 |
| Source: Ice Age Now |
Use anti-mafia law to prosecute ‘climate deniers’
The stupidity shown by their use of the term "climate denier" or "climate change denier"is that surely no-one could deny climate; and we sceptics known that climate has always changed.
Today, Donna Laframboise, in a piece titled
she lists some "other voices have joined the discussion about climate change and the proper role of the courts,"
- marquee Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker: “Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’”
- James Delingpole in The Spectator: “A Supreme Court justice and the scary plan to outlaw climate change”
- climatologist Judith Curry: “Adjudicating the future: silencing climate dissent via the courts”
- Mark Steyn: “Safe-Space Totalitarian Groupthink”
- Andrew Montford: “Justiciable climate?”
- Hilary Ostrov: “Of legal beagles and climate change views”
- Paul Matthews: “Robin Guenier on Philippe Sands”
and follows with judges active in the climate debate and their participation in a three-day UK legal conference re AGW matters :
This is an enormous problem because the primary job of a judge is to be impartial. A judge with an agenda – whether it be climate, abortion, religion, or any other cause – is not, by definition, impartial. The public has a right to know the name of every judge who tosses aside his or her impartiality in favour of activism.Read Donna's thought-provoking piece HERE.
Christopher Booker's piece on the same three day conference is titled:
