The Briefing: News outlets love to interview “Experts” from “The Institute for [Sounding Impressive].” They rarely tell you who funds that institute. A Think Tank is often just a PR firm disguised as a university. Your job is to ignore the fancy name and find the bank account.

The Tradecraft (How to Investigate):

1. The “About Us” Vague-Check

• The Tactic: Legitimate organizations list their donors and board members clearly. Front groups use vague language like “Supported by concerned citizens” or “Private donors.”

• The Drill: Go to the “About” page. If you cannot find a “Our Donors” or “Financials” PDF within 2 clicks, treat it as a hostile info-op until proven otherwise.

2. The Form 990 (The Smoking Gun)

• The Tactic: In the US, non-profits must file tax returns (Form 990) that are public.

   

• The Tool: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (Free).

   

• The Drill: Type the Think Tank’s name into ProPublica. Look at “Revenue.” Look at “Grants.”

  • Red Flag: If 90% of their money comes from one “Donor Advised Fund” (a legal way to hide the real donor), you have hit a dead end, which is an answer in itself.

3. The Staff Rotation ( The Revolving Door)

• The Drill: Look at the “Fellows” or “Board of Directors.” Search their names. Did they just leave a major defense contractor? Did they just leave a specific lobby group?

• The Insight: If the “Energy Expert” spent 20 years at Shell, their “independent study” on oil prices is marketing, not science.

Exercise:

One example is the viral backlash campaign against Oxford’s proposed traffic filter scheme in 2022-2023, which was misrepresented as a “climate lockdown” restricting residents’ movements under the guise of environmental policy. This narrative originated from a network of climate denial groups but was significantly backed and amplified by the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) through its campaign arm, Net Zero Watch, which promoted the conspiracy theory via articles, social media posts, and public statements framing the scheme as an authoritarian “15-minute city” plot to control citizens. The GWPF, a think tank registered as a charity in the UK, has received substantial foreign funding from U.S. sources tied to fossil fuel interests, including over $620,000 from the Donors Trust (linked to the Koch brothers) between 2016 and 2020, and $210,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation (an oil dynasty heir’s fund) in 2018 and 2020.

The campaign gained traction on British social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, where false claims spread rapidly—amplified by influencers such as Jordan Peterson (whose post reached 7.5 million views), Laurence Fox, and GB News presenters—leading to widespread outrage, protests in Oxford, death threats against local councillors, and debates in UK Parliament. It was deemed successful in derailing public support for the policy, with fact-checkers later debunking the misinformation, but not before it had polarized discussions and boosted anti-climate policy sentiment across UK online communities. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) primarily operates through its campaigning arm, Net Zero Watch (formerly the Global Warming Policy Forum), which focuses on critiquing climate and energy policies, emphasizing their economic costs, and advocating for alternatives like fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Below are details on several of their notable campaigns and initiatives, drawn from their reports, publications, and public activities. These often involve releasing analyses, lobbying policymakers, and amplifying narratives on social media to influence public and political discourse.

Campaign Against Net Zero Policies and the Climate Change Act

GWPF has consistently campaigned to highlight the economic and societal risks of the UK’s Net Zero targets, arguing they lead to higher energy costs, industrial decline, and energy insecurity. A key example is their 2025 report “The Net Zero Straitjacket,” which claims Net Zero policies under the Climate Change Act drive up energy prices, undermine industrial competitiveness, and erode energy sovereignty. The campaign gained traction through social media posts warning of blackouts affecting hospitals, transport, and food supplies by 2030 if policies continue unchecked, with one such alert in January 2026 referencing a study by former energy secretary Claire Coutinho. They have also lobbied for scrapping the Climate Change Act, welcoming pledges from figures like Kemi Badenoch in October 2025. This effort extends to critiquing green levies and carbon taxes, with a January 2026 post noting that collapsing global gas prices won’t benefit the UK due to these policies, potentially doubling costs by 2030.

Phase 1: The Narrative Interrogation (Surface Layer)

Goal: Verify if the story (“Oxford is creating a climate lockdown”) is true or a distortion.

• Step 1: The Reality Check

  • Tool: Google Search / Fact Check Explorers

  • Action: Search “Oxford traffic filters climate lockdown.”

  • Result: You would find articles from Full Fact or Reuters debunking the claim, explaining that the scheme was about traffic filters, not physical confinement.

• Step 2: Identify the “Super-Spreaders”

  • Tool: Social Media Search (X Advanced Search)

  • Action: Search for the earliest viral posts using the term “Climate Lockdown” in late 2022.

  • Result: You identify key amplifiers: Jordan Peterson, Laurence Fox, and an organization called “Net Zero Watch” (the campaigning arm of GWPF).

Phase 2: The Entity Investigation (Who is Net Zero Watch?)

Goal: Determine if “Net Zero Watch” is a grassroots group or a professional front.

• Step 3: The Corporate/Charity Lookup

  • Tool: UK Charity Commission Register (since they are UK-based).

  • Action: Search for “Global Warming Policy Foundation” (the parent of Net Zero Watch).

  • Result: You confirm they are a registered educational charity, but they have a separate campaigning arm (Net Zero Watch) to bypass strict political lobbying rules. You notice their income is significant, but UK charity law often allows anonymous donations.

Phase 3: Following the Money ( The “Dark Money” Trail)

Goal: Find out who funds them, since their website is vague.

• Step 4: The Offshore Pivot (The “Form 990” Hack)

  • Concept: Since UK donor laws are opaque, analysts look for US-based funding, because US non-profits must declare who they give money to.

  • Tool: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (IRS Form 990 Database).

     

  • Action: You suspect US involvement. You search for “Global Warming Policy Foundation” or “American Friends of the GWPF” in the database.

  • Result: You find tax filings from Donors Trust and the Sarah Scaife Foundation listing grants to the GWPF.

     

    • Data Point: $620,000+ from Donors Trust (2016-2020).

    • Data Point: $210,000 from Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Phase 4: Root Cause Analysis (Connecting to the Source)

Goal: Identify who “Donors Trust” and “Sarah Scaife” actually represent.

• Step 5: Profiling the Donor

  • Tool: DeSmog or SourceWatch (Databases of industry influence).

  • Action: Search for “Donors Trust” and “Sarah Scaife Foundation.”

  • Result:

    • Donors Trust: Identified as a “Dark Money ATM” heavily funded by the Koch Brothers (fossil fuel industrialists) designed to hide the source of funds.

    • Sarah Scaife Foundation: Identified as an investment vehicle for the Mellon industrial/oil fortune.

       

The Final Intelligence Assessment

By using these tools, you have successfully deconstructed the story:

1. The Lie: “Climate Lockdown” (Debunked via Fact Checks).

2. The Amplifier: Net Zero Watch (Identified via Social Search).

3. The Funding: $800k+ from US groups (Uncovered via ProPublica/Form 990).

4. The Root: US Fossil Fuel Interests/Koch Network (Linked via DeSmog).

Conclusion: The Oxford protests were not just a local dispute; they were inflamed by narratives funded by foreign oil interests.