(The following item is posted in support of the ICSC's effort to illustrate the continued scientific debate that has long existed in the field of "climate science."

Carbon dioxide NOT causing a climate crisis, say scientists

Ottawa, Canada, June 30, 2010 – The Climate Scientists’ Register, started one month ago by International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), has just passed its first 100 expert endorsers – see here.  By allowing their names to be added to the signatory list, these scientists are endorsing the following physical science statement:

“Unlike most other public declarations about climate, The Register only includes the endorsements of individuals who have significant expertise in understanding the causes of climate change”, explains ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris.  “By ensuring that the Register statement is apolitical and non-commercial, it is attracting support from scientists across the political spectrum, an important objective if public policy is to be based on the best in non-partisan science.”

“Contrary to the common assumption that only ‘outliers’ and unqualified researchers disagree with the theory of carbon dioxide-induced climate disaster, The Register demonstrates that many leading experts contest this hypothesis”, said Register endorser Dr. Tim Patterson, ICSC Chair and Professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada). "Many in the Earth Sciences community in particular have trouble with the concept that today’s climate change is in any way unusual or driven by human activity.  Climate has always changed, at times far faster than we are witnessing today, and it will continue to change no matter what we do.”

Fellow endorser and ICSC science advisor, Dr. Robert M. Carter, Professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory of James Cook University (Townsville, Australia) elaborates: "Many researchers recognize that the already weak case for dangerous man-made global warming is getting weaker still as the science matures.  With the admission of Dr. Mike Hulme (Reference 1, below), a prominent climate scientist and UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insider, that “only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies”, not thousands as is commonly asserted by the IPCC and others, “reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate”, the quickly achieved 127 current endorsers to the Register should provide an incentive for media and the public to reassess popular but misguided beliefs about what scientists who study the causes of climate change are actually concluding.”

ICSC Policy Advisory Board member Climate Data Analyst John McLean of Melbourne, Australia explains that, “of the roughly 2,500 independent reviewers of the latest IPCC report, only 61 commented, and not all of them in agreement, on the critical Chapter 9 of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC.  This was the chapter that attempted to attribute warming to human activity on the basis of climate models that elsewhere the IPCC report shows cannot be accurate.   It is clear that the InterAcademy Council currently reviewing IPCC processes needs to include among their recommendations that the IPCC must be more honest in its claims about the magnitude of the consensus, better yet, any mention of consensus should be banned because scientific truth is not determined by the number of people supporting a notion.”

To view the list of current endorsers of The Climate Scientists’ Register or to learn more about the project, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org or contact:

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermo-fluids)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Canada
K1A 4E2
613-728-9200
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Reference 1: see p. 10, 11 of Hulme’s April 12, 2010 paper in “Progress in Physical Geography” at http://tinyurl.com/2b3cq3r.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) is an apolitical association of independent scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who have joined together to promote better public understanding of climate science and policy worldwide. We wish to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerge, thereby helping move the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual ‘climate control’ measures.

27 Feb 2010: In our last article (below), we provided highlights of an initial review of data by Dr Row W. Spencer, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. After being asked about the influence on cosmic rays, wh ich we can't see, Roy spent a few hours looking over some of the CERES data he had in hand and found the results "intriguing."

In a more recent post, Roy states that he had found "evidence consistent with natural cloud variations being the dominant source of climate variability since 2000.

"The following graph shows the variations in the Earth’s global-average radiative energy balance as measured by the CERES instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite. These are variations in the imbalance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared radiation, the most fundamental quantity associated with global warming or global cooling. Also show (in red) are theoretically calculated changes in radiative forcing from increasing carbon dioxide as measured at Mauna Loa."

There is uncertainty in the absolute accuracy of the CERES measurements, just as there are questions about the degree of sensitivity of Earth's climate system, such as the Spencer, et al., 2007 GRL paper, and Lindzen & Choi’s 2009 paper. Spencer discusses this in his full post.

In the end, Roy says: "Any way you look at it, the evidence for internally-forced climate change is pretty clear. Based upon this satellite evidence alone, I do not see how the IPCC can continue to ignore internally-forced variations in the climate system. The evidence for its existence is there for all to see, and in my opinion, the IPCC’s lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice."