QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate Net Zero Watch as Right Biased and Questionable due to its consistent opposition to climate science consensus and policies aimed at mitigating climate change. Its factual reporting is rated low, reflecting a pattern of publishing content that undermines established scientific findings without robust evidence.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Propaganda, Poor Sourcing, Pseudoscience, False Claims
Bias Rating: RIGHT (7.1)
Factual Reporting: LOW (8.0)
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Net Zero Watch (NZW) is a UK-based organization that emerged in October 2021 as a rebranding of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), the campaigning arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The GWPF was established in 2009 by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson to challenge policies addressing anthropogenic global warming. NZW continues this legacy, focusing on scrutinizing and opposing net-zero emissions policies, which they argue have serious economic and societal implications.
Read our profile on the UK’s government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
Net Zero Watch operates as a subsidiary of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. While NZW claims not to accept donations from the energy industry or individuals with significant interests in energy companies, investigations have revealed connections to funding sources linked to fossil fuel interests. For instance, the GWPF has received funding from US-based Donors Trust, which is known for channeling money from donors like the Koch brothers, prominent figures in the oil industry.
Analysis / Bias
Net Zero Watch exhibits a Right bias, characterized by its consistent opposition to mainstream climate science and policies aimed at achieving net-zero emissions. The organization frequently publishes content that downplays the risks of climate change and criticizes renewable energy initiatives. For example, their article “Tall Climate Tales from the BBC 2023” challenges the BBC’s climate reporting, suggesting it exaggerates climate risks. Another piece, “Climate Attribution: Noble Lie”, questions the validity of attributing extreme weather events to climate change.
NZW’s content often lacks peer-reviewed scientific backing and tends to rely on opinion pieces and selective data interpretation. Their stance aligns with a broader agenda to undermine public trust in climate science and delay policy actions addressing climate change.
Failed Fact Checks
- Polar bears are growing in number. – Misleading
- The GWPF has been described as a climate science denial group, and its materials have been scrutinized for inaccuracies and promoting pseudoscience.
Overall, we rate Net Zero Watch as Right Biased and Questionable due to its consistent opposition to climate science consensus and policies aimed at mitigating climate change. Its factual reporting is rated low, reflecting a pattern of publishing content that undermines established scientific findings without robust evidence. (D. Van Zandt 05/18/2025)
Source: https://www.netzerowatch.com/
Last Updated on May 18, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources