At the start of March 2008 a conference was held in Manhattan, New York - The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
The delegates issued a declaration - The Manhattan Declaration - which has been ignored by the world's media - why?
For those with open minds - google 'Manhattan declaration' to find out more, well, even if you have a closed mind, give it a go, then pop up here and advise us that the scientists and other delegates are being paid by oil companies, or have something else in their history that makes them wish to convince the general populace that global warming is not anthropogenic.
If it bleeds it leads, and anything that goes any way towards challenging or even just not agreeing with the 'consensus' that we are heading for a 'climate catastrophe' will not be reported.
I think the oil companies do accept that global warming is anthropogenic. Why else would the ex-boss of Shell drive a Prius and want to ban gas guzzlers?!
Why else would the ex-boss of Shell drive a Prius and want to ban gas guzzlers?!
If I were boss of an oil company I'd want to increase market share (by being seen as green vs other oil companies), I'd want to maintain supply and demand balance and I'd like to penetrate growing new markets like India and China that will require more and more new fuel as the developed world uses less through efficiency and green politics.
Originally posted by Lucibee: I think the oil companies do accept that global warming is anthropogenic. Why else would the ex-boss of Shell drive a Prius....
Looks like it's being largely ignored on here as well.
That's probably because posters are reluctant to make a 'link' to an article that they wish to discuss. This seems to be another legacy of The Great Global Warming Swindle by C4!
It's hard to know which subjects can and can't be discussed on this site. The 'moderators' are considered to be 'gods' here!
See also David Archibald’s paper on Solar Cycle 24, which shows how climate is driven by the solar cycles much more than it is by anthropogenic Co2, and details how the late appearance and predicted weakness of solar cycle 24 could mean that cooling is imminent:
If the link above is deleted Google - David Archibald "Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States" . It is a 30 page pdf file.
That file is on this Austral site too. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/ Though I couldn't vouch for the site. I don't know them, but they do seem to 'port' some controversial innuendo against the IPCC at first glance. They 'host' quite a few 'papers' as well.
I've developed an interest for solar observation, but my knowledge on solar predictability is highly compromised (I'd expect sunspot count of cycle 24 to peak within + or - 1/3 of the last cycle's peak and that's my limit of expectation [wouldn't hazard a guess at 'span']).
My greatest interest in solar activity (currently) is in Earth's atmospheric interaction with insolation. However, Steve_M may have a comment or two on the predictability issue.
suricat, I hope David Archibald s paper rang a bell, 'cos we went over some of the data he presents a few months ago(central english ave temp Vs' Solar activity) with TS I found this graph to go with it http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/4.html
"It seems that many 'observers' of the Manhatan Agreement want to know the signee's disciplin as a qualifying factor of their acceptance of the 'agreement'. Can this be disclosed in the public sector on the 'Heartland site'?"
I just got a reply from them! I feel I need to give a full quote of the 'main' response:
"The "Manhattan Declaration" was proposed from the floor of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change and was not endorsed by The Heartland Institute, the host of the conference, or by the 50 cosponsors, and does not necessarily express the views of most or all of the people attending the conference. It is being circulated by the International Climate Science Coalition."
Suricat, I'm just catching up on this thread. An interesting link to the ICSC web site. Thanks They have an interesting debate where one of the debaters refers to observations that tropospheric temperature is not behaving like the climate models predict. Why AGW is unproven
I guess I should put this reference in the "Is there an empirical falsification for anthropogenic global warming?" thread.
Could ICSC be the reason the media have not covered the Manhattan Declaration?
Best regards, suricat.
That is no doubt a possibility, although it seems rather remote, given that they ignored not just the Manhattan Declaration, they also chose to ignore the ENTIRE three day conference!
The Heartland Institute described the purpose of the conference as follows:
"The purpose of the conference is to provide a platform for the hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts who dissent from the so-called 'consensus' on global warming," said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute.
"Hundreds of scientists, many of them with distinguished careers and many appearances in the peer-reviewed literature, believe the Modern Warming is natural and moderate," Bast noted. "They are being censored by the press and demonized by environmental advocacy groups.
"This is their chance to speak out," said Bast. "If 400 or 500 'skeptics' from around the world assemble in New York City, it will be difficult for policymakers and journalists to ignore us."
Did UK environmental journalists think, “great, this will be an ideal opportunity to provide balanced coverage at last on the issue of global warming.”?
Ottawa, Canada, April 22, 2008 – The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today released the names of over 500 endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change that calls on world leaders to “reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.” All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should “be abandoned forthwith”, declaration signatories conclude. Included in the endorser list are world leading climate scientists, economists, policymakers, engineers, business leaders, medical doctors, as well as other professionals and concerned citizens from two dozen countries. The complete declaration text, endorser lists and international media contacts for expert commentary, may be viewed at here.
Perhaps most significant among the declaration’s assertions:
· “there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”
· “attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 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.”
“Just as the Manhattan Project was key to finally ending the Second World War, the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change may one day be regarded as a critical catalyst that helped end today's climate hysteria,” said ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia. “Protecting the natural world is crucially important and so environmental policy must be based on our best understanding of science and technology coupled with a realistic appreciation of the relevant economics and policy options. This is not happening in the climate debate.”
I know I shouldn't really feed the ostriches, but here goes!
Interesting conclusions. The reason that calls for "balance" go unheeded is because the first assertion is now broadly accepted as incorrect. However, if these "hundreds of scientists" can provide convincing evidence that CO2 emissions *don't* increase global temperatures, then maybe the pendulum will start to swing back their way.
With regard to the other conclusions, I agree that we have to be very careful about the action we take - but that is also balanced by the damage done if we act too slowly. It may well be that we are already too late to do anything, in which case the concerns in point 2 will be correct. The end of point 3 is also valid, particularly given the rush to biofuels at the expense of rainforest and other natural habitats.
The key here is that we are trying to reduce our impact on the planet, whether this is by reducing our CO2 output or saving habitats.
However, if these "hundreds of scientists" can provide convincing evidence that CO2 emissions *don't* increase global temperatures, then maybe the pendulum will start to swing back their way.
You can not prove a negative. It is up to the *Warmists* to prove that AGW really exists, so far they have not, it remains a hypothesis.
The best proof to date against the AGW CO2 hypothesis is what is happening in the real world as far as temperatures are concerned rather than playing computer games, something in which the warmists have put too much faith.
