The Manhattan Declaration
Regarded as social outcasts, learned scientists have met amidst virtually the worst winter in living memory in North America to freely discuss climate change. Trouble is, these scientists discuss it freely and after three days of what the chairman called “the kind of free-spirited debate that is virtually absent from the global warming alarmist camp”, the 500 delegates issued the Manhattan Declaration, stating that attempts by governments to reduce CO2 emissions would “markedly diminish further prosperity” while having “no appreciable impact” on the Earth’s warming.
Yet because they have not come to the conclusion that mankind is busy killing off Mother Earth, and that CO2 may not be the evil gas that the world thinks it is (indeed it’s necessary for our survival), and because they have disagreed over the concept of anthropogenic climate change, their conference in New York has barely failed to get a mention in the western press or serious journals.
The Manhattan Declaration is the document encompassing the views of the scientists and researchers, as well as economists and policy makers in New York, and because the media here in the UK (including South Shields) seem to wish to promote just one side of the debate, here is the Declaration in full. It makes sense to understand that there is a contrasting scientific viewpoint not funded by government departments with an interest in finding new ways to reap taxes.
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
The former next President of the USA Al Gore continues to fly first class around the world increasing his carbon footprint, whilst his one sided film An Inconvenient Truth conveniently lines his bank account, thus helping him to burn more electricity at his ranch than required for the average weekend at the Blackpool Illuminations!
Via EU Referendum and Devil’s Kitchen






Curly, I still can’t quite work out whether you are having us on. The conference you mention was held in Times Square of all places and was organised by the Heartland Institute. Their mission is to discover, develop and promote freemarket solutions to social and economical problems. Such solutions include market based approaches to environmentyal protection, privatisation of public services etc.
They of course refuse to publish the identitiy of their donors because “after much deliberation and with regret we keep confidential identities of all our donors because people who disagree with our views have taken to selectivly disclosing names of donors” Well I never! A pound to a penny says that list includes many of the great and the good of American Big Business.
Of course they will deny that increased levels of CO2 emissions from industry and other sources are causing global warming because the proposed solutions include increased taxes and will affect their profits.
Incidentally I see that their home page sets great credence by the utterings of one Michael Crichton. That wouldn’t by any chance be the same Michael Crichton whose most famous other publication was Jurassic park would it?
Comment by Westy — March 10, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Perhaps if the Manhattan gig was credible, objective and came to conclusions that relied on sound science then perhaps we would have seen more coverage. Saying that, you’ll probably see the usual tin-foil hat suspects like Melanie Phillips come out of the woodwork raging about some media conspiracy over the next couple of weeks!
Comment by rossinisbird — March 11, 2008 @ 12:01 am
Ah Westy, as oppose to the IPCC jamborees held in such places as Mauritius and other holiday locations, the Manhattan conference had a considerably lower carbon footprint. This should be a cause for praise by your standards.
I note that you and rossinisbird fail to address a single scientific argument in your comment. Instead, you rely on the usual attacks on personalities that is commonplace in the blogosphere. At least Michael Crichton is a science graduate.
The conference was to enable different strands of scientific arguments to come together. So whilst interesting, there is no coherent message that can be articulated. There are though some interesting projects which are being pursued. One such is Anthony Watts work to survey the quality of the US surface air temperature record which can be found at http://www.surfacestations.org/ The evidence he has found shows a distinct lack of quality in the record with the majority not fulfilling the requirements necessary. This causes a particular problem when you consider that the USA has the most comprehensive network available. As part of the analysis done by Anthony and also Steve McIntyre, it is now recognised that of the USA’s ten warmest years in the 20th Century the majority were from the 1930s. The warmest year? 1934.
Comment by John Lish — March 11, 2008 @ 11:09 am
John!
…..At least Michael Crichton is a Science graduate. So am I, so what?
Comment by Westy — March 11, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
“Curly, I still can’t quite work out whether you are having us on”
Not at all Westy,
I see my role here as “devil’s advocate” providing you with an alternative viewpoint to discuss - others have called me far worse in other places!
Comment by curly — March 11, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Manhattan Declarations are nothing new. Fifty years ago, the same kind of people would have been sticking tabs in doctors’ mouths and telling us there was no link whatsoever between tobacco and killer disease.
Right on cue, heeeeeere’s Melanie:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/550481/the-mammoth-global-warming-scam.thtml
Comment by Michael — March 11, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
John, are you saying that Melanie Phillips is a sane and coherent commentator on climate issues? Besides, it seems you’re not immune to engaging in a bit ad hominem yourself judging by your past comments on Al Gore and Nick Stern. Still enjoying your moral aerie?
As to the science, here’s what the Manhattan invitation letter said:
“The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”
That sounds more like PR stunt than science.
Comment by rossinisbird — March 11, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
Thanks for providing that link Michael, whilst Melanie Phillips may not be considered an expert (she is after all a journalist) by following the many links in her article a mass of interesting material is revealed.
By the way, does being sceptical lead you to being branded a quasi-criminal?
I digress, having discovered that over $500bn has been thrown at the problem of anthropogenic global warming and only $100m made available to the sceptics, and read some scientific stuff that would turn Rossi’s head into a mass of mixed metaphors, I eventually came to this piece written for the layman, it’s worth an hour of anyone’s time.
Isn’t it fun trying to stick up for the little guys?
Comment by curly — March 11, 2008 @ 9:40 pm