“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 . 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. 
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. 
 The climate isn’t just about “one physical science”. It encompasses a vast range of subjects.
 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?
 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.
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
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.
 – Boise State University
 – Beyond Madison Avenue
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