Guest post by David Middleton
This 
needs to be quashed… with extreme prejudice…
World court should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, says Philippe Sands
International Court of Justice ruling would settle the scientific dispute and pave the way for future legal cases on climate change, says high-profile lawyer
False claims from climate sceptics that humans are not responsible for global warming and that sea level is not rising should be scotched by an international court ruling, a leading lawyer has said.
Scientific bodies such as the UN’s climate science panel have concluded that climate change is underway and caused by humans, Prof Philippe Sands QC told an audience at the UK’s Supreme Court. But a ruling by a body such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would carry much more weight with public opinion and help pave the way for future legal cases on climate change, he said.
“One of the most important things an international court could do – in my view it is probably the single most important thing it could do – is to settle the scientific dispute,” Sands said, on the eve of a three-day conference on climate change and international law in London.
[…]
If this thinks that the World Court or any other court is remotely qualified to “settle the scientific dispute,” he is a total fracking moron advocating a crime against humanity on a scale not seen since the trial of Galileo.
NOTE: for some reason, Mr. Middleton disabled comments on this post when it was written. I have enabled them on 8/19. – Anthony
Totally extraordinary. But of course, this sort of thing worked a treat with Lysenko, so maybe the time has come to give it another try /sarc
I say cut all funding for “climate science” to test the dedication of its adherents. They will disperse faster than a conspiratorial contrail.
Yes, the funding is the science.
That is the pithiest explanation of climate science I’ve ever seen! +1000
Regime change is in order.
Climate Change Laws around the World
http://web.law.columbia.edu/climate-change/resources/climate-change-laws-world
The purpose of the International Court is to settle or arbitrate existing laws. The Rule of Law is at the heart of the activity.
The opinions of Skeptics, Alarmists, or put more politely those who either support or do not support the IPCC consensus is irrelevant to their task and rulings.
If a number of nations have laws related to a common ghost story, seek an international ruling, and if the court chooses to accept the case, it will rule based on the existing laws.
Interesting thought, since the UNFCCC and the International Court are agencies of the UN, could a class action suit be brought before the International Court to resolve the merits of IPCC conclusions as the conclusions are the basis for Member State laws?
UN Charter Article 96
The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.
So, a class action isn’t necessary, a simple request for advisory opinion….
Being a professor of anything is absolutely no guarantee that you are not also a complete idiot when outside your field (or even for some whilst still in it). Could it be called argument from credentials.
Hmmm, first trying to use the World Court, and then the US RICO statute to prosecute AGW skeptics. I think the climate alarmist are becoming desperate. Why is that? Are not the data working for them, or what?
Both proposals are foolish. Theyre just media plays, outrageous nonsense to keep the topic in the media. The International and US courts would never rule as it violates UN objectives and 1st amendment rights.
“prosecute”… a polite way to say “persecute”.
It is a natural part ( the settling in of helplessness) of the end game, and the game IS ending, although such things drag out going from fierce to pathetic – hopefully no suicides given the new climate depression illnesses among those who are closing their eyes and ears to what their inner mind had begun to whisper to some of them during the pause (classic psychological denial). It won’t be nice in any case. The Paris circus maximus looms scarily – will it be the last communion- the storm after the “pause”? Books like Mark Steyn’s “Disgrace to the Profession”, is also part of the end game.
Then the job of undoing, repairing, decommissioning of wastrel energy technology, supplementary courses with re-examinations for validation of PhD’s or asterisking former qualifications. New scientific journals with statisticians regularly as reviewers with iron clad rules about data storage and code. Some will be born again. Most will be cut loose. New enrollments for statisticians and philosophers of science to shepherd the two decade transition, finding jobs for 100,000 redundant and ill fit climate scientists (like doctors whose specialty is blood letting to cure illness) – bank tellers? insurance salespersons?…. A boom for engineering to put energy infrastructure back into the a real world. Doing the accounting and investigating….awards for WUWT, Climate Audit, JoNova, Climate, Etc….New legislation separating science and state….statutes setting up scientific associations with strong ethics clauses, disciplinary powers, barring from practice (hey, they have it for engineers).
We can’t have all that discussion of the gravity-constant or what a Kg is, let the court once and for all decide the proper values. They could also define pi in a manageable way, who remembers all those decimals. If the satellite ends in a wrong position then you have to go to court to sort it out, because you have used the defined constants, so it is not your fault.
The science is settled. No need for further research. Let them put the money into windmills. There aer way too many predatory bald eagles in America. Death to predators. Heh.
What I want to know is, where are the activists for the skeptic side? The alarmists have millions of devoted followers spending time and money for their cause. Where is the equivalent for the skeptics? I see a whole lot of joking and complaining, skeptics hosting blogs and writing books. That’s all great, but it needs to be stepped up a few notches to match the energy and passion of the CAGW alarmists! Now is the time to be fighting tooth and nail for your freedoms, not after they have been lost. I can’t believe I am saying this, but I’m ready to vote for Trump. He’s a dickhead but he is a means to and end. And that could be a nice end for those of us who despise the CAGW alarmists.
So this lawyer wants in on the Climate Global Warming Change gravy train with suits galore too…
Isn’t “Then they attack you” in the Gandhi quote just be for “then you win”?….
Then Philippe Sands is ready to face the same charges if/once human caused CO2 centered climate hypothesis is confirmed void e.g by global cooling.
Must be a reincarnation of Sto Tomas Torquemada
On behalf of English lawyers and the University we once both attended (somewhat ingloriously in my case) let me apologise for this pompous reflexive embracer of every “progressive” cause. I imagine it hasn’t occurred to him that he’s playing a small but doubtless well remunerated part in the greatest misallocation of resources in history. And we lawyers wonder why people don’t like us…!
kh
Yeah.
We if anyone need a public court to settle the science, it is the CO2 hysterics. As they have no science, no observations, no experiments and no experience to prove their claims, they will have to go outside the realm of and outside the methods of science to force their false propaganda through, so as to prevent seroius scientists from doing their jobs, and all other people with a minimum ability of thinking critically for themselves into silence.
The debate then, would be settled by a court of law.
Yeah, that is really what we need now. A Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, to prove global warming is true, and that CO2 will cook the planet and at the same time drown us all. The professor has only proved that global warming has overheated his own brain. It is time for him to cool down.
The World Court has no jurisdiction in this case because it has nothing to do with law. It is about science. The laws of science are not some form of legislation. Scientific theories are not proven by courts of law. According to the AGW conjecture, more CO2 increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere causing a restriction of heat energy flow causing warming at the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere but cooling in the upper atmosphere. If this is so then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused a noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The climate sensivity of CO2 should be directly proportional to the change in the natural lapse rate that CO2 causes. So the observed climate sensitivity of CO2 has been zero but the proponents of the AGW conjecture just do not want to admit it.
In the new age of illegal enlightenment, threats and scare tactics are the norm against those labeled “tiny minority.” It’s settled science—or else.
Amen Abe. The true rocket scientists, meteorologists, physicists, physical chemists, etc. who produced the gold-standard 1976 US Standard Atmosphere knew all of this forwards and backwards, and calculated the entire atmospheric profile surface to 100+km solely on the basis of atmospheric thermodynamics, and did not use one single radiative transfer calculation whatsoever! In fact, they calculated the effect of CO2, found it to be so negligible, they thereafter completely discarded it from their 1D atmospheric model!
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=1976+US+Standard+Atmosphere