QC calls for ruling to 'scotch' claims that challenge 'consensus' on global warming
An international conference of top judges hears call for 'judicial determination' of the scientific evidence
|
|
|
|
|
|
1:43AM BST 11 Oct 2015
9586 Comments
We might think a proposal to an international conference of top judges - assembled in the highest courtroom in Britain - for a ruling to 'scotch' claims that challenge the 'consensus' on manmade global warming was odd enough to be worthy of front-page coverage.
Last week I mentioned that the Prince of Wales had sent a message to this conference calling for the UN’s forthcoming climate meeting in Paris to agree on “a Magna Carta for the Earth”. But only a series of startling posts by a sharp-eyed Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise (onNofrakkingconsensus), have alerted us to what a bizarre event this judicial gathering turned out to be (the organisers even refused to give her the names of those who attended).
Including senior judges and lawyers from across the world, the three-day conference on “Climate Change and the Law” was organised by King's College London. It was funded by, inter alia, the UK government, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Supreme Court.
As one of the two UN sponsors of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNEP has been one of the main drivers of alarm over global warming for 40 years. The Supreme Court judge Lord Carnwath, a fervent believer in man-made climate change, assisted in the organisation of the event and chaired the keynote lecture, held at the Supreme Court. Before becoming a judge, he worked with the Prince of Wales and with UNEP since 2002.
The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in the keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Matrix Chambers and professor of law at University College, London. Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in.
Although many in his audience, Sands said, would agree that the 'facts' of global warming had been 'established', there were still “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” continuing to challenge the "broad emerging consensus on many of these factual matters". The world’s courts, led by the International Court of Justice, said Sands, could play a role “in finally scotching these claims”.
If the ICJ were to make a finding of fact, he suggested, it could give "the authority of a judicial determination as to what the facts are and what the scientific evidence is." Presumably such a determination would then deter any government, corporation (or individual scientist) from questioning the agreed “science” again.
India and China will merely respond with inscrutable smiles, as they continue to rely on fossil fuels
The fact that it could be seriously proposed in the highest courtroom in the land that the law should now be used to help suppress any further debate on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the history of science (greeted with applause from the distinguished legal audience) speaks volumes about the curious psychological state to which the great global warming scare has reduced so many of the prominent figures who today exercise power and influence over the life of our Western societies.
For perspective, we need only think of the likely responses to all this claptrap by China and India (which has just announced that it intends to triple its CO2 emissions by 2030). Not only have they already kicked into touch any chance of a “binding climate treaty” in December. At the thought of these self-important lawyers trying to force them to agree with 'judicial determinations', they will merely respond with inscrutable smiles, as they continue to rely on fossil fuels to power what will soon be the two largest economies in the world.
CORRECTION: When this article was first posted it mistakenly stated that judges planned to outlaw climate change denial. In fact, the proposal to have a test case raised at the International Court of Justice was made by the QC Philippe Sands, though that Court would have no power to curb freedom of speech. We are happy to make this clear.
