‘Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’

Posted on October 11, 2015 by KG

A semi-secret, international conference of top judges proposed to make illegal any opinion that contradicted climate change…’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to ‘Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’

  1. Pascal says:
    October 11, 2015 at 20:48

    This may explain that video I left on your quickies thread last week. Here it is again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

    This was at a Congressional hearing where the President of the Sierra Club was confronted by Ted Cruz with the factual data that showed no significant warming for the last 18 years. He gave the same answer repeatedly when asked how he would respond to data refuting CAGW. “We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,”

    Really, the last time we saw anything like this was during the HUAC hearings in the 1950s where the pinkos testifying before Congress repeated over and over again “I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me.”

    Mr. Mair apparently understands the trend indicated by this story and so is giving the only safe answer that will not incriminate him when the crackdown comes should the legalistic tactic succeed. He’s providing the world with a demonstration of the only acceptable way to kowtow on this issue?

    • KG says:
      October 11, 2015 at 20:52

      We all hope for that crackdown, Pascal, but I doubt it will ever happen.

      • Pascal says:
        October 11, 2015 at 21:02

        Just to set my meaning straight, I am hoping that the soviet-style crackdown on the truth NEVER happens KG (that the globalists get scared off). Anyway, that’s the one that this puke Mair seems to be anticipating.

        The crackdown by reality is the one we know will happen.

        The crackdown by our side is the one you doubt.

    • The Gantt Guy says:
      October 11, 2015 at 20:52

      IMHO, Cruz should have spent a little more time dismantling the “97%” lie. His one reaction was to call it a “bogus study”. Now, you and I have seen the evidence of this trumped up 97%, but Joe Average and, I’d warrant, even plenty of people who watch CSPAN, haven’t. A quick sound-bite deconstructing the lie would have been extremely useful.

      Apart from that, it was a brilliant piece of Congressional Theatre. Not that it will make a bit of difference, but as far as theatre goes, it was top-shelf.

      • KG says:
        October 11, 2015 at 21:02

        Agree, on both points.

      • Pascal says:
        October 11, 2015 at 21:03

        I think he did take a stab at that 97% and designated them as grant seekers (rent seekers with a science degree).

        • The Gantt Guy says:
          October 11, 2015 at 21:20

          True enough. I would just like to have seen him hammer it a little harder. Show Mair for the charlatan he really is, as well as showing him for a dissembling liar.

          • Pascal says:
            October 11, 2015 at 21:43

            It would have been a nice addition, but recall that the GOPe has been limiting Cruz’s time lately. So he may have chosen to stick to his plan to show us how the fraudsters are the deniers and not us before they shut him down.

      • Daily Media Review says:
        October 12, 2015 at 12:56

        The reason they state the 97% meme is to side track away from the empirical data. It’s a the most common tactic of alarmists, and is similar to watching Winston Peters avoiding answering a question. I’ve found when debating alarmists it’s best to stick to nothing but the science, and don’t let them talk about anything else. Either they confront the issue, or they make it humiliatingly obvious to everyone they’re bullshitting.

        If you allow them to lead you elsewhere you allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. What he’ll do if you debate the 97% instead of the satellite data is turn the debate into how many papers said 97%, etc, thereby hijacking the debate and undermining the argument. Best to be relentless on the issue and cut them no remorse – rub their noses in the shit.

        Here’s the argument I use, yet to be defeated, although some of the smarter ones will raise a couple of flawed papers since the AR5 was released:

        http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html

  2. Warren Tooley says:
    October 11, 2015 at 21:14

    Next thing they’ll be telling us is that gummi bears are real, and if you deny gummi bears, they will take all of your wealth.

    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQtwIwAWoVChMI2qPqmPu5yAIVyBOUCh37yQau&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBRTSZZgCUik&usg=AFQjCNHQ26k_r9yPm9dquS_lkEBaihEA_A&sig2=mf563pojt7dndxoWnygi-w

    And when they talk about that international treaty. My money says its the earth Charter. The Earth Charter is being implemented here in NZ, and most governments and councils have agreed to do it slowly. If you look at sections 11 & 12b, you will definitely see my point.

    Oh also I just heard about climate justice now.

    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAEahUKEwjK_sPb-7nIAhWMHpQKHYElALg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.earthcharterinaction.org%2F&usg=AFQjCNEZd1-glVJ5zTydRAm2vbnXiTh98A&sig2=WrQrLLpOOSB6bh5Ft5p7VQ

    • Pascal says:
      October 11, 2015 at 21:21

      Pope Francis mentioned climate justice favorably only last week.

      • Warren Tooley says:
        October 11, 2015 at 22:20

        Well according to Alex Jones, their are a number of Catholics who are not to happy with the pope. Even in Highbury North Shore, their is a sign outside of the catholic church, support if you are pregnant. Whereas this pope is saying abortion is ok, their are a number of catholics that are standing against him.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yes.gif So I’ll be interested to see what happens over the next year. Oh and Alex Jones has a million viewers.

  3. Pascal says:
    October 11, 2015 at 21:32

    KG, please consider altering your headline so that we don’t play the game of our enemies.

    “Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’ Debunkers”

    I’d do this so as to call attention to the fact that the denial of reality, as demonstrated so well by Cruz’s grilling of the Sierra Club president, is all on the part of the CAGW fraudsters.

    It is the fraudsters are the deniers, not us. It’s them who we must proscribe. Ronbo uses that word often enough so he can explain it.

    • Ronbo says:
      October 12, 2015 at 01:04

      Pascal, I’m a history buff who believes that both Nietzsche and The Bible have it right, as both sources state that history moves in a cycle – and what happened once before will happen again, “nothing new under the sun.”

      So with that in mind, I think back to the days of the French Revolution, and the radical neo-communist Jacobin Party that authored the execution of the king and the declaration of war by France against Europe.

      In a general way, do we know see the same sort of radical Jacobins in power in America since 2009? Do we not see a French Style Radical Revolution that hijacked the moderate American Revolution in the same way the Jacobins hijacked the moderate French Revolution, that inspired by the Age of Reason and the moderate American Revolution, wanted to put in power a constitutional monarchy like Britain?

      However, all revolutions in history, I repeat ALL REVOLUTIONS, no matter how successful put in place a COUNTER REVOLUTIONS – So what I see happening to this current Robespierre named Obama and his Democrat (Jacobin) Party is pretty much along the same lines as what happened to their ancestors – they will keep making more and more radical demands against the citizens until there is a COUNTER REVOLUTION “The Thermidor Reaction” that will be as radical and deadly as their revolution.

      Like Leonard Cohen, “I see the future, and, brother, it’s MURDER!”

      2016 promises to be 1793 redux in a general way that will likely start in the same way – with a last ditch coup attempt by the Jacobins (Democrats) that will result in a counter coup by We The People.

      Endgame? The Man On Horseback TO RESTORE ORDER AND GREATNESS TO THE NATION: The American Caesar.

      Donald Trump?

      Could be.

      • Pascal says:
        October 12, 2015 at 05:44

        Pretty close at how I look at Trump’s appeal too.

        However, historically I am hoping Trump is more akin to our Sulla than our Caesar.

        Lucius Cornelius Sulla revolted against Gaius Marius who, incidentally was linked to the family of Julius Caesar who was a baby when Marius rose to power (which suggests to us why Caesar was no constitutionalist.)

        Marius had been elected consul for an unprecedented 7 consecutive terms. He proved to be a proto-socialist and helped achieve his elections by watering down Roman votes by granting Roman citizenship to Latins outside Rome. Sound familiar? Anyway, that sort of policy of weak borders is one reason that I compare the 16 years of us living under GWB and BHO as, respectively, Marius light and Marius intense.

        In 84 BC Sulla led the civil wars (which he hadn’t started) against the socialists with the help of many people who wanted to restore the relative sanity of the republic. Marius followers were proscribed and killed.

        After the defeat of the Marians, and a restoration by fiat of the machinery of the republic, in 79 BC Sulla retired his position of dictator in the manner of Cincinnatus.

        Some 35 years later that was something Caesar was not about to do. For as we know Caesar was slyly seeking to be King of Rome at least in fact (de facto) if not in title (de jure).

        Now if you see Trump is seeking to be just another dictator in the manner of Obama ruling by executive actions, then your equating him to Caesar is correct. Is that your view of him? He has made some statements that support that view you know.

        If so, and Trump acts that way, then we will simply be moving to Empire from Republic faster than did Rome.

  4. Pascal says:
    October 12, 2015 at 05:56

    BTW Ronbo. When the Bible says “nothing new under the sun” it is suggesting that is a curse for following our own path and not that which is found through faith in our Creator. So it is only natural (heh!) that the “God is dead” Nietzsche adopted that line.

  7. Ronbo says:
    October 12, 2015 at 12:11

    Robertv said:

    “If Trump doesn’t play ball he will be eliminated. The only way a revolution could start is an economic collapse where they no longer can control the masses.”

    Great minds think alike. I’ve said on a number of occasions that an economic meltdown is necessary for rebellion to break out – and if you look at the troubling economic indicators this could easily happen any time between now and the November, 2016.

    Again some history: Remember the almost economic collapse in September of 2008? I find it interesting that the crisis happened at a time when John McCain and Sarah Palin were surging in the polls.

    Also, Democrats have a habit of creating a manufactured crisis just before an election if the Republican candidate is ahead.

    With this in mind, I have good reason to believe they would pull the same trick in 2016 if it looks like the Republicans are on a roll.

    However, the danger is that a Democrat manufactured economic crisis may quickly get out of control – which the last one in 2008 nearly did – and lead to a global economic collapse greater than the crash of 1929.

    Yes, if all else fails – and the Republican presidential candidate looks inevitable – I agree that assassination will be attempted just before the November, 2016 election – if all else fails to stop him.

    I can imagine the last Presidential debate where the Republican presidential candidate would be gunned down on stage – and the Democrat candidate running over to comfort him as he is bleeding and dying – all recorded on live global television and repeated endlessly on the 24/7 cable news.

    The ultimate manufactured crisis? The Democrat waves the bloody shirt. The assassin, of course, turns out to be a “Right Wing Gun Nut” even if he’s a card carrying member of the Communist Party like Lee Harvey Oswald.

    I see rebellion in 2016/17 – it will either be the Right going ape if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden were elected president, or the Left going postal if Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson is elected to the presidency.

    I think 2016 will be the most fateful year in American history since 1860 when Lincoln was elected and the Southern planter class revolted because they would not stomach even the threat of parting with their slaves.

    I see much the same sort of reactionary, aristocratic and stupidity in today’s Ruling Class as was displayed by the Southern Ruling Class in 1860….

    Interesting that the traitor class then as now are Democrats?

  8. Warren Tooley says:
    October 13, 2015 at 22:52

    What they’re doing makes sense, when you look at it from the point of view of a discussion on kiwiblog. Griff has admitted that unless the world’s emissions are cut by 90%, the earth will be destroyed. How on earth can they reduce the earth’s emissions by 90%? They’ll have to depopulate. What they are doing is total tyranny, and that’s why they don’t want us to do anything to stop them. If you think this is some sort of joke, click on this link, and scroll down at meatloaf and Griff.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/10/general_debate_12_october_2015.html

    Griff even admitted we won’t achieve it. The debate is totally hillarious. So anyone think we should go for the 90% reduction?

    • Pascal says:
      October 14, 2015 at 07:01

      The conflict I’ve been warning about for decades is coming to loggerheads. The modern West’s belief in the sanctity of human life (human creativity unleashed has led to the beneficial outcomes) is INCOMPATIBLE with the Postmodern West’s belief in Neo-Malthusian Sustainability (unleashed human creativity must lead to overburdened resources and self-annihilation).

      The moral codes of the two camps are based upon mutually exclusive paradigms. The sanctity of all innocent human life and laws to sustain it versus the utilitarian view of human life depleted of all gratitude and nostalgia and laws to empower the hatchet-men.

      The former, which pursues modernity, is optimistic and forward looking and is the real progressive view.

      The latter, which often labels itself as postmodern, is pessimistic and regressive, but illegitimately owns the progressive label.

      The SSM’s spin keeps the vast majority of the student bodies and audience confused as to which one leads to their subjugation and shortening of their lives.

      I have tried to help those who hold the Right paradigm understand the nature of the conflict with the Left paradigm. But I am too often exhausted by the effort. So Warren, my old heart was gladdened to see your post. I pray you have more drive than I have had.

  9. Warren Tooley says:
    October 14, 2015 at 09:09

    Thanks Pascal, and obviously you understand the issue Malthusianism. In 1 or 2 Timothy, it says that in the last days their will be hypocrites who forbid marriage and meat. Malthus was a priest who said we need to teach people to have less children. So it is no doubt satanic, and now they are saying meat eaters are murderers.

    And yes I have plenty of drive. I am writing a couple of books about relationships. And this stuff is going in their. The NZ government is doing everything possible to make it difficult on fathers and husbands. And people are going to understand how they are going about it, so that they can watch for their legislation to go the same way. So that young men and fathers, can know how to avoid being hit by these legislative changes that make it very difficult to function.

    The big thing is no one’s going to agree to a 90% reduction in emmissions. What they are open about is we need to do more. They know the 90% is just going to be a turn off. Why bother, if it is impossible to begin with.

    Anyhow these relationship books are all about proceeding or not proceeding in a relationship, knowing when its just not worth bothering about, or when you have something worth trying. And these legislative changes make it so easy for the woman to say I’m not happy, get the house and the children, and the man has nothing but alimony payments. And what that achieves is people think maybe having a child is a silly idea.

    So I’m going to use this information, to show that if your a man you have to be totally critical and objective in the dating stages, because the law won’t protect you, if these NZ law changes come to other parts of the world. And also understanding these legislative changes, their is a way to make sure you won’t be hit by it. Of course no lawyer will give away their secrets.

    Any prayers will be appreciated.

    • Pascal says:
      October 14, 2015 at 09:57

      G-d bless you and clear your way.

    • mawm says:
      October 14, 2015 at 23:15

      Warren, I’m sure that by now you have read “The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi. He has some interesting essays on modern relationships between men and women. He also has a blog under the same title.

      These legislative changes that are so skewed to benefit women, and at such a huge cost to men, is why all the good men have gone fishing…….and why I I tell young men to rent and not buy.

      • Warren Tooley says:
        October 15, 2015 at 01:48

        Hi Mawm, no I haven’t quite read that book. This was something I discovered and experimented with years ago. So although, it would make sense to read modern psychology etc, because of copyright complications, I just want to be able to present it as my work.

        Having said that, I’m pretty sure Rollo is on the same page as I am, as far as understanding the way the law works. That if one malicious lie is all it takes and you’ve lost your house, it makes more sense to rent and invest elsewhere than it does to invest in a house. But that’s where their is a secret. Either you can own a house or you have the right to use it. Its either one or the other.

        Real Estate does not mean owning the house, it means something different to what you think it means. Now of course if you have a law dictionary it all makes sense. In Barron’s it explains that in the feudal era people made a deal with the crown that she would protect them and their property, on conditions that they would be tenants on the land, provided they paid the fee. So on your so called land it says tenant, and the certificate it states what you must do to keep it.

        So then if you buy the house, you are a target for lawyers who know how the system works. And that’s where the other secret is. In other countries the parents are the day to day custodian, and the legal custodian, decision maker. In a divorce the judge is required to be objective with all the facts presented.

        But thanks to the Greens in New Zealand, the mother has both custodies. She is the guardian, the father isn’t, so in family court she has total say over everything.

        So first of all legally, their are secret rules which can totally destroy men, and if you have a house, you are a target.

        Having said this, their are a number of possible solutions. 1st of all my brother moved to another country before he had child, where he has rights.

        2ndly, if the relationship is not rock solid, these legal rules only apply if you have a child. So if you have a child before it is rock solid, your putting yourself at risk. Another brother got divorced before he had a child.

        Finally, most importantly which is what these books are about, is that you can tell very quickly whether your relationship is rock solid, or whether it has many challenges or whether it is going to be a lemon.

        For instance: some women play games with your head, until they get what they want, and they don’t negotiate or care about your feelings. That’s the lemon.

        Other women, give clues that they are not happy, are willing to give and take. Whenever their are problems their is a way to talk things through, and for both people to be happy. This is the many challenges category.

        And then their are those who are with you because you are exactly what they want. And if they have you that’s all they want. And yes their are some girls I know who are like that. If they have me that’s all they want, and even after breaking up, years later they can’t move on.

        So what I’m saying is first of all, once you understand the legislative changes they are making, their are things you can do to make sure you are not a target.

        2ndly, if men are objective and critical, and use this system, yeah it will take time to find someone good, but the chances of things going wrong will be very slim. I’ve received 5 marriage proposals and have 6 stalkers. Because for it to work, in the first place they have to not play games. They have to be able to talk things through. So just on that, so many fail.

        So I’m saying their is a way for it to work, but it requires plenty of skill, and your lawyer and pschologist don’t give away the secrets. And the whole idea is how can we reduce the population.

        Oh that’s right, those who don’t have children won’t be hit by these legislative changes. Which brings up the whole flavour, making sure your good for each other, and bring the best out of each other, in the first place, whether or not children are for you.

  10. mawm says:
    October 15, 2015 at 13:57

    I think you misunderstood my “rent, don’t buy” comment. This is with regard relationships.

    Tomassi and many other men writing about the modern relationships repeatedly point out the solipsism, probably even narcissism, of women and their hypergamy ie searching out for the mate that provides them with the maximum they can get for their sexual ranking, and how they will exit a relationship without looking back if they see a better offer on the horizon.

    • KG says:
      October 15, 2015 at 14:10

      http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif Just so.

    • Warren Tooley says:
      October 15, 2015 at 17:10

      Thanks Mawm, now I understand perfectly. And yes, this is a big concern. Thanks to feminism which totally hates the family structure, its becoming more and more acceptable to just have a fling until they find someone they’re happier with, and then there’s lesbianism.

      Having said that, if your not interested in someone like that, it is very easy to tell what her intentions are. Everybody has something that they want more than anything else. And with my approach in just a very short time I can see what is it that this person ultimately wants. What is it that this person wants me to do differently. For instance Jennifer just wanted to have many children. So although she was attracted to me, the question that kept on coming up was how close are you to finishing your accounting studies, this was the one thing that was missing. And it was exactly the same with Sara, except the push was from her folks.

      So with this approach, one of the key principles is ‘its all or nothing and nothing’s all I ever get’, from a rock song, and what that means to all the women I’ve asked, is the right guy will have a combination of certain things. And when it becomes clear that she won’t get what she wants, she just moves on. At the same time I have known a few, where everything they want in a man is what I have, and they treat me like royalty.

      Anyway, this is all the more reason why I need to get this book out. Its going to get harder and harder to find someone good. So while their are a few good ones now, in ten years time, it might be too late. Because Mawm, their is a reason society is going down the toilet, and if we don’t do something to reverse it, it will be too late. Also about this whole thing one of the tools I use has to do with enthusiasm. If she says she thinks your ok, your good enough, that means she is only slightly enthusiastic, you have some of what she wants, and she’s waiting to see about the rest of what you’ve got. And everytime you have more and more of what she wants, her tone changes to more enthusiasm. And once she’s really happy and enthusiastic, than she wants to make sure you are happy with her. While she has little enthusiasm she won’t care much if you leave her, but when she sees that you’ve got exactly what she wants, and no one else has got it, that’s when she makes sure she has you. But if its clear that you don’t have what she wants, then her enthusiasm drops, and that is a warning that if things don’t change in her favour, its just as good as over.

      So one of the ways this system is helpful, is anytime it doesn’t work out, you can see why it didn’t work out, and know their’s someone better for you. I’ve been using this for years, so that’s why a week is usually about all I need to know whether its a lemon (forget it), a rough diamond-worth a try, but things will need to change, both people need to compromise, or that you’ve got something special. And if I could have stayed in the States, then their would have been a few good choices. Here its as hard as hell to find good choices.