'The Telegraph' (UK) of 11th October carries an article headed "Judges Plan to outlaw climate change 'denial'" The journalist, Christopher Booker also refers to to Prince Charles's calling for a "Magna Carta for the Earth" to be presented at the coming Paris Conference. And, the push for outlawing free speech on climage change comes for a good friend of HRH, a Supreme Court Judge!

We've heard this sort of thing before but, I for one, have always thought it was joke. But, the heir to the Throne, and a Supreme Court Judge? HRH is a bit of an odd-bod, but I don't think Supreme Court Judges are supposed to have a sense of humour, are they?

The issue is available online.

Yeh, I saw that and thought it must be April fools day.

You know something is a lie when they have to outlaw opposition to it in that way.

Global Con job = more taxes.

The wellbeing of climate change
Well may be laws are what has got to happen. Time is ticking and the sea is rising. Some would disagree that day follows night.

It is a serious concern that is being rejected by mostly big business and vested interests as $ are at risk.

Others believe it is a conspiracy, which have it’s followers. Another lot say climate change is not man induced and therefore there is nothing that can be done about it. And some say it is a con to raise money for the UN or IPC or Mickey mouse club.

So how do you deal with that when good science and junk science can not cohabitate. Lets remember that B/ S baffles brains. And there a lot of different capacities of brains. Because you are a mathematician does not guarantee that you will be a mechanic.

So with that in mind we have to have an umpire as discussion has run its course. A decision is now in need as to a course of action, so what are the options.

The umpire has 2 options. Do we disagree with climate change, or do we agree climate change.

If the decision is to disagree, we do nothing we are prepared to suffer the consequences if any.

If the decision is to agree, we get about bettering our ways of managing our world with gusto.

Business decisions are hanging on the umpires decision,
The decision is pending

"We've heard this sort of thing before but, I for one, have always thought it was joke."

It's not a joke.
I've tried to tell you all before but y'all cant seem to get it through your thick heads.

Point 1. Whether climate change exists or not is not relevant.
Point 2. What is relevant is that they are using "climate change" as a tool to forward a New World Order agenda.

Understand this first and foremost, then we can go back to the actual issue of whether or not climate change does or doesn't exist.
At least then you can look at the issue in the proper perspective.

You'd think that by mentioning the heir to the British throne and a Supreme court judge you'd have answered your own question.

Do you guys not read the things I post or is it just so hard to believe that these things are actually happening?
(Because I'm really curious - I get the impression that I could hit some of you over the head with a frypan but you still wouldn't get it)

Look.. google "climate change club of rome"
http://www.google.com.au/#q=climate+change+club+of+rome
2nd response returned and you will find an article "Climate Change – Emergency Leadership Needed Now" by a member of the Club of Rome who is also a director of Australia21.
Do you not see how see how think-tank agendas become social policy?

4th Response
"Group That Admitted Manufacturing Global Warming Threat Still Pushes Same Hoax"

Its an agenda by those who want global depopulation.

Sorry if I come across the wrong way, but I often feel like you all think I'm a little nutty for some of my 'conspiracy theorist' type online interests, but what is ironic to me is its you guys that are shocked by these headlines while I'm not surprised in the least.

As we all know, the world is flat and stands on the back of a turtle.
Now unless ocean-levels rise, this turtle will become thirsty and eventually die,
then we shall all fall... down and down and down till we reach hell below.

I did not deny anything, so I hope that nothing I wrote was illegal!

Dear ttbn,

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story/beatup huh?

And to be quoting anything from Christopher Booker takes us into the deep dark realms of idiocy my friend.

This is a bloke who steadfastly denies second hand smoke has any harmful effects and virtually rules out any health implications for asbestos particularly the white kind.

He has a track record of attempting to denigrate scientific consensus on many of the issues where powerful business interests are wanting to put a contrary view into the press.

Tell you what, why don't you watch the speech made by Sands and tell me where he calls for “outlawing free speech on climage change”.

He doesn't.

http://youtu.be/eef1tK8mtEI

Armchair Critic,

The "guys" are not going to "read the things (you) post" if you call them "thickheads"; this is not a battle ground, it's a discussion forum. The "thickheads" know that it's not about climate change, it's about freedom of speech, yes, and a world government, run by a few un-elected maniacs. Why do you think I brought it up! The "thickheads" also know that the Left trolls here approve of such things, and you would be wasting your time trying to convince them of anything. They are best ignored, but don't get bitter and nasty: just keep expressing your opinions. That's all any off us can do. Who knows what monitoring of sites such as this will result in?

@tbbn
You have taken the Telegraph's article at face value without having a closer look at the actual presentation (see SteeleRedux's link in his post)
As I am familiar with Sands's work on International Law I was more than a little surprised at the assumptions that people were making. If you ever get the chance read his book Lawless World where he highlights the way International Law has evolved since 1945 has been to reduce national sovereignty. The lecture highlights the fact that the nations that are at most risk from climate change are those which have effectively made no contribution to the problem and are least well placed to address problems created by climate change. Yet under current law these nations have no right to any form of redress because our international law is weighted in favour of the richer nations.
So why did the telegraph run the story? read Klein's This Changes Everything - she documents that there is a well funded campaign to spread disinformation; it worked for a long time with smoking and at this stage is working with respect to CO2.

Dear Armchaircritic and ttbn,

This is where I do question if you both live in an alternative universe.

Let's cut to the chase.

You have presented us with an opinion piece, manufactured from a lie, written a bloke who has a long track record of having his ample proboscis so far up the fundamental orifice of big business that to suspect he is capable of regurgitating anything but the crap they are putting out is fanciful, yet somehow you seem content to completely ignore the bleeding obvious and instead babble on about world government conspiracy?

What the hell?

Unless the case can be made that this predisposition is genetic we have to assume you are both being wilfully delusional.

The question is why?

The Global warming nuts are coming out of the woodwork now.

Flooding the system: Climate change could knock the Internet offline

Story at.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/12/climate-change-internet-offline.html

Phillip S - have you actually bothered to read the link you provided or just the headline?
If I just saw the headline I probably would not have bothered to read further but when you read on it is clear that this is not some deluded raving.
Forget about anthropomorphic climate change - not relevant in this context. All that you need to take on board that the climate is changing; whether that is man made or natural is irrelevant here. It is even irrelevant whether or not we can stop climate change or not. In fact as far as the article is concerned the points it raises are relevant regardless of whether or not climate change is real or an illusion.
The point he is making is very simple. In the 21st century we are increasingly dependent on communication. If that infrastructure is disabled be it by a natural event or even a terrorist attack we are suddenly in a very different world. All the systems that we have built rely on modern communications knock that out and we find that the knock on effect will be enormous.
Sorry to say but the problem he is describing is real regardless of climate change.

BAYGON Quote "Sorry to say but the problem he is describing is real regardless of climate change"

Exactly as I said the nuts are blaming things on Global warming in that case sensationalizing it as a headline.

Philip S & Baygon,
As a member of the Local Emergency Management Committee
I can assure you that in an emergency even the best installed systems
will fail for the general public.
There are priority listings to drop everything except emergency services.
When an emergency occurs especially bushfires, because the smoke can
be seen for miles everyone starts ring home, mum's, friends etc and
the network gives up.

Then there are real failures, such as trees being blown over and
dragging fibre optic cables out of the ground. It goes on & on.
No end of possibilities.

Anyway, it is irrelevant whether AGW is real or not as there is not
enough economically accessible fossil fuels to cause it.

Bazz

You are right - I am a member of the CFS the powers that be in their infinite wisdom have designed our coms so that they work extremely well and it is easy to co-ordinate activities; unless of course there is a major fire as was the case last year.
The point of the article was that climate change will trigger severe weather conditions - storms, floods, bushfires but our systems are not geared for those sort of extreme events so even if you take all the civilians off the air our coms will still struggle; heavy smoke bends and distorts signals, fires can take out critical repeater stations etc

Well Baygon, here repeater sites have clearance around them and the
locals have the clearing on their regular program.

Have never experienced any loss of signal due to smoke although I
believe it is theoretically possible.
It would have to be a marginal signal in the first place, and be
communicating along the length of the smoke rather than across it.

It is hard to see any individual emergency any worse than the worse
that we have now. The mobile phone system is a bit different because
the powers are a lot less and on a significantly higher frequency.
It is shut down because of congestion, but it has not been done for
many years so I guess there is a lot more redundancy in the system.

The point I was making all those piled on global warming conditions
will not occur because the fuel is not there even if it is real.

Found an article from Mr Al Gore himself from May that relates to the original comment ttbn posted.

Al Gore: We Must ‘Put a Price on Carbon’ and on Climate ‘Denial in Politics’
http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/07/al-gore-price-on-climate-denial/

@Armchair critic - the original post claimed that there was a proposal on the table that was to make it illegal to deny climate change:
"Judges Plan to outlaw climate change " When you looked at the video the point was made that the Judiciary is well placed to weigh up contentious issues and that in a court of law judges would rule that on the balance of probabilities anthropogenic climate change is true. Hence if it were possible (and they doubted that it would be possible) if you wanted to make a civil claim for damages as a result of climate change then you would win, if and only if you could categorically identify who was responsible.
Gore is making much the same point neither Gore nor the Judges is proposing to outlaw climate change denial. There are lots of people who believe all sorts of weird and wonderful things - some believe that they have been abducted by aliens, some that the earth is flat yet others that we will all be reincarnated; whilst there is not a shred of scientific evidence for any of these beliefs people are free to hold them.
But if you want to claim in a court of law that you have been abducted by aliens then you will find that when the rules of evidence are applied you will get short shrift.
So when Gore says we must put a price on climate denial in politics he describing a tactic not denying anyone the right to say what they believe.

Replying to an earlier comment on here;
The internets reliability was a priority when first designed.
It was a US defense system and the TCP/IP protocol was designed to be
able to find its way around severed pathways.
It is successful but it is a rather inefficient protocol. It has a lot
of overhead in the packets.

I suspect for this reason X.25 is used by telecom companies to cart
TCP/IP around the place. It is more efficient as each packet has only
three extra addressing bytes.

Anyway to sum up the internet can fall over rather badly.

Maybe.
Guess I'm a little guilty of reading the headlines on this one.

In any case you can't deny there's an agenda to silence the voices of those who challenge the official line.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/19/petition-to-silence-climate-change-deniers-gains-over-3000-signatures/

Personally, I'm sceptical of their climate change claims and I think its part of a depopulation and global government agenda.

I don't necessary deny that man-made climate change exists or that overpopulation wont eventually become a problem.

For example, I'm sure that we could turn a really nice rainforest into a desert if we tried to, and I always think of the story where goats were introduced to an island, ate and bred until there was no food on the island left, and then subsequently all starved to death.

But I think every aspect of the official 'climate change' line is manipulated, overstated and dramatised to create a level of concern among the general public which will force governments to act.

From what I understand the 'homogenised' data is manipulated so that cooling trends become warming trends.
- That climate change models are unreliable and so are the projections.
- That carbon dioxide is good for plants and is greening the planet and that carbon dioxide and nitric oxide which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere greenhouse gases actually reflect heating energy rather than absorb it, meaning that increased CO2 is actually cooling the planet.

Then you have the other aspects such as changing sun activity, the earth tilting on its axis and Antarctica getting colder while the Arctic warms up.

Then there's the financial incentive of carbon pricing as well as the fact that reducing the use of coal will have a profound effect on the ability of developing countries citizens to move into the middle class.

And then, we have the admissions from the Club of Rome that global warming is a hoax to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government, and the line that 'human population needs to be reduced' in order to prevent an ecological collapse.

//Personally, I'm sceptical of their climate change claims and I think its part of a depopulation and global government agenda.//

Yep, that's madness alright.

//carbon dioxide and nitric oxide which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere greenhouse gases actually reflect heating energy rather than absorb it, meaning that increased CO2 is actually cooling the planet.//

And this is nonsense. CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation at its two IR active vibrational frequencies, which happen to fall within the wavelength range emitted by the Earth. Any gas which absorbs and emits in the wavelength range emitted by the Earth will act as a greenhouse gas, and contribute to warming of the planets surface (where we live). Nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are not greenhouse gases, although they do play a role in the formation of ozone (O3) which is. Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as 'laughing gas', is a greenhouse gas but makes little contribution to the overall greenhouse effect.

Armchair Critic, it would be a good idea if you started obtaining your information from reliable sources and not loony conspiracy theory websites like this:
http://truthism.com/
Next time you feel like looking up something on the web, I suggest that instead you walk to your local library and ask one of the librarians to direct you to the relevant shelves in their non-fiction section. It's not as quick and easy as googling stuff I know, but books are a lot more reliable than websites published by random nutcases.

After you've looked at enough credible sources of information, you'll probably find that you develop a more acute critical faculty and can more easily distinguish reliable and unreliable sources, at which point google really does become a useful research tool (provided you can avoid the lure of being sucked in by sensationalist websites that present claims that sound too amazing not not be true, but which have bugger all evidential basis).

Co2 is actually cooling the planet. Now that is dangerous, if you can put doubts like that into some minds.

Conspiracy is never ending, they just change dates as deadlines pass. The new fiction.

Abbott told us what he thought of Climate Change, in one word. Where did he get his education that bought about that conclusion, and to be so decisive.

A one world order, not that is going to be one hell of a vote. Lets hope we don’t get one like we did. I can’t see that happening anytime soon, politicians like the drunkenness that comes with power.

400 PPM Co2 has tipped the scales. Nothing new it has happened before. This time we created it, that is where the difference is.
Time for talk is over, we need rules and timetables to abide by.

The consequences of doing nothing are not in our best interests. We are guaranteed an extra 3 degree of temperature, That is enough to cause major shifts in the way we live, where we grow, and ocean life

"Personally, I'm sceptical of their climate change claims and I think its part of a depopulation and global government agenda."

You can be as sceptical as you like. Unfortunately nature does not give a fig for whether we believe in climate change or not - our beliefs about the world have no influence on how the world actually is.

Your concern about a global government is something that we can control. But here you are far too late; it is already happening. We continue to foster the illusion that we are a sovereign state but we have signed up to a host of global treaties which limit our sovereign power. Furthermore if you have a look here https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/221/47211.html you will see that of the 100 largest economies 51 are corporations; corporations that do not hesitate to use their power.
So climate change will happen regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not and if you are worried that we do not have control of our destiny, you are too late we have already lost that control.
So you can slit your wrists or just get drunk and forget about engaging in debates such as this.