The Courts in Holland go too far with too little to support their nonsense.

This essay is about the Dutch Judges completely losing their sense of proportion and revealing their extraordinary ignorance. Big surprise? I remind you that judges are emblematic of the problem of arrogant oligarchies.

I would suggest, that the readers look at the first comment by physicist, Dr. Fulks, a friend and ally of us who question the crazy enviros and warmers. Dr. Fulks nails it and supports Huffman’s admonition that judges should not be attempting to legislate.


5 responses to “The Courts in Holland go too far with too little to support their nonsense.

  1. It’s worthwhile recapitulating here the final three paragraphs of Dr. Fulks’ above-mentioned comment from the cited Web page:

    “The central issue with policies that purport to be scientifically based is whether or not they really are. That means that scientists and their objective scientific methods should be central to those policies, not dismissed by the scientifically illiterate who govern. And it is especially important that the entire spectrum of science pertinent to important societal decisions be considered not just that which leads to a decision in one direction or the other. In other words, politicians should NOT be able to stack the deck with science-based issues. Both sides MUST be heard.

    “Since attorneys are trained in logic and evidence, although typically not in science, they may still be able to help keep politicians from pursuing completely corrupt science in the pursuit of power. With witnesses under oath in front of a judge, most of the preposterous claims of Global Warming enthusiasts would easily melt away. And if they do not, one or the other attorney would cut them to ribbons. Of course, the courts would have to do as we scientists are supposed to do, ignore our political prejudices and decide matters on the basis of facts determined by experiment.

    “The Global Warming larceny is not difficult to deconstruct in a setting where both sides get their fair ‘time in court’ and someone enforces honest behavior.”

  2. The Dutch lawsuit was almost a “friendly” lawsuit, as the mood of the nation is in agreement with the URGENDA position, and the 25% decision was not just pulled out of a hat, but matches other neighboring national targets, targets that the Dutch government was “catching up with.” The lawyers did modestly well, financially, the plaintiffs a bit more modestly, and the conclusion is unlikely to be overturned, even though an appeals court may strike the plaintiff’s standing to sue (the most likely reason to overturn this) so as to avoid similar challenges to the myriad opportunities that individuals can select to bring suit against the government for policy issues they may not agree with. Remember that this is a Lower Court decision and far from the final say on these matters.

  3. Sorry but the ‘mood’ of the nation couldn’t care less, it’s just the marginal 15% of ecowarriors that shout the loudest and thus get heard. What the ‘mood’ is in the nation in general is that energyprices are absurd, ecotaxes completely over the hill and overregulation is stifling any endeavour.

  4. As it turns out, the laws of nature are Universal, immutable(by humans), self-adjudicating laws.

    But, as is too usual, the various branches and departments of government can do silly with a level of certainty that exceeds their certainty about any of the governed Citizens real and serious needs from governments. And then silly Citizens take up the banner of silliness and provide support to their silly governments and consider it to be patriotic.

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it. — Mark Twain

    If you mess with Mother Nature, you may get your feelings hurt.
    If you mess with Father Time, you can get your clock stopped.

  5. Sir Edward Coke stated in 1610: “When an act of parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an act void.’ This was probably the most important precept in the establishment of the USA……….Although it still applies today in areas as diverse as SSM and AGW, the situation has been made so complicated by post-modern relativism etc., that nobody can actually make use of it to improve the status quo into some kind of progress………..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s