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

Open letter by Monckton of Brenchley
image

Paul Bridgland, Departmental Records Officer paul.bridgland@supremecourt.uk
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square, London
SW1P 3DB 16 October 2015

Sir,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

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.

QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES

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 https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.html 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eef1tK8mtEI 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,

clip_image002

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Advertisements

259 thoughts on “FOIAing the U.K. Supreme Court’s ‘pantomime of hate’ against climate skepticism

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

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • “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”.

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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).

      • 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.

        http://www.renews.biz/95302/ontario-denies-trillium-trickery

        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.

      • 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.

  2. 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 .

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • @MarkW
        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…

    • 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?

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

  3. 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

    • 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.

      • 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.

  4. 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).
    Furthermore:

    . . .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: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation#sthash.57pBhlLL.dpuf

    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.

      • 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.

      • 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. http://bit.ly/1ONSUbs

      • 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.

      • 3×2 By definition, you have “rights” per the (English) Bill of Rights (1689). <a href=http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/what-goods-a-constitution-by-winston-churchill-1874-1965-reprinted-from-the-u-s-constitution-a-reader-published-by-hillsdale-college/#sthash.gcwXHKcY.dpuf
        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.

  5. 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.

    • 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 ) !!!!

    • 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?

        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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eef1tK8mtEI 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 ..

      • 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…

    • 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?”)

  10. 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 :-)

  11. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report

      If ever the BBC commissioned an independent report into its CAGW bias you can guarantee that it would never see the light of day.

  12. 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 …’?

  13. 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!

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

    • Can I also ask why is there was no alternative views voiced, considered, or even mentioned?

      They (alternative views) were never invited?

    • guidelines:
      https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/judicial_conduct_2013.pdf
      complaint form:
      https://webapps.judiciary.gov.uk/JCIO/complaintlink.do

      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.

    • 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 mailto:inbox@jcio.gsi.gov.uk
      Send your complaint by fax to 0207 073 4725.

  15. 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.

    John

    • 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

      – – – – –

      ristvan,

      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.

      John

  16. 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?

    • 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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)

  19. 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.

  20. Chris,
    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.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/professor-sands-lecture-on-climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.pdf

    • 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.

  21. 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]

  22. 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……. ;-)

    R

      • 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.

    • 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.

  23. 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.!!.

  24. Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

    That is a fine FOI request. Thankyou for providing it and please publicise whatever outcomes result.

    Richard

  25. 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 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: https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/former-justices.html . 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 ;-)

  26. 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.

      • Recent unfettered implementations of the decrees from the US Executive branch seem to indicate that the separation of powers was an idea put to sea in a leaky boat.

      • In response to Ric Werme, the courts cannot be questioned on individual cases, but can be questioned under FOIA on administrative matters that have no bearing on any individual case that was or is before them. The “Supreme” Court’s website says words to the effect that it takes its obligation of disclosure seriously. We shall see.

  27. This is getting ridiculous.
    First they ban the import or sale of vacuum cleaners than are over 1600watts.
    And now they are trying to tell me that I can’t annihilate another state using nuclear weapons, even if that state threatens me with total destruction.
    So, what then, is the point of me even having nuclear weapons?
    These people want to spoil everything.
    I’ll give up my 50 megaton thermonuclear warheads, when they prise them from my cold dead hands…

    • Indefatigablefrog should not underestimate the extent to which the British establishment has been marching to the totalitarian far Left in recent decades. Margaret Thatcher halted the drang nach linksten for a time, but now it is in full swing again. Sands is, in all but name, a fasmunist, and he is by no means alone among the London establishment. These are dark days for freedom.

  28. I’m stunned to think that this can even happen in the British legal system. That is:
    “21 September 2015
    Some of the world’s leading judges, lawyers and legal academics met in London last week (17-19 September) for a special three-day symposium on climate change and adjudication, hosted by the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, with the support of The UK Supreme Court, HM Government, the Journal of Environmental Law, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme”.
    My first reaction was ‘WTF”. Unbelievable.

    • “NZPete

      October 17, 2015 at 5:59 pm

      I’m stunned to think that this can even happen in the British legal system.”

      No surprise to me as you correctly state a *legal* system. There is no justice system in the KU. Same is true in New Zealand when I used to do work for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), laughable. There was no justice. I even implemented an application for MoJ called “Collect”. The last deployment, in about 2004, would stop anyone at the border owning fines etc from leaving the country.

      • I have seen some e-mail content (Used to work for the company that viewed/approved email from MoJ users to the outside world) of “Judges” and “Telecom NZ” employees. Not a great use of taxpayer funded technology systems IMO, but then again, no-one was ever brought to answer.

  29. I fear they (the Supreme Court) is not on Schedule 1 or are they part of the Ministry of Justice, a department of the government?
    But if they are then they must reply.
    And the timeline is how fast?

    And I wonder, it they denied or withhold, it can be appealed but is not the final arbitrar the Supreme Court itself?

    • Even if this Court doesn’t reply to FOIAs, Misconduct in Office could still apply in this situation?

      And QCs are Officers of the Court and subject to legal sanctions?

      • Wilful misfeasance in a public office is one of the ancient pleas of the Crown. It is still used quite frequently against corrupt civil servants. The difficulty is that is an offense, like treason, that really depends on having the support of the government of the day. Unfortunately, except for UKIP, the parties in Parliament are no better educated on climate than elsewhere in the world. So the courts, sensing the political wind, would not find anyone guilty of the self-evident misfeasance that has occurred.

    • The Court has now acknowledged my request. It is indeed subject to the grim “Ministry of Justice” (o for the kindlier days of the Lord Chancellor’s Department). So it is obliged to reply substantively within three weeks.

  30. Thanks Christopher for your untiring work. Unfortunately I think we have arrived at the point where the white-anters of western civilisation know that they have so many of their number in key roles that they are now brazenly ignoring all rules that distinguish us from from insider/outsider based tribal societies. Take it to court? They simply issue the unjust ruling, knowingly, brazenly, with the merest flimflam of cover for their malfeasance. Scientists measure things, and when the data doesn’t support the theory, they change it. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it. But the white-anters in the press don’t report it and appeals to university authorities are simply dismissed, knowingly of the fact that the appeal was correct.
    The American EPA issues absurd rulings, NOAA laugh themselves sick at their brazen dishonesty in making UHI into a cooling influence. And so on. It’s going to take something massive to change course now.

  31. Maybe this has already been addressed; there was too much irrelevant stuff for me to read everything but, while I don’t know the rules in the U.K.
    asking questions is a certain route to automatic failure in U.S. FOIA requests. All one can ask for are existing documents, something that already exists in written (or electronic) form. You then have to decide whether it provides any useful information or answers any questions you might have. Also, in general, if one isn’t specific enough in identifying the requested documents, the response will be, at best, some version of “nothing found”.

    • The “Supreme” Court will, no doubt, try to wriggle like the stuck pig it is, but it will wriggle in vain. I am fully entitled to ask whether the published documents and videos relating to the pantomime of hate are genuine, and the “Supreme” Court is fully obliged by law to reply, and to supply all of the documents in connection with this partisan political rally that I have requested. If they do not supply all that I have asked for, others will no doubt go on asking for it until we get it. If they hold out against all of us, we shall go in the first instance to the Information Commissioner, not with any hope of success (for the Kommissar sees it as his job to defend other public institutions from being required to comply with the Act, and all too often refuses to order them to comply, often with little or no justification for his finding) but because we cannot seek judicial review of the “Supreme” Court’s misfeasance until we have exhausted all ordinary remedies available to us.

  32. Hi Lord M
    I would have thought that Justice Carwath could be seriously in breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

    • Richo is right. It is for our European masters (alas) to make our laws on climate and environment matters. The unelected Kommissars have the sole right to propose (and hence not to propose) legislation in this field. The UK Parliament is a mere rubber stamp. The “Supreme” Court has no role in making the law. But its graver sin is its collective abandonment, on the climate issue, of its statutory obligation, reinforced by generations of case law, of strict impartiality and neutrality on current questions of political controversy. It may not decide, without a hearing and cross-examination, that the IPCC – merely because it expresses its conclusions without expressing the uncertainty that true science mandates – must be right; that those of us who publish in the reviewed journals and come to a different conclusion must be wrong; and that, because the “Supreme” Court has publicly adopted an aprioristic and partisan position on the climate, it must, in Sands’ repellent words, “scotch” the scientific “claims” of those of us whom he acknowledges to be “scientifically qualified and knowledgeable”. That is monstrous. It is a flagrant breach of impartiality, and of due legal process. The High Court cannot but express its dismay that the Supreme Court continues to fail to distance itself latae sententiae from publicly-expressed prejudices such as these – prejudices which any competent judicial hearing would be bound to expose as unfounded in science, logic or reason.

      The “Supreme” Court has made a collective ass of itself, and may yet not survive its error, for it has been so very tardy in correcting it.

  33. Pat Frank October 17, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    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.

    Indeed. However, it is not only his private opinion, but by extension, that of the British government. That’s because Philippe Sands was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2003, at a time when final recommendations were made by the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Government. So it’s not only about being entitled to wear a silk gown of a particular design.

  34. A body that could have adjudicated the AGW dispute was the inquiry set up by the American Physical Society (APS) for its 5-year position statement, with an overseer hearing arguments by three-person teams from both sides. It was shut down by the warmists in APS headquarters because the contrarians’ arguments looked to be more persuasive.

    Another body that could help sift and evaluate the evidence would be a “Science court” that would give the advocates of marginalized interpretations an opportunity to lay out their cases in full, including full rebuttals of criticisms of their interpretation. Just forcing the consensus to see their argument laid out in full in a single place would be an enormous benefit to dispute resolution. An additional virtue of this procedure would be the pressure in such a high-mined and scientific venue to avoid cheap-shot point-scoring and flimsy but superficially persuasive claims. A science court would not need to “rule” this way or that–it would instead usually issue waffling summaries of how much it was impressed by each of the claims. IOW, it could say that it was on the fence about some, 75% persuaded on another, etc. And it would have no legal authority. It would just be a way for science to thrash out debatable issues in a more coherent and fair way than it does now.
    ———-

    BTW, I’ve just quoted a long extract from Robin Guinier’s delicious critique of Sands upthread, at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/17/foiaing-the-u-k-supreme-courts-pantomime-of-hate-against-climate-skepticism/#comment-2051573

    • PS: The judges or juries in science courts would be scientists. They would have no legal standing. If they existed some of the wrongheaded and embarrassing-to-science flubs by majoritarian dogmatics (e.g., about nutrition) would have been corrected earlier. Science’s current procedures prevent it from being self-correcting soon enough and thoroughly enough.

  35. Linked over to John Redwoods site and Roger Helmer shortly.

    Wasn’t there some words from Sands referring to “scotching skeptical speak” during this proceeding? Not mentioned in published document.

    Thank You Lord Monckton (hope the SNP aren’t make life too unbearable up there)

    • Colin will find Sands’ actual quotation about “scotching” in the FOIA questions. He imprudently ad-libbed at that point, departing revealingly from his script.

      As for the SNP, which displays increasingly Fascist tendencies (it has nationalized most of the fishing waters and is about to nationalize the great estates; it has centralized the police force, with disastrous consequences; and it has in every way greatly increased the power and reduced the accountability of central government; it has menaced those, however senior, who cast public doubt upon its policies; and it has wrecked the beautiful landscape of the Highlands with eagle-killing windmills), my lovely wife and I have decided to get out of Scotland before They close the border. We saw the way things were drifting some years ago and sold most of our Scottish estate (right at the top of the market, before others had noticed). Now there are hundreds of country houses for sale at ridiculously now prices, and no one wants them.

      We were going to build a fine Classical cottage in the manner of a rustic Doric temple by the shore of Loch Rannoch, where we have kept a quarter-mile of our frontage, but, with heavy hearts, we are going while the going is good. And we are by no means the only ones. One of our neighbors, Angus Macdonald, a successful businessman, has an agonized message on his Facebook page saying that he, too, is getting out while the border is still open. The exodus of all the talents is gathering pace. Finance houses that made Edinburgh prosperous are packing up and getting out. Every business that does not depend on being in Scotland and is viable elsewhere is escaping. Our beloved Scotland has become an alien land, where we do not think it safe to stay.

      I am liquidating our remaining assets in Scotland over the next year or so, and then we shall be gone.

      • Interesting and perhaps at some point later you might be tempted to write a fuller account somewhere.

        I have heard similar reports from a company in NE Scotland that I have done quite a lot of work for in the past. The founder suggests that he is selling up too. For much the same reasons as yourself. Unfortunately some 400 jobs will disappear as fast as he does. Go SNP.

      • In reply to 3×2, it does not in the least surprise me that he has heard of firms getting out of Scotland before They close the border and the new Iron Curtain goes up. What is interesting is that there is practically no movement the other way. There is a widespread realization that the SNP are economically illiterate and politically vicious and extreme. The police have been monitoring a Communist cell active right at the heart of the SNP and indulged by its far-Left leadership, that has been committing violence against all who dare to oppose the New Order. Not a word in the media, of course: they can’t flit from Scotland, so they are toeing the dictatorship’s line.

        During the referendum campaign, anyone who displayed Vote No posters had them torn down, or had his windows smashed, his walls daubed or his garden trampled. We were getting reports of this from all parts of Scotland. Not a word in the media, and the police were powerless against the violence. These are very nasty people indeed, whose support comes from the enormous number of welfare recipients in Scotland, to whom they have made extravagant promises that they will not be able to fulfil once Scotland leaves the Union. In the meantime, the EU has been secretly bankrolling the SNP as a way of breaking up its biggest opponent, the United Kingdom. Our politicians are largely unaware of all this, and, alarmingly, most of them would do nothing about it even if they knew. Thus does Fascism re-emerge.

      • Sturgeon last week issued all the wild babble I would need to depart Scotland if I had business based there. No detail of course, just vote me, vote me. As English I don’t think it would be good to live there anyway having witnessed some family SNP nastiness ? Not everybody is anti I know.

        The BBC yesterday highlighted the problem of prawn fishing (creeling/trawling) around the Scottish Isles. Not good at all and highlights all the fishing problems around UK. I see Trump still fighting over windmills in sight of his golf course. If I were him I’d not bother. As with UK steel/aluminium/energy..not bothered are they?

        I wish you well and hope you remain on the campaign to kill off the minority useful gas madness. I’m sure we’ll die off from lack of oxygen before any frying takes place.

      • Sorry but the reply system doesn’t allow me to reply to your reply (if you see what I mean)

        These are very nasty people indeed, whose support comes from the enormous number of welfare recipients in Scotland, to whom they have made extravagant promises that they will not be able to fulfil once Scotland leaves the Union.

        The problem for now is that the SNP can deliver pretty much any promise. They are funded from a central kitty (The UK/EU). As you say, this will all change should Scotland leave, or be thrown out of, ‘The Union’. Populism personified.

        The company I alluded to earlier are, bit by bit, already moving their operations. They see the way the wind is blowing. I couldn’t believe, working up there for a couple of months on and off, just how much hatred there was for “The English”. I’m talking about walking into a Pub that goes silent as soon as they recognise your accent. It’s a little like being a black man in Alabama circa 1960. Suddenly you understand racism. I left the Pub clutching my house keys in one hand and my car keys in the other. Never been so glad to see my Hotel. (never went back even with healthy amounts of cash being thrown into the mix)

  36. If his eminence wished to confirm the presence of Lord Carnwath, he need only to have read an article at WND (https://archive.is/3kzHN) which confirms his attendance. Perhaps Lord Monckton might ask the writer of that piece how he knew of the other peer’s presence. The writer can easily be contacted. His name is Christopher Monckton.

    • I am grateful to Margaret Hardman for her helpful reference. However, the evidential standard for a judicial review proceeding is higher than that for a journalistic commentary. I need the confirmation of the “Supreme” Court that the video and other materials linked from what appears to be the “Supreme” Court’s website are indeed genuine.

      • Odd that you state a truth without having checked it first. Surely fact checking is lesson one at journalist college. I presume you will issue a correct on WND to let the readers there know that you did not actually know who attended the meeting, or indeed if it ever happened.

      • I need the confirmation of the “Supreme” Court that the video and other materials linked from what appears to be the “Supreme” Court’s website are indeed genuine.

        Leave it to Margaret Hardman to deflect from that.

      • In reply to dbstealey, I’m not deflecting from that. I don’t care whether anyone questions the clear statement of the Supreme Court. I care that one day they accept what they have been told, then they don’t. I rather think you are trying to cover your friend’s six.

      • Margaret Hardman does herself no favors by descending to pettiness. She is not familiar with the British judicial system, and she will not, therefore, appreciate that, though it is pardonable for me in a journalistic article to cite a YouTube video that gives every appearance of being a genuine link from the “Supreme” Court’s own website, a judge of the High Court will require a higher standard of proof than that. And the simplest way to get it is merely to ask for confirmation from the “Supreme” Court that the video and other links purporting to be from its website are genuine and are authorized by it. It is a simple and straightforward piece of elementary due diligence that the British courts will expect and will accept.

        if Ms. Hardman has any evidence to the effect that the YouTube video and other “Supreme” Court links are not genuine, she will no doubt bring it forward. But the Court’s own response to my quite straightforward questions will be of greater authority in the eyes of a judge. It is as uncomplicated as that.

        One realizes that Ms. Hardman has an irredentist point of view on the climate question, to which – in a free country – she is entitled. But acting sourly and pettily on these threads will not help the cause she so passionately but imprudently espouses.

    • Once information is picked-up circulating in the public domain, then original sources for the information have to be sought to verify the information to determine the truth of the information.

    • Grateful as I am to both Lord Monckton and dbstealey for their contributions, my contribution was to point out that Lord Monckton had already indicated his acceptance that Lord Carnwath had attended. As for the presumption that I am not familiar with the British judicial system, it is merely an assution based on ignorance of who I am and where I live, and the professions of a number of my friends. I have no argument about what Lord Monckton chooses personally to believe. I wrote to point out the manoeuvre he has made.

  37. Lord Monckton – a jewel in the crown, I think.

    It will be a crucial test of whether we are getting anywhere, if the BBC can be persuaded that it has to report the progress of this important matter. They won’t volunteer it, and their ‘investigative journalists’ won’t quickly be on the case, but they may be obliged to do so by a constant feed of reports and requests elsewhere. As for the rest of the MSM, only the Daily Telegraph may give it full weight – or will it be relegated to C. Booker in the ‘opinion’ pages? I don’t see much hope of difficult questions being asked in the Parliament or, if they are, of obtaining a proper response.

  38. The youtube soundtrack is erased between 5:28 and 5:38 where the funding sources are being thanked.

  39. Around 39:00, the speaker notes that there is an important difference between the “scientific opinions of the IPCC” (which many in the room accept and an international court “establishing those opinions as judicial fact” in a courtroom with expert testimony from opponents. The problem is that who will be fit to serve a judge and jury in such a courtroom when everyone has pre-judged this issue without hearing testimony from opponents of the consensus, because the consensus refuses most public debate.

    Courts do, on occasion, establish scientific fact. They did have to decision when DNA evidence became scientifically established well enough to be presented to a jury with odds of being due to chance. I doubt that anything concluded by the IPCC can be proven to a similar degree of certainty. WIll the standard be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or simply a prepondence of the evidence

    • Frank is right. In fact, a court over which an impartial and dispassionate judge presides is, by its nature, just about the best place to move towards settlement of a scientific controversy in which one side has been systematically tampering with evidence and data and also drawing exaggerated conclusions.

      When we took HM Government to court in 2007 for proposing to circulate Al Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy horror movie to every school in Britain, the moment the government saw our 80-page scientific testimony (which I had drafted), they capitulated and agreed to circulate 77 pages of corrective guidance to every school before the movie was shown. Even the BBC, albeit through gritted teeth and only in its little-watched afternoon bulletins, had to report the result of the case.

      The “Supreme” Court, if we decide to pursue a judicial review once we have a clearer idea of what went on during its propaganda rally in courtrooms 1 and 2, will have to attempt to produce some sort of justification for its prejudice. And merely reciting from the IPCC’s holy books, as the ghastly Sands did, will not cut the mustard. For the IPCC is no longer treated with unalloyed deference, and a growing body of papers in the reviewed literature are challenging it. So the “Supreme” Court will face the difficult task of trying to demonstrate that there is no scientific case whatsoever against its chosen partisan viewpoint, and in that ambition it is doomed to inevitable and abject failure.

  40. amoral intellectual jurists like Phillipe Sands of course remind on Carl Schmitt –

    Political Theology – Google Books

    Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty.

    University of Chicago Press …
    books.google.com>Philosophy> Political

    but leaders of say, a NSDAP, sport their own belief system; for ‘practical work’ they choose Roland Freislers.

    Best regards – Hans

  41. Excellent article!

    A question begs – Is a Court of Law competent to rule on questions of science?

    How many people are familiar with ‘Kiwigate’ … the scandal involving the adjusted temperature data in New Zealand, resulting in a warming trend, created by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) for the NZ government? NIWA created a global warming trend that was not evident in the temperature data maintained by the New Zealand Met Service, and could not explain its temperature adjustments or why they were made.

    The New Zealand Climate Education Trust requested the Court to find that NIWA had failed in its statutory duty, that its methodology was at fault, that it made errors of fact, and that publication of the climate data was unreasonable. The case was significant because the IPCC relied on NIWA’s temperature data.

    NIWA was unable to defend its position. It seemed it was check-mate for NIWA. But a bombshell was delivered by the New Zealand High Court judge, Geoffrey Venning, who surprisingly rejected all grounds for the Trust’s case, noting along the way that the High Court was not competent to rule on questions of science – “This Court should not seek to determine or resolve scientific questions demanding the evaluation of contentious expert opinion.” NIWA was let off the hook!

    It seems in New Zealand the Court adopted a position of rejecting any role in resolving questions of climate science.

    (N.B. The NZ Court decision caused anger because of Geoffrey Venning’s alleged conflict of interest – ownership of a forest company (Tahakopa) that was registered under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme to sell carbon credits for profit.)

    • Courts should NOT be asked to make scientific determinations, and think bringing this case in the first place was unwise. I am therefore glad the court ruled the way it did.

    • The New Zealand Court did what all courts should do – reject any role in resolving questions of climate science – just like courts should reject any role in resolving questions of believes. Just like religion, all scientific ideas start out as beliefs. Scientific ideas continue to be nothing more than beliefs until the idea has been exposed to severe testing, to the fiercest struggle for survival, and survived.

      In the Netherlands however, the situation is totally different:
      http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/09/the-urgenda-ruling-in-the-netherlands/

      “The court justified its ruling on two grounds. First, on the basis of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations climate body, the court found that climate change poses a serious danger, and that from a scientific viewpoint, this danger must be averted.”

      One problem is that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn´t governed by scientific principles. IPCC is governed by a a principle to strive for consensus.

      Paragraph 10 :
      “In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus”

      Obviously, consensus is a very central principle for the panel.
      This can be regarded as a dangerous and unscientific principle to endorse. Groupthink is a well known cause of unsound decisions. Argument by consensus is a well known logical fallacy. Hence, to strive for consensus is a very unscientific approach.

      The court must be scientifically illiterate. But even worse, the defendant, the state, did not defend the people of Netherlands, from the claims of the accuser and from the court by objecting to the nonsense. It seems as if it wanted to loose the case.

      • Mervyn
        To quote “”And although the judge can’t pronounce on the science, he did actually pronounce on the fact that in his view Niwa had used credible scientific processes and done things properly.””

    • Mervyn
      And the New Zealand Climate Change Coalition who wasted everyones time and money are yet to pay the debt of $80,000 they owe the New Zealand tax payer. The court decided the experts they presented were not experts at all, but laymen masquerading as experts. Hardly men of authority or integrity.

      • DB
        Here is your chance DB…. tell me which part of this I made up?
        1. Did the court order the NZCCC to pay $80,000? Answer yes.
        2. Did they pay it? Answer no!
        3. Did the judge consider the experts put forward to be non experts? Answer yes!
        The whole case was a laughing stock here in NZ and anyone who puts this case up as some sort of victory for the NZCCC didn’t follow it.

      • New Zealand climate scientist, Jim Salinger, was the scientist responsible for those adjustments, right?. He was a lead author for the IPCC, right? He once worked at the infamous Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, which was at the centre of the “climategate” scandal, right? He had become part of the inner circle of climate scientists whose leaked emails were at the heart of “climategate”, right?

        The originator of the technique of adjustment in NZ was Jim Salinger, right? He was summarily dismissed from his position at NIWA, right?

        What was so difficult for the High Court to make a decision about those adjustments?

      • Mervyn
        What was so hard was that the adjustments were done appropriately and are a true indication of NZ’s climate. On the other hand the NZCCC tried to use BS and bluster and by all accounts dribble to convince a judge who was just too sharp for them. In short they were a bunch of amateurs who tried to foot it with the big boys…. got caught out then ran for the hills so they wouldn’t have to pay. Hardly men of character.

      • Simon, I was having fun. You will note I never said you were wrong. I wanted to make you do some homework for me.

        From the link you had to go and find:

        Dunleavy said: “The case was never about ‘science’ but about process. My affidavit did not cover ‘science’ but comments on events and processes that ought to be able to be understood and analysed by experienced journalists.”

        Dunleavy added:

        “We will continue to challenge the still unproved hypothesis that human/animal emissions of carbon dioxide can or will cause dangerous ‘global warming.”

        It’s not only unproven, Simon. There’s not even a single measurement quantifying AGW. That’s your next assignment: go find an empirica, testable and replicable measurement quantifying man-made global warming. Post it here.

        I’ll wait, while you do your search. Remember, it’s your credibility on the line here.

        I think you will fail to find any quantifiable measurements. If so, you know what that means: it measns that AGW is a measurement-free conjecture. An opinion. It’s your belief, if you can’t quantify it.

        You don’t mind if we ask for a measurement or two, for something you really believe must exist. So get crackin’ Simon! Find those measurements! ☺

      • DB
        Your silly question again. You want a figure. 42. Look it up THGTTG.
        And it was not my credibility in question but that of the New Zealand Climate Clown Cranks. Sadly for them common sense and fairness prevailed.

  42. I would leap at the chance of challenging their assumption that increased forcing of the climate warms the Arctic region, and that AGW has contributed towards Arctic sea ice loss.

  43. Most people make celebrities out of movie stars, sports figures, politicos. I like skeptics. You go, Lord Monckton. I wish you’d do a podcast. I guess I’m a bit of a fanboy, as stupid as that sounds.

    • Gary,

      I think that you shall not have long to wait: meantime, you might care to observe a certain digital TV broadcast entitled “Freedoms Are Extinct” which occurred on 12th. January this year from a studio in Texas. (I suggest watching from 31:00 onward).

      You will not be disappointed. Repeat … you will not be disappointed.

      Regards,
      WL

  44. If the Supreme Court should manage to ‘scotch deniers’ maybe we should change the appellation to ‘Dissenters’ (opposed to state interference in Global Warming matters) and require the Supreme Court to get to work on the Thirty-nine Articles of Global Warming:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenters

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley#Defender_of_Dissenters_and_political_philosopher

  45. @Lord Monckton
    I have not watched the video but still wonder if the characterization of the proceedings as “… to turn it into a Christmas pantomime theatre…” does a disservice to Christmas? If you should happen to agree, may I suggest “Punch and Judy”
    Wishing you best of luck on the FOIA

    • When Henry VIII attempted to impose Cranmers godly order of service on the reluctant Catholic population of Britain, the schoolmaster of Sampford Courtenay in Devon wrote on behalf of the villagers saying, “We will not have this Christmas game. We will have ye Sacrament hung above ye hyhye altar as before …”. Cranmer was characteristically rude in reply, provoking the Western Uprising, which English troops refused to quell. Lutheran mercenaries had to be imported from Germany to suppress the recalcitrant west-countrymen, and – as fate would have it – the final battle that crushed these brave spirits was at Sampford Courtenay. Because this episode reveals just how unpopular the enforcement of Anglican liturgy on the Catholic population was, it is usually left out of the official history books. But those of us who know of it and wish to indicate our distaste at the totalitarian diktats of over-mighty government will tend to describe their antics as a Christmas game or Christmas pantomime. The historical resonance is powerful.

      • @F. Ross

        The Prayer Book Rebellion was in 1549 (two years after Henry VIII’s death) and is well documented. For a little more detail start here.

        “A Christmas Game” comes from Item 8 of the 16 rebel demands, as set out on the second page (click continue at the bottom of each for the full tale) …

        We wil not receyve the newe servye because it is but lyke a Christmas game, but we wyll have oure olde service of Mattens, masse, Evensong and procession in Latten not in English, as it was before. And so we the Cornyshe men (whereof certen of us understande no Englysh) utterly refuse thys newe Englysh.

        Besides Lutherans (Almain foot), Italian and other mercenaries were involved.

  46. The reason for establishing the UK Supreme Court was given in a paper, which wondered:

    1. Whether there was any longer sufficient transparency of independence from the executive and the legislature to give assurance of the independence of the judiciary. [source]

    Ha! So now they have a thoroughly politicized court, in place of an administration that is at least somewhat answerable to voters.

  47. What I get from all this is that governments of all persuasions in previously Western freedom-loving countries are basically corrupt and rotten. In Australia the elected members of the so-called Liberal Party have kicked out conservative PM Tony Abbott and installed Malcolm Turnbull as PM, a man whose whole history has been as an advocate of far leftist, Labor-loving, “progressive”, socialist, climate warming alarmist views. The political process has become corrupt. The people’s vote means nothing. There seems to be an unstoppable momentum towards global enforcement of corrupt discredited ideas and remedies for a non-existent problem. How can the average citizen protect himself or herself when our votes mean nothing and opinion is manipulated by lying and complicit media, government bureaucracies meant to protect us (and failing) and a legal system which has morphed into moral relativism that ignores concepts of justice, fairness, balance and decency?

  48. The Spectator magazine carried a piece on its 20th October issue stating that Lord Carnwarth organised a conference at Kings College London with the title: `Adjudicating the Future Climate and the Rule of Law`. This also needs looking into as a blatant and flagrant misuse of his powers.

  49. Lord M – Jonathan Sumption is an acquaintance of mine and I would love to know his opinion on this farrago. I have his address in France but not in UK – how do I write to the Supreme Court?

    • The address is on their website. I too know Jonathan Sumption – he’s a member of my club – but, precisely because I know him, it would not be right for me to approach him directly. I must go through the regular authorities. The Administrative Court, in its eventual consideration of the Supreme Court’s misconduct on judicial review, would not be pleased if I resorted to the same pally, all-old-boys-together routine in which Carnwath and Sands have unwisely and unlawfully indulged themselves.

  50. “Off Topic” but RELEVANT to the thread.

    Here is (verbatim) the article printed in The Sunday Herald (Scotland) 29th. June 2015 by Ivor Tiefenbrun. “Why Scotland needs to Get Real”.

    [QUOTE START]
    Indigenous businesses in Scotland are increasingly uncertain about their future prospects.
    Until recently it was unimaginable that we would question whether the three hundred year old United Kingdom of Great Britain would survive.

    Scotland’s contribution to this partnership has been enormous, and Scots have blossomed in every field of human endeavour, and led British achievements around the world. Everything about our history, philosophy and education was designed to prepare Scots for a global role. Yet now a vast block of our population have turned inwards, amidst a mass of contradictory aspirations.

    Scotland wants to thrive and become more prosperous, and all of us would agree with that proposition. Yet some believe that we can do it by severing our closest connections, with England in particular, and the common market of the United Kingdom in general, despite the fact that it is responsible for the bulk of our trade, commercial, cultural and social intercourse. Yet these very same Separatists are committed to remain within an undemocratic European Union even if the U.K. as a whole decides, that the terms of continued membership are so disadvantageous that we would be better off outside a failing European Union which has an ever smaller share of British and world trade, to participate more fully in the far freer, larger and faster growing world beyond the E.U. where U.K. exports and trade are already greater, and the trading opportunities for Scotland are many times bigger.

    The only way to make sense of such contradictions is to understand that the wide appeal of the Separatists’ policies and beliefs is driven by the enmity of many Scots towards Free Enterprise Capitalism and the English, in combination with a powerful preference for more Statist policies.

    This is not an attractive prospect for most Scottish businesses as increased government interference in the economy, with more subsidies, regulations and higher taxes will all create increasingly disadvantageous differentials with both our immediate neighbours, and our global competitors.

    Higher taxes on income, property, capital gains and corporations, and ever more public sector spending and welfare dependency can do nothing to increase Scotland’s wealth.

    More and higher taxes will also not improve the circumstances of the poorest Scots as they can only result in slower growth, fewer employment opportunities and falling tax revenues, but especially because they do not address the fundamental reasons for income poverty.

    Those responsible for the success of Scotland’s high performance specialist businesses upon which our country’s future depends have good cause to view their future with trepidation as do the young, bright and mobile who will find Scottish Nationalism far more remunerative in Vancouver or Sydney than it is every likely to be in Scotland.

    The best and most promising Scottish businesses are already limited by skills shortages, and we are already seeing increased emigration of the most mobile and highly skilled, especially those who have a foothold, or ready access to a career, in England or beyond. Why, especially if you are an English consultant, work twelve hour shifts for a failing and unreformed Scottish National Health Service when you can earn more, and work fewer hours in a Health Service in England which for all its faults is steadily improving? Why, unless you are too settled to move, or a very committed Scottish Leftist or Nationalist, work in Scotland’s academia, science, research or industry when you can earn more, and pay lower taxes and have far better financial prospects and security in the rest of the U.K. or elsewhere?

    Why commit yourself to a career, or invest your capital in Scotland when the outlook for earnings, income taxes, pensions, investment returns, social cohesion, family and personal career prospects and education all have such a high degree of uncertainty?

    This is bad enough, before even considering the great herd of elephants in the room. The Leftist, Statist mentality dominates Scottish politics and academia, and they and the far too large and ever-expanding public and welfare sectors contribute little to the economy, and depend heavily for their sustenance, excesses and increasing expectations on the ever diminishing strength of the productive wealth generating part of the independent private sector that is not dependent on State largesse.

    Many Scots do not just prefer Europe to England because of their Socialist inclinations, but actively dislike the English, and particularly the City of London, because they see it as a Capitalist, dog eat dog society focussed on materialism rather than displaying the alleged inclusive concerns that some claim to manifest for the ever-expanding numbers of poor, cow’rin, tim’rous Scots who cannae get a job, or help themselves from being welfare dependents.

    These same self-anointed caring Scots have no regard or concern whatsoever for those working the hardest in the private sector who carry the financial wealth creating burden for the State’s counterproductive increasingly indiscriminate ruinous largesse.

    The notion that men should be free to sell their own labour and be responsible for their own destiny rather than be subject to the dictates of the State or any other collective mechanisms that direct their efforts and sequester the fruits of their labour, has transformed the world for the better. Wealth creation depends on the sanctity of private property, savings and family inheritance, free enterprise and freethinking individuals who accept responsibility for their productive endeavours and their own personal lives. Paradoxically they are the truly independent and empathetic people, and the total antithesis of Socialist Separatists who are driven by Nationalism, and whose collectivist political objectives are fundamentally totalitarian. Because so-called progressive Scots think that they know what is best for everyone, they seek to penalise success in the name of the poor and the underprivileged. They believe that national wealth can be secured and redistributed at the expense of individual wealth, and fail to understand that failure is guaranteed when you limit success.

    Real Scottish businesses have every reason to be concerned because we should be backing winners for the greatest gains and urgently need to stop rewarding failure. It is little wonder that the private business sector and the ambitious highly skilled are demonstrating anxiety about our increasingly uncertain future. Let’s hope our misguided political class soon start to ponder how they can address the destructive false expectations they have raised. Scotland needs to get real.

    Ivor Tiefenbrun is a Scottish manufacturer [QUOTE END]

Comments are closed.