One of the most important outcomes of The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City conference was the production of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, a copy of which you can read below. The coordinators of the Declaration are opening endorsement up to individuals who support the declaration but were not physically at the event. These ‘remote endorsers’ of the declaration will be added to separate lists identified either as a “climate expert” or simply as an interested “citizen of the world”.
Please contact Tom Harris at the International Climate Science Coalition at
firstname.lastname@example.org, if you would like to add your name to the list. There are 167 endorsers to this point, 94 of whom were at the conference and 63 experts who signed on later. For supporters of the declaration who are not climate experts, ICSC have created a third category, “Citizens of the World” which, once the number of endorsers gets large enough, they will publish to their Web page at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/.
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
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:
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.
If you would like to publicly endorse Heartland Institutes declaration on climate change please email email@example.com
Hans Erren says
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method
Why then make a political declaration?
Louis Hissink says
Because this is no longer a matter of science, but of politics and it’s misuse of science.
Pseudoscience only seems susceptible to a political solution, especially those science that are dominated by the deductive method as climate, astronomy, archeology and some strands of geology.
That the head of the IPCC, when confronted with a temperature plateau, avers that some other hidden factor must be compensating the assumed effect of increased CO2 driving temperature, then this fact alone proves that AGW is pseudoscience. That is, the theory is perfect, its the facts which are problematical.
Empiricists would have rejected the AGW hypothesis years ago.
This is why we have to act in the political sphere because it was firstmost a political ploy when the IPCC was created. Nothing has changed since except the technical sophistication of the argument.
“Al Gore won a political prize for an alleged work of science. That rather speaks for itself, doesn’t it?” – from John Ray’s Greenie Watch