FOIAing the U.K. Supreme Court's 'pantomime of hate' against climate skepticism

Open letter by Monckton of Brenchley


Paul Bridgland, Departmental Records Officer

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parliament Square, London

SW1P 3DB 16 October 2015



Supreme Court pantomime of hate on climate change, 17-19 September 2015

This is a request in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in connection with the partisan political rally on climate change that is said to have been held in various courtrooms including Nos. 1 and 2 of the Supreme Court of England and Wales at Parliament Square, London, from 17-19 September 2015, with the active participation of at least one of the Supreme Court’s justices and the presumed approval or at least consent of the Supreme Court as a whole. This event was drawn to my attention by various persons profoundly concerned that, on a matter of current public and political controversy, the Supreme Court should have seen fit to take sides openly, in flagrant offence against both of the principles of natural justice recognized in the laws of England and Wales, and also in contravention of the obligation of strict neutrality on matters of current political contention that is a self-evident sine qua non for the Supreme Court and anyone purporting to serve as one of its Justices.

However, there remains the probability that the event did not take place and that the YouTube record of it, together with various web links and documents about it, are fake. This request is intended to discover whether – per impossibile – the Supreme Court’s pantomime of hate indeed took place and, if so, at whose instigation and at what cost, and who was approached for funding, and who agreed to fund the event, and how much was paid and by whom, and how much was spent, and by whom, and on whom or on what, and whether the passages of overtly and nakedly partisan political hate-speech attributed to one of the justices and to an invited lecturer were in fact uttered by them.

Judicial review of the administrative decisions of various departments of government, including the Supreme Court of England and Wales and certain of its personnel and justices, to stage, condone, fund or participate in this repugnant and unlawful event is in active contemplation. Questions about whether the Supreme Court should have allowed its Justices to turn it into a Christmas pantomime theatre, or whether the Court can now legitimately hear any case touching upon climate or the environment without falling foul of both principles of natural justice (on the evils of manifest judicial prejudice and of refusal to hear both sides of a case, videte Denning MR in, respectively, Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. V. Lannon [1968] EWCA Civ 5 [1969] 1QB 577 and in Kanda v. The Federation of Malaya [1962] AC 322 at 327), will be directed to the relevant departments and personnel in due course. First, however, it is necessary to ascertain the facts.

None of the questions to which replies are now sought is a question concerning the details of any case that has been or is before the Supreme Court. Nor do any of the numerous other exemptions and get-out clauses at sections 35-36 of the FOI Act apply. Therefore, any refusal on the part of the Court to provide any or all of the requested information may be referred to the Information Commissioner for determination, or may form part of the eventual judicial review of the administrative decisions of the Court or of other departments or agencies of government in respect of this partisan political rally held at the Court. I am making this letter public.


1. Please state whether the Supreme Court in fact held a conference at its premises in Parliament Square, London, or at any other place, during September 2015, under the title Climate Change & the Rule of Law or under any suchlike title or with any suchlike theme; and, if so, between what dates and at what places any such conference was held.

2. Please confirm that the web page at and all web pages dependent thereupon are official web pages of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and that the content of the web pages is official content approved by the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and explain in what fashion and by whom the decision was taken to place and populate the said web pages and otherwise to publicize the event, and under whose ultimate control the web pages are managed.

3. In particular, please confirm that the video of part of the Supreme Court’s propaganda event at is a complete and accurate record of the segment of the event that it purports to cover.

4. Please supply copies or, where copies are unavailable, records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with the climate-change conference alleged to have taken place at the Supreme Court in September 2015. 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 of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

5. Please supply a complete list of all participants in the conference, indicating all who spoke, with all records of their remarks and all transcripts of the proceedings.

6. Please supply copies of all agendas, working papers and other documentation of whatever kind produced 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 of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

7. Please state at whose initiative the conference was staged, and supply all relevant correspondence or records of conversations concerning the proposal to stage the conference.

8. Please provide the names of all Justices or other personnel of the Supreme Court who participated in the decision to stage the conference, and state on what date and in what manner the decision was reached, and provide the names of all parties who were consulted by the Supreme Court or any of its servants or agents before the decision was reached, together with any copies or records of correspondence or conversations in relation to the consultations leading to the decision, and to the decision itself.

9. Please provide the names of all Justices or other personnel of the Supreme Court who disagreed with the decision to stage the conference, together with any copies or records of correspondence or conversations in which they declared or indicated their concerns.

10. Please provide a list of all departments or other entities or persons who were approached with requests for funding, and supply the names of those who made the funding requests and of those to whom the requests were made, together with copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with funding the conference between or among any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

11. Please provide full and complete accounts for the conference, including without limitation the sources, amounts and dates of all tranches of funding for the conference, a full account of all income and expenditure, a full list of all honoraria, expenses or other sums paid to participants or others attending or present at the conference, and copies of all correspondence or conversations concerning any financial aspect of the conference.

12. Please state whether a person named as “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court.

13. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please state whether “Lord Carnwath” was present at the conference, and please provide all documentation to, from or concerning him or any agent or servant of his in connection with any aspect of the conference.

14. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please state the annual remuneration, pension, expenses and other sums or emoluments paid to “Lord Carnwath” out of public funds in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 a) in respect of his function as a Justice of the Supreme Court; and b) in respect of any other matters, such other matters to be specified and the amounts quantified.

15. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 between him 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.

16. Please state whether “Lord Carnwath” was present at the conference; if so in what capacity and at whose invitation; and whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “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.”

17. Please state whether “Philippe Sands QC” was present at the conference; if so in what capacity and at whose invitation; and whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “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.”

18. If “Philippe Sands QC” was present at the conference, please state whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “The court has a potentially significant role to play in helping the world understand and decide on the science of climate change and to recognize that the room for real doubt has disappeared.”

19. Please state whether any Justice or official or servant or agent of the Supreme Court has demurred at remarks such as those of “Lord Carnwath” or “Philippe Sands QC” and provide any record or copy of any such demurrer.

20. Please provide a complete list of all cases concerning climate, the environment or other matters connected in any way with the subject-matter of the conference that are currently before the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and state what, if any, provisions of law or administrative procedure exist to provide an alternative court of final appeal on matters, such as climate and environment, on which the Supreme Court, both collectively and in the person of one of its Justices, has acted blatantly and bizarrely in such a fashion as to indicate an open and malicious political prejudice and is accordingly parti pris.

Yours faithfully,


Viscount Monckton of Brenchley


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I’m glad he’s on our side.


As they say in the UK, “Here Here”…..

Jimmy Haigh

Actually, we say “Hear, hear”…


There, there.


Now, now

Evan Jones

And that’s that.


Well well.


Uh, oh!


UK Supreme court says “Heil, Heil”


Where! Where!


They should know not to discount a Viscount… did I say that right?

Pooh pooh.


Yeah, yeah …

Martin A

Tut tut

Snicker, snicker &
cluck cluck…

Bob B.

Oy Yoy


I was in the WC.
Did I miss anything ?

No – just a flash in the pan.


Oh my!

Paul Westhaver

I need context. re the 2000 event.
I read what is there, but I am missing something. I think?


The event was in Sept 2015..The FOIA act is 2000


See the video above !!

Paul Westhaver

ok I didn’t watch the video… watching…

Paul Westhaver

Well, That was a miserable 80 odd minutes.


Wow, quite an accusation. But, as usual, will anything come out of it, or will it drown in bureaucracy?

Ben of Houston

Does that question even need asking?


I understand your point. A lot of these climate investigations / whitewash / coverups seem to have no effect but they do. They are being publicly asked to answer questions and may have to go to the trouble of “fixing” investigations. It brings to the money sucking vampires the thing they fear the most, daylight.


“will anything come out of it”
No. His Lordship has requested too much information. The cost will be prohibitive and no-one will be prepared to pay. The trick seems to be to ask for what you need and no more then they can’t play the: “OK, but give me a million pounds first and wait 5 years” card.

Gerry England

Any costs for gathering information to reply to an FOI request must be reasonable and justifiable. The same goes for the time frame. Some information may already be published in which case they don’t need to provide. And the information requested has to exist. I was on the edge of a case where the requestor would not be convinced that the information requested simply did not exist. It could have been created but that is not how it works, and the requestor had sufficient data to do that himself.

In response to graphicconception, I have not requested “too much information”: I have requested the information I shall need in order to determine whether the “Supreme” Court has, as I now think it has, acted unlawfully and in a fashion that is properly judicially reviewable. If the Court tries to use one of the usual get-outs – namely that answering these questions would cost more than some sum or another – then the questions will no doubt be put to it by several different citizens each asking one or two questions. It will then have to reply to everyone, or to think of a different excuse to conceal the shady dealings in which it appears to have improperly involved itself.

Pamela Gray

That was an immensely boring youtube video.

Pat Frank

Did you notice, Pamela, that the speaker, the Honorable Philippe Sands, implicitly denied the right of a state to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons to prevent impending (aggressive) obliteration by a second country?
He specifically said that obliterating others when you yourself face obliteration (at their hands) is unlawful. I.e., it is unlawful to kill in self-defense against a murderous attack.
He also sides with the Palestinians in their front line role, in the never ending war to obliterate Israel. So, it seems that obliteration of a people is OK with the Honorable Phillipe Sands, so long as it’s non-nuclear obliteration of a people he doesn’t like.
That’s not boring. It’s also fair warning.
Philippe Sands, as a sitting judge, denies the right of self-defense and supports a religiously motivated genocidal war.
He’s a highly intelligent idiot with legal powers over others. He speaks monstrosities with complete confidence and wants the International Court of Justice to have the power to adjudicate his views.

Solomon Green

“He’s a highly intelligent idiot …”. No he is a clever, even a very clever, idiot but he is not intelligent, let alone “highly intelligent”.

Pat Frank

Insanity doesn’t require stupidity, Solomon. It merely requires adamant adherence to a wildly unrealistic outlook. Intelligence can well work in service to foolish and unexamined motivations.
It seems pretty clear that Philippe Sands has worked himself into exactly that: a wildly unrealistic outlook. He’s rationalizing a moralizing totalitarian superstate. With intelligence, high purpose, and a clear conscience. He’s not sane.

Jeff Pitts

Well said. I marvel(and shudder) at the ability of psychotics to hold untenable positions with such unflappable confidence the positions seem reasonable to a good portion of society.


‘Philippe Sands, as a sitting judge’
‘About the speakers:
Philippe Sands QC is a barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London’

George Tetley

First there was “Global Warming” now it is “Climate Change” next the” go to jail card ” ?

David Cage

He’s a highly intelligent idiot with legal powers over others……
No the system of legal training in the UK gives us not particularly intelligent but expensively over educated mediocre people as you need a cartload of money to do all the dining out at the inns of court.

Pat Frank

Philippe Sands also sees the threat of “climate change” as so pervasive and so powerful as to transcend national sovereignty and to dissolve it. He takes the IPCC declarations of human causality and clear impeding disaster at full face value. The self-interest of free societies can not be allowed to delay action. He declares free societies to be merely “territorially defined areas over which states are said to have sovereignty.
US, UK, Australia? Not countries, just opinions. So says Philippe Sands. Opinions that must be set aside in favor of a supervening authority that can address the gigantic problem of “climate change.”
These declarations are his superhighway to aggregation and assertion of power over states and peoples.
He says that climate change arises from “every aspect of human activity“– meaning its critical amelioration requires power to regulate every aspect of human activity.
If there was ever a recipe and road map to utter totalitarianism, Philippe Sands has outlined it in his speech. And he desires it. I’m sure he’s never felt so motivated or so positive, what with righteousness so sweet and the promise of power so tantalizingly and close.
I doubt he could dispassionately assess the IPCC’s declarations even if the means were spoon-fed to him. Accepting the IPCC at face value is just too seductive a dish for him.
The guy’s not just an idiot. He’s a dangerous idiot; advising in carefully chosen words and with plummy accents crimes against humanity to an assembly of approving co-conspirators.

Pamela Gray

Still boring. I wanted to hit the fast forward button just to be able to overcome the slow pedantic pace of the speakers. It was a ridiculous speech, rambling here and there, followed by an even slower powder head who was asked to comment. Yes it was filled with unschooled spin on climate and had the same meant ending as a more graphic video: blow humans up. But instead of a button under the desk, they damn near did it to me with the stuffy awful presentation style.

Actually, about half the questions are not much more complicated than “Yes/No”. As for the remainder, I am asking only for information that, if the conference was indeed held at the “Supreme” Court, is already held on file.
The correct procedure is to ask for everything you need, and that is what I have done. They know that if they don’t give it to me now they’ll have to disclose it on discovery in the judicial review.
As many evasive government departments have learned to their cost, if they reject a single request for information such as mine they are likely to receive requests from a couple of dozen citizens, each asking one question. Then they have to reply to every question (or think of a different excuse to conceal the information about what they have been up to).

Billy Liar

They must have had too much port one night and thought it was a good idea.


And next?
The Crown Prosecution Service/CPS, Gov. U.K.
‘Misconduct in Public Office’
This webpage explains what Misconduct in Office is and what the penalty can be in the U.K.


Where is a man like Cromwell when you need him? Whip this fascist Supreme Court back to the law and beholden to the people and the scales of justice…

It may be “boring” – but this does not mean we can afford to be complacent just because we have a short attention span.
It is this inability of the many to pay close attention to the detail that allows the highly dangerous few to get away with what they do.


At present, there is a major lawsuit before an Ontario, Canada court where the allegation is misfeasance in office by government officials which involves a proposed off-shore wind project.
This case has been in the Ontario news media. Started out as ~ $2 billion but is down to $500 million at last news report.
Located a couple of other misfeasance cases in Canada but don’t appear to be major cases.


re NEWS, Oct.9, 2015
‘Ontario denies Trillium trickery’
Allegation is “misfeasance in public office”.
Case to go to pre-trial in a few more months if a settlement is not reached.
Case involves a Great Lakes off-shore planned wind project.
Internet search reveals that there have been other cases of “misfeasance in office” before the Canadian courts prior to the above case.


That’s what I thought too, Pamela, but just after 12:00 minutes (as I was about to turn it off) Phillipe Sands really goes on to plumb new depths.


OK, yes I agree – it is really boring, actually. Sorry.


They WANT you to turn it off. Hat of to Moncton to pursue this, tenacity is a Brit’s biggest asset, Thanks. ( laziness seems to be rampant in the rest of the west, we got everything we want and sc.w the rest attitude).


That’s exactly how these things are planned. Bore ‘ordinary’ people out of the meeting.
A long time ago a hard left local politician (very successful and one I would have voted for) explained the ‘system’ to me.
(paraphrasing) You call a meeting and invite everyone and his Dog. Meeting is quorate.
You place all the most boring stuff on the early ‘shift’ and gradually ‘dispose’ of everyone and his Dog via boredom.
When they have all gone home you whip out the real agenda and you and your allies vote it all through.
If the rules of ‘the club’ are phrased correctly then meeting must be quorate but the rules should say nothing about the final vote being quorate. Job done.
Of course they have to be increasingly more inventive since the advent of the cheap video cameras and youtube. Nothing that can’t be dealt with though.

Bob Lyman

I would assume that, if the Supreme Court grants disclosure and the evidence proves illegal or prejudicial actions on the part of some or all Justices, legal action will follow. I hope that Viscount Monckton will establish a fund to which supporters may contribute to support such legal action.


I don’t believe that there a suggestion of anything ‘illegal’ going on here. Simply a point that at least one ‘Justice’, and possibly more, cannot be relied upon to neutrally hear any case involving certain matters.
And a that seems to be a reasonable set of questions aimed at establishing the point in question.
Here in Britain we don’t have a Constitution, our legal system is (primarily) built upon layers of prior decisions (as I understand it). There could be, for example, a 13C decision of (appeal panel) ‘Judges’ that the brother in law of the King should never have been allowed to oversee a case against the King (and find in his favour).
The 13C case may have involved eg a land dispute but the decision of the appeal Judges back then may have relevance today if Lord Carnwath were to hear a case brought by environmentalists and it were obvious that he would have a bias toward finding for one party in any case presented to him.
There is nothing ‘illegal’ going on in the youtube video. Any information CM might get though may be useful in any appeal of a decision made by Lord Carnwath, and potentially others, when it comes to matters environmental .


Why would any Supreme Court host a one sided ” lecture ” about anything ????


Because they may have been led to believe that there is only one side (that crappy 97% lie), I would say.


Um, Doesn’t a court need ” evidence ” from both sides, before making judgement ????


@Marcus, yes, if they are aware that another side exists.

Pat Frank

Philippe Sands, in his speech, talks of highly qualified scientists who have views contrary to the declarations of the IPCC.
The Honorable Sands then speaks forthrightly about the courts having a role to “finally scotching those claims“. As though he just knows those contrary claims are incorrect.
But of course, he knows no such thing. Scotching those claims and squashing those scientists is merely necessary to remove a possible roadblock to Philippe Sands assuming totalitarian power of the moral good.
Philippe Sands’ view is entirely irrational. As noted above, he’s highly intelligent, completely logical (given his assumptions), and not sane.

Pat Frank

Philippe Sands says that the single most important thing the International Court could do is “to settle scientific disputes.” (minute 40:45) If there was ever a signal of real insanity, that’s it.
Scientists, well-trained in their own field, cannot settle on-going scientific disputes. Only data and theory can settle scientific disputes. They have always (eventually) done so. There is no other avenue.
And yet, here we have Philippe Sands supposing that people such as himself, completely untrained in any aspect of science, unable to evaluate a quantitative argument, unable to ask the right questions or to know which are the right answers, should have the power to sit in judgement over disputatious scientists and to decide scientific questions.
He’s barking mad.
Philippe Sands displays the hubris of the classical Greek anti-hero; the overweening personal arrogance that that presages utter disaster.


The Supreme Court case that permitted the outlawing of sawed off shot guns, the defendant had died just a few months prior, but the state decided to continue with the case. As a result, only the state presented evidence, there was no one to represent the defendant. The state made the claim that sawed off shot guns were not necessary for the functioning of militia units and thus could be banned. (The fact that sawed off shot guns had been used extensively during the trench warfare of WWI which had ended just a few years prior, not withstanding.)


Pat Frank
Philippe Sands says that the single most important thing the International Court could do is “to settle scientific disputes.” (minute 40:45) If there was ever a signal of real insanity, that’s it.

This is exactly the point concerning Courts and Science. These people have become so desperate, with Paris coming up, that they are more than willing to sacrifice ‘Science’ for their ‘new world order’. I find it incredible that so called ‘Scientists’ are so willing to have their future endeavours governed by Court decisions.
They have no idea what the longer term implications of their current proposals have for ‘Science’ in the longer term.
Legally defined ‘truth’?
I can guarantee that any air breathing Physicist will not bet his home and pension on some gamble that says that nothing, in Physics, will change in the next twenty years. So how would any Physicist accept a decision that his/her research should be governed by a Court ruling.
‘Climate Science’ will have a lot to answer for soon and it won’t be pretty. Gambling the entire future of ‘science’ to obtain immediate political outcomes is going to backfire big time. People will not distinguish one area of Science from another – the whole lot will come down.

Pat Frank

MarkW, I’m not a big fan of guns, but am even less a fan of armed executive power. So, I’ve thought about the 2nd Amendment a bit, and realized the whole issue of guns can be clarified by asking oneself where the government itself gets the power to arm its representatives (the military, and the various domestic enforcement branches).
The answer, of course, is that the government’s power to arm itself derives from the same place as all the other powers of the US government: from the people. The Constitution describes powers given by the people to the government. The people and the states retain all rights and powers not surrendered to the government (Amendments IX and X). No article of the Constitution surrenders the right of people to bear arms to the government.
Once this is realized, the intent of the Second Amendment is clear. Its intent is not to permit arms intended for militias. Its intent is to clearly state that the right of the people to bear arms is not yielded at all. An armed populace necessarily can provide a militia. So says the Second Amendment. Militias are citizens self-organized for the defense of their own freedom, with the threat not necessarily restricted to foreign invasion.
The appearance of these baby climate Torquemadas in government shows me the wisdom of that position.
The Supreme Court’s focus on the militia clause as a limit on the right to bear arms has obviously suborned the Constitution. It’s no more than a power grab.
And for those who want to ban guns because of the deaths of innocents, in 2012, about 1100 children between the ages of 1-14 died violent deaths in automobile accidents. (307 kB pdf). That’s about 3 mangled kids per day, every day, all year long. Twenty-one per week, every week.
In comparison, the CDC records 192 children ages 1-15 dying of gun-related homicide in 2013 (Table 10 here (1.3 MB pdf). More about premature deaths here.
We can all agree that every single murder of a child is horrid, disgusting, terrible, and unforgivable. But for anyone passionate about banning guns on account of the children, if you’re not much more passionate about banning cars then you’re not really passionate about the violent deaths of children. You’re just sublimating your passionate opposition to an armed populace.
As a pragmatist, I understand there are horrid local consequences from individual gun ownership (there are horrid local consequences from car ownership), but the larger consequence of a cautious government is a greater and off-setting good; especially in light of the 20th century lesson of governmental mass murder.
Again, I’m not a fan of guns, and I don’t want to spark nonsense arguments about whether the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment means individuals can possess nuclear weapons. But an armed and dangerous population really is the final check on government oppression.
The US government is armed to the teeth. And it’s not the military I worry about but all the paramilitary groups of the executive branch. Unlike war, armed domestic oppression won’t need an act of Congress. I’ll be in favor of a disarmed populace when the world is safe enough for a disarmed government.

Pat Frank,
Well thought out comment. Very good.
The government is not being honest in the least. There is only one reason they want to disarm the citizenry: power.
Every dictatorship in modern history has taken the step of confiscating guns from its citizens. After it does that, it’s smooth sailing.

D.J. Hawkins

By extension, it could be argued that any state that bans the possession of .50 caliber BMG rifles is in violation of the Constitution, since those weapons have a very clear military use. Me, I’ve got my eye on a fully functional M1A1 Abrams…

Evan Jones

I really do honestly believe they believe the things they believe. I think thy are wrong. They are often quite arrogant, and that is wrong, too (as well as misguided). I say this as an “official member” of the “97% Club”, having co-authored a paper that acknowledges global warming, and a as confirmed skeptic (until and unless, of course, the known facts change).


I don’t think that it matters much what one believes.
Are you willing to see ‘belief’ enforced as ‘science’ (‘science’ = ‘fact’ apparently) by a court of law?
That is where this, in my view, is heading and when it collapses where will this leave all ‘science’?
Are we are to have (UK cat-food advert) “90% of Cats prefer our brand” settled as fact by a court of law?
Must be true if 90% of Cats and a Judge say it is. Who am I to argue differently?

Evan Jones

Certainly not. The political abuse is obvious. But I don’t think sincerity is irrelevant when one is trying to combat these things.

Greg Cavanagh

That’s the thing 3×2; by law your not allowed to argue it.

John Peter

I was under the impression that the Suprime Court was for the whole of The United Kingdom and not onlly England and Wales. I think Lord Monkton has got this one wrong. Apart from that it is excellent. Await the reply (if any) bated breath.


The ” judges ” on the panel were from India, Australia and other non U.K. countries !!!! What right do they have to sit in those chairs ?????


Scotland has it’s own judicial system. The Supreme Court is supreme in Scotland for civil matters only. Others matters (in Scotland) are handled by The High Court of Justiciary

Brett Keane


Smart Rock

John, Peter – I noticed that too and I wonder if they will use that tiny error as a cause to reject his request. If there’s any truth in this appalling allegation (I mean an allegation of appalling misconduct), they will be very defensive and use any excuse yo delay and deny.


Then Lord Mockton amends the request and re-files it.

In Scotland we are so jealous of our legal system, which is light-years ahead of the UK’s, that we do not really recognize the “Supreme” Court, so we tend to refer to it as the “Supreme” Court of England and Wales. They cannot reject or delay my request for information on the ground that I do not call them what they would like to be called. They must produce either the information or proper reasons why it should not be provided.

Terry Bixler

As always Thank you.


Well done!

David L. Hagen

The right of petition: Use it – or lose it
Monckton’s FOIA exercises the

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal

(for Redress of Grievances).

. . .And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

as preserved in the (English) Bill of Rights (1689). These were codified in the Magna Carta (1215) Sect 61.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. – See more at:

These ground the US 1st Amendment’s legal right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Exercise these rights, lest we lose them. See:
Shall Make No Law Abridging …: An Analysis of the Neglected, but Nearly Absolute, Right of Petition Norman B. Smith, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1153 (1985-1986)


That is all fair enough excepting that, in this case, it seems that the very people that should be judging any future case have already sacrificed any semblance of neutrality.
This wouldn’t matter too much if we had a Supreme Court with which to finally settle our grievances but … This is our Supreme Court!
Truly dangerous when one gets to see the (UK) real people behind the curtain. Supreme Court, The RS, The BBC … All of them so convinced (much against the actual data) that they can use their power to promote ‘the cause’. This will not end well.

David L. Hagen

When the Supreme Court itself is unjust, We the People must resort to nullifying unjust law = recognizing that what is unjust is no law. See:
Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges 

The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.
The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional—and sound—methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity—one that abused the moral concept of human dignity. . . .
Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.
In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”   . . . We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. . . .

So in the UK, unjust law and rulings contrary to data, common sense and the scientific method, must be recognized as such and actively considered null and void by citizens and all officers sworn to uphold the constitution.


So in the UK, unjust law and rulings contrary to data, common sense and the scientific method, must be recognized as such and actively considered null and void by citizens and all officers sworn to uphold the constitution.

Firstly … The UK doesn’t have a Constitution and so we can’t uphold one.
The second… The only people able to make final decisions (UK wise) on any legal matter are the very people in the video. This means that, even if we did have a constitution, these would be the very people charged with upholding it.

David L. Hagen

3×2 Many would disagree with you. e.g. “The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis
By Peter Leyland” “Constitutional Documents of the United Kingdom 1782 – 1835 ” “Winston Churchill and the British Constitution” etc. etc. Re: “only people able to make final decisions (UK wise) on any legal matter” Not so. Archbishop Stephen Langton rallied the Barons, putting them under oath to restore the rule of law in England. He led drafting the Magna Carta and they require King John to sign it. That began with “+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.” Similar ending. When the Seven Bishops petitioned for redress over the King’s edict, they were jailed, then the Jury found them not guilty. Parliament then confirmed the right to petition in the Bill of Rights (1689). So both Lords and Commoners have interpreted/restored the Rule of Law, and nullified unjust acts by the King. Learn and exercise your unalienable rights and the UK’s Constitution.


3×2 Many would disagree with you. e.g. “The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis

I can promise you that The UK does not have a ‘Constitution’. Simply point me to The UK Constitution. I will then apologise to you below. (hint … don’t waste your valuable time searching for one)
This is a mistake that many on-line UK citizens make. They talk about their ‘right’ to xyz as though they are in The US. The UK does not have a constitution and so UK citizens have no ‘right’ to eg ‘free speech’.
The UK constitution is a myth and I defy you to point to where “The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis By Peter Leyland” actually points you to a ‘Constitution’ that can be ‘analysed’.
“(3×2..) Many would disagree with you”. Well opinions, like arse-holes, are something everyone has but not one of them will be able to point me to the UK Constitution. It doesn’t exist.

David L. Hagen

3×2 By definition, you have “rights” per the (English) Bill of Rights (1689). <a href=
On the UK’s constitution, Winston Churchill himself explained:

Although we have a free, flexible Constitution at the centre and for the centre of the Empire, nothing is more rigid than the established practice–namely, that we claim no powers to interfere with the affairs of its self-governing component parts.

Your assertions but reveal your ignorance. Dig deeper. Study harder. Learn wisdom.


I wonder how quick they can get an arrest warrant for Climate Change ???? After all , that is what they are trying to stop after 4 billion years of rampaging across the poor , helpless Earth !!! !!

King Cnut was only doing it to demonstrate how ridiculous it was. It only takes one idiot with influence to miss the point though and soon were all doing it.


King Canute sat down by the sea,
Up came the tide and away went he.
I, too, grew up with the version of Canute, the humble, wise king.
I grew up believing that rust causes tetanus, also.
“Grew up” is just a turn of phrase.

Tabberr Bottomley

With the new European Arrest Warrant it can be executed anywhere the outer edges of the EU within hours of being requested from any local court.

Ben Palmer

Dare I hold my breath?

“sine qua non”
The word I think you meant is the vulgar meaning of “sinus”.

Thank you for all your efforts, Lord Monckton.


I think they ought to consider the Dark Matter problem as well.
If they could rule on that it will allow physicists to move on to something new and save a lot of money.

Good man! May your request succeed in every way possible.


Always thankful to Lord Monckton for his efforts to denounce what has to be denounced. However in this case, while some of the questions possed definitely merit a request of information under the FOIA… were that many questions needed? I don’t think that we need a reply for a good number of them, the truth is evident. Why is it needed that they officially confirm what can already be proven easily? Why do we need them to confess that they did what we can already prove that they did? Is it some sort of frightening strategy, where the very number of questions is supposed to scare the person being asked?
I love Lord Monckton’s retoric, his use of the language, but on this one occasion it looks like some of the things were written just for the pure joy of reading them later, and not for any practical objective.


You must ask for everything in writing because liberal eco-terrorists will deny even the most obvious ( like natural climate change ) !!!!

Evan Jones

Ya, him be well spoke.

In response to Nylo, the evidential standard for a judicial review proceeding is high, and it is a simple matter for the “Supreme” Court to confirm whether the record that is publicly available is official, complete, and accurate. If it is accurate, the “Supreme” Court is in deep trouble.

If they are proved to have lied, aren’t they in even deeper trouble?


If they are proved to have lied, aren’t they in even deeper trouble?
As I have said elsewhere, this isn’t about lies. This is about obtaining a simple confirmation that one or more high level UK judges cannot be relied upon to make an impartial decision in certain cases given their previous recorded statements.
I don’t know exactly how this would work under The US judicial system but I suspect it would be very similar.
You couldn’t have Nixon’s brother-in-law judging a case against Nixon. It would leave every critic with a gaping hole to exploit. The Judge must, if we are to believe in the neutrality of the law, withdraw from any Nixon related case.
Same here but for ‘environmental’ cases and Judge A (possibly C,F and G too).


Thanks Lord Monckton for the reply. I totally agree that it is mandatory to confirm that the record publicly available is official, complete and accurate. Just to clarify, I was more referring to questions like number 12:
12. Please state whether a person named as “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Also, given that question 5 already asks for “a complete list of all participants in the conference, indicating all who spoke, with all records of their remarks and all transcripts of the proceedings“, and that question 3 already asks for confirmation “that the video of part of the Supreme Court’s propaganda event at is a complete and accurate record of the segment of the event that it purports to cover“, then why the need of questions 16 through 18 for confirmation that some comments known to be made by Lord Carnwath or Philippe Sands QC were actually made.
Best regards.

Monckton of Brenchley

I have already answered Nylo. The evidential standard in the UK courts is high. I have asked the questions that will generate the information I need.


Thank you.


Lord Monckton,
The loss of the Citizens Grand Jury in the U.K and elsewhere, except the U.S., which could keep government corruption in check was a severe blow to freedom, IMO. It stood for about a thousand years to protect the people from government corruption.
Citizens Grand Jury not much used now in the U.S. but at least it is still included in U.S. law.

Evan Jones

My only objections to his lordship are on the occasions when he cannot (or will not) resist heaping scorn on those who heap scorn on him (and, yeah, I know, they heaped first). But having said that, I respect his courage and tenacity. I tend not to delve into the politics of all this, however (and I have an Ivy League MA in what amounts to power politics). The scientific community will eventually answer this, and the politics, writ large, will follow on (or just drift off) as they always do (the beastly little horrors).
But regardless of the spitballing over factors of his model, he is going about it right — using a top-down approach that can be expanded or altered simply and clearly. (I could say the same for the Lewis/Curry model.) That is a critical step in the right direction. The CMIP3\5 stuff is a black box full of incomprehensible mush.


What is CMIP3\5 ??


Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
CIMP 5 is used by UNEP IPCC AR4.

TonyL, a minor correction. CMIP3 was used for AR4. CMIP5 was used for AR5. I have no clue why the 3/4 labeling discrepancy compared to 5. Just is.


a very dangerous precedent. lawyers and judges seeking to use the courts to enforce their belief systems.
Why not use the international courts to decide if God exists or if it will rain tomorrow? How is that any different than deciding what may or may not happen to climate in the future?
Tell us Philippe Sands QC, where does the International Court stand on the question of the existence of God? Can the courts tell us if it will rain tomorrow? Yet the courts can be very sure the climate will warm due to humans, and that warming will be harmful, beyond that standard of legal doubt!!
Utter rubbish. The court has no idea what will happen tomorrow, which is why a fundamental pillar of justice is that you cannot claim damages for what might happen, only what did happen. With a stroke of the pen our learned judges, sworn to uphold our freedoms are instead seeking to help enslave us, in return for their 30 pieces of silver.
The Betrayal by Judas is mild in comparison. Our ancestors that fought and died for our freedoms are turning over in their graves.



Correction ..What is ” proven ” to have caused damage !! I would love to see Glo.Bull Warming alarmists prove their ideas in a U.S. court of law ..

Glo.Bull Warming alarmists prove their ideas in a U.S. court of law
you start by finding the right judge…

Russ Wood

Yeah, well – see the ongoing saga (an old Lancashire word for rice pudding)* of Michael Mann vs the irrepressible Mark Steyn. It seems that in the US, you can try to drag out any undesirable attempt to get at the truth.
*Sorry, but I got that from a Mike Harding track…

D.J. Hawkins

Already happened. How do you think the EPA now has the power to regulate CO2 emissions?

They’ve reduced the law to fortune telling. Idiots!


Tell us Philippe Sands QC, where does the International Court stand on the question of the existence of God?
Unfortunately I don’t think that those calling for legal sanctions have actually thought that far ahead. It may seem easy and convenient to have a Court rule upon a particular scientific issue right now for immediate political ends but that would end science in the longer run.
How about I use the decision from a ‘global worming’ case in 2016 as a basis to outlaw certain avenues of scientific research come 2017. My case is that they may be potentially dangerous, some scientists agree and the Judge agrees too. Still want to remain silent Mr/Mrs Scientist. See where this is heading?

One could more properly ask “Where does God stand on the question of Sand’s existence before the International Court?”
(Or should that be: “Where does God stand on Sand’s existence before, beside, or in front of anything?”)

Eugene WR Gallun

Nomckton; got to love the guy.
Eugene WR Gallun


Eugene WR Gallun
October 17, 2015 at 10:52 am
“Nomckton; got to love the guy. (sic).” sp. Try Moncton.


Oops!!! Monckton

The pokey-stick sharpened and a jab delivered
– will they ignore or rise to the provocatively delivered bait?
Enough rhetorical devices, veiled insult and legalese in there to set light to a pompous idjit’s fuse – I really hope it works ….
If it does what it’s supposed to – then I can imagine a Parliamentary Bill reinstating Seditious Libel in England appearing quite promptly….
I hope it’s not a damp squib 🙂

If the results of FOI requests made to the BBC by Andrew Montford as detailed in his excellent book “The Propaganda Bureau” are anything to go by the chances of getting any replies to these requests must be pretty close to zero.

Ian W

Gil, you miss the point. If you read the letter Viscount Monckton also informs the Supreme Court that a judicial review is being requested. Any refusal to supply information under FOIA will be evidence to the judicial review of malfeasance and the judicial review will with its own powers request precisely the same information in ‘discovery’. So the standard bureaucratic delaying practices will only become evidence against the members of the Supreme Court at the forthcoming judicial review. A nice Morton’s fork.

Solomon Green

After losing ta Freedom of Information case at the House of Lords (predecessor to the Supreme Court) the BBC found a loophole in the Freedom of Information Act which entitled it to withhold information that it says us required for the purposes of journalism. The Supreme Court would not be able to hide behind the same loophole.
Wkipedia has a good summary of the disgraceful manner in which the BBC hid a report that confirmed its anti-Israel bias.
If ever the BBC commissioned an independent report into its CAGW bias you can guarantee that it would never see the light of day.


Thank you, Lord Monckton. Please continue “Slicing and Dicing”.

Jeff (FL)

Lord Monckton,
Para. 2, first sentence of the letter –
‘However, there remains the probability that the event did not take place and that the YouTube record of it, together with various web links and documents about it, are fake. ‘
Should that not be ‘… remains the possibility …’?

Tabberr Bottomley

Benefit of the doubt old boy & all the more galling for the perpetrators having to insist it did indeed take place.


Berényi Péter

Hilarious. Popcorn time.

I noticed near the beginning a reference to their receipt of a message of encouragement from Charlie Windsor – surely enough for any scientifically-inclined person to be very cautious in accepting anything stated at this “conference”. Does he still talk, I wonder, to the trees? Or wish that he were an article used hygienically by his mistress? No wonder Her Majesty will not contemplate abdication!

Gerry England

You are behind the times – Charles married Camilla years ago.

Yes, poor fellow. But I was referring to the time when his wish came to light, well before the nuptials.


Charles and Camilla, Ugh, but then Charles loves his nature’s animals including 4 legged ones.( I just wonder how many he shot in his younger days on Safaris.)

It doesn't add up...

More on the Sands lecture here:
Note the linked pdf by Guenier analysing the lecture.

Tabberr Bottomley

More of the inimitable rhetoric flowing with more insights right off the cuff, from Lord Monckton’s first reaction over at WND

Iggy Slanter

“The subject that is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise, nor submit to, arbitrary measures.”

Sean P. Chatterton

email sent to:
Dear Sir or Madam
Can I please ask if this is a legitimate “case”?
Can I also ask why is there was no alternative views voiced, considered, or even mentioned?
Best Regards


Can I also ask why is there was no alternative views voiced, considered, or even mentioned?
They (alternative views) were never invited?

Steve Fraser

This could become very interesting to watch being played out. A petition of this content will trigger some response, I think, related to oversight procedures of the judicial, as described at
Watching, and waiting…

complaint form:
Chapter three: Impartiality
3.1 A judge should strive to ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains
and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants, in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
3.2 Because the judge’s primary task and responsibility is to discharge the duties of office, it
follows that a judge should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause
the judge to have to refrain from sitting on a case because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or
because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity.
3.3 A specific application of that principle is that a judge must forego any kind of political activity
and on appointment sever all ties with political parties. An appearance of continuing ties such as
might occur by attendance at political gatherings, political fundraising events or through contribution
to a political party, should be avoided. The need for abstinence also involves not participating in
public demonstrations which, by associating the judge with a political viewpoint or cause, may
diminish his authority as a judge and create in subsequent cases a perception of bias. Where a close
member of a judge’s family is politically active, the judge needs to bear in mind the possibility that, in
some proceedings, that political activity might raise concerns about the judge’s own impartiality and
detachment from the political process.
3.4 Another application of the principle, though one difficult to define and apply in specific
situations, is the expression of views out of court that would give rise to issues of perceived bias or
pre¬judgment in cases that later come before the judge. This question is considered in more detail in
Section 8.2.

Given the nature of the meetings and their publication, it might well be that all UK Judges that attended the meeting were in violation of Chapter three: Impartiality and should be subject to complaint.

Billy Liar

They should all be sacked and more thoughtful judges appointed.

Making a complaint
A complaint to the JCIO must be made within 3 months of the matter complained of. For example if the matter you wish to complain about occured on 10 April 20XX your complaint must reach the JCIO by 9 July 20XX.
A complaint to the JCIO must be made in writing. There are a number of ways that you can send it to us;
Send your complaint to us by post to the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office 81 – 82 Queens building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London, WC2A 2LL
Use the on line complaint form from this website. Please use the button on the left hand side of this page
E Mail your complaint to
Send your complaint by fax to 0207 073 4725.

It would be a serious loss of trust in US legal integrity if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ever was involved a situation (not only just a climate change related situation) like the prima fascia prejudicial actions performed by the Supreme Court of England and Wales. The details of the prima fascia prejudicial actions are outlined by Christopher Monckton in his FOIA NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
Do any commenters on this thread who are keen followers of the detailed history of SCOTUS know of any actions on anything (not on just climate change) by SCOTUS that are as damaging to judicial integrity as the prima fascia prejudicial actions of the Supreme Court of England and Wales? I do not recall any such actions by SCOTUS.

Nor I.
SCOTUS does hold legal process related sessions. I was once the guest of honor at a dinner banquet in the Great Hall (the entrance to the familiar oral argument chamber chamber) at the end of a daylong symposium at the SC organized by the ABA. Justice Clarence Thomas gave me a set of gold SCOTUS cuff links after dinner. A thank you for a years volunteer work with the appellate section of the American Bar Association (state supremes, federal appeals judges only) on vexing civil procedure questions of court jurisdiction and venue in the then just emerging internet/ecommerce/cyberspace era. The symposium was mappiing out possible legal issues and technology perspectives, not providing ‘answers’.
The UK situation appears very different: legal ‘answers’ to non legal questions like AGW.

ristvan on October 17, 2015 at 1:10 pm
– – – – –
Your volunteer activities supporting those legal areas are an interesting resource for you to draw on. Thank you for telling us.
Even if it is true SCOTUS historical hasn’t committed prejudicial actions like the prima fascia prejudicial actions committed by the Supreme Court of England and Wales, still, the common citizen should keep close vigilant observation on SCOTUS in these frantic times of alarmist AGW advocacy.

Agree. And am. The UK thing is just shocking.



Sadly the Just Us institute will blow Monckton off, continuing to practise F.U.D.
By doing so they will add themselves to the long list of government institutions cast into contempt by the CAGW scheme.
The base institutions of civilization are all being undermined from within.
That these “Learned Justices” should be playing with the bloated corruption that is the United Nations IPCC, demonstrates they have learned nothing.
Except contempt and ill will toward the common citizen.
Pretty stupid to expose your bias before you connive to use the courts to further the mass kleptocracy that CAGW is.
As noted by Cheifio ; The F.U factor is rising as the theft grinds all productive parties down, throw in this kind of blatant idiocy by our institutes and another powder keg is pushed toward the flames.
Never ascribe to malice what stupidity will explain?


+ many. ( and thanks for the language/ semantics, priceless).

A very well argued paper on why professor Sands is wrong.


It’s by Robin Guinier. It is very good.
Anthony–how about posting it as a thread here?


Here is an extract from Guinier’s paper:

I . . . refer to the position of one of the “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable” persons to whom Professor Sands refers (Page 14) – and whose views he suggests “the courts could play a part in finally scotching”. From many distinguished candidates I’ve chosen Dr Judith Curry, Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I thought a reference to Dr Curry might be particularly helpful because she has made two presentations this year to US Government committees – presentations that are readily understandable by persons without scientific training.21 The first includes in particular a detailed examination of evidence provided by the most recent IPCC AR5 report – evidence that she believes weakens the case for human factors dominating recent climate change.22
Here’s her summary:
• The science of climate change is not settled, and evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries
• With the 15+ year hiatus in global warming, there is a growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability
• The IPCC AR5 and SREX find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans, and weather extremes in the U.S. were generally worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s than in recent decades.23
The second presentation is more general. Her position is summarised by this extract from her introductory comments:
Scientists agree that surface temperatures have increased since 1880, humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues:
• Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
• How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
• Whether warming is dangerous
And here are two extracts from the conclusion of her second presentation:
There is reason to be concerned about climate change. However, effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions. Uncertainty is a two edged sword; future climate outcomes might be better or worse than currently believed. However, recent research has sharpened the blade of the sword in the direction of less impact from human-caused climate change and greater political and economic infeasibility of meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions. The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. [My emphasis]
Both papers are worth reading in full: they are clearly argued and provide an excellent illustration of how so-called “sceptical” scientists see the climate problem.
her arguments demonstrate that the scientific evidence is not “ever more robust” (see Page 3 of Professor Sands’ text), that “the burden of legal proof, whether it be balance of probabilities, or beyond reasonable doubt, or the [French] standard of ‘conviction intime’” (see his Page 6) is far from being satisfied and that it’s not true that “the room for real doubt has disappeared” (see his Page 15). In my view, if the ICJ were to act on the belief that it had a duty to “play a role in finally scotching” Dr Curry’s and other serious scientists’ views, it would be in danger of appearing rather foolish. But, far worse, it might risk bringing international law into disrepute.


I wonder if the YouTube video has been edited already. I started watching it and in the beginning, the speaker (Lord Carnwath?) is thanking multiple people and organizations, at the 5:28 mark, the audio is suddenly cut when he states an organization for its “key role “… {snipped audio} …. “bank, and to the United Nations…….” .. The audio starts back up at 5:38.. 10 seconds are cut. What “Bank” provided funds to allow the judges to attend this event? Why was their name removed from the audio? Is there a transcript? Would there be a conflict of interest if there is some case before the court?
They state this is a public forum at 00:44, I would hope they would provide all information requested by Lord Monckton.


Well Done Lord Monckton. This is why I always supported Goddard from the very start!. They will only be moved/changed by Legal action. Same goes with the Shukla NSF, NOAA and NASA letters from the Congress (R Lamar Smith)

In defence of tedious speakers.
Well often very important maters were said in a boring manner, as you can see from this example:
WHILE there are many questions in science which have not as yet been by any means satisfactorily cleared up, there is in particular, as you, are well aware, much difficulty and much obscurity attaching to the inquiry with reference to the nature of the climate, an inquiry which is ennobling in the recognition which it affords of the nature of the changes, and also necessary for the regulation of science practices. The opinions of the many great scientists with regard to it conflict and vary to an extent which should be taken as strong evidence that the cause of their doing so is ignorance, and that the academics were wise in refusing to make positive assertions upon uncertain data. Is there anything, indeed, so discreditable as rashness, and is there anything rasher and more unworthy of the dignity and strength of character of a science than the holding of a false opinion, or the unhesitating defence of what has not been grasped and realised with proper thoroughness? In this inquiry, to give an instance of the diversity of opinion, the greater number of authorities have affirmed the existence of the natural changes; it is the most likely conclusion, and one to which we are all led to by the guidance of nature.
The above words (with only half a dozen changed) were spoken about 2050 years ago by Marcus Tullius Cicero.
I’d say very relevant.

Pamela Gray

The website is owned by a Privy group?
That makes sense. Outhouse judges. Full of shit.

Pamela Gray

Make that pedantic, tedious, boringly stuffy shit.


And I always thought that Privy/outhouse was only an expression used by die-hard Rebel Yankees.


You probably read “…They indicate that we have gone well beyond the classical standards on the burden of legal proof, whether it be balance of probabilities, or beyond reasonable doubt, …”
However, they do not state exactly what this “legal proof” is supposed to be! Perhaps you can ask them? I’d love to see some actual evidence that man’s CO2 has caused any of the warming since the LIA, the warming that stopped 2 decades ago.

what this “legal proof” is supposed to be!
he quotes the IPCC as THE authority on such matters. He also mentions the Pope, who stands a beacon of wrongheaded decisions throughout the ages. And not to be outdone, a letter from another pillar of science, the end product of generations of dangerous inbreeding, HRH the Tampon of Wales.


CO2 has gone up. The world has gotten warmer. That’s all the proof they need, want, or are capable of understanding.


There has to e a reason intelligent people consistently lie. I can only conclude Agenda 21.
[No. Now, April 15? That is a reason (for the government) to lie. .mod]

“Hear, hear”…well said, Your Lordship, on behalf of all of us.


There was a gap in the audio, when the name [of] the bank sponsoring this hate-fest was read out. Did everyone else have that lacuna?
Which bank was it? If it was my bank, I will be at their offices next week, and demand to take my overdraft elsewhere……. 😉

The bank was the Asian Development Bank. Keep an eye on WUWT as more details of this scandal unfold.


Oh My. Asian Development Bank is in big for coal fired power in the second/third world. As the fear of AGW makes such investments politically impossible for others, ADB corners the market. So they encourage fear of CAGW in the first world, and the field is wide open for them everywhere else. Their potential clients have nowhere else to turn. Sweet.


Gonna hold you to that.


The Cloud Mystery by Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer…
. . .Best explanation of climate change … IMHO


Thank you Makus for getting this front and centre. We have for 40 years been duped by the UN World Control mob and various Shamans. This video ought to be made compulsory viewing for all those foolish politicians who have been scammed by the Church of Climatology.
Surprised that Lord Monkton seemed unaware of the bona fides of his own legal system and its Supreme Court role in this symposium of rubbish.


For anyone who is interested in the above, “Cloud Mystery” documentary, this has been taken up by Jasper Kirkby, conducting further related experiments at CERN. Physicists are commonly very suspicious of confident assertions regarding “consensus” climate science. Whether they publicly admit it, or not.
So it’s interesting that this research has managed to survive the alarmist takeover of science.


Awesome video !!


I might add to all the comments above that it is not surprising that Phillipe Sands QC is the key witness – he come from MATRIX Chambers.!!.


Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
That is a fine FOI request. Thankyou for providing it and please publicise whatever outcomes result.

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. You are fighting for our freedom.
Really, I see something sinister in the AGW movement, readily embraced by the extreme left.

Professor Head in Sands fails to mention this International Agreement:
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Article 4.7:
“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively
implement their commitments under the Convention … will take
fully into account that economic and social development and
poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the
developing country Parties.”
There is NO LEGAL obligation for developing countries to cut emission so long as there is poverty. The Paris convention would need to put emissions cuts ahead of poverty eradication, economic and social development. This includes China, India, etc. etc. etc.
The developed countries could cut emission to zero. Our economies grind to a halt and we freeze to death in winter. It would be a drop in the bucket. The control of emissions rest with the developing world, not the International Court of Justice.

Cody McHubart

[Fake email address. ~mod.]

Cody M,
You’re off-topic, and you don’t seem to understand that the Supreme Court in question is not anything like the Supreme Court in the U.S.
In the UK it is just an appeals court, and it was only established in 2005. It didn’t even get started until 2009. It was established — get this — because of a lack of transparency.
I won’t bother correcting your misinformation regarding the U.S. election. Wouldn’t do any good anyway, from the tone of your rant. But I am very happy that the SCOTUS ruled properly, and as a result the U.S. avoided an Algore disaster.

[…] the Supreme Court in question is not anything like the Supreme Court in the U.S.
In the UK it is just an appeals court, and it was only established in 2005. It didn’t even get started until 2009.[my bold -hro]

Nor is it anything like the Supreme Court in Canada, for that matter! But that aside, it is indisputably a very new kid on the U.K. “judicial” block. A fact which I believe is worth keeping in mind.
Ostensibly, this Court’s creation lies at the hands of … wait for it … the Chair of the only session of this – supposedly under Chatham House Rules – Conference, which was actually held in the illustrious Chamber, i.e. Lord Cornwath (former official fave of HRH Prince Charles – one who is not known for particularly rational or informed views on “climate change”).
In my respectful view, many of the questions posed by Lord Monckton have already been addressed in the overview provided by the University of Reading’s Prof. Chris Hilson, which he introduced as follows:

The event gathered over 25 academic environmental lawyers, practitioners and judiciary from around the world. Particularly notable was the range of judges present: members of the supreme courts of the UK, Brazil, France and Belgium and judges from the UK, Australia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, the Netherlands and Chile. The Dutch judges from the recent (and already famous) Urgenda ruling were there, and the case generated much discussion. The symposium was hosted by the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, and supported by The UK Supreme Court, HM Government, the Journal of Environmental Law, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme. [my bold -hro]

And if you check Hilson’s bio, background and credentials, I believe you will find that he is far more credible than either Lord Cornwath or the equally ill-informed and very superficial (albeit, perhaps too self-important for anyone’s good … least of all his own), Philippe Sands, Q.C., as I had noted in my own recent post pertaining to this gathering of the great and the good!
Consequently, in the grand scheme of things, I’m not entirely convinced that the questions posed by Lord Monckton, via his FOIA – even if answered – are likely to produce much that will send anyone into a state of “shock and/or awe” 😉
All of the above aside, what I found particularly surprising during the course of my investigations of this very new kid on the U.K. judicial block, was the number of appointees who’ve already made an exit therefrom. See: . But I digress …
Considering the timing, duration – and limited number of participants – it seems to me that any costs that might be uncovered via Lord Monckton’s challenge will pale in comparison to those that are likely to accrue via the sponsors’ respective participation in the credibility-declining-by-the-day forthcoming Grande Gathering in Paris, i.e. the circus known as COP21. IMHO, it is this particular prize upon which we should relentlessly cast our questioning eyes!
I fully appreciate that the mileage of others may vary, but … well .. that’s the view from here 😉

4 eyes

This reminds me of Australia. The High Court has been accused in the past of trying to make laws instead of just interpreting the laws passed by Parliament. Most laws require expert review and input which is normally provided by the public service departments, but these ambitious legal eagles in the UKSC perhaps think that they know enough not to seek expert opinion. More supreme egos living off climate change mantra.