Monday, March 10, 2008

The Manhattan Declaration On Climate Change

It has gone virtually unreported in this country but, via The Englishman and Global Warming Politics, here is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, in full, unabridged and unexpurgated as reported nowhere by the British mainstream media.
Today, I ask a simple, but immensely serious, question: “Why has the UK media, in pretty well all its forms, failed to report ‘The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change’, signed in New York on March 4, 2008?” The meeting at which the ‘Declaration’ was agreed [‘The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change’, March 2 - March 4] was attended by over 500 people (scientists, economists, policy makers, etc.), with over 100 speakers delivering keynote addresses, or participating in panel discussions. Sadly, I think we know the answer, and it is one that reflects very badly on our supine UK media [the only exception of note appears to be The Sunday Telegraph, March 9: ‘Climate dissent grows hotter as chill deepens’]. If ever evidence were needed of the dangerous ‘control’ of our media by pernicious grand narratives, then this is surely it.

Luckily, we bloggers can break the deafening silence.

Indeed we can, so here it is.

The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

‘Global warming’ is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
  • Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

  • Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

  • Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

  • Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

  • Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:
  • That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

  • That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

  • That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

  • That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

  • That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend—
  • That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.

  • That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

That all seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Mind you, it is only what I and others have been saying for years (and there is more news coming to The Kitchen on that front soon).

It remains to be seen whether anyone will listen. The omens—in the form of the MSM's failure to even admit this exists—are not good. After all, if it turns out that we eeeevil deniers are right and CO2 emissions are nothing to worry about, then there are going to be an awful lot of alarmists with egg smeared all over their fat, lying faces. And a good many of those alarmists are members of the MSM and of government.

As such, we will be faced with the unedifying spectacle of governments the world over impoverishing their peoples with absolutely no justification whatso-fucking-ever...


Evil Clanger said...

It is astounding to think that if (a very big if) global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) does exist as a long term trend its ramifications are largely positive. Anyone would think global warming meant game over for humanity.

I don't believe that the recent trend of warming (now over by all accounts) is anything but a mere blip and that we'll all be able to get back to freezing to death pretty soon.

My niece (16) wants to go to university to study renewable energy. What a fucking waste of time and money. She should go to university and study physics and build me a fucking fusion reactor the daft, indoctrinated cow.

Well I'm off to Wetherspoons in Victoria station for a few jars.

mitch said...

Why am i not surprised? this should be sent to every house in the land and just to be ironic print it on carrier bags.

wrinkled weasel said...

My declaration on the Manhattan is..
try using Canadian Club whisky in place of bourbon.

Roger Thornhill said...

Do you think the UK Government will now bundle this document in with that odious pile of snake-oil drizzled horse manure called "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Jones said...

Of course the European media is ignoring the Manhattan Declaration, it's sponsored by S Fred Singer, and what's worse it's American, which automatically makes it bad, eh?

No one will listen, because we haven't yet got to the denouement of the Emperors New Clothes story yet.

Daniel said...

Official: Environmental pollution and unstoppable globalisation now a "sin"

When will these morons realise that globalisation is lifting more people out of poverty everyday than the Catholic Church has done since the dawn of its existence.

Interesting to note that accumulating excessive wealth is on the list too; presumably (as is often the case with these things), this morality doesn't actually apply to the Catholic Church itself, which has acquired a few quid over the years, to the tune of several billion dollars worth of Gold Bullion alone, according to UN estimates.

Umbongo said...

"to the tune of several billion dollars worth of Gold Bullion alone, according to UN estimates."

At least our PM, when Chancellor, did his bit to impoverish the UK - sorry, get rid of our "excessive" wealth - by selling its gold reserves at around $250/oz as against today's price of around $970/oz. Not bad for a non-Catholic.

curly15 said...

Here's another climate change event that ought to be given more coverage!

Tomrat said...

"As such, we will be faced with the unedifying spectacle of governments the world over impoverishing their peoples with absolutely no justification whatso-fucking-ever..."

Come now DK we all know in the face of massive socialist expansion that there is EVERY justification - just not for us but themselves.

But once people begin to go hungry in the western world, and realise that the tens of thousands of starving chinese are revolting and bringing about democratic changes to that place which the MSM cant ignore nor blame on climate change we too will be joining them.

Budgie said...

AGW was taken up so avidly by UK and EU politicians because it is a way of making the plebs feel guilty. So we can be soaked for taxes and not dare complain.

Anonymous said...

To some degree, I agree with you that the alleged link of CO2 emission to climate changes and the negative effects of global warming are not that well backed-up and may not be catastrophic. However, CO2 emissions are daily affecting the quality of life of billions of people. I suggest all evil deniers should spend some time living in the heart of Beijing or Hong Kong, and I hope they choke.

Daniel said...

Anon @ 02:22.

What the hell are you on about?

You say the Science is not clear on this and the effects may not be catastrophic - and yet deniers are evil and should choke (in Beijing or Hong Kong). Anyone who believes people should die because they challenge so-called orthodoxy when the evidence isn't clear is obviously brain-dead.

Your logic = fucked.

You'd probably find (if you actually had a background in the Life or Physical Sciences) that the choking has very little to do with concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and is much more to do with other industrial pollutants, such as any of the NOx's, particulate carbon in one form or another and probably some CO aswell.

Anonymous said...

Both Beijing and Hong Kong were perfectly places to sojourn in, last I checked.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Hurray for Christopher Booker, he did global cooling and Article 9 in one column! And he's about the only one who did.

Henry Crun said...

I almost wept with joy reading the Manhattan Declaration. For years now I have been derided because I didn't "believe" in global warming.

Even pointing out that climatology is a science and not a faith did little to deter the "believers".

I hope those present at the seminar now go on to expose Al Gore for the fucking charlatan he really is.

Anonymous said...

you ignorant stupid bastards.
how can you not all see that htis is propoganda at its worst.
the manhattan declaration is nothing more than a document invented to slow down and eventually stop the detraction from making maximum profit through the exploitation of oil
i suppose you lot think being chipped with a tracker 'to protect your freedom' is a good thing too.
you blind sheep.

Dave H. said...

"we the scientists...economists, policymakers, and business leaders"

Ah, so 3/4 of them know sod all about it?

Anonymous said...

Oh the whole the levelo of debate is very low. And is it necessary to swear in order to get a point across ?

Anonymous said...

Honestly, if any of us were seriously concerned about the condition of life present and future, we would not be reduced to swearing in order to explain our opinions.
There's is so much more to the study of Climate Change than just vague allusions and being anarchic, as this web page seems to stimulate...

Please, educate yourselves.

Anonymous said...

I've read through all these comments, and very few of them actually discusses climate change. All it is is a bitch fest of closeminded people.

Increasin CO2 in the atmosphere increases co2 in the ocean. This creates acid which dissolves coral reefs. The Co2 in the atmosphere also increases the 'reflectivity' of the atmosphere and traps more outgoing longwave radiation leaving the earth. This causes a general warming trend. This warming can cause ocean current shifts, destruction of habitat, extinction, sea level rise...the list goes on.

In the past the earths atmosphere has changed in it's composition due to the activity of living organisms. Why is it so difficult to believe that humans can do it? It has been proven that Human emissions of CFC's has caused a hole in the ozone layer. Why is it hard to believe that the release of CO2, CH4, and other greenhouse gases can affect the entire global balance of life? Carbon is the lifeline of all matter, pumping it into the atmosphere at the rate we are doing is bound to cause some effects.

And ya there is another side to climate change. The cost of mitigation for one. The people who lose their jobs or get taxed the shit out of because of strickter emissions laws. But is that any different then the fordist mentality of mass production and technology advances? How many people lost there jobs in factories and lumber yards because of fancy machinery that can do the work better?
Is change that bad a thing? Those people had to learn new skills to support there families, and for the most part they are probably better off for it.

Even if the effects of climate change turn out to be over-exagerated, is new technology and new job titles a bad thing? Is it a bad thing to learn a different kind of trade? Is it a bad thing to invest money on new technologies and skills? The world is changing anyway. And eventually the oil will run out, even if it's not for a couple hundred years...or whatever the fuck...besides, when it comes to the possibility of mass destruction and loss of life, isn't it better that some people lose there jobs? Or that some small fraction of overly-rich people lose some of their money? Besides, it's not like that money dissappears, it gets redistributed. I don't know shit about economics, so if someone has a real argument for the negative effects of climate change mitigation, I'd be interested in hearing it. But so far all the arguments I've heard are just the rich fucks with the power trying to fool the masses so they can keep their 7 figure incomes. And then the people who fear change, who find it more convienient to believe in a lie then to move a marriage where they stay together for the kids. Well guess what, the kids are better off with two happy parents. Change is good if it keeps our planet happy.

Anonymous said...

I'm listening to a Focus on the Family broadcast where Dr. Francis Schaeffer who warned of a time such as this in 1984. We are assaulted by governments and leftist thug politicians as occurred by the German Nazis and Communists.

I concur with this declaration and join with these freedom loving people just as Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer did against the Nazis.