Monday, January 05, 2009

Manhattan Declaration: for reference

Looking through my keyword stats—which include such hilarious search terms as "harriet harman is really stupid"—I noticed that the top search term was "manhatten declaration", so I thought I'd Google it myself and found something good for reference...

Some of you might be unaware of what the Manhattan Declaration is, for the MSM decided to ignore it almost completely; however, for those of you who wish to know, I did quote the preamble at the time and I reproduce it below:

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.

So, what is it that I found on my search?

Well, many people will try to tell you that there were no "real" climate scientists involved with the Manhatten Declaration and therefore they will say (in true playground manner) that "it doesn't count".

Well what I found was a list of the 197 "climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields" who signed the Manhatten Declaration (it is a subset of the full list).

Useful, eh?

27 comments:

Jones said...

DK,

The Manhattan declaration was ignored or rubbished by most in the mainstream media, but change is coming, and it doesn't seem to be the one Hansen, Gore and Suzuki always seem to be prophesising about. The wheels are slowly but surely coming off the warmista's propaganda bandwagon and it's got so cold in many places that even CNN are backpedaling. Even the leftist Huffington Post has noticed.

When will the BBC and Met Office catch on and stop being so embarrassingly wrong on this issue? Makes you embarrassed to be born English.

Quiet_Man said...

Thanks for finding this, I frequently have "discussions" with warmists on other debate boards and this is just more fuel to pour on their now curious retreat into climate change.

Alfsevic said...

Excellent find devil, I´ve been visiting http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for a few weeks now and notice its getting to be one of the most popular weather blogs on the net, it was even mentioned in the huff-post.

Anonymous said...

Would be nice to spell "Manhattan" correctly, though.

Letters From A Tory said...

Errr, I hardly think that walking away from every attempt to clean up our environment is warranted even if 'global warming' isn't as serious as we thought.

Devil's Kitchen said...

LFAT,

"Errr, I hardly think that walking away from every attempt to clean up our environment is warranted even if 'global warming' isn't as serious as we thought."

I'm sorry, but I must have missed the bit where I advocated doing so...

Look, environmentalism is a rich people's game: ever since the onset of the technological age, the richer we have become, the better our environment has become because we can afford it to be so.

Poorer peoples can't and it is they who will be shafted by the environmental lobby.

Anon,

Whoops! Corrected (the original search was spelt incorrectly and I just copied that)...

DK

Anonymous said...

The numbers keep on growing too:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

I'm not sure what will be used to scare us into higher taxation next though - Alien Invasion?

Jeff Wood said...

Indeed, the Manhattan Declaration, and similar efforts, have been almost completely ignored by the MSM, except for the occasional cry of "Behead the Apostates and Infidels!"

And yes, rejecting the global warming hoax does not mean walking away from the environment. It does mean a healthy scepticism of all scaremongering.

CountingCats said...

a list of 197......

Well, I generally try to tell people that science is about arguing from the data, not authority, but if they insist on using authority, well, my response is to point out my authority is bigger than your authority - http://www.countingcats.com/?p=311

And - the next conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute is in early March this year. It won't be as readily ignored this time.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html

CountingCats said...

my authority is bigger than your authority

Sorry, their authority, not yours.

Not you, them.

DOH.

Umbongo said...

Interesting to see that David Bellamy is one of the 197. Bellamy, who I remember was, pre-2000, effectively "naturalist in residence" at the BBC. He was on the BBC more often then than Marcus Brigstocke is now. However, unlike Brigstocke, Bellamy was occasionally amusing. It is no coincidence that Bellamy has become an unperson at the state broadcaster since declaring his scepticism concerning ACC.

Chalcedon said...

I saw a pic of a radar station in Greenland, abandoned now owing to the 20 foot of snow surrounding it. 40 years ago when it was built there was a light dusting. Global warming was changed to climate change to hide it from the inconvenient truth of global cooling. If the twats espousing warming look at satellite temperature data rather than those of earth-based stations the cooling effect is plain. But this has become religious dogma now and if you say the hockey stick graph is bollox created from manipulated data it's the equivalent of a witch trial and burning. David Bellamy said global warming was bollox. That's why the BBC dropped him like the proverbial hot potato. You never see him on TV these days, yet at one time he was never off it!

Chalcedon said...

BTW, I posted about Bellamy before reading Umbongo's post. Whoops. I was just aggrieved about the whole thing and posted too soon. Premature ejaculation. Hey ho. I wonder why the MSM are so supportive? Do they want to see Western industry crippled? Or do they want us to be taxed into oblivion based on a false assertion?

Budgie said...

We (humanity) seem to be frighteningly prone to follow fashions. And AGW simply became a fashion.

Nobody anymore asks "does it work?" and repeatedly asks this. Instead people do only what is fashionable defending their stance with rabid tribalism. This is the route to barbarism and irrationality.

neil craig said...

Of courase they aren't real scientists. They define only computer modellers employed in producing computer models predicting warming as real scientists. The guys who take the measurements are merely geographers & the computer scientists who could produce models that actually fit reality are known as they guys who didn't get government research grants.

One exception - during his climate-aid concert BBC news said that "Al Gore is a climate scientist".

Meanwhile the radio today said that last night was to coldest since 1979 (I couls be out a year or 2). Strangely enough the phrase global warming wasn't used.

Neuroskeptic said...

Isn't the internet wonderful? Before, if you believed something stupid, you had to make up your own justifications for it. What hard work!

Now, a quick Google search, and your ready-made rationalizations are right there in front of you! Truly it's the Information Age...or perhaps the Information Season, and information is getting hunted to extinction.

Don't you see the slight problem with finding the list of scientists involved AFTER you'd already decided that the declaration was good?

gimpyblog said...

Neuroskeptic, indeed.

Here is an abbreviated version of a comment I left in response to the Devil's Kitchen on the badscience site that is still to make it through the spam filter.

There are a lot of people out there in the blogosphere who confuse contrarianism with scepticism. This, I believe, stems from the observation that being at odds with public opinion on an issue that can neither be proved strongly right or wrong is probably a good thing in a free thinking democratic society and improves the general quality of debate, but unfortunately this gives some people a false sense of their good judgment which leads them to believe that opposing the scientific consensus on an issue is a good thing. It can be, but only if you are an expert in the field with some convincing evidence at your fingertips. The devilskitchen is a web designer of some sort.

tom p said...

By the way, DK, Emeritus means retired, and BSc means the lowest possible level of qualifications (and certainly not what one would call a scientist).
That removes 34 from your list of actual scientists and leaves an awful lot of people not associated with climate.

tom p said...

Oh, and that list includes Piers Corbyn, the biggest charlatan in Britain regarding weather (search for him and the daily express, then compare his predictions to what actually happened, he's always completely wrong).
If he's counted as a proper climatologist, then I'm the fucking pope of meteorology.

Devil's Kitchen said...

And Al Gore's qualifications are...?

DK

gimpyblog said...

I'm not aware that Al Gore has published peer reviewed papers on climate change. I am aware that he is an ex vice-president of the USA with considerable influence and a strong interest in climate change but with a layman's knowledge that results in his making an occasional glaring error. This is unfortunate but not unexpected as it is not his area of professional expertise.
Those with professional expertise publish their data in peer reviewed journals, if you have complaints about their data then you should write an appropriately referenced letter or article to the journals explaining why they are wrong and why anthropogenic climate change is not real. I am sure they would be delighted to publish something that so overturns the consensus, it would also open up the strong possibility of a Nobel prize, unlimited research funds and the adulation of most of your peers for being smart enough to overturn an idea that even the cleverest, most informed experts accept as being established theory.

Neuroskeptic said...

Al Gore's only qualification - and the only one he needs - is that most of what he says is supported by the vast majority of people who do have qualifications...

Anonymous said...

tom p.

BSc = Batchelor of Science. How does this not equate with being called a scientist?

Surely BSc has more credibility than e.g Ed Milliband's education in Philosophy,Politics and Economics as Britain's "Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change"?

Using your logic wouldn't it be sensible to have an actual scientist in such a position?

Neuroskeptic said...

Anyone can get a BSc if they spend 3 years in uni, maybe attend a few lectures, and can memorize some facts to pass an exam.

A BSc. is what you need to start on the path to being a scientist (a path which leads from a PhD through post-docs to a proper academic post, at which point, you might be a scientist, although many people who reach that level are barely worthy of the name.)

If someone waves a BSc at you the appropriate response is "So at some point your IQ was at least slightly above room temperature, then." It proves zilch.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"A BSc. is what you need to start on the path to being a scientist (a path which leads from a PhD through post-docs to a proper academic post, at which point, you might be a scientist, although many people who reach that level are barely worthy of the name.)"

Wow! I thought that I was fantastically arrogant but you, my friend, take the biscuit.

My uncle, not having a massive trust fund, obtained a BSc. and spent some ten years working in research (at the Purbright Centre) before he had saved enough money for his PhD. He will, of course, be delighted that all of the work that he did up to that point -- work which, amongst other things, in the early 1990s predicted the FMD outbreak -- wasn't worth dick because a "neuroscientist" says so.

Oh, and will you tell Einstein's family that he wasn't a real scientist or shall I?

DK

gimpyblog said...

Devil's Kitchen,

It is not arrogance to state that a BSc is only the begining, just a simple statement of fact. I don't think you realise just how difficult 'science' is and the breadth and depth of knowledge required just to begin to understand the literature fully in a given field. To be considered a scientist at the very least, and this is a requirement of a PhD, you should have published a novel contribution in a peer reviewed journal (as Einstein did to spectacular effect). Science is also more than a degree or a doctorate, it is about understanding and applying a method of analysis, scientific method, to the universe and reporting the results in a set manner. Even so, when you have your PhD and your peer reviewed papers you can still fuck up and hold stupid thoughts - the human brain is nothing without a propensity for crazy ideas. BTW science is not about arguing from authority but from evidence so it doesn't matter what anonymous thinks of Milliband's qualifications, only that Milliband acts on evidence from experts.

PS what has a trust fund got to do with it? I don't know anyone with a PhD who had a trust fund pay for it in the sciences, plenty in the arts though.

kiki said...

A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片情趣用品,情趣,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,AIO交友愛情館,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片區,成人圖片,成人貼圖,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天

麻將,台灣彩卷,六合彩開獎號碼,運動彩卷,六合彩,線上遊戲,矽谷麻將,明星3缺一,橘子町,麻將大悶鍋,台客麻將,公博,game,,中華職棒,麗的線上小遊戲,國士無雙麻將,麻將館,賭博遊戲,威力彩,威力彩開獎號碼,龍龍運動網,史萊姆,史萊姆好玩遊戲,史萊姆第一個家,史萊姆好玩遊戲區,樂透彩開獎號碼,遊戲天堂,好玩遊戲,遊戲基地,無料遊戲王,好玩遊戲區,麻將遊戲,好玩遊戲區,小遊戲,遊戲區,電玩快打,cs online情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,A片,AIO交友愛情館,AIOAV女優,AV,A漫,免費A片,本土自拍,自拍,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,色情影片,情色網,色情網站,微風成人區,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片區,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人文章,成人小說,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,中部人聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,色情網站,微風成人區,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人小說,A片,AV女優,AV,A漫,免費A片,自拍,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,做愛,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,AIO,色情影片,情色網,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人小說,成人電影,麗的色遊戲,自拍,A片,AV女優,AV,A漫,視訊交友網,視訊,視訊交友,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,中古車,二手車情色貼圖,日本A片,A片下載,情色A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,微風成人,成人網站,成人光碟,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人影城A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人光碟