debate.49This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy | Cambridge Union,” YouTube video uploaded by user “The Cambridge Union,” November 17, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

After the talk, in the scheduled question period, one student suggested that Peiser’s comments on the redistribution of wealth was “really misunderstanding what the proposition [is] about” given that 2015 talks at the Paris Climate Agreement had suggested a redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries in order to enable them to combat climate change. The student also noted that poorer countries would be the ones disproportionately affected by climate change.50This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy | Cambridge Union,” YouTube video uploaded by user “The Cambridge Union,” November 17, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

Peiser responded, asking for the name of the island that’s going under. Secondly, he said “The idea that Europe is going to subsidize China is a bit far fetched. Do you realty think it’s something that is going to happen? […] it might be the opposite. And soon. […] The rich Chinese will have to prop up an increasingly senile and aging European continent that doesn’t know, anymore, how to run a country or an economy.”51This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy | Cambridge Union,” YouTube video uploaded by user “The Cambridge Union,” November 17, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

The winner of the debate was announced “in the bar” following the debate. This twitter post suggests that the proposition side won:52Thank you for joining us and congratulations on your win @MarkCNorwich,” Twitter post by @cambridgeunion, October 27, 207. Archived .png on file at DeSmog.

Note that the October 2016 report “Beyond Coal,” from international poverty and development organizations, found the opposite to Peiser’s claim, noting that while “the coal industry claims that expanding coal use is critical to fighting extreme poverty and improving energy access for billions of people in developing countries. In fact, the opposite is true.” Findings included:53Beyond coal: scaling up clean energy to fight global poverty,”, October 2016.

  • More coal will not end energy poverty
  • Coal is given too much credit for the reduction of extreme poverty
  • Better energy options exist to lift people out of income poverty
  • More coal will entrench poverty.

September 27, 2017

Peiser presented at the University of Birmingham in a lecture titled “Climate Realism — A Lukewarm Approach to Global Warming.” The GWPF description read as follows:54BENNY PEISER: CLIMATE REALISM – A LUKEWARM APPROACH TO GLOBAL WARMING,” Global Warming Policy Forum, September 5, 2017. URL:

“There are many scientific agreements and disagreements in climate science. While there is general agreement about the modern global warming trend (since 1850), scientific controversies increase as climate research moves further back in time, and predictions move further into the future. Climate realism acknowledges the significant difference between verifiable and replicable knowledge, and hypothetical knowledge based on indirect evidence.

The lecture will attempt to address which knowledge claims are more reliable and trustworthy, and which are less so. What do we really know about terrestrial climate change, and what are our main knowledge gaps? Why do we accept certain scientific claims about climate change but are doubtful about others?”55BENNY PEISER: CLIMATE REALISM – A LUKEWARM APPROACH TO GLOBAL WARMING,” Global Warming Policy Forum, September 5, 2017. URL:

September 19, 2017

Peiser was quoted by James Delingpole at Breitbart, describing a new paper in Nature Geoscience as a “landmark” moment:56Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’,” Breitbart, September 19, 2017. Archived November 24, 2017. URL:

“It’s the first official confirmation we’ve had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it’s the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously,” Peiser said.

As reported in a Carbon Brief fact check, the study’s authors themselves disagreed with the conclusions reached by the media:57Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming,” Carbon Brief, September 21, 2017. Archived November 24, 2017. URL:

“A number of media reports have asserted that our [study] indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false. Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial [levels],” lead author Dr. Richard Millar and Myles Allen said in a statement. 58Myles Allen and Richard Millar. “Clarification on recent press coverage of our ‘1.5 degrees’ paper in Nature Geoscience,” University of Oxford, September 20, 2017. Archived November 24, 2017. URL:

November 11–12, 2016

Peiser spoke at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) 10th International Climate and Energy Conference in Berlin, Germany. His speech, in German, was on Brexit.59Dr. Benny Peiser: Brexit – Großbritanniens Abschied von der Klimapolitik? (10. IKEK),” YouTube video uploaded by user “EIKE – European Climate and Energy Institute,” January 13, 2017.

December 8, 2015

Benny Peiser wrote to defend William Happer after a Greenpeace Investigation found Happer willing to accept funding from fossil fuel interests to write articles promoting CO2. The Greenpeace investigation had also found that Happer accepted $8,000 from Peabody Energy to attend a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide.60Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan. “Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding,” Greenpeace EnergyDesk, December 8, 2015.

Peiser’s statement, published at Bishop Hill, supports Happer, the GWPF, and Indur Goklany, (all previously named in the Greenpeace report):61Happer days,” Bishop Hill, December 8, 2015. Archived January 25, 2016. URL:

Professor Happer made his scientific views clear from the outset, including the need to address pollution problems arising from fossil fuel consumption. Any insinuation against his integrity as a scientist is outrageous and is clearly refuted by the correspondence.

Nor did Professor Happer offer to put a report “commissioned by a fossil fuel company” through the GWPF peer review process. This is a sheer fabrication by Greenpeace. 

The GWPF does not undertake externally-commissioned research and does not accept support of any kind from fossil fuel companies or anyone with a significant interest in the energy industry. The correspondence shows that Professor  Happer explained to the undercover “journalist” that there were several different forms of peer review and that the peer review process used by the GWPF is as rigorous as that for most journals. 

Greenpeace claims with no supporting evidence that the report by Dr Indur Goklany was reviewed exclusively by 25 scientists who are members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council (AAC). This is false. Dr Goklany’s report, like most of our reports, was also reviewed by outside experts who are not scientific advisers to the GWPF.

The quality of Dr Goklany’s report is self-evident to any open-minded reader. As Professor Freeman Dyson said in the foreword, “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.” 

Professor Colin Prentice of the Grantham Institute concurred even while claiming to be dismayed by the report’s publication: “Much of it is quite correct and moreover, well-established in the scientific literature…the various benefits of rising CO2 are actually well established in the scientific literature, even if sometime ignored. They are indeed ‘good news’.”

The cack-handed [sic] attempt by Greenpeace to manufacture a scandal around Dr Goklany’s report, and to smear Professor Happer’s reputation, only points to the need for the Global Warming Policy Foundation to redouble its efforts to bring balanced, rigorous and apolitical research on climate and energy policy issues to the public’s attention, as counter to the misleading noise and activist rhetoric from groups like Greenpeace.

November 27, 2015

Shortly before the COP21 (Conference of the Parties) climate conference in Paris, Benny Peiser and Matt Ridley co-authored a Wall Street Journal article titled “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate.”62 Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser. “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate,” The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2015.

According to Peiser and Ridley, world temperatures have gone up “less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest.” They also mention that “the planet was significantly warmer than today several times during the past 10,000 years.”63 Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser. “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate,” The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2015.

The two make a range of often-repeated claims by climate change skeptics, including that there have been “no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts,” that sea ice isn’t melting considerably, and that there is supposedly no scientific consensus regarding global warming.64 Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser. “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate,” The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2015.

A group of 12 scientists analyzed Peiser and Ridley’s Wall Street Journal Article, and found that it “contains numerous false statements, cherry-picked evidence, and misleading assertions about climate science. It attempts to surround the hard facts about climate change with clouds of uncertainty, even though these facts are agreed to by the scientific academies of every major country in the world and the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.”65 “Analysis of Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s ‘Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate,’” Climate Feedback, November 27, 2015. Archived December 3, 2015. URL:

Peiser and Ridley cite Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, saying his studies conclude that “warming may well bring gains, because carbon dioxide causes crops and wild ecosystems to grow greener and more drought-resistant.”

“To put it bluntly, climate change and its likely impact are proving slower and less harmful than we feared, while decarbonization of the economy is proving more painful and costly than we hoped,” they write. In conclusion, “Any climate agreement should be flexible enough so that voluntary pledges can be adjusted over the next couple of decades depending on what global temperatures do.”

October 2009

Peiser was a witness before the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, along with fellow skeptic and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Lord Lawson of Blaby at a hearing to discuss an inquiry into the disclosure of data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (based on the incident popularly dubbed “climategate” by skeptics). 

Here is an excerpt from the transcript:66 “The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia” (PDF), House of Commons science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2009 – 10, Volume II: Oral and written evidence. Printed by the House of Commons, March 24, 2010.

Q50 Chairman: No, are they freely available, the data sets [used by the CRU]? How you model them and how you use them is entirely an issue for individual scientists, is it not?

Dr Peiser: Yes. What is not available, again, are some of the methodologies they arrive their conclusions at.

Q51 Ian Stewart: Dr Peiser, the question you were asked was: was that information available? We now hear from you that it is.
Dr Peiser: Yes.

Q52 Ian Stewart: Are you prepared to do your own modelling? Do you intend to use that data?
Dr Peiser: No, I am not in the climate modelling business. My concern is about availability of all the information that is important to replicate the conclusions, and that is the basis of this inquiry.

Q53 Dr Naysmith: Both of you are making a great big thing of the necessity for information to be available almost immediately. It is this insistence that you have got that it should be available immediately which is not true of much of science. I have been a scientist all my life. When I had a proper job, I was a scientist! I know of two really worldshattering discoveries that resulted in Nobel Prizes where there were two or three groups researching in the same area and both of them kept data back until they were ready to publish and get it out. One of those was DNA, the original Crick andWatson stuV on DNA and the Wilkins stuV, and the second one was thymus and the role of the thymus in the generation of lymphocytes… .”

March, 2009

Peiser was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC2). His speech was titled “The Crisis of EU Climate Policy.”672009 International Conference on Climate Change,” The Heartland Institute, February 1, 2009. Republished by Instituto Liberdade. Archived October 12, 2017. URL: 68Benny Peiser, ICCC2,” International Conferences on Climate Change. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. URL:

DeSmog found that the sponsors for the 2009 conference had collectively received over $47 million from the oil industry and right-wing foundations.

March 2008

Peiser was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s First International Conference on Climate Change. His speech was titled “Societal Evolution and the Rise of a Climate-Proof, Planetary Civilization”:69Speakers: ICCC-1,” International Conference on Climate Change ( Archived November 12, 2011. URL: 70Benny Peiser, ICCC1,” International Conferences on Climate Change. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. URL:

According to conference’s invitation letter, “The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective [emphasis added]”.

RealClimate also reported on the conference.

January 2005

Peiser’s “claim to fame” in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes. Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.71 Naomi Oreskes. “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science, Vol. 306, No. 5702 (December 3, 2004), P. 1686. Archived October 12, 2017. URL:

Peiser originally stated that Oreskes was incorrect and that “in light of the data [Peiser] presented … Science should withdraw Oresekes’ study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.”72Benny Peiser. Dr. Benny Peiser’s Letter to ‘Science’ and Its Rejection,” Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), May 4, 2005. Archived March 23, 2014. URL:

On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists.73Bolt’s Minority View,” ABC transcript from episode 38, 2006. Archived October 12, 2017. URL:

Peiser’s incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.



According to an ISI search of publications Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004).

A list of his publications is available at his archived Homepage at Liverpool John Moores University.83Dr Benny Peiser: Faculty of Science,” Liverpool University. Archived June 18, 2011. URL:

None of these studies are related to climate change.

Other Resources


Related Profiles

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Background The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a UK-based think tank founded by former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson with the p...
Nigel Lawson Credentials Bachelor's degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from Christ Church, Oxford.“Nigel Lawson,” NNDP. Archived October 13, 2016. Archive URL: https://archi...
Net Zero Watch Background Net Zero Watch (NZW) is a campaign group launched and managed by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) that claims to "scrutinise" the UK government's net zero emi...
Matt Ridley Credentials BA (Zoology), Oxford University.“Biography,” Archived September 20, 2016. URL: “Matt Ridley's C.V.” m...