On Mar 11, 2:32 am, "00BNZ" wrote:
The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

10th March 2008

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...goes-that-cons...

Prof Philip Stott asks a simple but important 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.),

Uh not scientists/

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.

And the Manhattan Declaration itself? This is it:

'Global warming' is not a global crisis

Ozone layer destruction is nothing to worry about. Lead in gasoline
and paint -- don't worry. AIDS? It'll pass.


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;


No scientist would make a flat-out statement like that.

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;


So now these people show their ignorance.

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 decla

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.


Again, this isn't something scientists would address.


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.


OK, now a flat-out lie.

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.


Yep, disregard the views expressed by thousands of scientists thw
world over.

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

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

500 scientists, economists, policymakers and business leaders, eh? Bang
goes that consensus!
--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

"Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 2:32 am, "00BNZ" wrote:
The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

10th March 2008

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...goes-that-cons...

Prof Philip Stott asks a simple but important 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.),

Uh not scientists/

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.

And the Manhattan Declaration itself? This is it:

'Global warming' is not a global crisis

Ozone layer destruction is nothing to worry about. Lead in gasoline
and paint -- don't worry. AIDS? It'll pass.


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;


No scientist would make a flat-out statement like that.


Let it be known that Lloyd does'nt believe that co2 is necessary for life.

"James" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 2:32 am, "00BNZ" wrote:
The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

10th March 2008

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...goes-that-cons...

Prof Philip Stott asks a simple but important 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.),

Uh not scientists/

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.

And the Manhattan Declaration itself? This is it:

'Global warming' is not a global crisis

Ozone layer destruction is nothing to worry about. Lead in gasoline
and paint -- don't worry. AIDS? It'll pass.


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;


No scientist would make a flat-out statement like that.


Let it be known that Lloyd does'nt believe that co2 is necessary for life.




Lloyd is a believer and believes everything which suites his agenda.

"James" wrote
Let it be known that Lloyd does'nt believe that co2 is necessary for life.

18 scientists (maybe) and 382 KKKonservative Political hacks.

Gee, nothing Political there.

Manhatten Petition. Ahahahahahahahahah...

MMMMOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN