While I’ve been avoiding posting on this topic for quite some time, when a UK court makes a ruling like this, and the UK Telegraph makes a headline like the one below, it becomes hard to ignore. We live in interesting times.
From the UK Telegraph:
Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.
excerpts:
…
In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.
The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.
…
John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.”
That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.
The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law.
Read the complete article here:
Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
Note: keep the comments clean, moderators will snip off color comments with abandon. -A
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Also form the UK, The Telegraph:
“There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
The comments posted here on WUWT regarding the religious ruling in the UK support this statement to the T.
RockyMtn (13:57:00) :
If God exists, then he created the radiative forcing of GHG for many reasons that made life possible on this planet and a hospitable environment to sustain life. Without the greenhouse effect, life would simply not exists here on Earth. Who are we to go against the Work of God? … if he exists!
Moderator, thanks. But explain then how the following inflammatory comment is considered to be OK?
[snip]
I think nearly everyone here needs to tone down the rhetoric and stop with the immature quips.
REPLY: its gone now, – A
RockyMtn (14:08:31) :
Why do you think people react more against the idea of a warming planet than that of a cooling planet? Simply because we all know that we prefer summer than winter. We are all deeply afraid of cold and starvation, it’s in our collective conscience. A few degrees higher is certainly more comfortable than a permanent -15 C.
Is it dumb to take a building of some sort, seal it off, inject CO2 by some method, and see if it gets warmer over a period of time — and compare the temps with another similar building without CO2 injection ? Has this been done ?
This is a great victory !
(until the warmists wake up and get this over turned on appeal- what is Monbiot saying ?)
[snip]
Yes in UK law dis-belief in something is as protected as belief – in other words (as has been seen recently in the UK where a nurse was suspended for OFFERING to pray for a patient) no warmist can now force his agenda on an employer either.
Very very subtle; and the judges ruling on AIT was far more strict than implied above; AIT may NOT be shown in schools UNLESS a balanced opposing view is ALSO presented; as a result it is NOT shown in British schools at all. This ruling may have a similar effect in the ‘real’ world of commerce & may allow us to prevent councils and other qungocrats from forcing this poisonous religion down our throats
[snip]
Adam “Just to note there is a difference between the Christian church and the church of AGW”
There is no such thing as the “church of AGW”? We are talking about one (troubled?) person here. Your statement suggests that because I am concerned about AGW and have a good handle on the science behind the theory, you and others are going to try and claim that I belong to “the church of AGW”? Please clarify.
PS: And the quote that I posted earlier appeared in the Guardian, not the Telegraph, my mistake.
Note: keep the comments clean, moderators will snip off color comments with abandon. -A
ATTN
Mick (14:19:46) :
REPLY: Gone, thread closed
dedicated to RockyMtn
Earth in the Balance,
that make me smile;
on one side the Earth
on the other side Al.
Earth in the Balance,
that make me laugh;
if he wants to cap something
how bout his gas?
Politicians are fair (and in Al’s case, fat) game.
Moderator, why are you are allowing blatant vitriol like this?
[snip]
But you decided to take issue with “the tone” my earlier post and snip it?
Ray, we are not changing the physics or changing the radiative forcing of GHGs, we are simply talking about reducing emissions of GHGs and you call that “Who are we to go against the Work of God? … if he exists!”?
Interesting that you accept the Greenhouse effect, but fail to recognize that we can change the energy balance of the planet by changing the very composition of the atmosphere by introducing more and more GHGs?
What are your feelings about us reducing CFCs then to “heal” the ozone layer? By your logic it was OK for us to cause it, but not OK to make amends? Were we going against the “work of God” when we created it or when we are trying to return it to its original state before we messed with it?
Also, think about this–CFCs measured p.p.t.v; CO2 measured p.p.m.v.
Goreacle’s Head & Phrenological Report.
…-
“Promises, Promises
Ill-judged predictions and projections can be embarrassing at best and, at worst, damaging to the authority of science and science policy.
A South Korean postage stamp issued in 2005 depicts a scene that is reminiscent of the iconic human evolution cartoon in which a stooping ape evolves, in six or so steps, into an upright, bipedal Homo sapiens. It shows a paraplegic man climbing slowly out of his wheelchair, standing up straight, and then performing a giant leap of celebration. Placed next to an image of an ovum undergoing the technique of nuclear transfer, the message was clear: Thanks to the groundbreaking publications of Hwang Woo-Suk, therapeutic cloning was a medical miracle that had as good as happened. The trouble is, it hadn’t happened. And nearly 4 years on, it still hasn’t.
South Korea was understandably proud of Hwang’s achievements and, like the rest of the world, excited by his claims and those of researchers worldwide that his human embryonic stem cell (hESC) techniques were set to provide therapies for not only spinal injuries, but Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and a host of other degenerative diseases. The rest is history.” (More)
(See the palmistry hand lines …. it’s a hoot.)
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/print/56082/
Listen up folks, keep it clean or I’ll close the thread.
Changed my mind. Thread closed. I’m tired of having to act as babysitter for irrational comments. – Anthony