One year ago, the International Court of Justice in The Hague declared that all nations are obligated to protect the sky from greenhouse gas emissions. It’s unfortunate, but climate zealotry stubbornly hangs on. [some emphasis, links added]
The global warming cabal, which is less concerned with climate than abolishing capitalism and advancing their cult, has been showing cracks in recent years.
A little more than a year ago, we noted that “our friend Steven Hayward,” a university professor and incisive thinker, had written “a compelling essay … about ‘The Nadir of the Climate Change Movement.’”
We also chronicled in “Climate Alarm On The Run” parts I and II about the Washington Post decision to cut its climate “reporting” team down to “five lonely reporters” and the elimination of the National Public Radio climate desk, which is “what happens when ‘journalists’ keep reporting about a dead horse.”
“Eventually,” we said, “the public realizes the horse has perished, and there’s nothing left to talk about. Or that there was no horse to begin with.”
Neither compulsive liars nor desperadoes give up easily. So it’s no surprise that the United Nations’ “principal judicial body,” the International Court of Justice, has issued an advisory opinion that “is not just any ordinary document, it is a living instrument that has the power to protect our climate for us now, and for the generations to come.”
The U.N. warns that “if States breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition and make full reparation depending on the circumstances.”
Sorry, but this will never happen under President Donald Trump.
And, hopefully, no subsequent Republican president will bend to the climate crackpots, grifters, anti-capitalists, social justice warriors and leftist radicals in general who make up the climate-calamity clan.
The next Democrat, however, will almost certainly bow to the U.N. court’s preferences minutes after taking office, scrambling in haste to submit to a spiteful tribunal while signaling their great virtue.
Because in that White House, its occupants would believe that the junk science of global warming is real.
On this, the first anniversary of the court’s decree, the advisory opinion is being celebrated as a milestone that will “drive greater action on the environment,” “a living instrument that has the power to protect our climate for us now, and for the generations to come,” and “holds transformative power to advance accountability.”
Meanwhile, not a word is said about the research of young meteorologist Chris Martz, who recently produced a telling chart that should embarrass everyone who blamed the hot summer weather during the World Cup on greenhouse gas emissions.
“The average number of days per year in the U.S. reaching 95°F” was about “18% lower during the 60-year period 1961 to 2020 compared to 1901 to 1960,” says Martz, also known as the “anti-Greta Thunberg.”
He further points out that the number of days the temperature reached 100 degrees and 105 degrees “have also declined since 1895.”
If the global warming tale were true, those data would be reversed.
Read rest at Issues & Insights
We are in a long term cooling period since the Holocene Optimum with several declining ‘warm’ periods of which this is one. If you have a vineyard in UK, sell!!