The Manhattan Declaration(s)
Vol: 98 Issue: 25 Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Last year a group of climate scientists and researchers assembled at Times Square in NY City to participate in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
It was at that particular conference that a number of scientists, economists, policymakers and business leaders issued the first ‘Manhattan Declaration’ of the 21st century under the subtitle’ “Global Warning Is Not a Global Crisis.”
The Declaration had the usual numbers of “resolveds” and “affirmings” and so on, plus one ‘noting’ I thought was long overdue: “Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to Earth than colder.”
It’s the little things like that side note that serve to confirm for me that I’ve not lost my mind — logic is still logical. I’ve been waiting for somebody else to notice how hard it is to grow watermelons in a snowbank.
One of the more interesting dichotomies of global warming is that the same people who used to hold concerts to feed the hungry are the ones demanding we increase the amount of food being turned into fuel, despite increasing instances of food shortages.
But that was last year’s Manhattan Declaration. Since then, the evidence pointing to anthropogenic global warming being a deliberate hoax has become mountainous.
Back in the 1980’s, the British government was trying to expand the UK’s nuclear power grid in the face of a united and powerful coalition of environmentalist groups who feared nuclear power would destroy the environment.
PM Margaret Thatcher began awarding research grants to universities like East Anglia to study the impact of fossil fuels vs. nuclear energy on the environment.
It didn’t take long before the scientists figured out (after all, they are scientists) that researchers who found a correlation between fossil fuels and climate change got the bulk of the grant money.
In 1989 Senator Al Gore, noting Britain’s success in using climate alarmism to manipulate public opinion, took the British research and made it his own, writing his first tome, Earth in the Balance. It paid off big time for Al Gore.
Environmental alarmism got him picked as Clinton’s running mate. It won him a Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar, and transformed him from a comfortably wealthy professional politician into a fabulously wealthy global alarmist huckster.
But I digress. . . .
Hackers recently broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, one of the leading proponents of anthropogenic climate change. They released the thousands of stolen emails between climate scientists into the public domain together with the following statement:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
The recurring theme that has emerged from all these private in-house discussions among the world’s leading climate scientists is that they’ve been “cooking the books” for decades.
You’d think this would be big, big, news.
What if somebody released emails from the Bush administration suggesting that they “cooked the books” to suppress information that didn’t favor their cause?
Had you even heard about last year’s “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change?” Did you even know about the emails? (Apart from the OL, I mean). I only knew about them from surfing the web. I’ve yet to see any mention of it on any major news network .
I watched Hollyweird actor and environmentalist nutbar Ed Begely, Jr. come unglued on Stuart Varney yesterday because Varney questioned the premise that “the science is settled” on the global climate change issue.
He accused Varney of damaging “the common” — repeating “the common” several times, and accused Varney of being hateful and spewing misinformation. Begely literally raved, waving his arms, jabbing the air with his finger, shouting “peer reviewed!” over and over — it was positively bizarre.
It was exactly the sort of bizarro expression of mental derangement that lets liberals get away with claiming anyone who disagrees with them is “intolerant.” Global warming is their religion and Gaia help the heretic who dares question it.
Which explains the second Manhattan Declaration.
Last week, a non-aligned grouping of American Christian leaders came together to make a declaration of their own. I am guessing that Manhattan was chosen because it is where the major network news organizations have their headquarters.
That was the same mistake made by the climate guys. Thinking that making news right outside the network news’ HQs would shame the liberal media into covering it. It didn’t work for the climate guys last year, either.
This year’s Manhattan Declaration is also a direct challenge to Liberal Derangement Syndrome by the only other group liberals find more intolerable than climate change skeptics.
The Manhattan Declaration was drafted by Chuck Colson, together with Divinity Professors Robert George of Princeton University and Timothy George of Samford University Divinity School. The Declaration was then signed by 152 American Christian leaders.
It is a beautifully written document, both inspiring and deeply moving. Having read it, I was honored to add my name to its signatories. It purports to draw a line in the sand beyond which Christians refuse to be pushed.
It is more than merely a statement of conscience — it is a declaration of intellectual and moral independence. It is a direct shot across the bow of the USS Intolerance and a refusal to bow to the illusion of liberal superiority in matters of conscience and religion.
The Manhattan Declaration is a statement of principles, which may explain why it has taken the mainstream press to comment — they’re still trying to figure out the nexus between “principles” and “agenda.”
The Manhattan Declaration lays out both in definite terms so there can be no mistake:
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right – and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation – to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.
The principles outlined by the Declaration are those of the Great Commission. The agenda is to fulfill the obligations imposed by those principles.
The Great Commission obligates each of us to bear witness to what Jesus has done on our behalf and to share the good news with the lost, that they might also have eternal life.
The Manhattan Declaration draws three separate lines in the sand and its signatories pledge not to cross them;
In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life;
2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and;
3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image
Reaction to the Declaration was unsurprising. Several prominent Christian leaders made a point of refusing to sign it because it didn’t go far enough in advancing the Gospel. Others oppose it because it went too far in condemning abortion, gay rights or same sex marriage.
Those on the Left called it a ‘hateful’ and ‘intolerant’ labeling it a “right-wing manifesto” — because it outlines principles the Tolerant Ones despise and with which they vehemently disagree.
(What kinds of people write ‘manifestos’? Think Karl Marx. Or the Unibomber. That’s why they chose that word.)
When I signed my name to the ‘right-wing manifesto’ late last night, I was the 86,017th to do so. This morning, that number was over 109,000.
Why report on both Manhattan Declarations? I started researching Colson’s Manhattan Declaration when I discovered the one about climate change. I didn’t know about the first one, so I’m guessing most of you didn’t either.
They share enough in common to share the same column.
They are both religious documents. The first Manhattan Declaration is a repudiation of the religion of the Left, whose veracity rests on the doctrine that mankind is an infection that is destroying the planet. It’s authors were labeled heretics.
The second Manhattan Declaration is a repudiation of the doctrine of political correctness and a reaffirmation of Constitutionally-protected religious liberty.
Since Election 2000, the gulf between Left and Right has widening at an alarming rate. Liberal Derangement Syndrome has made meaningful accommodation between the two sides impossible.
Anything the liberals disagree with, they simply ignore.
Getting colder? It’s because of global warming. There is a scientific consensus, you know. Just ask Ed Begely, Jr. (But don’t mention last year’s Manhattan Declaration. It makes him crazy.)
This year’s Manhattan Declaration is more just a line in the sand.
It is a refusal to play the PC game anymore. Its signatories have pledged civil disobedience rather than comply with any laws conflicting with the principles outlined therein.
It isn’t quite a pledge of one’s life, one’s fortune and one’s sacred honor — not yet.
But we’re getting there.