The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the thinktank set up last November "to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant", goes from strength to strength, it would seem.

Just a few days after its chairman, Nigel Lawson, and director, Benny Peiser, appeared before the science and technology select committee to answer questions about the inquiry into the climate science emails hacked from the University of East Anglia, a job advert for a new assistant director has appeared on the House of Commons internal jobs listings website.

We are looking for a highly motivated, young man or woman with strong verbal and written communication skills. Strong grounding in economics is highly desirable but not essential. The assistant director plans, organises, and co-directs the day-to-day operations of the GWPF. He or she assists the director in maintaining good communications with the media, the GWPF's academic advisors, trustees and members, and will be working closely with Lord Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer, former secretary of state for energy, and chairman of the GWPF. The role of assistant director is an outstanding opportunity for a young graduate to help shape the discussion on current and future climate policies and to develop more cost-effective climate policies.



Essential requirements of the position: • Good research skills and academic ability;

• Good understanding of economics;

• Good knowledge and skills in organisational management;

• Good written and spoken English;

• Strong commitment to the GWPF's mission and goals;

• Good verbal communication, presentation and networking skills;

• Good skills in planning, analysing and coordinating activities and establishing priorities.

I have two thoughts on this job ad. I'm no HR expert, but might it not have benefited from an extra criterion? Something along the lines of: "Good understanding of climate science." Peiser is clearly a very busy man these days, what with being near-omnipresent in the broadcast studios as the GWPF director and keeping up with his day job as a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, so one can perhaps understand his delay in responding to Bob Ward's reasonable request for clarification over why the GWPF's website is still displaying a somewhat wonky temperature graph on its masthead. Perhaps this is a task for his new assistant?

The other thought I had was that if the GWPF is as keen on "maintaining good communications with the media" as it says it is, perhaps it could start by answering the one burning question that has been asked of it since the very first day it opened its door for business? Who is funding it? I asked Nigel Lawson this very question myself last November and received much the same response as he gave to the science and technology committee last week:

Q15 Graham Stringer: Can you tell us how your organisation is funded? We have had an email this morning saying that you have not been transparent in the funding of your organisation.



Lord Lawson of Blaby: I do not think that is within your terms of reference. I am happy to answer it, but we have got quite a lot to do which is within the terms of reference.



Q16 Chairman: Could you just answer it very briefly?



Lord Lawson of Blaby: We have donations from private individuals and private charitable trusts. That is how we are financed. We have one absolutely strict rule: we will not accept any money at all from the energy industry or anyone who has any significant interest in the energy industry.



Q17 Graham Stringer: In one sense you are right, it is not within our terms of reference, but this is a very fraught and vexed question and there is distrust on both sides, so it is better to be clear. Is there a list of your donors available?



Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, like most thinktanks, not all but like most, we do not publish a list, because if donors wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reasons, perfectly good reasons, then it is their privilege. I am very happy for them to be published.



Q18 Dr Evan Harris: That is strange, because Sense about Science, which is an organisation we hear from a lot, publish all their donors, because they are often accused of being partisan. Would it not be a good idea for you to adopt that rule; otherwise people might have concerns?



Lord Lawson of Blaby: We are absolutely clean. I would be very happy to see the names of all our donors published, I can assure you, it would be very, very good, but if they wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reason, maybe they have other family members who take a different view and they do not want to have a row within the family, maybe they do not want a whole lot of other people asking them for money -



Q19 Chairman: The short answer is you are not giving us the names.



Lord Lawson of Blaby: This is the one in football. It is called playing the man and not the ball. You get a yellow card for that.



Q20 Chairman: Lord Lawson, you are not going to give us those.



Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, when the annual report comes we will ask our donors if they wish to be named. Some may; some may not.

This important question is clearly going to hang over the GWPF and raise doubts about its agenda until it chooses to answer it in detail. Slippery, undefined statements such as "we do not accept gifts from anyone with a significant interest in an energy company" will always lead to suspicion when operating in such a distrustful environment. What, say, does the GWPF mean exactly by vague terms such as "significant"? It would seem from the exchange above that Nigel Lawson accepts the point that full transparency is the only way to achieve the trust of its critics and the wider public. The GWPF is asking no less of climate scientists, of course. So why not nip this all in the bud right now by saying the GWPF will only accept donations from those who are willing to have their names listed publicly?

Meanwhile, anyone interested in applying for the post should send a covering letter and CV to info@thegwpf.org.