Open letter by Monckton of Brenchley
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,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
The British judges, are seeking to bypass the legislature, no one voted for the judges.
In the US the courts are exempt from FOIA.
I figured that was the case, the separation between branches of gov’t is rather strong in the US.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who thinks New Zealand is not corrupt needs to Google “Shonagh Kenderdine” the fake judge.
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.
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.
Ripley fights the Bitch Queen of Britain
🙂
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.
Have courage! They have the money, the power and the glory, but we have the truth, so they have nothing and we have everything.
Amen! Can’t argue with that!
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.
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.
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.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eef1tK8mtEI?t=2439&w=560&h=315%5D
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 http://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.
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.
the result would have been interesting if there had been a referendum amongst the english regarding the scots leaving the union
tonyb
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)
It’s a disaster that our future King is so delusional.
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, you didn’t respond to the point, you set up a strawman and argued about that.
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.
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.
The youtube soundtrack is erased between 5:28 and 5:38 where the funding sources are being thanked.
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.
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
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.
Do you make it up as you go along?
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.
Simon,
Thanx for all the assertions.
I suspect Simon has never worked for NIWA.
DB
Well, please do tell where I am wrong? To help you, here is an article detailing the case…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10834154
You will notice the judges comments about the expertise of the NZCCC.
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.
Simon sez:
Look it up…
And:
And it was not my credibility in question…
A good thing, too, since that’s something you’re lacking.
Nah.
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.
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.
Me too !!
Gary, my experience in the People’s Republic of Boulder tells me there are things incomparably more stupid than being a Monckton groupie. 🙂
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
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
@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.
Aaah! All is made clear.
Thank you for the history lesson.
@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) …
Besides Lutherans (Almain foot), Italian and other mercenaries were involved.
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.
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?