There’s a reason Jonah Goldberg referred to Progressivism as “nice fascism”: you will be forced to comply. For your own good. And Warmists are primarily Progressives
(UK Telegraph) Â We might think that a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made 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 Earthâ€. 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). (snip)
The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in a keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Cherie Blair’s 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, to enforce this as worldwide law. (snip)
“The most important thing the courts could do,†he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of factâ€, 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 neededâ€, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.
No one should be surprised by this in the least, being the logical extension of the whole “the science is settled” screeching from members of the Cult of Climastrology (who they themselves refused to practice what they preach). Warmists demand that the only science to be taught in schools is one sided, being more akin to indoctrination than scientific inquiry. They refuse to follow the Scientific Model. They band together and assail any scientist who refuses to bow to the CoC. They yammer on about getting the US Department of Justice to file RICO (Rackateer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, originally designed to prosecute the Mafia) charges against non-believers. They call for jail and death for Skeptics. Simply outlawing Skepticism is fully and wholly believable, and something that Warmists very much want to do.
The Green Cultists are borrowing from the Islamist playbook, waging Lawfare against their critics: https://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/law-professor-interational-court-of-justice-should-silence-global-warming-skeptics/
“Nice fascism” is right. But at least it’s for our own good.
You need a new source. One believes Christopher Booker at peril.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker
Read the “Superhuman cock-ups of Christopher Booker”.
We have no way of knowing if his reporting is accurate.
IF it is accurate, then no, we need to combat Deniers lies with truth, not oppression. As I’ve encouraged you (to no avail), Please Tell the Truth.
Once again, little jeffy, point out the untruths in the article.
[…] William Teach pointed out that this isn’t a surprise at all, considering the source. […]
little puppy sucker,
Point out the truths in the article.
[…] William Teach pointed out that this isn’t a surprise at all, considering the source. […]
You’re the one blubbering on about telling the truth, so can you point out anything untruthful in the article?
By the way, did Reagan invade Panama?
You said he did.
Was that truthful?
Why wouldn’t we believe that the Europeans would want to restrict the freedom of speech when it comes to
global warmingclimate change? To Americans, freedom of speech is virtually limitless, restricted only where speech causes some actual harm, basically a penalty on the consequences of speech rather than on speech itself.But the Europeans? In many countries, so-called “hate speech” is punishable, as is speech which hurts the feelings of others, and Holocaust denial can get you thrown in jail in a few European countries; Naziism is banned in Germany.
jeff,
Did you bother to read the article. The article is wrong in most of its content. It is like some one in grade school criticizing a college professor. I am in medicine, as you know, and have worked around asbestosis, as you don’t know, and can assure you that there is a difference in the nature of asbestos and is propensity to cause illness, the article would have you believe that all asbestos particles are the same. I have found this in liberal media, it is usually wrong yet they act as if they are extremely intelligent, when they aren’t. Much like your ranting.
But of course- when you have science on your side and can produce data to back up your theory, the more extreme members of your cult will of course work to abolish any dissenting views. You know, because science. It’s the Green Inquisition.