Monday, 12 December 2011

International Climate Science Coalition Rejects Durban Agreement to set New Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets

Attention: News Editors, Political, Science and Environment Reporters

International Climate Science Coalition Rejects Durban Agreement to set New Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets


No “Climate Debt” is owed to developing countries


Ottawa, Canada, December 11, 2011: “Developed nations are not guilty of causing the climate change that developing nations claim they are suffering,” said Tom Harris, executive director of ICSC which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “Climate changes all the time—both warming and cooling—due to natural causes, and there is nothing that we can do to stop it. However, to the degree possible, and considering our economic circumstances, developed nations still have a moral obligation to devote a proportion of their foreign aid to helping the world’s most vulnerable people adapt to natural climate events.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, and author of the best selling book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus” says, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. Consequently, any agreements—Durban, Cancun, Copenhagen or Kyoto—to reduce humanity’s greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions are utterly futile. Governments need to recognize that the really dangerous climate hazards are natural events and change, and to prepare more fully to adapt to them when they occur.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor, expands on this point: “The UN’s nonsensical attempts to ‘stop climate change’ have diverted world attention, and hundreds of billions of dollars, away from helping those already being hurt by natural climate variation and weather-related events. The health and wellbeing of people suffering today is infinitely more important than the remote possibility that our GHG emissions might threaten those yet to be born.”
"We urge citizens from across the political spectrum to take a more mature perspective, one that is based on real science, engineering and economics, not political correctness,” asserts ICSC energy issues advisor, Bryan Leyland of Auckland, New Zealand. “Whether you are socialist or capitalist, industrialist or environmentalist, no one wants to pour money down the drain. Yet, that is exactly what is happening as a result of the global warming scare. Expensive and ineffective alternative energy projects such as wind turbines and solar cells are receiving massive government support, in the belief that they will reduce GHG emissions which are wrongly blamed as a cause of dangerous global warming. Meanwhile, the conventional power sources that we rely on for our very survival, let alone the economic progress we need to create a better world, are deliberately starved of support. This is a very dangerous situation.”

ICSC science advisor Professor Ole Humlum, of the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, explains, "Today’s climate debate is essentially about the relative influence of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) versus natural climate variations. In my mind, there is no doubt that the data available clearly show that the natural variations are the dominant of these two factors, including during the last few years. The net temperature effect of our CO2 emissions appears to be insignificant.”

Mr. Harris concluded: “As is well demonstrated by the Nongovernmental International Climate Panel on Climate Change [], warming alarmism is a not based on a correct interpretation of the science. The climate scare has largely been fuelled by computer-generated misrepresentations that bear little relationship to modern climate or to its observed history.”
As nearly all independent observers have now concluded, a new approach is needed to address climate change. The best (indeed, self-evident) Plan B is that nations should prepare for and adapt to the onset of damaging climate-related events and change as and when they occur.


  1. There is actually extremely strong evidence that carbon dioxide released by humans is causing our planet to warm and that this warming could lead to very severe consequences in the future. The evidence was summarised and referenced in 2007 in the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report (see e.g. ). The IPCC's 4th assessment report is based on the research and expertise of thousands of scientists, and seems to me to be extremely well-balanced and sound. (There are 1 or 2 mistakes among the thousands of pages, but none of the mistakes are relevant to the report's basic conclusions). Please read the IPCC's 4th assessment report and check out some of the papers that are referenced in this report, before you dismiss the work of thousands of experts.

    Those who dismiss the dangers of human-induced global warming need to explain what mechanism, other than human greenhouse gas emissions, has caused the warming of the planet over the last 150 years - but no one is able to come up with any scientifically credible alternative mechanisms to explain recent global warming. In contrast, the hypothesis that human greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for recent global warming is very very well-supported by scientific research.

    The IPCC makes very modest, cautious claims, and it seems to me that these claims are very well backed up by a huge body of scientific research. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities are having a significant impact on the Earth's climate. Dozens of respected scientific organizations endorse the position that most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities, including the acadamies of science from 19 different countries.

    A tiny percentage of scientists publishing papers relating to climate science appear to dismiss the current consensus position. Very often, the papers published by these scientists seem to be of very poor quality and their flawed arguments are quickly and reasonably debunked by other scientists. Websites funded by the fossil fuel industry often keep repeating the arguments long after they have been debunked.

    Is it really likely that over 97% of the World's active climate scientists, and a huge number of respected scientific organizations around the World are all wrong, and that a tiny minority of scientists are correct?

  2. You can not show any evidence in IPCC4AR that shows runaway global warming is being caused by CO2 - in fact you can not show one source showing that the world has warmed in over a decade - rather all show cooling whilst CO2 has been rising.

    And "97% of the World's active climate scientists..." another unsubstantiated "fact" whilst the CON-sensus crumbles. (See Josh cartoon above!)


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!