By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
On September 17, 2015, the UK Supreme Court held a climate-change propaganda event in its no. 1 and no. 2 courtrooms, in which only one side of the debate was permitted. Lord Carnwath, chairman of the event and a justice of the court, said:
“President Obama has said we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. On that basis, the forthcoming Paris negotiations under the UN Climate Change Convention are a crucial test of our ability as a global community to address those challenges. The intention is that the commitments which emerge from those negotiations should have legal force.”
Worse, Philippe Sands QC, the court’s chosen lecturer, having regurgitated numerous IPCC talking-points without questioning the veracity of any of them, expressed outrageous prejudice against scientifically-qualified skeptics when he said:
“The International Court of Justice or International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea could be asked, for example, to confirm (as a scientific matter) that emissions reductions are needed – nationally and globally – to stay below the globally agreed temperature threshold of 2 degrees Celsius. As I noted at the outset, there is a broad emerging consensus on many of these factual matters, but they remain subject to challenge in some quarters, including by scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals, and the courts could play a role here in finally scotching those claims.”
The Court at first broke the law by failing to reply on time to my freedom-of-information request about its pantomime of hate against “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential” skeptics whose “claims” its favoured lecturer said it and its counterparts worldwide should “scotch”.
It then continued to break the law by sending not a single one of the documents or records I had requested. Its excuse was that it would cost more than the statutory $1000 limit to source and send the documents.
Accordingly, I invited readers of WUWT to assist. Within hours plenty came forward. Each of the first nine responders has been asked to send one of the following questions to the UK Supreme Court under section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
1. Please supply copies or, where copies are unavailable, records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with the climate-change conference at the Supreme Court. In particular, but without limitation, please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations between or among any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors. I do not expect that this request will breach the statutory cost limit, since you can send an email to everyone asking for copies of the relevant files and then simply assemble the documentation and email or post it to me.
2. Please supply a complete list of the names of and positions held by all who attended the climate change conference. I assume that a list is readily available, since either the court itself invited them or it permitted them to attend on the basis of invitations sent out by a third party. If the latter, then under Section 16 of the Act please identify the third party, since I shall wish to address freedom-of-information questions to it. Furthermore, the court’s security staff were no doubt given one so that they could admit to the building those who were on the list, so I do not expect to be told that providing the list would be disproportionately expensive.
3. Please let me have copies of all correspondence between any of the justices, personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court and any of those who attended its conference on climate change on 17 September 2015. In particular, please supply correspondence from and to the Court’s then chief executive officer, and from and to Lord Carnwath, who chaired the conference.
4. Please send me copies of all agendas, working papers and other documentation of whatever kind in connection with the climate-change conference at the Supreme Court that were produced by or received by or sent, given, transmitted or otherwise made available to or by any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court. There are only a dozen Justices and a small number of other personnel who were involved in organizing the conference, and I do not consider that a round-robin email from the freedom-of-information office to each of them, followed by collation and forwarding of the documents they supply, will breach the statutory expenditure threshold.
5. Please identify the person or persons who requested the then Chief Executive of the Supreme Court to permit the use of the Court’s premises to stage the climate-change conference of September 17, 2015, together with the date of the request and all correspondence from the beginning of 2015 to the present between those persons or the organizations they represent and any of the Justices, personnel, servants or agents of the Court. I require this information by way of assistance in terms of Section 16 of the Act, so that I can submit freedom-of-information requests to any other public bodies – such as Government departments or universities – who may have played a part in originating or organizing the conference.
6. Please state under what head of expenditure approved by Parliament the £775 spent by the Supreme Court on the hire of a broadcast engineer for the Supreme Court’s climate-change conference on 17 September 2015 was authorized, and by whom. I require this information in terms of section 16 of the Act so that I may frame and direct freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Justice and to HM Treasury with the object of determining whether the said expenditure was permitted by law and was consistent with the obligation of the Court to be politically neutral on questions of current contention.
7. Please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 between Lord Carnwath and the United Nations Environment Program that have been or are filed at the Supreme Court, together with accounts of all honoraria, expenses or other emoluments or remuneration whatever paid to or received by Lord Carnwath or any of his servants or agents by the United Nations Environment Program or any of its servants or agents. I require this information because I have seen evidence suggesting that Lord Carnwath is not impartial on environmental questions, and has a particular prejudice on the question of climate change, and because I propose to direct freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Justice and thereafter a complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman. If it is the contention of the Supreme Court that, though it is itself obliged to comply with the Freedom of Information Act its justices, albeit that they are members of that public authority, are exempt, I should be grateful, in terms of section 16 of the Act, to be told which provision of the Act or of any delegated legislation made thereunder exempts the Court’s Justices from all scrutiny when they have acted in such a fashion as to give good grounds to suspect that they are parti pris.
8. Please provide a complete list of all cases concerning the environment, climate, or other matters connected in any way with the subject-matter of the conference that are currently before the Supreme Court.
9. Please provide copies of all documents held by the Supreme Court in connection with the prejudice demonstrated by Lord Carnwath on the question of climate change during the Court’s widely-broadcast climate-change conference on September 17, 2015, together with documents relating to any steps taken or to be taken to ensure that Lord Carnwath is not permitted to sit in judgement, or to participate in any way, in any case relating to climate change or to the environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
yeah right…..I can just see our supreme court starting out with “British Prime Minister David Cameron has said”…
They are just trying to advance the agenda.
He holds their toes to the fire. Either they don’t cough up, in which case they lose, or they do cough up, in which case I think they’ll lose worse.
They won’t cough up anything but excuses.
Politicians only allow FOIAs to become law to present a facade of transparency. They never intend to actually be transparent or have the law actually apply to them. They will always find loopholes, and their brethren on the courts will always uphold them. But at least these requests should serve to expose their duplicity and hypocrisy when it comes to any past claims of support for openness and transparency in government.
Latitude — Yes, that was an amazing statement. — Eugene WR Gallun
As time goes by, Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes” becomes more and more relevant.
Don’t tell the generations that lived through the Younger Dryas period what Obama said.
Yes, Eve.
http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg
Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas.
The late Pleistocene cold glacial climate that built immense ice sheets terminated suddenly about 14,500 years ago [12,500 BC], causing glaciers to melt dramatically.
About 12,800 years ago [10,800 BC], after about 2,000 years of fluctuating climate, temperatures plunged suddenly and remained cool for 1,300 years.
About 11,500 years ago [9,500 BC], the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended.
Also showing the Holocene Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period compared to today’s small rise in average temperature. Graphic by Don J. Easterbrook.
See See Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changes Don J. Easterbrook (2011). Department of Geology, Western Washington University, .pdf, at http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/easterbrook_geologic-evidence-of-recurring-climatic-cycles.pdf
See also The Intriguing Problem Of The Younger Dryas – What Does It Mean And What Caused It (Guest post by Don J. Easterbrook
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University) – Watts Up With That? (June 19, 2012), at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/
Can you please supply a reference for where this graph came from?
Give the credit to whom it belongs per graph.
I will leave Andres to provide the link, but I think it is based upon the ice-core (Greenland) reconstruction. But of course, warmists claim that this is regional evidence only.
For example, see the Mann et all Greenland reconstruction. The source is noted at the top of the image.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__6PO0G1BcJM/S4KxaU_MP0I/AAAAAAAAAK8/QbEMqv3L3Rw/s400/greenland-temperature-2000-years.JPG
And another:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__6PO0G1BcJM/S4KxaU_MP0I/AAAAAAAAAK8/QbEMqv3L3Rw/s400/greenland-temperature-2000-years.JPG
And by R B Alley published in the Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews 19 at 213 226
http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/dhm4444/media/interglacial-temperature-last-10k-years-very-nice-artfig1_zps8eb1c4a0.jpg.html
It is highly likely that the Younger Dryas was caused by a meteoric impact. I am not sure why this theory is not more widely acknowledged, because it seems so obvious. This is why there were several simultaneous events:
The Younger Dryas cooling
The creation of the black-mat strata
The presence of nano-diamonds and bukminster fullerenes
The creation of 500,000 ‘impact craters’
The extinction of all the Amrican megafauna.
The extinction of Clovis man.
The Carolina Bays and the Destruction of North America.
https://www.academia.edu/17274053/The_Carolina_Bays_and_the_destruction_of_North_America
.
The Younger Dryas may have “triggered” the extinction of the Clovis “point” nappers ……. but not the Clovis man.
A more easily learned napping “skill” would not infer such a massive cultural extinction, to wit:
http://people.uwec.edu/jolhm/EH3/Group8/clovisSites.jpg
The Younger Dryas may have “triggered” the extinction of the Clovis “point” nappers ……. but not the Clovis man.
___________________________________
I don’t think that is correct. Clovis man was extingiushed 12,900 ago, and was apparently replaced by a Paleoindian culture. Had even one family of Clovis man survived, they would surely have maintained the former traditions. So the end of Clovis appears to have been instantaneous:
Quote:
No skeletal remains of horse, camel, mammoth, mastodon, dire wolf, American lion, short-faced bear, sloth, tapir, etc:, or Clovis artifacts have ever been found in situ within the YD age black mat, and no post-Clovis Paleoindian artifacts have ever been found in situ stratigraphically below it.
Quote:
The megafaunal extinction and the Clovis-Folsom transition appear to have occurred in less than 100 years, perhaps much less … This implies that extinction … was geologically instantaneous, and essentially catastrophic.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/18/6520.full.pdf
P.S. Dates in this paper are unadjusted carbon dates. Add 2,000 years for actual dates.
PPS That map of yours needs a date or an explanation.
ralfellis,
My most favorite and passionate “topic of discussion” is the evolution of Homo sapien sapiens and I very seldom, if ever, make statements or claims in reference to said that are not based in/on actual, factual science evidence, …… common sense thinking, logical reasoning and/or intelligent deductions. I am an “original thinker” and do not ascribe to the “pie-in-the-sky” mimicry of those whose forte is simply their claims of “expertise” based on their Degree status.
Anyway, me thinks you need to “keep better updated” on your paleo-history knowledge, to wit:
Did you note the “more closely related to” statement which negates the claims of “a Bering Sea land-bridge crossing”?
And ps, here is something else for you to think about that you will not find another source for.
As far as you or anyone else knows, ….. the evolving of “sweat glands” in the epidermis covering of the human body may have specifically evolved for ridding the body of excess salt …… and NOT for the purpose of “cooling” the body as most everyone claims ……. because the ingesting and/or retention of too much salt will kill you “deader than a door nail”, There has been more than one (1) human that has died from drinking “salt water” …. or “sweating out” too much of their body’s salt content. Early humans had to have evolved salt-emitting “sweat glands” long before they ever migrated out onto the “HOT” savannahs of Africa ….. simply because both salt and water are preciously needed commodities in such an environment and “wasting” them makes no logical or evolutionary sense.
Cheers
How they can assign so much significance to one of the planet’s least qualified individuals to opine on the subject defies logic and probably law. They should all step down from office and be made to burn their robes.
Slightly off topic… Obama is angry that ISIS is taking the political emphasis off climate change. Climate change is the path that the socialist leaders are using to take control of western civilizations…etc. But does anyone out there (here) actually believe that Obama is not in the pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood or equivalent? Or actually a Muslim/ Is there any piece of evidence which would show that he is not a firm supporter and believer of Islam…? Everything he does is coincidentally in support of Islamic ideals and political / geographic Islamic goals going forward. He despises anything or anyone who opposes anything contrary to Islamic ideals and expansion.
If anyone can show me just one example of his not supporting any move by Islamic fundamentalists, except for a few, for show airstrikes, etc. please let me know. This is a real situation of ‘the King Has No Clothes’, with a little twist. No one is willing to say the truth. Obama is either a closet Muslim or is a sympathetic member of the Muslim Brotherhood. And all of his actions and spoken words cannot disprove this.
The blood of a very many, many non muslims in this world is on his hands and his supporters in his Administration including the many of his followers who have knowledge of this. Every action, decision, order, inaction, speech… whatever, is designed to promote his muslim affiliations and divert attention away from it. He is surely a racist, a divider, a promoter of civil disorder and rioting and discontent. His anger is directed, not just at his political opponents, but also at the average, simple American who just wants to be secure and safe in their homes and neighborhoods…Just because they don’t absolutely trust his, previously proven false many times, rhetoric of ‘trust me’ BS.
So, can anyone out there give me a good argument for why we should not consider and label Obama as a racist Muslim supporter if not an outright Muslim himself?
Way off topic. shut up and go away,
Where’s the “report” button?
Dahlquist November 21, 2015 at 7:32 pm
I believe I can confidently offer you a diagnosis for your condition; it is a hybrid affliction of Mad Cow and Raging Bull syndrome.
In the world at large, it is a very common disease but the pages of WUWT have been, thankfully, largely spared infection by this obnoxious pathogen and, until recently, it has manifested only as an opportunistic irritant in a generally healthy body of informed and inquisitive commentary.
Please, act now to quarantine your regrettable outbreak by confining your bilious verbiage to a Notepad file on your own PC and occasionally reciting choice tracts to your spouse or other close friend.
Lest you misunderstand the thrust of this assessment, I emphasize that antipathy towards Islam or Obama is not, per se, an unhealthy response.
“And, spite of pride, in erring reason’s spite,
One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.” Alexander Pope
mebbe,
I would rather it be Raging Cow sicknessIt with Mad Bull disease (syndrome) for my case. BTW, I have a Mac, not a PC.
As far as unhealthy responses, your ‘thrusting’ assessments where you claim antipathy toward Islam in our current times is why there aren’t more of the mebbe family line in existence. Lest you misunderstand, they are at your door and wanting to cut your head off. So, do what you advise and be a pathetic victim, if you would really follow your own, impotent thrusting.
It seems as if your response is as angry as mine…you about me and off topic and me about a U.S. President who would disregard the laws of a nation, the same as the UK Supreme Court Justice which is the topic of this conversation. I probably chose the wrong place for my comment, being a British story, but relatively, it is comparable. ; )
I can’t stand Obama for his politics. I couldn’t care less for whatever his religious beliefs are or aren’t. Trying to convince everyone that he is a Muslim and then imply this makes him evil is a losing argument, period. Not just in the eyes of those on the left – as you wouldn’t be convincing regardless – but even amongst those more sympathetic towards the right side of the spectrum, such as myself.
Obama and his leftist, Greenie ilk are wrong based on numbers and facts. One dogmatism or another need not enter into the conversation and certainly not if we want to win the “war”.
HGWxx/7
I take it that you aren’t a U.S. citizen. Perhaps if you were you would understand just how much Obamas religious beliefs actually do matter…Very much. Perhaps it is because you are used to the notion of having a Monarch as a part of your Kingdoms form of government.
Having a leader of our, supposedly free democracy, who spits on our Constitution as well as, more regularly, a majority of his constituents, is a real slap in the face to those of us who believe in “We the People”… Not “Me the king, Obama”.
Mr. [Dahlquist],
I do enjoy how because I disregard Obama’s religious proclivities you assume I’m not a US citizen. I should inform my parents of this since they had assumed raising me from birth in Oregon would grant me said citizenship. I’ll have to contact my employer here in Washington state, too, as I incorrectly checked that box affirming my US citizenship.
I am as anti-statist as they come, good sir. I’m vehemently libertarian and with that comes a dislike of those wielding power over my life. I don’t care if the president is Christian, atheist, or Muslim. The beef I have with them all is their position of power and they all revel in ruling over our individual rights; their ecclesiastical association doesn’t make it right or wrong.
Not only this, but as someone who fairly consistently votes Republican, I can attest to how pushing the “he’s a Muslim” meme didn’t exactly get Romney into the White House. Perhaps a different strategy might help in the future, be it political or scientific.
‘Dahlquist’ was incorrectly rendered as ‘Fahlquist’. My apologies. No disrespect intended.
Dahlquist should understand that we do science here, not politics. Yes, Mr Obama has spoken of “My Muslim faith”, and yes, Ayn Rand gave the clearest of warnings in 1957 that Socialists would attempt to damage America’s economy by forcibly closing coal mines, oilfields and power plants, and yes, that is what Mr Obama and other socialists worldwide are doing, but our task is to be as statesmanlike as John Galt, keeping our eye fixed ever on the truth and on that eternal question-mark by which science strives ceaselessly to find it, and defending the real seekers after truth from any attempt by princes, potentates or courts, be thy never so high, to forbid or even to punish that informed and marvelling curiosity that is the unfailing hallmark of the intelligence that marks us out most clearly from the beasts and likens our souls most closely to the divine.
“our task is to be as statesmanlike as John Galt, keeping our eye fixed ever on the truth and on that eternal question-mark by which science strives ceaselessly to find it, and defending the real seekers after truth from any attempt by princes, potentates or courts, be thy never so high, to forbid or even to punish that informed and marvelling curiosity that is the unfailing hallmark of the intelligence that marks us out most clearly from the beasts and likens our souls most closely to the divine.”
– Christopher Monckton
That is a great quote worth keeping.
“be thy never so high”? My father used to say ridiculous things, we children would correct him only to look foolish, but I still cannot resist. Be they ever so high? Be Thy nethers so high, perhaps?
Maybe Atlas is about to shrug ?
In answer to Mr Hewitt, the punch-line of one of Lord Denning’s celebrated cases is “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”
That’s (Lord Monckton’s comment) a bit rich, given my Lords’ not uncommon political comments on world government, the European Union and even the Scottish Parliament.
Remember these comments:
“The United Kingdom Independence Party, the only climate-skeptical party in Britain, has scored a crushing victory in Sunday’s elections to the Duma of the European Union.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/uks-only-climate-skeptic-party-crushingly-wins-the-eu-election/
“The European Duma, like that of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, has no real power. It cannot even bring forward a Bill, for that vital probouleutic function is the sole right of the unelected Kommissars – the official German name for the tiny, secretive clique of cuisses-de-cuir who wield all real power in the EU behind closed doors.”
Science or politics?
Admittedly, the article does go on to talk about UKIP’s climate policy but not until quite a bit of politics is allowed to be expressed first.
Or how about Prince Charles?
“Charles must go. His future, along with that of the thousand-year monarchy, is in the past. It used to be said there would soon be only five kings in the world: spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds, and England. Scrub that last one.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/who-will-rid-us-of-this-totalitarian-prince/
Politics or science?
I’m a great admirer of Lord Monckton’s articles on this website but on this occasion he’s been caught not singing from his own hymn sheet.
In response to Monkton of Brenchley. I will excuse you the thy then.
Thank you all kindly for your, mostly, polite criticism of my post above. It was a rant and not in keeping with the, generally, scientific discussions that are sometimes posted here. This site is also political, as politics plays just as much a part as the science in this forum as it does in ‘climate change’.
So, with my tail between my legs, I sulk away, to return again another day… With a comment more towards the science rather than the ravings of a beer guzzling man on a rant against a tyrant.
I just love WUWT
Elegantly said.
In answer to Alba, I am grateful for the diligence with which he has read my posts; but in each of the instances he cites there was a direct connection between the political point glancingly referenced and the scientific argument.
Prince Charles, for instance, has the same obligation of impartiality as the Supreme Court, but has repeatedly infringed his obligation of silence on questions of current political debate, notably the climate.
UKIP was mentioned here and in one or two previous articles because it has a strong stance against the climate scare and is the only major party in Britain to do so. Neither Prince Charles nor the court’s can claim, therefore, that the political debate is settled.
The EU Kommissars have notoriously adopted the climate storyline not because it is true but because it is expedient, and they, not our elected representatives, set Britain’s climate policy. And we cannot remove the Kommissars, for they are not elected.
Does he attend a Christian church?
Dahlquist ..
Whether on topic or off i happen to agree with you .
I also agree that what Obama thinks of global warming is false.
I come to site about 3-4 times month for last 2 years.
I have come to this conclusion , 7 of 10 are from the ( critical thinkers club ) and 3 of 10 of us our knuckles are close to terra firma .
Mostly used as a slander to others today by those that perceive themselves as superior intellectual beings , generally i suspect , those that have at least attained a Masters or Ph.d in ” gender studies , fairness and justice along with other worthless pursuits at tax payers expense , and are entrenched on the staff of Prestigious Universities and Governments like parasites “, use it as a slander to those they deem inferior intellectually , which is all the rest of us , the ( knuckledragger beings ) that support them .
…………………….
Unfortunately i have never attained membership or even been considered for a membership in the Prestigious National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking .
I’m crushed !!!!
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Notice: You must be intellectually disciplined .
Well , were not Hitler , Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao Intellectually disciplined ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.
Critical thinking is the ( intellectually disciplined ) process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
Dahlquist,
“Is there any piece of evidence which would show that he is not a firm supporter and believer of Islam…?”
I have seen the man mock Christians for believing in any miracles at all, which to my mind logically renders him a non-believer in any Theistic religion (though self worship seems quite possible to me ; )
Well done here Christopher. It’s a good fight and I appreciate your taking it to them and keeping us informed! Good luck!
Too bad that the POTUS is a “Useful Idiot” misusing the “Bully Pulpit”.
“… but they remain subject to challenge in some quarters, including by scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals, and the courts could play a role here in finally scotching those claims.” Courts to deceide on science like the Catholic Church once did? Where did the scientific principle and freedom of speech go?
They are science deniers.
This is a dejavu with lysenkoism in the USSR? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Or this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
Some similarities? “So quickly did he develop his prescriptions — from the cold treatment of grain, to the plucking of leaves from cotton plants, to the cluster planting of trees, to unusual fertilizer mixes — that academic biologists did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted. The Party-controlled newspapers applauded Lysenko’s “practical” efforts and questioned the motives of his critics. Lysenko’s “revolution in agriculture” had a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics, who urged the patience..”
Santa Baby has reached the heart of the matter. We are to be silenced and our “claims” “scotched” because the truth we seek is inconvenient to the classe politique and the judges who serve it.
Hello Lord Monckton……
According to free will and freedom of speech and expression, any of this persons or entities (the QCs, the judges) have the right to be involved and participate in any activity they see fit or they believe to be right, but that has a consequence.
It takes only for a clause in the constitution of the land and the country they belong to, to default and automatically disqualify them from the application of their duty and their power in a given subject.
In this particular case, it takes only that the British or the UK constitution demands and requires fairness and an unbiased approach by the courts of the land and their judges to any subject or case under or to be subjected in the future under the judgement,,,,,,, for these QCs and judges participating in this particular venue to be automatically and without prejudice disqualified from their duties and power of acting directly or indirectly in any judicial process that is directly or indirectly related to the subject in question.
So if by any chance the constitution of the land has such demands and impositions, any one participating in that venue is prohibited from actively or even inactively participating in a judicial process or any official judicial activity of any kind listed or named under “climate”, climate change” or “environment”.
Does the British or UK constitution has such demands or impositions……I do not know….but you may just be able to find out….
cheers
Courts have always ruled on matters of science. Is fingerprint evidence reliable? A matter of science, yet ruled on by the court. Was An Inconvenient Truth factual? Questions of science, yet ruled on by the courts.
The Frye standard was established in 1923 concerning polygraph evidence. From wikipedia: Novel techniques, placed under the scrutiny of this standard forced courts to examine papers, books and judicial precedents on the subject at hand to make determinations as to the reliability and “general acceptance.”
This has been replaced at federal level by the Daubert standard.
This legal pantomime is just so enjoyable – sadly it will be Christmas before next act. Can’t wait. Thanks, Christopher Monckton.
“President Obama has said …” [Lord Carnwath, and so on]
I had to go back and read it again – the Lord sounds a lot like Obama’s Sec. of the Interior, Sally Jewell.
I do find it fascinating the that the UK (the once proud United Kingdom) has a Supreme Court taking its lead from a community organizer from (a once proud) Chicago.
It just gets sillier and sillier.
Some folks don’t understand how serious this is. A justice of the court should never, ever, under no circumstances, express an opinion (even in private) on something that might come before the court. That justice should resign.
It is disturbing to me that Christopher Monckton seems to be the only British citizen trying to take action on this. People should be screaming from the roof tops.
Commiebob is correct. Unfortunately, the present generations have little understanding of how precious and fragile a flower is freedom. Some will trample it if they can. Most will trample it without ever understanding its value to the political environment.
I am stunned by the arrogance of this ( and for that matter ANY ) Supreme Court. I guess I am just really, really naive to think they would be impartial. (I know they get appointed not on merit but on political stand points these days). I think that if Lady justice takes off her blindfold she’d wish she’d be blind in embarrasment!
“Unfortunately, the present generations have little understanding of how precious and fragile a flower is freedom.”
That statement is true enough, but the fact is that it started generations ago. The USA is now verging on a police state and few seem to be able to see it. I will not go into the horrible details, but “freedom” is no longer found in the “land of the free”. We are fighting a rear guard action … and losing. We may still be able to defeat the climate alarmists, as many of the powerful enjoy modern industrial society also, but winning back freedom looks to be a much more difficult task.
How ironic that the institutions that protested against the war in Vietnam and government deceit are now protesting against free speech. There was an article about liberal cannibalism recently that described how these far left university settings have created politically correct zombies unable to live under the harshness of freedom. They need “safe places” where the Bill of Rights don’t apply. Any administrator standing up to these “cry bullies” is devoured by the zombie masses. These students are naively walking into their own Orwellian demise.
@ur momisugly markstoval November 22, 2015 at 2:33 am
I am afraid you are right. What I do’t get is the people who become a part of the problem–like the police–or those that teach –you know the ones who used to teach us about critical thinking! They folded at every curve in the road. Had to or we wouldn’t be here. I made my college graduate neice read about the polar bears–as she was convinced they were dying out–she read the facts I presented her andthen her eyes glazed over–I assume she simply didn’t bleive teh truth and felt sorry for me who bleived the “lies.” You can’t reach anyone any longer–Maybe it’s like learning a new language–if they get you before age 10 you have a good chance of learning it and learning it correctly–but after that you always are a foriegner. Maybe if you don’t learn critical thinking by a certain age, you are incapable?
FTOP_T is right. The vicious Left have become ever more intolerant of different viewpoints. To test my theory that, particularly among undergraduates, only one viewpoint on just about every major political question is now tolerated, I recently preached a sermon in the Chapel at Churchill College, Cambridge, in which I said the Church’s teaching was that homosexuality was wrong because it was medically dangerous to its practitioners, who ought to be given fair warning as smokers are; abortion was wrong because its victims were torn limb from limb without being given their own anesthetic; the West’s response to Islamic terror was incorrect because nearly all news media were too craven to defeat the Charlie Hebdo terrorists by running some of the less offensive cartoons, and no one had made the point that a few of the cartoons were understandably, grossly, gratuitously offensive to our Muslim brethren, who had had no legal recourse because the blasphemy laws had been unwisely abolished; and that the Church ought to have learned by now that it should not adopt positions on either side of scientific questions such as climate change, but should instead ensure that no one stifled legitimate scientific research and argument on either side of the debate.
I revisited Cambridge recently and discovered that the sermon was being still being talked of, in horrified tones, throughout the university, and speculation is rife that I was only allowed to preach because I had donated very large sums to the College. I had not realized just how extreme the hard Left’s intolerance of any viewpoint but its own has become. At least there are no jackboots this time.
Science conducted by consensus is politics.
Science conducted by belief is religion.
Science conducted by censorship is TYRANNY.
Well and eloquently spoken.
Science conducted by following the scientific method is understanding.
According Marxism: science that supports its ideology and agendas is logical, and science that does not support Marxist ideology and agendas is not logical. It’s called Critical Theory.
TRM,
“Science conducted by following the scientific method is understanding.”
I can appreciate your sentiment, but that sentence is not truly rational to me . . and is indicative I feel, of the very “idol worship” sort of thinking/speaking about science which has been exploited to bring us to our sad state of affairs in this regard.
Science conducted by following the scientific method can surely help lead to more understanding of various things, but the understanding itself remains to be attained (or not) by the individual person. The scientific method is available to even those who wish to stymie understanding on a massive scale, and is actually being used in that way as we speak, I am rather certain.
+10
High Treason — Nicely said — Eugene WR Gallun
Unfortunately, science is the profession most susceptible to an “appeal to authority” and judges are most easily swayed by these “expert” arguments since they weigh the witness for credibility and not the science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I’m sure SCOTUK would have ruled we have 24 chromosome pairs prima facia.
In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared based on his findings that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter’s authority,[25] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[26] Even textbooks with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[26]
As Robert Matthews said of the event, “Scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes”.[26] As such, their reasoning was an appeal to authority.[27]
Science conducted by models is biased.
Kipling always had a pragmatic view:
“We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.”
There is still hope.
Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
As a brutish Texan my suggestions may be redundant and perhaps already attempted. Screaming from the rooftops we attempt to remind those who have forgotten since the days of yore that danger is always awaiting us. You have suffered the slings and arrows of our misled traffic light “Commu-gress” left and did so marvelously (Embarrassing, though, certain advocates pronounced it “Mockington”) . But, it is my fear that a danger equal to that of the “Dead Hand” from the Soviet cold past faces us yet again. However, this time there will be no bombs, no missiles and no democracy or representatives to fight on our behalf. This battle needs the steadfast vision and the resolve of Margaret Thatcher, the unflinching conviction of Ronald Reagan and the intelligence and resilience of you, Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
It is those of us here that stand here behind you to remind the traffic lights for one last time.
“When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”
It is time that we ensure that their smooth tongued wizards withdraw.
Perhaps a re-examination of the processing notes for the failed freedom-of-information act request could be requested or any tangential agency stateside be queried?
PS
The specter of a supreme court judge deciding a case before having heard it is indeed frightening.
But, may I ask, where are the cases?
Its like a modern version of Judge Roy Bean’s “we’ll give him a fair trial and then we’ll hang him”.
Except that Roy Bean had an actual crime with an actual body and an actual case to hear before the hanging,
You’d think, given the supposed harm that has been “proven”, ambulance chaser lawyers would be filing cases left right and centre. But they aren’t. They’ve got no crimes, no bodies, to bring before the court. So the very cases the judge proposes to scotch, for the most part don’t exist.
Cases have been heard in Holland, USA and far east.
They will force corporations to transfer wealth to chosen beneficiaries through threat of non-compliance with corporate responsibility edicts etc.
We already have this situation in the UK where companies jump through numerous hoops simultaneously supporting he creation of uncountable non-jobs under the guise of corporate responsibility.
In America, 1st Amendment Feedom of Speech rights have, for the most part, been rigorously defended by SCOTUS.
It’s both frightening and tragic to see SCOTUK make Orwellian threats to prohibit scientific speech questioning the efficacy of the CAGW hypothesis, especially in the year celebrating the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta.
We’re witnessing the death of Western Civilization if SCOTUK actually fulfills their threat..
Keep up the good fight Lord Monckton!
Please advise if there is a site where people can donate to assist in covering any legal costs involved in this FOIA request. I’d certainly like to assist you on this issue.
Monty Python revisited:
“Well I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition”
“No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!”
Aren’t the powers separated between legislature, executive, and judiciary in the UK?
For this reason it seems doubtful UK Supreme Court President, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, could afford ignoring some of his judges’ legislature ambitions. Her Majesty and Prime Minister might have a word to say. Perhaps also John Bercow, Chris Grayling, Frances D’Souza and Tina Stowell.
The only separation of power of which I am well aware in the UK is the one that refers to distance between one legislative individual from another executive individual to another with the judiciary individual attempting to stand in between. Is that not correct?
I have attended the House of Lords (before it became the Supreme Court), on several occasions, and my experience is that you are always on a list against which your name is checked off. In the past, on arrival, I have had to pop into an office and collect a name tag etc.
I consider that it is inconceivable that there will not be a security list with the names of attendees.
“As I noted at the outset, there is a broad emerging consensus on many of these factual matters, but they remain subject to challenge in some quarters, including by scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals, and the courts could play a role here in finally scotching those claims.”
I doubt that anyone would go so far as to allege that the defendant is a witch because she weighs less than a duck but has he just set a precedence that the police could get away with doing that?
Sorry, but pseudo-legal rants may worry the common man, but I cannot see them worrying the judges at the Supreme Court.
Perhaps not, but pseudo-legal Supreme Court might annoy those nominating the judges.
Not quite sure who “ralfellis” is accusing of “pseudo-legal rants”, but the legal statements of Lord Denning on the independence of the judiciary, combined with the recent act of parliament obliging the judiciary to be impartial, and the rules obliging them to be impartial, do not have the properties either of pseudo-legality or of rants. The Supreme Court is in breach of the law. Once I have obtained enough answers to work out what went on, I shall propose to its president some simple and inexpensive steps to rectify the impression of prejudice that it created by its self-exhibition on September 17.
Unless these steps, or reasonable counter-proposals in lieu, are taken by the Court, its president may expect to find himself in front of the Administrative Court on judicial review of his failure to take reasonable steps to put matters to rights, and may also find himself in front of the Bench at Horseferry Road on a criminal charge of wilful misfeasance in a public office. Judicial impartiality is central to the British judicial system. The Court’s departure from strict impartiality is, therefore, a very serious matter, and the courts below can be expected to take it very seriously indeed.
Monckton of Brenchley
Thank you for your time, your dedication, and the success of your efforts.
Looking forward to this one, might be even more fun than Mann vs Steyn whenever all that finally happens.
I would like two other questions to be answered.
Since advanced signal analysis is not part of the curriculum for climate science why are engineers not called as the only properly trained experts in determining what is actually abnormal based on a proper signal analysis of long term climate data?
Since CO2 based climate change is a significant part of the examinations for a climate science qualification why can they consider any case presented by climate scientists as invalid if not verified by outside examination and auditing?
Clearly by limiting the evidence to those in the climate science profession they will never get to hear the case against so it is a rigged trial they should be thrown out of the profession for supporting the idea.
Bear in mind that many who are in other professions are there because they could not get grants because their field of study undermined climate change belief and are better qualified than most in that profession especially the computer modellers in electronics who are decades ahead of the climate scientists.
I’m not sure that’s true. Models are a wonderful tool for problems that aren’t ‘messy’. On the other hand we still do physical measurements if we need to know something like the radiation pattern of a cell phone.
Climate models have no predictive skill. The fact that almost all of them have predicted more than the observed warming indicates that their underlying assumptions are wrong.
sorry cannot edit the comment but it should have read “Since CO2 based climate change is a significant part of the examinations for a climate science qualification why can they consider any case presented by climate scientists as valid if not verified by outside examination and auditing?”
When they canoodle. fomenting behind the scales, and resort to the mendacious idea of a few judges out of sight from the legislature, fashioning some sort of legislative device to graft onto a very political agenda – in an attempt to close down the debate by criminalizing if you will! Those, who plainly point out the paucity of government scientists methodology, data and reliance on fixed computer generated divination…….
By a country mile have you lost the plot and ultimately one must question [Brits] if we still actually live in a country which abides to and through the institution of democracy. It would seem not.
Obama’s religious beliefs are probably more fundamental and deeper held than his political beliefs.
Yet, as Queen Elizabeth I would hav put it, it is not for us to make a window into men’s souls. It is Mr Obama’s policies that matter, and they seem to combine the crony-capitalism of national Socialism with the hatred of free markets characteristic of international Socialism and the hatred of humanity that is the hallmark of environmentalist Socialism. His aggressively partisan opinions and policies, insofar as they were mentioned with approval by a Justice of our Supreme Court who ought to have known better, do have some relevance here.