Sunday, 9 May 2010

Thousands of scientists worldwide push back against attacks on integrity of climate science

I've been quite busy updating my list of scientists who've signed statements on climate change. There have been several new declarations in the months since the posting of the stolen CRU emails; some of these have drawn signers numbering in the thousands.

These lists reflect a truly broad and widespread response from scientists to the attacks from contrarian bloggers on the integrity of climate science in general, the IPCC, and on individual climate scientists.

To emphasize just how broad the response has been, I've compiled a list of the names of the signers of these eight statements, with notations on which statements each one signed:

Five thousand scientists worldwide defend climate science

Here is a list of these most recent statements, with links to original sources. (The initials are the tag I've used to tag signers who are also authors in my database of climate author publication stats; after each I note how many signers already have their climate publication and citation stats collected in my table of climate science authors.)

  • NAS10: May, 2010 statement from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences defending the integrity of climate science, and condemning "McCarthy-like tactics" against climate scientists. Discussed at DeSmogBlog and at ClimateProgress. [23 are tallied in my stats table]
  • FR10: May, 2010 statement from over 400 600 scientists in France rebutting outrageous attacks on climate science by Claude Allegre. [55 are tallied in my stats table]
  • NL10: May, 2010 statement from scientists in the Netherlands; 50 initial signers; now 196 Dutch and 96 foreign signers [13 are tallied in my stats table].
  • OLFS10: March, 2010 Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC, 320 signers (list) [53 tallied in my stats table]
  • UCS10: March, 2010 US Scientists and Economists' Call to Action organised by the Union of Concerned Scientists. This builds on their similar 2008 statement, with over 2000 signatories. [178 tallied in my stats table]
  • CSW09: Dec., 2009 letter to US Congress from 25 climate scientists responding to the stolen email controversy, posted by Climate Science Watch [all 25 tallied in my stats table]
  • WWFC09: A Dec., 2009 open letter organized by the World Wildlife Fund--Canada to Canada's Parliament calling for action on climate, endorsed by 848 Canadian scientists. I've tagged over 60 already in my list.
  • UKsc09: Dec., 2009 Statement from the UK science community signed by 1700 U.K. scientists, from 67 universities and 55 other institutions, re-affirming the integrity of climate science and data sources, in response to the University of East Anglia email break-in, which begins:
    We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
    This is perhaps the strongest and certainly the broadest response from scientists to the UEA email controversy. [I've tallied 108 signers in my author stats data.]


Anonymous said...


皮皮 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

For your information:

Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?

Heavn and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heavn to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.

We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heavn and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth's topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.

Much of PreEarth's crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heavn itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth's crust back together, we obtain the following map....



Anonymous said...

成人 免費視訊影音觀賞 聊天網 免費h卡通 0401交友 台灣女優 性感裸體寫真 免費影片線上觀看 本土自拍偷拍露點照 免費豆豆聊天室 愛愛 情趣丁字褲 成人遊戲18禁 少女裸體圖片 嘟嘟影城85c 免費a圖a片 美眉情色網 麗的色情遊戲 一夜情短片 av383tv影片 完美女人聊天室 玩美女人影音視訊 性感熱辣美女寫真 裸睡的辣妹圖片 人妻自拍畫廊 超熟女性愛 視訊聊天 空姐免費a片 a圖網情色貼圖 寫真 85cc卡通影城 杜蕾斯成人 微風 嘟嘟 av女優777 情色貼圖片 台灣援交自拍影片 情人視訊聊天室 鋼管辣妹 免費av 洪爺性愛貼圖 大奶裸體辣妹 電話下載片 日本巨乳貼圖 性愛自拍圖貼 後宮電影院女優 限制級 0204 性愛影片觀看 內褲走光

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said...

I'm not doing so well at attracting interested readers to my blog yet. So far, comments to this post have been a string of chinese link-spams, plus this one from way in left field touting someone's pet theory of the origin of planet Earth (a Velikowsky wannabe?)
Sigh. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

well you'll probably have a few comments soon with your Stasi-esque namelist collection of opponents

Frank Ch. Eigler said...

"Thousands of scientists worldwide push back against attacks on integrity of climate science"

For once, I'd like to see dropping the fighting words as mere metaphors, and see some real mob-on-mob pushing and shoving. That would certainly settle the science.

Gail Zawacki said...

hey I think your blog is terrific!

Hint: if you want more readers, leave comments all on other well-read blogs with links to yours...

Your list of climate statement signers is very impressive. Have you sent it directly to Joe Romm? Maybe he could use it.

timheyes said...

Please add my name to your list. I'm no expert in climatology but I have a science degree and would be honoured to count myself as one who looks critically at polico-scientific orthodoxy. Keep up the good work - it's very entertaining (alomost satirical)to real scientists.

Anonymous said...

It seems you are doing the exact same thing as certain climate scientist blogs and you censor opposing views... typical !

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase Richard Feynman: "It doesn't matter how many people support a theory, if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." The world is cooling, and 'environmentalists' have to fudge their data, therefore AGW is just plain wrong.

Unknown said...

I'm glad to see another fan of Richard Feynman - one of my favorite authors.

Now, just for the record:

a) I'm not "censoring" anyone. I'm not the government and I'm not preventing anyone from saying anything

b) it would not be "censoring" to delete any really dumb, one-liner snark responses. Censorship is passing a law saying you can't publish your thoughts anywhere; comment moderation is saying you can publish them anywhere else, but since this is my blog, I get to decide who is being really rude and failing to say anything relevant.

c) getting turned down by a publisher is not "censorship", whether at a journal or a print house. They own their facilities, and they get to decide whose work they print and whose they skip.

Unknown said...

The only comments I've been deleting are:

link-spam in Chinese (somehow I attract a lot of those), and

really pointless one-liner snarky ones where I can't tell what Anonymous is even trying to say.

The rest of the posts here I can at least understand enough to reply.

As for the PNAS article or my web listings being either "blacklists" or "censorship" - hey, buddy: I don't run any of the academic journals, I just list who they did and didn't publish. If you or someone you root for hasn't gotten published, my making a list showing that's so isn't the problem. I'm just the bearer of bad news; you need to complain to the science journals.

Unknown said...

Why is everyone comparing "making a list" to the Stasi? Why not, say,


Anonymous said...

I can't help but notice how you haven't mentioned that 83% of Americans polled put ACGW at only 23rd place of importance in the world, just three points above dogpoop in city parks.

Anonymous said...

birdbrainscan said...
Why is everyone comparing "making a list" to the Stasi? Why not, say,


My reply could be interpreted as "snark" but is not a one liner.

Do you not even understand the complete ignorance of your comment here?

You don't even understand the complete big brother esque nature of your listing.

If you truly had a "harmonic" heart, you wouldn'th have seperated them out so precisely.

Although you have done one thing perfectly well, which will probaly bring you the ire of the ACGW believer community, you have just proven again that there are more than 1 or 2 brain dead idiots that believe in a skeptic point of view, there are some very smart scientists on that list.

Why is it you, a Systems administrator is daring to call the 100 people listed in that editorial as unworthy or unqualified.
I'm a network admin/system admin desktop support specialist/ network design engineer etc, never once do i remember in any of my college classes or cert training any classes making me an expert in climatology.

However, amongst the names of the 31,480 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition or the Petition projct there are climatologists, paleoecologists, geologists, astronomers,etc over 9000 of whom have stated they don't believe in ACGW. At most you have listed maybe 5-10k scientists who supposedly believe in ACGW.
I find it humerous that all these staunch supporters of Climate change science who were pretty much unheard of just a scant 2 years ago have rushed to the side of the CRU and others after the release of the CRU-tape letters as Mosher loves to call them.

Why would they do this when 2.5 years ago there were maybe 2000 at best known ACGW believers, many of whom weren't even phd's let alone climatologists?

I'll tell you why 1.8 trillion dollars of grants that are at stake.

The alarmist regime constantly put out articles of a supposed 28 million spent by Exxon to get skeptic scientists to go against the elite ACGW scientists to discredit them and that these scientists who supposedly took money from Exxon should not be believed.

Hmm well let's look at the real truth here.

Exxon a disputed, never proven $28 million (that's with an M folks)
Now let's look at what the ACGW elite have received. The US Government has put out over $1.8 Trillion (with a T) in funding for studies on climate change in the last 10 years. That's not including funds that were ciphoned to climate studies that were earmarked for other things. That's also not including funds from Germany, France, the UK, or the United Nations. That $1.8 trillion figure is just in US dollars from the US Government.
Which side should really be question on conflict of interest?

Which side has taken the low road?

Hmm Exxon $25 million which is in question and has never been proven.

US Government pushed by Gore, Obama and others $1.8 trillion.

I think even the ACGW elitists can figure it out for themselves despite their bad math models.

Anonymous said...

The whole "Climate Change" is a scam in more than one way, it has coerced 70 billion dollars in research money from the taxpayers of mostly free democratic nations.

It has created a huge bureaucracy of interested parties that jet set around the world going to conferences; 15,000 people at a time - a credibility issue.

The term "Global Warming" was replaced with "Climate Change" to expand influence when the "models" didn't work and they can claim anything was due to climate change.

Copenhagen was an attempted coup of the free world by the UN to impose global governance and taxation on sovereign free countries to be administered by a corrupt UN to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Al Gore is a liar and always was. He didn't invent the internet either. He is also a hypocrite like most supporters of the scam are.

Carbon markets are a ponzi scheme and will do nothing to help the environment and everything to reduce everyone's standard of living.

Anyone who supports this insanity has a vested interest in above carbon markets.

Anonymous said...

A Velikovsky wannabe?

No, I had never heard of Velikovsky when I wrote "World's Collide."

I am interested in global warming. That's why I visited your site.

Here is an article on the Vostok ice-record that you may be interested in.

Search the page for Vostok.

(This is's forum).