Climate change denial may become illegal if the courts have their way, according to newspaper reports that a group of top judges have got together to see how this could be implemented. Convinced the evidence is now compelling, they would like to put an end to the controversy in the climate change debate.
Top legal experts and judges from across the planet met in September at Britain’s Supreme Court to discuss global warming and how to deal with the issue. The Daily Telegraph, a British broadsheet newspaper, said the ‘semi-secret’ international conference proposed making it illegal for people to contradict the reality of climate change. In the 21st century, the climate change controversy turned into a circus, with lawmakers in Florida trying to ban the use of the term ‘climate change’, and the international courts silencing the deniers.
The meeting was funded by the UK government, the United National Environment Program (UNEP), the Supreme Court and some other organizations. ‘Courts need to settle the scientific dispute’ The gathering was chaired by Lord Carnwath, a Supreme Court Judge and fervent believer that climate change is man-made.
He has worked with the Prince of Wales and UNEP for several years. The reason for this bizarre assembly of top judges was explained in a keynote speech by QC Philippe Sands, a University College London law professor who works at Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers. Prof. Sands said: “One of the most important things an international court could do – in my view it is probably the single most important thing it could do – is to settle the scientific dispute.
A finding of fact on one or more of these matters [such as whether climate change is man-made], or indeed on other pertinent matters, would be significant and authoritative and could well be dispositive on a range of future actions, including negotiations.” As Paris will fail, the courts must step in They believe it is now time for the courts to enforce a law because the Paris climate change negotiations will fail.
Christopher Booker, an English journalist, author, and one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, wrote in the Telegraph: “The fact that it could be seriously proposed in the highest courtroom in the land that the law should now be used to 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.” If these judges get their way, would that mean that the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s major inquiry into how accurate temperature records have been would have to stop?
In the run up to the Paris climate change negotiations, Prof. Philippe Sands QC delivered a public lecture at the UK Supreme Court on the role of international law and judges in addressing the legal issues related to climate change.