By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
On September 17, 2015, the UK Supreme Court held a climate-change propaganda event in its no. 1 and no. 2 courtrooms, in which only one side of the debate was permitted. Lord Carnwath, chairman of the event and a justice of the court, said:
“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.”
Worse, Philippe Sands QC, the court’s chosen lecturer, having regurgitated numerous IPCC talking-points without questioning the veracity of any of them, expressed outrageous prejudice against scientifically-qualified skeptics when he said:
“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.”
The Court at first broke the law by failing to reply on time to my freedom-of-information request about its pantomime of hate against “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential” skeptics whose “claims” its favoured lecturer said it and its counterparts worldwide should “scotch”.
It then continued to break the law by sending not a single one of the documents or records I had requested. Its excuse was that it would cost more than the statutory $1000 limit to source and send the documents.
Accordingly, I invited readers of WUWT to assist. Within hours plenty came forward. Each of the first nine responders has been asked to send one of the following questions to the UK Supreme Court under section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
1. Please supply copies or, where copies are unavailable, records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with the climate-change conference at the Supreme Court. 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, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors. I do not expect that this request will breach the statutory cost limit, since you can send an email to everyone asking for copies of the relevant files and then simply assemble the documentation and email or post it to me.
2. Please supply a complete list of the names of and positions held by all who attended the climate change conference. I assume that a list is readily available, since either the court itself invited them or it permitted them to attend on the basis of invitations sent out by a third party. If the latter, then under Section 16 of the Act please identify the third party, since I shall wish to address freedom-of-information questions to it. Furthermore, the court’s security staff were no doubt given one so that they could admit to the building those who were on the list, so I do not expect to be told that providing the list would be disproportionately expensive.
3. Please let me have copies of all correspondence between any of the justices, personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court and any of those who attended its conference on climate change on 17 September 2015. In particular, please supply correspondence from and to the Court’s then chief executive officer, and from and to Lord Carnwath, who chaired the conference.
4. Please send me copies of all agendas, working papers and other documentation of whatever kind in connection with the climate-change conference at the Supreme Court that were produced by or received 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. There are only a dozen Justices and a small number of other personnel who were involved in organizing the conference, and I do not consider that a round-robin email from the freedom-of-information office to each of them, followed by collation and forwarding of the documents they supply, will breach the statutory expenditure threshold.
5. Please identify the person or persons who requested the then Chief Executive of the Supreme Court to permit the use of the Court’s premises to stage the climate-change conference of September 17, 2015, together with the date of the request and all correspondence from the beginning of 2015 to the present between those persons or the organizations they represent and any of the Justices, personnel, servants or agents of the Court. I require this information by way of assistance in terms of Section 16 of the Act, so that I can submit freedom-of-information requests to any other public bodies – such as Government departments or universities – who may have played a part in originating or organizing the conference.
6. Please state under what head of expenditure approved by Parliament the £775 spent by the Supreme Court on the hire of a broadcast engineer for the Supreme Court’s climate-change conference on 17 September 2015 was authorized, and by whom. I require this information in terms of section 16 of the Act so that I may frame and direct freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Justice and to HM Treasury with the object of determining whether the said expenditure was permitted by law and was consistent with the obligation of the Court to be politically neutral on questions of current contention.
7. Please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 between Lord Carnwath 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. I require this information because I have seen evidence suggesting that Lord Carnwath is not impartial on environmental questions, and has a particular prejudice on the question of climate change, and because I propose to direct freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Justice and thereafter a complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman. If it is the contention of the Supreme Court that, though it is itself obliged to comply with the Freedom of Information Act its justices, albeit that they are members of that public authority, are exempt, I should be grateful, in terms of section 16 of the Act, to be told which provision of the Act or of any delegated legislation made thereunder exempts the Court’s Justices from all scrutiny when they have acted in such a fashion as to give good grounds to suspect that they are parti pris.
8. Please provide a complete list of all cases concerning the environment, climate, or other matters connected in any way with the subject-matter of the conference that are currently before the Supreme Court.
9. Please provide copies of all documents held by the Supreme Court in connection with the prejudice demonstrated by Lord Carnwath on the question of climate change during the Court’s widely-broadcast climate-change conference on September 17, 2015, together with documents relating to any steps taken or to be taken to ensure that Lord Carnwath is not permitted to sit in judgement, or to participate in any way, in any case relating to climate change or to the environment.
“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”
The ideas that Philippe Sands might be respectful to the quest for truth by critical rationalism and respectful to the role of the courts in this respect are both falsified by this very statement.
It is remarkable that a Professor of law can demonstrate so clearly in just one sentence that he lacks understanding of principles which are fundamental to his profession.
On youtube Dr. Donald W. Miller Jr. explains how the US Gov. changed the world’s eating diet based on a unproven science theory. The reason I bring this youtube video up is because Dr. Judith Curry used this example in her testament to Congress i.e. lies on cholesterol. You will see where Senator George McGovern, quotes ; the Government does not have all the time until all the science is in. There is so so much in this video to our cause Climate Change manipulation please watch. On youtube Enjoy Eating Saturated Fat by DR. Miller.
When the plebians do not snap to you make em. Our US court is increasingly following the same line.
And more… Lord Monckton’s Eerie Powers of Prediction http://www.acting-man.com/?p=41111
FOI them on the cost of those gowns.
Makes for interesting reading.
They are just in it for themselves.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom seems to have lost its way.
This year marks the 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta.
Cl. 39 and 40 read as follows:
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation#sthash.lcxMkhuB.dpuf
[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
[40] To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
Regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/roger-pielke-jr-being-investigated-by-representative-grijalva-for-presenting-inconvenient-data/#comment-1869769
[Excerpt]
A few observations:
1. CO2 is the basis for all carbon-based life on Earth – and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient.
2. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
3. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
4. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society.
5. Green energy schemes (scams) are responsible for driving up energy costs and increasing winter mortality rates.
_________________________________
I suggest that all of the above statements are true, to a high degree of confidence.
All of the above statements are utter blasphemy to warmist fanatics.
It is truly remarkable how the warmists could get it so wrong.
_________________________________
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”
– Albert Einstein
Ayn Rand philosophically showed that socialism (and its ilk of collectivism, totalitarianism, communism, fascism, etc) was anti-human and she philosophically analyzed that capitalism was pro-human plus she graphically portrayed socialism as a parasite that could only be sustained by sucking the wealth and freedom to act of capitalism. Socialism isn’t a benign parasite, it weakens capitalism progressively and if allowed to progress will destroy capitalism in her view.
So, in a sense Monckton is right about thinking Ayn Rand warned that “socialists would attempt to damage America’s economy by forcibly closing coal mines, oilfields and power plants”. She thought that socialism must suck the wealth out of them and must interfere with their freedom to act, at which point they would be nationalized and become productively inept to the point of being useless.
Ayn Rand also philosophically showed that ideological environmentalism was anti-human. She found that it would directly force shutdown of science, technology, industry and even try to shutdown reason.
John
PS – Christopher Monckton, good show on your unrelenting inquiry into the SCOTUK’s prejudicial behavior wrt climate skeptics.
Abe,
You appear to be talking about the theories advanced in the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. You should take them elsewhere as per WUWT site rules.
John
If the supremes can break the law with impunity, don’t expect them not to do so again. They have lots of precedents to go on from gleick through climate gate examples, U Virginia, decisions of investigations of irregular cliSci hooligans, all the US gov departments… They have become ever more emboldened
However, in the UK, which is in a few respects something like a free country, the private citizen can if necessary prosecute even the Supreme Court for wilful misfeasance in a public office, one of the ancient pleas of the Crown. If the Court were to take no steps to rectify the impression of prejudice it has created, the president of the court would be guilty of wilful misfeasance, a serious, imprisonable offense. Even the mere fact of a prosecution being lodged would end his career in ignominy.
In the past I have successfully prosecuted a very powerful and secret organization of the British State for wilful misfeasance (the whole affair was so embarrassing that They had to change its name), so They know I can and will do it again unless They take steps to rectify Their wrongdoing.
This post is titled: Keeping up the heat on the UK Supreme Court
Your comment is about what?
Absolutely astounding how these elite, well educated jackasses do not reflect even a smidgen on how medieval their thoughts and actions are.
In reply to ralfellis
The Younger Dryas comet or meteoroid impact theory/hypothesis is an urban myth, goofy, silly, is physically not possible.
Climatology is chock full of urban myths which indicates that there are multiple fundamental problems with the process that is used to analysis and attempt to solve pure science problems.
There is sufficient information to solve the climatology connected set of problems. The issue as to why the connected climatology problem has not been solved, is not how smart the people are who are attempting to solve the problem.
The assertion that the earth’s climate has a ‘tendency’ to abruptly ‘jump’ from one state to another or tip from one state to another is an urban legend that was created as the true physical cause of cyclic abrupt climate change is not known.
What and why the climate cyclically changes is a physical problem. There must and is a physical reason what has and will occur. There are no magic wands.
Rocks do not jump up hill. Climate does not ‘jump’ without reason from one state to another. There must be and is a physical reason for cyclic (I repeat, cyclic) abrupt climate change. There are specific observations that are concurrent with the past abrupt climate change events which must be explained and help solve the problem.
Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger ‘events’ (cyclic warming and cooling that happens again and again and again) have a characteristic period of 1470 years have continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period. The point is the climate is very different glacial phase vs interglacial phase yet the same cycle continues which supports the assertion that the forcing is external not internal.
As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles and pointed out that there cosmogenic isotope changes at the 23 events and pointed out that the solar cycle changes must hence be causing the cyclic changes) and the Heinrich events. The observational evidence supports that assertion that specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed.
If that assertion is correct, based on the magnitude of the climate changes and what happened to cause the climate changes, the sun is significantly different than the standard model and the sun can and does change to a mode which is very different, that has astonishing impact on the earth’s climate.
There are hundreds of astronomical observations that all support the assertion that the sun and stars are significantly different than the standard model.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
The fact that earth’s climate is changing cyclically means there is, there must logically be a forcing function that physically changes the planet’s climate again and again and again and again.
A comet and/or meteoroid impact is not a cyclical event. A comet and/or meteoroid impact will cool the planet for less than decade. The earth resists climate forcing changes. The Younger Dryas abrupt climate (the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade at a time when summer insolation at 65N was maximum which is evidence that Milankovitch’s theory is an urban legend, note summer insolation at 65N is currently the same as it was during the coldest part of the last glacial period) change event lasted for 1200 years.
We know that the planet does not cool for a 1000 years when there is a super volcano eruption. The planet cools for at most four or five years.
The eighteen Younger Dryas burn marks are at different latitudes and are on different continents. It is physically impossible for a single comet or asteroid impact to create those burn marks. Multiple independent comets and asteroid impacts would be required to create the burn marks. Due to the statistical likelihood of an impact, it is almost impossible for there to be multiple independent comet and asteroid impacts in a short period of time.
The 500,000 Caroline bay burn marks occurred 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and hence have nothing to do with Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event. A comet or asteroid impact cannot cause 500,000 burn marks.
There are two ‘mysteries’. What causes two independent in time burn marks (YD burn marks and Caroline Bay burn marks) and secondly what causes cyclic abrupt climate change. Question is the connection with what caused the burn marks and the abrupt climate change. The evidence does not support an impact as the cause of the burn marks.
Look at the dang Carolina Bay burn marks (see link below). Think about the physical implications of this observation. Think about what must have happened to create 500,000 elliptical burn marks on the surface of the planet some of which overlap and all of which point in the same direction.
There is evidence of restrike (electrical discharge from the top of the atmosphere to the surface of the planet. Massive electrical discharge will create burn marks are elliptical and orientated in a north-west direction which is caused by the rotation of the earth as the strikes are occurring and the effect of the earth’s magnetic field which moves the charge mass).
It is fact that there is an abrupt change to the geomagnetic field (largest change in cosmogenic isotopes in the Holocene record) that correlates with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event.
A massive electrical discharge from the ionosphere to the surface of the planet will abruptly change the geomagnetic field. There will be a delay of roughly 1000 years for the liquid core of the earth to integrate the abrupt magnetic field change (initially the liquid core creates a back EMF which resists any surface impose magnetic field change which explains the sudden cooling due to the initial drop in the geomagnetic field intensity which causes the cooling due to increased GCR strikes in the atmosphere and due to the sudden abrupt change to the geomagnetic field orientation). Due to the orientation of the planet the YD discharge event resulted in a stronger geomagnetic field when the change was integrated in the liquid core.
The current orbital position is such that a massive electrical discharge event would occur in the Southern hemisphere and would hence reduce the strength of the geomagnetic when integration occurs.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full
“Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions
and the Younger Dryas cooling”
The black mat material is found in multiple locations in Europe and multiple locations throughout the North American continent – eighteen locations in total – at significantly different latitudes and longitudes. As others have noted very special conditions are required for an impact to burn the earth without leaving a crater. The distribution of the black mat regions on the planet are such that it would require extraterrestrial bodies from different orbits, different source bodies. Astrophysicists do not support that possibility. The researchers are specialists looking for an explanation for the mass extinction that coincides with whatever caused the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling.
Figure 7 is picture of some of the earlier Carolina Bays burn marks. As noted the largest burn mark is 8 km long.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2007/09/20/0706977104.DC1
“Fig. 7. Aerial photo (U.S. Geological Survey) of a cluster of elliptical and often overlapping Carolina Bays with raised rims in Bladen County, North Carolina. The Bays have been contrast-enhanced and selectively darkened for greater clarity. The largest Bays are several kilometers in length, and the overlapping cluster of them in the center is ≈8 km long. Previous researchers have proposed that the Bays are impact-related features.”
This is some of the evidence that a magnetic excursion correlate with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358947790031X
William Astley (replying to ralfellis)
But even in the last 20 years we saw multiple comet impacts hit Jupiter at the same latitude, all within a few days of each other. And (as I recall) 6 more inter-planetary impacts since then on Jupiter and other planets. Tunguska was a high-energy, no-impact, collision only 100 years ago. Siberia was hit again just a few months ago with a near-atomic-bomb size mid-air blast. But no crater. Yes, single hits of rock high-energy impacts are more likely than multiple hits of a non-cratering, non-rock event, but obviously, planet-wide multiple hits in a very short time do happen. Regularly.
Forget all that .
Just demand they present the physical equations in SI units explaining how electromagnetic , as opposed to gravity , can “trap” energy . And for extra credit , an experimental demonstration of the phenomenon .
Do you have a link for your point of view? I found Astley’s post and links extremely interesting although one thought occurred to me.
Why are the burn marks found only in certain locations? To alter the climate in such a catastrophic manner you would think the burn marks should show up in more locations across the entire earth.
Electromagnetism does not trap energy: it transfers it. When a photon in the principal absorption bands of CO2 interacts with a CO2 molecule, it sets up a quantum oscillation in one of the vibrational modes of the molecule. That oscilliation is heat. It is like turning on a small radiator.
Great idea! I’ve seen so many politicians and officials who were speaking about climate and climate change, without, having any idea on what they were talking, so…. no more comments. On the other hand, COP21 already starts to seem like a lost cause to me: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/100-000-000-000-us-per-year-for-waste/
What on earth has the climate got to do with the UK Supreme Court? Haven’t British judges got any crimes to worry about? How would Galileo fare today if lawyers thought they could determine the truth of his arguments?
Where there is a scientific dispute, as with any other form of dispute, the courts are well trained to weigh the arguments of both sides, after each side has had a fair opportunity to present its case and to be cross-examined by the other. At present there is no scientific forum in which both sides are fairly heard in this way, for many national science academies hsve adopted a narrow scientific position in one direction only, and will not allow the skeptical point of view to be expressed or debated.
I followed MOB’s story on the UK Supreme Court from his initial submission and I am still dumbfounded by what the SC said. To think that they can rule on scientific matters is absurd. However for them to be blatantly prejudiced about the outcome is really horrifying – it tears at the very heart of the justice system so everyone in the UK, including the shameless alarmists and their political friends, should be up in arms over their prejudice and what that implies. If that happened here in Oz I would relentlessly hound my MPs and my several friends in the judiciary until the Court publically grovelled and issued an absolute retraction and apology and the ringleaders resigned their commissions. Only then would I stop. For a while, then I would probably start again. Rant finished.
Courts can certainly rule on scientific issues, as the High Court splendidly did against Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie. But courts that have,in effect, declared a priori a prejudice cannot thus rule.
Every day the Courts are ruling on scientific issues. In almost all medical negligence cases, there are competing views expressed by experts. ditto, in construction disputes which rely heavily on engineering reports, and shipping disputes etc.
But of course, Judges are not scientists and therefore cannot form an independent view on the merits of the science. Courts are good at sorting out facts, and seeing discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence, and weaknesses in the manner in which evidence is presented.
For example, a Court would have no problem at looking at problems and issues surrounding the land thermometer data set, getting to grips with what it represents (it is meaningless) and problems with station siting, station drop outs, homogenisation and adjustments etc.
A Court would quickly appreciate importance of unverified model output, the difference between projections and predictions (which I consider to be a killer point), the fact that the science cannot be settled when there are about 100 different CGMs all outputting different scenarios, and that the average ensemble is misconceived and meaningless for reasons often spelt out by Dr Brown, and of course, the problems with Climate Sensitivity upon which there is no consensus.. Likewise the difference between the alarmist computer derived scary sea level rise, against the factual modest sea level rise.
I personally consider that the warmists have under estimated the problems that they would face since they have fooled themselves in to believing that the Summary for Policymakers is sound, when in practice it is far removed from the underlying reports of the working groups which make it clear that there are many uncertainties. That coupled with the fact of all the failed predictions clearly demonstrates that ‘Climate Scientists’ have no idea about what they are speaking about. I see huge problems for warmists.
Mr Verney’s well-considered comment is surely right. Though the courts themselves daily perpetrate and perpetuate the ancient logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam by paying regard to “experts”, they are in general very good at understanding logical inconsistencies in arguments. For instance, the IPCC’s RCP 6.0 scenario says there should be 2.2 degrees’ warming from now to 2100, but equilibrium global warming in response to 3.7 Watts per square meter of forcing would only be 2.1 degrees, and only three-quarters of the 3.7 Watts per square meter forcing, or 2.75 Watts per square meter, will occur by 2100 on RCP 6.0; and only two-thirds of equilibrium warming would occur by 2100 if all the forcing arose today; but, since it arises in small and roughly equal annual increments, one must roughly halve the estimate again. So, by these entirely mainstream methods, the warming in response to 2.75 Watts per square meter of forcing arising in annual increments from now to 2100 will be three-quarters of two-thirds of half of 2.1 degrees, or around 0.5 degrees, not the 2.2 degrees forecast by the IPCC.
Imagine an “expert witness” trying to argue against these mainstream calculations. One can see at once that the RCP 6.0 21st-century warming figure published by the IPCC is pure fiction. Once the court sees that this and similar central quantities have simply been made up, it will at once realize it has been had.
Dear Lord Monckton, here is the result of “regime change” in Canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153
The increasingly hard and vicious Left have taken to the global warming storyline like quacks to colored water. Their vicious campaign to destroy the coal industry – to which most industry chiefs have responded with exceptional feebleness – reflects very badly on Socialism.
Socialists Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley were recently elected in Ottawa and Edmonton (Alberta), both by voters who wanted “change”, Now we have the same warmist lunatic ravings in Ottawa and Edmonton and our economy is headed into the dumpster,
Here is what “change” will look like:
1. A major increase in energy costs, due to their move to “green energy” schemes, which are typically not green and produces little useful energy.
2. Huge increases in government debt to subsidize their intermittent and diffuse green energy schemes.
3. Huge payoffs of taxpayer monies to their financial sponsors, who will build these green energy monstrosities.
4. Huge increases in energy costs to consumers, who will be forced to buy this intermittent and unreliable green energy at greatly increased prices..
5. An increase in joblessness as industry relocates to lower-cost energy venues.
6. An increase in Winter Mortality Rates, particularly among the elderly and the poor, due to the greatly increased cost of home heating.
These dire results have already been widely experienced in Europe, Europeans rulers set out on this extremely foolish and destructive course years ago, and are now retreating as fast as they can, only limited by the speed that their politicians can admit they were utterly wrong about energy policy.
It is truly remarkable that young Justin and Rachel cannot even learn from the obvious blunders of the Europeans, but have to go and make the same incredibly foolish errors again, all by themselves.
When someone acts in such an obviously stupid manner, one has to ask the question – are they really that stupid, or are they simply corrupt? Is warmist nonsense just a scam to steal from the public, much like the many socialist scams we see in the developing world, where rulers get elected by promising the dream of a better life, and then proceed to live in luxury while their citizens continue to suffer in poverty?
Regards, Allan
References:
1. The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility On Global Warming September 6, 2015
by Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/the-uns-ipcc-has-no-credibility-on-global-warming-6sept2015-final.pdf
2. Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather September 4, 2015
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
I sent the above as an open letter to Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, with copies to leading Canadian journalists.
I suggest that it is valid to serve public notice on our politicians when they intend to misappropriate billions in public funds and put the elderly and poor at serious risk.
Whether their conduct is due to stupidity or corruption, they should be held accountable.
”… the possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.”
– Hansard, 1817
there is much talk about freedom, but freedom is often not well understood
freedom is not easy
for one, freedom is always risky, and you cannot be really free unless you can face this risk
and also, it is never a given, you have to conquer it, time and again
I cannot blame people for shunning away from freedom, it is a natural reaction towards something they fear
and a lot of the people in the “free world” paradoxically shun away from freedom for this reason
you may become disappointed about this, or angry on their lack of courage, but also you may pity them, as they prefer to dwell in their prison of conformity – maybe save from the risks of freedom, but for sure also missing the rewards
as for judges – it is a pitiful sight indeed when they not just dwell in conformity for professional reasons – I guess by law they have to – but even further retract themselves into this cowardly cage of political correctness, deluding themselves they do this for the common good
while in fact in doing so they are the epitome of deniers of real freedom to others
this maybe because they prefer to not have any of it themselves?
maybe because they are eh… afraid?
a scared judge clearly can’t be a good judge
so yes Sir, your course is not the easy one, but it is the right one
I am most grateful to Jurgen for his thoughtful response. It is tedious having to wring basic information out of a Supreme Court that appears supremely reluctant to comply with the law by revealing what it got up to; but our steady, polite pressure will yield at least the bare minimum of information within a few weeks, after which I shall be in a position to write to the Court’s president to suggest sensible and proportionate ways of putting right the illegality in its conduct that has arisen. With a little goodwill on the part of the Court (where I have friends), all may yet be well.
May God bless your every effort in this matter, Mr. Monckton, and thank you most sincerely for what to my eyes are many blessings you’ve already bestowed on us all.
Thank you very much for all our your efforts in your endeavor for justice Lord Monckton, you represent a beacon of hope in the face of this dogma – and for I and many others it is very much appreciated.
During a pleasant afternoon at the French pub in Soho with a group of bright young graduates of a decent English university, me being 62 an’ all, I happened to mention that I was a member of UKIP and despised the EU and all its malign ways. Gasps of Batemanesque horror and real shock and anger. No political argument, just: “You must be a racist!’
Mr MacRae will know that the Liberal Premier of Ontario has just tarred all of us who recommend prudence with regard to mass Muslim immigration as racists.( Uh oh! Maybe ‘tarred with the same brush’ is as racist now as ‘niggardly’? How come nothing but science is ever settled in the horrible world of PC?) Lord knows what they call Lord M. at Churchill College! Darth Brenchley?
There is no debate about anything that really matters. There are only cowardly, closed minded, ad hominem slurs.There is no point in writing to politicians, academics and the MSM….you are just a denier, and almost certainly a racist. You probably voted for Mr Harper, club baby seals for a hobby and have a sneaking admiration for Mr Trump. We folks, in all our variety, are pariahs.
There IS a point in trying to get the establishment to act within its rules, as our noble Lord is doing, charging gallantly unto the breach with his nine questioning, questing lancers. (As I didn’t get my email in in time to help, I’ll sit here watching on my donkey like Sancho Panzer if I may further doubly mix my cultural metaphors.)
My guess is that if delay squared doesn’t work, they will just quietly change the rules eventually, but the Commission for Porcine Aeronautics will be fully staffed by the libleft quangocracy before they admit significant fault at the Supreme Court.
Eventually there will be a tipping point and the scales will surely fall from the eyes of the public in Europe and North America but, even accepting that the libleft have their hands on all the levers, and the especially evil effect of MSMTV, it is surely a long time coming and we have a few more years at least to suffer in Canada, eh?
Thank you Duncan Veasey,
Below is the open letter I wrote in 2013 to Baroness Verma, warning of the energy problems to come in the UK..
What was it David Cameron said recently – something like “get rid of all the green crap?
Regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1462890
An Open Letter to Baroness Verma
“All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”.
– Baroness Verma
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
I suggest with confidence that 10.5C is substantially warmer as a yearly average than 8.5C, and the latter may not provide a “lovely year for Chrysanths”.
I further suggest with confidence that individual years averaging 7.8C or even 6.8C are even colder, and the Chrysanths will suffer.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Turning and tuning in the widening gyre,
the falcon cannot hear the falconer…
– Yeats
Dear Lord Monckton.
The energy debacle in the UK is apparent – it is now obvious that their green energy schemes (scams) were not green and produced little useful energy. Wind farm operators are now being paid to set up diesel generator systems to augment their intermittent und unreliable wind power, while investments in reliable, less-costly conventional power generation systems were curtailed.
The British public was fed a pack of falsehoods, and has paid much higher energy costs than were necessary to support this green delusions, notwithstanding that cooler heads warned the government many years ago of their energy nonsense. The costs of this green energy scam were not only higher energy costs, but also higher rates of winter mortality, especially among the elderly and the poor.
UK governments were warned that their green energy scams were unworkable nonsense – I submitted two submissions to the Stern Committee in 2005 and others did as well.
Question: Is it now reasonable to sue current and past government leaders for “malfeasance in a public office”, for their ridiculous green energy scams that were foisted on the public?
Regards, Allan
Allan MacRae, Calgary