Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’

Poles apart: in 2013, the year scientists had forecast that the Arctic would be ‘ice free’, its thickness increased by a third Photo: Alamy

A semi-secret, international conference of top judges proposed to make illegal any opinion that contradicted climate change

By Christopher Booker 1:43AM BST 11 Oct 2015

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.  Last week I mentioned that the Prince of Wales had sent a message to this conference calling for the UN’s forthcoming climate meeting in Paris to agree on “a Magna Carta for the Earth”. But only a series of startling posts by a sharp-eyed Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise (on Nofrakkingconsensus), have alerted us to what a bizarre event this judicial gathering turned out to be (the organisers even refused to give her the names of those who attended).

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

Including senior judges and lawyers from across the world, the three-day conference on “Climate Change and the Law” was staged in London’s Supreme Court. It was funded, inter alia, by the Supreme Court itself, the UK government and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

As one of the two UN sponsors of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNEP has been one of the main drivers of alarm over global warming for 40 years. The organiser and chairman of the conference was the Supreme Court judge Lord Carnwath, a fervent believer in man-made climate change, who has worked with the Prince of Wales for more than 20 years, and with UNEP since 2002.

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.

“India and China will merely respond with inscrutable smiles, as they continue to rely on fossil fuels.”

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.

For perspective, we need only think of the likely responses to all this claptrap by China and India (which has just announced that it intends to triple its CO2 emissions by 2030).  Not only have they already kicked into touch any chance of a “binding climate treaty” in December.  At the thought of these self-important lawyers trying to force them to comply by international law, they will merely respond with inscrutable smiles, as they continue to rely on fossil fuels to power what will soon be the two largest economies in the world.

Source: The Telegraph

Yet again – here we go – something is happening. The planet is being a planet. The country gathering the planet’s vital statistics is manipulating these figures. Yes, it’s a country with a vested interest – the U.S. The amount of munitions being deployed and discharged in all of the wars throughout the world contribute more to the impact on the planet than any carbon impact an individual may have. Scaremongering at it’s best.The impact the atomic bombs dropped in the 1940’s and the nuclear testing before and since have all had a contributing impact – as one would expect.  So let’s stop making explosives, ballistic missiles, dirty bombs, neutron bombs?

There’s too much to be made in this?


No instead let us be unrealistic and consider bringing the rule of law into play. The role of the international court: to suggest the possibility of a particular law; what needs to be done; what is being done inadequately or not at all; enhancing conciousness; purveyors of legitimacy.[listen below]

Let’s translate:-

So you don’t believe in Climate Change? Then we will make you unable to deny it! Ehm. But, does one not realise we still don’t believe the Climate Change lie whether one is a scientist, a lawyer, a judge, or a pope.




1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.

Antonyms: truth.
2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3.an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4.the charge or accusation of telling a lie.

verb (used without object), lied, lying.

5.to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.
6.to express what is false; convey a false impression.
verb (used with object), lied, lying.

7.to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively):

to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

Source: UKSupremeCourt


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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