Posted on 10/15/2015 4:17:18 AM PDT by HomerBohn
When you’re dealing with one of the most controversial debates in modern history, a little tact is in order. Or at least it should be with global warming, because contrary to popular opinion, it is not a settled science. While the majority of people in most countries believe that it’s happening, many of them don’t think that it’s being caused by human behavior.
And don’t believe anyone who tells you that there is a ‘consensus’ in the scientific community. The oft-repeated statistic that claims 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming, is a joke. That number can be tied to a vague 2009 questionnaire that was only answered by 79 scientists from the climate field, and which ignored the opinions of thousands of researchers from multiple relevant fields. There is no consensus.
You could say that none of this is important, because something can be true even if nobody believes it. In our world however, consensus is the closest we can get to the truth. If everybody agrees on something, then there’s a very good chance that it is a fact.
If however, a sizable percentage of the population that consists of both scientists and laymen disagree with popular opinion, then it can hardly be called a settled science. This situation calls for more research and debate until the truth, whatever it may be, becomes indisputable and everyone can get on board with that reality. You know what it doesn’t call for? Persecuting and prosecuting the minority that has dared to disagree with popular opinion.
And that’s exactly what a secretive UN funded legal conference decided to do last month, when they met to discuss climate change and how the International Court of Justice should tackle it.
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.
Although his audience, Sands said, would agree that the scientific evidence for man-made climate change was “overwhelming”, there were still “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” continuing to deny “the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the rising of the seas”, and that this is all due to our emissions of CO2. The world’s courts, led by the International Court of Justice, said Sands, could play a vital role “in finally scotching these claims”.
“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.
On the surface this sounds like what I was just asking for. There should be research and debates until the indisputable truth is found. However, this hardly sounds like a fair debate. It sounds like Sands is calling for an international court to prove what he thinks is true, rather than seeking the truth with an open mind and a consideration for all parties. He’s really just calling for a kangaroo court to make his science official, which would be followed by prosecuting any institution that disagrees. Frankly, that would be incredibly unethical to do, even if global warming was proven to be true.
What I find interesting about this whole situation, is that I don’t remember hearing about anyone calling for pro-global warming opinions to be made illegal (as a matter of fact, if you can find a single instance of this happening, post it in the comments.) This type of behavior seems to stem exclusively from the other side of the aisle, and it doesn’t do their argument any favors. If this is how top global warming proponents approach science and debate, then it’s hard to imagine anyone taking their assertions seriously in the future.
More wealth redistribution from progressive thought tanks.
But hey, if it's raining hard, it's global warming, if it's too hot, it's global warming, if it's snowing hard, it's global warming, if it doesn't rain, it's global warming! They think that they have all of their bases covered.
It's not even popular opinion btw.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
How about an open US vote to outlaw the UN?
Suppression of Free Thought and Speech.
How about we just withdraw from the UN and cease funding the.
It’s not like they don’t already hate us.
UNaccountable bureaucrats (socialists) demands?
DEFUND UN
The clear and present danger…
“Socialism Is Legal Plunder”, “Everything about socialism is sham and affectation” - Bastiat
Looks like it’s off to the re-education camps for us FReepers. Ted Cruz too.
“He’s really just calling for a kangaroo court to make his science official,”
Like the USSC, led by corrupt Bush crony Roberts, who dictated
that CO2 is a pollutant.
We need to kick this infernal organization to pieces when it’s in session. It’s a Socialist/Communist anyi-American front organization
What science has ever been settled? The UN is like the medieval church, except their god is environmentalism.
Can we get Sands declared a terrorist?
Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US!
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations
The acronym explains the science.
To outlaw “climate change denial”, they must outlaw science.
21st century heretic bonfires courtesy of “scientific consensus”. (Which isn’t science, scientific, nor how real science is done.)
Agreed. The UN wants to come for our guns too. Like the cowards and decievers they are, they passed the UNODA Arms Treaty on CHRISTMAS EVE, DECEMBER 24, 2014. What does that tell us? They are clearly a progressive, commie, leftist organization thatnis willing to stoop as low as it takes to ram this NWO bull$hit down our throats. They need to be defunded and disbanded.
Only the beginning. All conservative speech will be criminalized on the current course. And Republican leaders are doing nothing.
Can’t do that.
It’s not popular opinion - it’s effective mind control at an astroturfing level... used to fool weak minded, easily influenced members of the press.. Hello New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times... I’m talkin’ about YOU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.