A common misunderstanding amongst the general public, mainstream media and politicians is that only a small proportion of experts in the climate science community have serious problems with the concept of a carbon dioxide-driven climate crisis. In reality, thousands of climate experts are highly skeptical of this hypothesis.
This fact has been repeatedly demonstrated through open letters, petitions and other declarations. However, these documents have not had sufficient impact on government policy largely because mainstream media have generally ignored them and so only a minority of are of their existence.
Consequently, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) have incorporated the following characteristics into The Climate Scientists' Register for the public to address this problem. The Register states:“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 far endorsers are from that nation: Algéria (1 ), Australia (8), Bulgaria (1), Canada (14), Denmark (1), Estonia (1), Finland (1), France (1), Germany (4), India (3), Italy (3), Luxembourg (1), Mexico (1), New Zealand (6), Norway (4), Poland (3), Russia (5), South Africa (1), Sweden (8), United Kingdom (6), United States of America (64).Read more: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289
orwrite to Tom Harris, Executive Directive, International Climate Science Coalition: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net
Rajan and Tom, I suggest be careful with the phrase "are highly sceptical". In fact there are scientists and other experts who are sceptical, but there are others who present a clear and undeniable disproof that any CO2 "greenhouse warming" was not possible at all. In particular those physicists and theoretical meteorologists whom I would call "the German school of thoughts" including Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Kramm (emigrated to Alaska, unfortunately), Dlugi, Zelger, Thieme, Hebert, Thüne have shown that the allure of a "greenhouse warming" does not fit physical principles. This is something fundamentally different from "being sceptic".
ReplyDeleteSo we should adjust our terminology. Everybody who disproves wrong claims by applying sciencitif methodology, care, and scrutiny is legitimally to be called a "scientist". And anybody who goes on using clearly falsified claims to support ideological concepts has to be called a "charlatan".
Klaus Ermecke
KE Research
Oberhaching, Germany
www.ke-research.de
Yes Klaus. As usual on the mark and very lucid. Your position is what science really should be all about.
ReplyDeleteBut the divide came because of the imposition "consensus science" on everyone and all who didn't accept the latter had to brand themselves or get branded as a denier.
I found your blog interesting.
ReplyDeleteOur Organization, Liberty Institute, plans to send copies of the report of the NOn-Governmental International Panel of
Climate Change (NIPCC) to scientists and activists interested in related issues.
In case you are interested in having a copy, you can contact us at shanu@libertyinstitute.org.in