Silencing Dissent Via the Courts (No Climate Free Speech, Part 4)

Posted: October 30, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Donna Laframboise on the legal eagles who want to settle the climate debate with a court ruling.

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

A British academic wants an international court to declare climate skeptics wrong, once and for all.

Sands’ presentation begins 9 minutes in and ends shortly past 56 minutes

Last week, a three-day conference took place in the UK attended by a “key group of the world’s leading judges, lawyers and legal academics.” Pompously titled Adjudicating the Future: Climate Change and the Rule of Law, its Twitter hashtag was #ClimateCourts. Some of its events were held in the very room in which UK Supreme Court decisions are delivered.

The Supreme Court has a YouTube channel where you can watch law professor Philippe Sands argue, at that conference, that the International Court of Justice (which he describes as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations”) has two choices: “consign itself to irrelevance” or join the fight against climate change.

I always thought a court was supposed to…

View original post 794 more words

Comments
  1. A C Osborn says:

    Agenda 21.

  2. oldbrew says:

    If the ICJ has nothing better to do than attempt some job creation using the climate as an excuse, it’s already ‘consigned to irrelevance’.

  3. rishrac says:

    Another rerun of the monkey trials, except with a twist. When religion tried to suppress autocorrect won’t let me spell his name Drawin theory being taught in schools. .. oh wait AGW is a religion.

  4. tallbloke says:

    False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science – Charles Darwin (1809-1882)