Judges Plan To Outlaw Climate Change ‘Denial’

Christopher Booker:

Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’

We might think that a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming, was odd enough to be worthy of front-page coverage…

The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in a keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers and professor of law at University College, London. Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.

Although his audience, Sands said, would agree that the scientific evidence for man-made climate change was “overwhelming”, there were still “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” continuing to deny “the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the rising of the seas”, and that this is all due to our emissions of CO2. The world’s courts, led by the International Court of Justice, said Sands, could play a vital role “in finally scotching these claims”.

“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.

The fact that it could be seriously proposed in the highest courtroom in the land that the law should now be used to suppress any further debate on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the history of science (greeted with applause from the distinguished legal audience) speaks volumes about the curious psychological state to which the great global warming scare has reduced so many of the prominent figures who today exercise power and influence over the life of our Western societies.

A curious psychological state indeed. Another example of delusional thinking fostered by propaganda?


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Judges Plan To Outlaw Climate Change ‘Denial’

  1. beobrigitte says:

    Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’
    Interesting. Will there be a publication into who financed what research and who lobbied it?

    Quite a step to take when not much is known about planets “ageing” naturally. Aren’t we looking for forms of life that might have existed on Mars? What happened there? Martians destroying their own planet?

    It is common sense not to take the last trees, (hey, we do need wood and eat a few things living in it) etc., it makes no sense to conjure up laws that make no sense.

    • smokingscot says:

      Something along similar lines has recently happened in the Netherlands where a small group with vested interests formed a front to try to force the Dutch government to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% within 4 years.

      I scribbled (a lot) about that and named the outfits that include Ernst & Young (now known only as EY), as well as our very own Arriva.

      I also noted that EY’s website looks like something out of Common Purpose.


      Betcha a Penny to a Pound EY, Arriva and Urgenda are in there somewhere. And Cherie Blair, well she’ll front up anything for a big fist full of dosh.


  2. Barry Homan says:

    My god, have you read the comments on the article? People are brainwashed. Social justice warriors running amok. They believe ANYTHING the media tells them. All they want is their squeaky little opinions heard.

    Mark Watney oughta stay on Mars, who wants to live on this planet anymore?

  3. junican says:

    In the McTear Case, the judge found the other way round. He found that there was no convincing evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, especially in any individual case. Suppose that such a court hearing was held about global warming? What would be important is that the ‘scientific consensus’ would be irrelevant. Only the evidence would matter. I think that the whole edifice would collapse if the evidence was examined by a truly independent mind.
    The fact of the matter is that only a tiny number of people (academics who have no experience of reality outside their ivory towers) have collated data and put that data through computer models and found ‘a trend’. The trend existed for a time but has stopped over the last 18 years. The end of the ‘trend’ came from real satellite data and not from models. Therefore these people must shout even louder to justify themselves. They cannot admit to being mistaken.
    The same applies to people like Michael Siegel. He cannot possibly admit that SHS is harmless to anyone who is not already ill or has lived for 500 years. To him, even a single cough, which might be induced by a whiff of tobacco smoke, is tantamount to death.
    What lies at the bottom of the climate scare is a simple belief (and it is ‘a belief’). It is that ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’. That means that energy stored in fossil fuels, once released by burning, must hang about. That energy must hang about in the atmosphere since that is where the effluent from burnt fossil fuels goes. That is the basic ‘belief’, and people who hold that belief cannot be budged because they hold the ‘high moral ground’. It has little to do with science, just at witch hunting had little to do with science in the middle ages, even though ‘scientific methods’, such as dunking, were used to determine whether or not a woman was a witch. Other methods depended upon the number and intensity of accusations.
    Note how the accusers are never burnt at the stake. They always get away scot-free.

    So what is wrong with the beliefs of the Global Warming Zealots? I personally believe that what is wrong is that they are not physicists. If they were physicists, they would know that the Earth loses heat to space all the time. The more the heat, the more the loss. Heat is not trapped. It cannot be trapped since it has no substance or weight. Heat is motion.

    It is true that burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, but plants love carbon dioxide, therefore, the more carbon dioxide there is in the air, the more luxurious that plants will become. Carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, and therefore falls to the ground or to the sea. If it falls to the ground, the plants soak it up. If it falls to the sea, then plankton soaks it up. How many times have we heard of DISASTROUS oil spills in the sea which, after a few months, turn out to be beneficial?
    The reality is that, if the Earth gets hotter, it loses that heat to space. There real problem would be if the Earth got colder, since there is no heat in space to replenish the heat loss.
    I honestly do not know how these academics get away with their nonsense. The only reason that I can envisage is that they are protected. But who is protecting them and why? The same goes for Glantz, Chapman et al. Who is protecting them and why?
    Society is sick – very,very sick. And the sickness is caused by academia and the slavish adherence to academic ‘truth’ worshipped by politicians.

    • Frank Davis says:

      There real problem would be if the Earth got colder, since there is no heat in space to replenish the heat loss.

      There’s the sun around which our little planet orbits. It’s very hot.

      Carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, and therefore falls to the ground or to the sea. If it falls to the ground, the plants soak it up.

      I’ve wondered about this. But I’ve read that carbon dioxide is pretty evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, despite being denser than air. This is probably because the atmosphere is turbulent, and denser gases are distributed evenly in it much like particles of earth are evenly distributed in muddy streams, despite being denser than water. If the atmosphere wasn’t turbulent, I would imagine that carbon dioxide would behave in exactly the way you suggest.

      (academics who have no experience of reality outside their ivory towers)

      I used to be a researcher (heat flow analysis) in a university. It was an engineering university, and it had numerous ties to industry. It wasn’t really ‘ivory towers’ at all. That said, I get the impression that since the number of universities has vastly increased in recent years in the UK (and elsewhere), the quality of teaching (and research) has declined (much like the value of money falls with inflation). The University of East Anglia, which seems to be the centre of climate research in the UK, is one of these new universities doing not-very-good research. If a few of these universities were closed down, perhaps the quality of the research would improve.

      • prog says:

        The UEA was established in 1963 so so exactly one of Blair’s pretend ones.

        Funny thing is, in 1973 I applied there unsuccessfully to do a degree in Environmental Studies. Their loss – I’d have definitely fudged/fucked up data analysis. I did eventually do a course in Biometry at Nottingham. Plenty here would have sailed it. I sank like a stone…

  4. nisakiman says:

    And another example I came across this morning while perusing the news over my coffee:

    France’s top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change

    He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

    His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. “I received a letter telling me not to come. I’m in shock,” he told RTL radio. “This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated.”


    It would seem that AGW ‘denial’ has become, along with SHS harm ‘denial’, the new heresy. The Inquisitors will be along shortly…

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    I guess by now we all realize the courts will give no justice,they are as corrupt as the people who hand picked them for the job,just like the pope.

  6. Jay says:

    We’re well down the path of totalitarianism.

  7. TomJ says:

    Junican: Conservation of energy is as close to being a settled fact as anything in Physics; an that were the basis of the War mist hypothesis it would be on /much/ sturdier ground. If you are going to attack global climate models (which is a worthwhile endeavour) it is a good idea to have the first clue about what they are based on. Suggesting that conservation of energy is somehow dodgy while accusing others of not being physicists is, to put it mildly, damaging to one’s credibility.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Apologies for butting in, I do have a question to:
      Suggesting that conservation of energy is somehow dodgy while accusing others of not being physicists is, to put it mildly, damaging to one’s credibility.

      Conservation of energy – alternative energy supplies?

      What about:
      But there are many ways to skin a cat. As IER pointed out last week, even if wind curbs CO2 emissions, wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year in clear violation of federal law. Any marginal reduction in emissions comes at the expense of protected bird species, including bald and golden eagles. The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way, and life is full of necessary trade-offs. The further truth is that affordable, abundant energy has made life for billions of people much better than it ever was.

      Another environmental trade-off concerns the materials necessary to construct wind turbines. Modern wind turbines depend on rare earth minerals mined primarily from China. Unfortunately, given federal regulations in the U.S. that restrict rare earth mineral development and China’s poor record of environmental stewardship, the process of extracting these minerals imposes wretched environmental and public health impacts on local communities.

      Is this really energy conservation?

  8. garyk30 says:

    ” so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again.”

    Apparently, those jurists have forgotten about this:



    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,


    Article 2.
    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

    Article 3.
    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 5.
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 12.
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    Article 19.
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    Article 30.
    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

  9. garyk30 says:

    Right to freedom of speech and expression[edit]

    Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[4] England’s Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of ‘freedom of speech in Parliament’ which is still in effect.[7]
    The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[4] The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:

    The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.[8]

    Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.[9]

    Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law.
    The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.[10]
    Based on John Milton’s arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

    the right to seek information and ideas;
    the right to receive information and ideas;
    the right to impart information and ideas
    International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[10]


  10. smokingscot says:

    How appropriate. An article in the Cyprus Weekly that’s not really up to Western MSM compliance gives an interesting quote by a leading scientist.

    “This is a difficult decision, because if you decide that you want to decrease your CO2 emissions by around 50%, it means that you want to change completely your economy”, said French scientist Breon.

    “I expect policymakers to be preoccupied with the impact of their decisions in the standard of living of their citizens. If we want to do something about the climate, and decrease CO2 emissions, we will have to change the standard of living of people. It’s sad but it is a fact”.

    “The industrialised countries will have to put in a huge effort and France will need to show other countries the way in order to convince the bloc of developing countries to agree to a new way of doing things. A decision on financing climate adjustment will have a prominent role to play in the final deal.”

    I wonder how many who support this CO2 fixation really understand THEY WILL HAVE A LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING.


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Remember ole Gore wanted all of us back to using horses as transportation again in his book……….Loooks like that’s what they all want..no standard of living except living in government approved projects and nobody has a right to private transportation……..Its literally a direct jump right into socialism to communism.

  11. RdM says:

    And despite previous scientific inquiry, before it became a subject of global political influence…


    “Therefore, within the context of Anthropomorphic Global Warming scaremongering, it worth remembering that a doubling of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels would help plants flourish and may possibly raise temperatures by approximately 1.3 C.

    On the other hand, halving Carbon Dioxide levels may possibly lower temperatures by about 1.3 C but [more importantly] it would significantly inhibit plant growth.”

    and from the original paper

    a “doubling or halving” of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide “could alter but little the total amount of radiation actually absorbed by the atmosphere” and “could not appreciably change the average temperature of the earth”

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.