The Case for Climate Court
One of the preeminent undertakings in a genuinely democratic society is the presumption of innocence, not only because it is a difficult and demanding exercise, but because it is fair. The presumption of guilt would be so much easier. Imagine a world where guilt is always presumed – courts would be relatively empty, there would be no need for various levels of trials or tribunals and cases would be solved in minutes.
If guilt was a communal truism then Maurice Hastings of Los Angeles, California would not have spent almost 40 years in jail for murder before being released. He would still be there – all of those lost decades despite complete innocence. The discovery and detection of deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA have been, in most cases, a magnificent human revelation. Many have discovered long-lost relations and personal histories through its many marvels.
However, it’s hard to envision how many blameless people have rotted in prison, with a sense of societal and litigation abhorrence because, they, and only they, knew the justification for their incarceration was entirely false. It is likely a minority of those imprisoned, but nonetheless a most certain reality. Still, it’s not only DNA that has advanced society to a point that no one, or certainly almost no one can make the claim that their lives are worse off than that of their grandparents. And, to assess that claim you can consider and analyze the viewpoint on your ‘cell phone’.
Ironically, this same presumption of innocence has never been afforded anthropogenic climate change. The hypothesis has been charged with the attempted murder of Mother Gaia - there’s no exoneration or absolution for double jeopardy or a statute of limitations. From the day, in June of 1988, when James Hansen testified before the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, human-generated global warming was presumed guilty. It has never received a fair trial. It was presumed guilty strictly on basis of a strange science called political consensus. Eco-politicians, progressive bureaucrats, advocate scientists, and climate activists claim to occupy the only righteous and just jury pool.
The climate court stenographers have been the legacy media, progressive presses, and their hi-tech cohorts of social disseminators. Theirs is the one and only official transcript. If divergent testimony arrives the stenographer immediately invalidates it through censorship, erasure, or other forms of content modification and then unceremoniously bans the witness from further testimony through cancel culture, or at times through a strange, vague, and unreasoned statute called a violation of community standards.
The judges in climate court are the citizens of the world. There are several problems with this, however. They are strongly charmed and wooed by the virtue-signaling lawyers, especially those elected by the judges. They only allow deceptive testimonials and partisan experts into the courts. The defendant, anthropogenic climate change, is perpetually handcuffed to the litigant’s chair and has been handed down a strict, draconian gag order. His or her friends have been barred from testifying as character witnesses. We assume at this point, the pronouns of anthropogenic climate change are he and his since he is falsely deemed toxic as well as alive and animated with white supremacy.
There had only been a couple of times that an exhaustive, fair, and equitable court case was suggested.
To prove and legitimize either case, Scott Pruitt, the EPA Administrator in the Trump Administration wanted to have a Red/Blue Team debate on anthropogenic climate change. Each team would consist of an equal number of the most esteemed scientists and climatologists available on the topic. One team would be comprised of science professionals and experts that claim anthropogenic climate change is real, while the other team deems it a fabrication or, at minimum, an extreme exaggeration of change for political or other non-scientific purposes.
This same concept had been proposed many years prior by John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville known, among other climate issues, as the originator of satellite remote sensing of global temperatures and climate.
Despite a concerted effort by those that doubt the perils of climate change, those that advocate for its consensus would not and still will not submit to the debate. All they will say is that it is useless since it’s already proven - again the consensus thing. That method of opposition is akin to the use of the adolescent “sticks and stones” argument. During the time, a proponent stenographer, the Washington Post contained an editorial that, in part, read that the Red/Blue Team concept was simply, “dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions.” This is always the excuse used by climate change defenders. They say that a climate debate lends credence to the opposition, while I say it lends another ‘c-word to the proponents - it’s called cowardice and it is assuredly in the first degree. One wonders how the promoter pretext could exist if the activist experts claim to have all the facts.
A credible court of climate change has never been in session but not as a result of those in scientific opposition to human-generated climate change. If such a case could ever be adjudicated the advocate side would be akin to very tasty Salmon - they’d get smoked.
