Judge proposes using courts to ban global warming skepticism

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Fascists: An international judge, speaking to a gathering of international judges, proposed last week that the world’s judges use their power to make it illegal for anyone to disagree with the religion of human-caused global warming.

The conference’s keynote speaker stated the following:

“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.

The worst thing about this proposal is not that he made it but that his audience of judges applauded him for it. Freedom-loving people of the world should be very afraid of the future based on this one story alone.


  • Cotour

    Long term this is basically what it is all about.


    Lucky for everyone on the planet these leftists only have each every one of our best interests in mind.

    (high IQ nerd sarcasm alert)

  • Edward

    The first video embedded in the post’s linked article uses correlation between man’s activities and CO2 concentrations, yet even Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” shows that CO2 concentrations have been fluctuating for hundreds of thousands of years, not just during the previous 100, when man has had any possibility of having any effect. Correlation is not causation.

    That video also declares that the correlation between increased CO2 concentration and rising temperatures demonstrates the cause of the increased temperatures. Once again, correlation is not causation. Once again, Al Gore’s movie show that Earth’s temperature has been fluctuating for those same hundreds of thousands of years, without human action being a possible cause.

    If CO2 and increased temperatures are now caused by man, what caused them before man started emitting CO2? Could the current correlation be mere coincidence? The current lack of temperature increase suggests just that.

    The video also declares that even a small increase in global temperatures would have “serious implications for human societies and the natural world.” These implications are not enumerated, but as we can see from the difference in our society and the natural world over the past 100 years, at an increased temperature (the video says) of 1/4 to 1/6 of the supposed next 100, the trend shows that we will have more food, better living conditions, even more trees, reduced illnesses and increased lifespans, and other benefits, but few (if any) disadvantages.

    The second embedded video admits that, despite the human-caused CO2 emissions being greater than ever, the temperature has not increased “over the last fifteen years.” So much for correlation, the only evidence that human action is causing higher temperatures, and so much for the hypothesis of causation. Obviously there are more powerful factors involved than mankind’s actions.

    The post’s linked article shows an interesting development: International justices are now performing the work of legislatures.

    Also, such a declaration would violate the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in several ways, but what should we expect when a “governing body” such as the UN grants us our rights; it feels entitled to take them away whenever convenient to them:

    1) It violates article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

    Apparently, skeptics will no longer be considered to be endowed with reason, and judges no longer have to act towards them in a spirit of brotherhood.

    2) It violates article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

    Or perhaps “opinion” will stop counting as a distinction.

    3) It violates article 6: “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”

    Apparently, skeptics will no longer be recognized by the judiciary as persons.

    4) It violates article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

    Skeptics will no longer count.

    5) It violates article 8: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”

    This does not happen at all, when the tribunals are already biased against those whose fundamental rights have been violated by said tribunals.

    6) It violates article 9: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

    Unless arbitrarily declaring skeptics to be heretics is not considered arbitrary by the judges.

    7) It violates article 10: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

    Once the tribunals declare themselves partial, by declaring skeptics to be heretics, this is impossible.

    8) It violates article 11 part 1: “(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

    Once skeptics are presumed guilty …

    9) It violates article 11 part 2: “(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.”

    And no penal code makes skepticism illegal, only the judiciary is considering doing so.

    10) It violates article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

    Well, this is not an additional violation, skeptics have had their reputations attacked for a decade or so. The judges merely propose to make it official.

    11) It violates article 14 parts 1 and 2: “(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

    Since this is a political crime — disagreement with the authorities — and it applies internationally, skeptics will enjoy no asylum from persecution.

    12) It violates article 19: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

    Notice that freedom of speech is so low on the UN’s list. This is because the UN does not like to be contradicted by its peons, and is not serious about this topic. This is another reason why they confer rights upon us in such a manner that they can deny us these tenets as they wish. Any governing body that confers rights can also remove those rights.

    13) It violates article 23, part 1: “(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”

    If being a real scientists, not a government or UN stooge, is a skeptic’s choice, who are the tribunals to violate that choice?

    14) It violates article 27, part 2: “(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”

    However, some will not be allowed to author certain scientific facts or findings.

    Finally, Article 29, part 3, explains that these rights only apply to us only at the pleasure of the UN: “(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

  • Kevin R.

    Well, tyranical rule depends on kangaroo courts. That suposed judges don’t understand the difference between a kangaroo court and a court of Law is quite frieghtening.

  • Don

    Civilization is just a thin veneer, and much of that veneer has already been worn away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *