BPSDB
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”
So claim the ICSC (International Climate Science Coalition), who have launched a new petition.
Why yet another petition?
The answer, according to the ICSC, is here.
Let’s look at it point by point.
The Register statement is apolitical, non-commercial and deals with one physical science topic only [1]. Many scientists have been reluctant to endorse past declarations because they did not want to become involved in something they regarded as outside of their professional field of knowledge. [2]
Similarly, many potential supports (sic) in the general public, mass media and government have not often cited past open letters for fear of appearing to support their ideological opponents. [3]
[1] The climate isn’t just about “one physical science”. It encompasses a vast range of subjects.
[2] This is an odd comment. I think they are claiming that many scientists don’t feel qualified to talk about the climate, which is certainly true, but exactly how does this new petition enable them to suddenly endorse a particular point of view?
[3] This is probably fair enough, although potential signers will probably check the existing list before they sign.
Scientist endorsers from all countries are welcome, thus negating the perception that national interests of any specific nation dominate.
Laudible sentiment, and good to see it as point number 2.
However I don’t think I have ever seen a climate science poll that excluded anyone on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity. More on this below, though.
The Register will include full professional identification of each endorser along with areas of specialization.
For endorsers who are willing and able to speak with media, politicians and the public, ICSC will also include detailed contact coordinates.
That sounds fair.
ICSC will carefully vet any and all endorsers, allowing only the most qualified climate scientists to be included.
It is fair to say that the majority of the people named have PhDs, and some are real climate scientists (e.g. Christy, Spencer & Lindzen). But then again, they include Anthony Watts. 🙂
Unless they have previously endorsed public documents asserting the same message as The Register, then no scientist will be listed without their specific approval and any wishing to have their names removed in the future will be accommodated immediately.
Woah! You don’t even have to sign up to get on the list – known “dissenters” will qualify and be included automatically.
Wow. 😯
Still, you can get your name removed (which is an improvement on Infofe’s list).
[edit 27-Jun-2010 19:41 UT] The above paragraph has been altered on the website since I wrote this. It now reads
No scientist will be listed as endorsing the Register without their specific approval and any wishing to have their names removed in the future will be accommodated immediately.
h/t The Ville
[/edit]
The coordinating organization, ICSC, is a single-issue entity that is, and is widely seen to be, neutral politically, philosophically and financially. ICSC carefully avoids all ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. We also maintain strict confidentiality with regards to funders’ identities and critique the comments of those involved in the debate based solely on the scientific accuracy of what they say and our perception of the effectiveness of their strategies.
I don’t really feel qualified to express a view on this. Take a look at the links on their website and decide for yourself how neutral they are.
At the time of writing, 117 people have apparently signed up (or been signed up). This doesn’t seem a huge number when compared to previous similar petitions.
Maybe they lack publicity, in which case this humble post may help them a little. 🙂
They do have a breakdown of signers by country (I think this is by residence rather than nationality). For an organisation portraying itself as international, the results are interesting.
Unsurprisingly the USA has the most contributors (55, almost half of the total). Canada comes in second with 14. No other country gets to double digits.
In joint third place we have the UK, Australia and New Zealand with six apiece.
Russia had four, India one, and there are no signatories at all in China, Japan, or any other far eastern nation.
Wait a minute – New Zealand has six signatories?
I know that New Zealand has a population of a little over 4 million. Judging solely by this petition, New Zealand has about 1.5 dissenting “scientists” for every million inhabitants – which I think is more than any other nation other than Luxembourg.
Kiwis are like that, though. Just think Rugby and Cricket. I guess they just naturally try harder.
In reality, the high New Zealand count is probably because the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was instrumental in setting up the ICSC back in 2008. frankbi has some entertaining history on them (including previous “lists”).
I did wonder how many scientists there are in New Zealand. I have not been able to find an answer, but according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics their education system is churning out about 7,000 tertiary science graduates a year. They won’t all be native New Zealanders, of course, but it gives some sense of perspective to the six “dissenters”.
Incidentally, although he isn’t included in the list, Monckton is a member of the ICSC Policy Advisory Board.
IMAGE CREDITS:
[1] – Boise State University
[2] – Beyond Madison Avenue
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will
links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread”
is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply; - The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Wow! Another “blacklist”!
Their Must Read Sites list starts with WUWT. Say no more.
Another promising sign is their intention to “… maintain strict confidentiality with regards to funders’ identities …”
Their Executive Director, Tom Harris, has a long history of climate change denial here in Canada.
S2, thanks for an interesting post.
The automatic signing thing is… well, very efficient. 😉
And let’s also consider breakdown of signers by sex.
It is important to notice that signers, with only a couple of exceptions, are men.
Women have made some strides in fields of science previously dominated by men. The relevance of the domination of these lists by men is complicated, but it should not be overlooked.
Scientists (and especially women scientists) who are also interested in differential impacts and equity issues are probably too busy considering the problems related to the welfare of women (who are likely to be severely and disproportionately impacted by climate change) to care about a list that includes the work of climate change deniers as well as some speculative research that has not been shown to challenge the core science.
These ‘lists’ may be a richer (excuse the pun) source of sociological discussion, than scientific discussion.
Hmm, I’ve not read the entire list but the first one that appears as a ‘former climatology professor’ is Timothy F. Ball. I think I’ve heard about him before, but according to his wikipedia page, he never actually was a climatology professor. Makes you wonder about the rest of the climatologists on the list, of course.
Still I’ll be curious how the list develops 😉
I think the bit about any scientist endorsers from any nation welcome, is connected to a recent report that suggested that American scientists got preferential treatment when it came to peer reviewed published research.
S2 not sure where you got this bit from???
Looks like they changed it to this:
—-
It is interesting to note that an ex-lecturer in Geography (TB) has no idea where Winnipeg is. He lists it as being in Alberta whereas most serious students of geography know that it is in Manitoba.
If a so-called expert (in geography) can be so mistaken by something as simple as this then I think we can safely assume that he knows next to nothing about climate science.
—-
My God, that’s funny! 🙂
Ian,
Thank-you for immortalising Tim Ball’s incompetence!
Presumably TB is so used to telling falsehoods, he doesn’t bother to check his facts and ‘just invents them on the hoof’.
A former professor of geography at Winnipeg, no less. He retired in 1996.
There has never been a climatology department at Winnipeg, so how could Ball have been a professor in that department?
Al Gore is fat.
Fat!
FAT!
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!
Plus there is a new list of scientists.
Therefore, it’s all a hoax.
Or something.
😉
Everybody from Alberta thinks their borders have no bounds!
Perhaps the credibility of this list could be boosted by recruiting David Icke and his highly plausible claim that the world is ruled by alien shape-shifting lizards. 😉
You couldn’t make it up; so they did!
“The overall purpose of the summit was to set up an [aid] fund for poor nations suffering from man-made global warming etc ”
No. Of course some aid money has to be on the table and so it is on the table, but the ‘overall purpose’ was obviously the continued process of attempting to negotiate a global climate agreement on emissions reductions, in anticipation of the expiry of the Kyoto protocol in two years’ time.
You conflate issues. The question of the usefulness of the U.N. as a framework for climate action is a separate issue from what the science is telling governments and the public, and the problem of how an effective international plan that reflects the diversity of stakeholders and the reality of differential impacts might be developed.
To be clear: the accord that was negotiated was not in the UNFCCC process.
Unilateral goals and national climate change laws are now evolving, and business is thinking about the future.
The science stands on its own. Feel free to move to the appropriate thread if you think you have evidence to challenge the core science and you do not wish to discuss the post.
Naturally the question of whether or not one is willing to call Monckton ‘Lord’ is not relevant to anything.
Sides are being drawn up. I think that is what this list is all about.
Then clearly you are not thinking hard enough.
Science is not done by “lists”.
There are no “sides”.
It’s just the scientific community versus the nutters.
There is a lot of money involved in this, but who are the benefactors on both sides?
No.
“Following the money” is a fool’s errand.
That way lies paranoia and “world gubbiment”.
Focus on the scientific work. That’s the only thing that counts.
Each side building a list of thousands of scientists.
Bollocks.
Thousands of scientists? Really? Really? No, really?
In your delusions.
If there were “thousands” of “scientists” then we would have heard from them by now.
They would have done some work.
Some research to support their claims.
Bogus lists are a joke.
That answers the question posed to Lord M.
Monkton is a wierdo.
Anybody who listens to him instead of scientists needs their head read.
PP said:
The high ground is occupied by those who are honest and honorable. Science has been, until recently when it has become infected by a few dishonest types, an honorable and honest profession.
Honesty is what will eventually show the masses what is correct and what is bogus about climate science. I bet you cannot name one honest AGW denier since all they have is dishonesty, lies, cherry picking, misinterpretation, misinformation and obfuscation on their side.
Don't you feel a bit embarrassed by supporting such dishonorable people?
Oops, sorry, I didn’t close the blockquote properly.
—-
So can I set up a petition stating England are still in the World Cup and they support them?
Ummmm… but if anyone wants to remove their name from the list…
Paul,
Monckton is not “Royalty”. You really ought to do some basic research before making absurd claims. His grandfather was made First Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in 1957.
Many people have been given hereditary titles by the UK govt., but none of those became “royal”. “Royal” refers to members of the monarch’s extended family.
But what was Monckton doing there anyway? Who nominated a non-scientist and known fantasist instead of a recognised expert on the subject? Any deck must have been “stacked” for someone like him to have been there at all.
PP, I suggest you consult a dictionary and read up on the definition of honesty. None of the people you list is in any way qualified to be called honest.
Why are you so dishonest when discussing climate science?
Historians should be honest but too frequently they just make stuff up (see some of your previous posts for such nonsense).
The people I find so far to be honest are…
You find people to be honest?
YOU?
You mean “you” as in your own personal self?
Fat lot of good that does for the rest of us considering we have no idea how you go about assessing honesty.
What if you are a clueless, gullible nutter?
Your criteria for “honest” might well be completely worthless.
Are you suggesting that NASA is not honest?
Do you believe that they are all lying to you?
Really?
A global conspiracy of scientists covering all the scientific communities on the planet but…but…BUT you have magically figured out that Easterbrook, D’Aleo and some mystery Russian guy are the holdouts.
The unsung champions of truth and justice in this cruel world?
There is one college that keeps all the theories on the table….
A college?
(Huh?)
Keeping all the theories on the table?
(Double huh?)
You mean like Gravity and the Heliocentric theory?
😉
…and they know more about sunspot activity than any source I know…
Well maybe they do.
I’m sure the Southern Baptist College of Religious Studies probably does indeed know more about sunspot activity that any source you know.
However, that’s not something you should brag about around educated people if you don’t want people to treat you like a simpleton.
When I want to know about sunspot activity or climatology or rockets or satellites or really interesting science stuff my favourite science source is not some nameless mysterious “college”.
I go to NASA.
NASA.
They are truely awesome.
…and they have been studying their affect on climate for 25 years. You have to find them yourself.
You don’t have to find NASA by yourself.
I am generous to a fault.
Here’s NASA’s link.
<i.Because I am hooked up to about 20 key Google alerts, I blah, blah, blah, blah gave me a brutal forecast on the Arctic for the next 30 years. It may not be melting blah, blah, blah…
Ah yes, you have a degree from the University of Google.
For example, a volcano is known blah, blah on the other hand, if it is in a glacier, it melts the glacier blah, blah blah on the sea coast it creates
Yep, you have indeed graduated magna cum laude from the University of Google.
Took you all of half an hour in the comfort and privacy of your own home and it didn’t cost you a penny!
Bully for you.
Volcanoes?
My goodness, you know all about them!
Pity those foolish professional vulcanologists that wasted years of their lives in painstaking, disciplined research.
The Arctic?
That’s child’s play to you. It’s secrets are laid bare at your feet.
All of those Arctic scientific survey missions shivering for months at a time in harsh, dangerous conditions doing scientific research can pack it in and go home.
Glaciers?
Elementary. What’s to know? It’s just an ice block from the fridge that has ideas above it’s station. No problemo.
Glaciologists?
Pffft! Who needs ’em?
Paul, you are the perfect example of the
Visit Our SiteDunning-Kruger Effect. You’ve nailed it in one. Ten out of ten.
Mr Pierett
It’s not great for science, because what you describe isn’t science.
If you think it is great, then you are not interested in science, you are interested in politics.
Mr Pierett wrote:
That is a rather stupid statement.
Science is about finding answers and using the science that explains the answers in everyday life. It isn’t about keeping all theories on the table.
Redundant theories are for the history books and to explain the progression to current theory.
eg. There aren’t just 4 elements, the theory is known about but it isn’t on the table.
Richard S. Courtney is touting his PhD again on this list. Problem is: nobody can verify he holds a PhD, and he himself has noted a few years ago he does not hold a PhD:
Click to access 20060331_wind.pdf
Page 17 (DipPhil is NOT a PhD).
Now, apparently the list is by explicit consent of the signatories, meaning that Courtney either has lied, or someone somewhere gave him a PhD.
“The people I find so far to be honest are:
Dr. Easterbrook”
This Easterbrook?: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/don_easterbrook_caught_in_a_li.php
Really?
Paul,
Like others, I’m baffled by your choice of “honest” people.
What would you make of someone who took a graph from Global Warming Art, crudely altered it in an image editor to say something it doesn’t, used it in a presentation, and then lied about it afterwards?
Your 2nd choice is a shameless anti-science propagandist. Nothing he writes can be trusted; in fact the only sensible way to proceed is to assume he is lying unless you know otherwise.
As for your 3rd, how can someone who makes a prediction be an example of honesty? It makes no sense, even if his prediction turns out to be true (which we won’t know for a long time yet). When, as I expect, his prediction proves to be false, will you then say he was dishonest?
Paul,
Real names are irrelevant. Are you not capable of assessing claims and evidence on their own merits? And how do we know who you really are anyway?
You came here to make some strange claims. When challenged, you failed utterly to support your claims and attempted to change the subject. Is this what you consider “honest”?
Do you even know what the word means? It appears from your examples that your meaning is something like “anything that I want to hear, no matter how absurd or unsupported by evidence”.
http://www.christianforumsite.com/severe-weather/23798-july-12-potential-severe-weather-central-south-central-us.html#post196406
Enough said!
[…] And just to further highlight the hypocrisy of Watts, he signed Tom Harris’s Climate Scientist Register, which is nothing more than a blacklist of deniers. But you know what they say: “It’s OK when […]
Another interesting fact about Tom Harris’s “blacklist”: (*) Harris originally called it the “Register of Climate Realists”, but later renamed it to “The Climate Scientists’ Register”.
(*) Heheh.
And here’s a hilarious pile of bullshit about the list. The author can’t even get the facts about his pet denialist organization right — he claims that the ICSC is a “new” organization!
Just googling those 6 NZ scientists, judge for yourself – they include:
Geoff Duffy – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/
Gerrit van der Lingen – apparently climate scientist – retired
Chris de Freitas – discussed here, of course: http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-dde-freitas
Vincent R. Gray – according to Wikipedia a retired coal industry researcher – born 1922, so aged 88 – well retired
Peter Oliver – geology – apparently retired
Vincent R Gray seems to be a key founding member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition:
http://nzclimatescience.net/
Actually both Vincent R Gray and Gerrit van der Lingen seem to be founding members of the NZ Climate Science Coalition.
Chris de Freitas is an advisor to the ‘coalition’.
To My Critics.
Please give:
Blah, blah, blah…..
You are a whackjob. A complete tool. Go back on your meds. Stay off the internet.
frank and Al — thanks for the good links. 🙂
Looking at this latest list, it is increasingly impossible to explain how any given listee could be so paranoid, and so transparently out of touch with reality, without looking at the extremely simple-minded economic beliefs that direct their thoughts.
In their own words, many are actually agitated about the complex causes of global changes related to finance rather than what the science is telling us about the climate crisis. They don’t seem able to distinguish between the two. It would not be surprising if they cannot understand why the two have co-occurred.
Apparently it is easier to sign this ridiculous list than to understand reality.
[…] of puts organisations like the ICSC somewhat in the shade, I […]
[…] And just to further highlight the hypocrisy of Watts, he signed Tom Harris’s Climate Scientist Register, which is nothing more than a blacklist of deniers. But you know what they say: “It’s OK when […]
[…] And just to further highlight the hypocrisy of Watts, he signed Tom Harris’s Climate Scientist Register, which is nothing more than a blacklist of deniers. But you know what they say: “It’s OK when […]