From The Conservative Woman

By Paul Homewood

It has been revealed that judges in the US are being influenced by fake climate propaganda when making decisions. John Solomon’s Just the News has the story:

‘A coalition of 27 Republican attorneys general is joining a growing chorus of criticism over climate activists providing one-sided material to judges that’s presented as an impartial scientific resource to train the judges in climate science. 

‘The coalition, which is led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, is demanding that material dealing with climate science be removed from a manual that’s utilised by thousands of federal judges and published by a federal agency. The coalition members argue the material is ideologically biased in favour of plaintiffs suing energy companies over climate change. 

‘The Federal Judicial Centre, an educational and research agency for the federal courts, publishes the Reference Manual on Science. In a letter to the FJC, the attorneys general argue that the material on climate science isn’t adhering to the FJC’s purpose of the manual, which is to “describe the basic principles of major scientific fields” without instructing judges about what “evidence should be admissible”.

‘Instead of addressing undisputed scientific principles, the letter states, the material is predisposed toward one side of many debated questions concerning the science of climate change and the attribution of extreme weather to global warming. 

‘The FJC provides the manual to over 3,000 judges, and it’s been cited in over 1,700 opinions. The Supreme Court has also cited the manual multiple times to explain principles in science and math, and all this makes neutrality of the manual vital, the letter argues.’

Which all raises the question – is something similar happening over here?

There have certainly been many illogical judgments handed down by UK courts in recent years, which appear to have no basis whatsoever in law. They all have the same thing in common – the ‘climate emergency’, which is said to trump all other considerations.

For instance, there was the notorious court case five years ago, when XR vandals smashed windows at HSBC’s Canary Wharf HQ. The nine activists were tried for criminal damage costing £500,000 but were inexplicably acquitted because ‘their actions were justified by the greater harm of climate change and the bank’s role in it’. Although it was the decision of a jury, any unbiased judge would have instructed them there was no legal basis for the defence’s claim and overruled the jury if necessary.

A few years earlier, Greenpeace protesters, who had climbed a chimney at Kingsnorth coal power station, were similarly acquitted, because they were ‘preventing further climate harm’. Many XR and Just Stop Oil protesters are let off before even getting to court for offences that any normal member of the public would be banged up for.

And more recently, the Court of Session, Scotland’s highest civil court, blocked development of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields because no account had been taken of downstream emissions – greenhouse gases released when the extracted oil and gas are burned/used by consumers – an utterly absurd judgment which ignores the fact that the aforesaid consumers will simply burn oil imported from another country. One of the judges, Lord Ericht, emphasised that protecting against climate change outweighed the private interests of the developers.

All of these cases revolve around the assumption that there is something called a ‘climate emergency’ and that a Greenpeace protester or a decision by an oil company such as Shell will make any difference to the world’s weather.

If bank staff at HSBC are trapped inside the building when it is on fire, it would obviously perfectly within the law to smash the windows to get them out. But breaking the law because there may or not be a ‘climate emergency’ plainly is not.

It is not unreasonable to assume that many of our judges have been well and truly brainwashed about climate change by the constant flow of misinformation being pumped by the Green Blob.

World cereal production breaks more records

For years we have been told that food production has suffered because of global warming. One study published last year repeated the lie, claiming that climate trends have caused current global yields of wheat, maize, and barley to be 10, 4, and 13 per cent lower than they would have otherwise been.

The studies all have one thing in common – they are based not on actual data, but fraudulent computer models, which ‘imagine’ what food output would otherwise have been.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the official UN data continues to expose the lies of the climate scammers, who make big grant money concocting scare stories to fit their political agenda.

The UN has updated its database of agricultural statistics. It confirms that world cereal output hit yet another record high in 2024 and has doubled since the 1980s. It is the same story for overall agricultural output.

The UN also projects another big rise in cereal production this year:

The long-term increase in food output has been undoubtedly driven by fossil fuels. Fertilisers have, of course, been hugely important, but maybe more important still has been the increase in productivity resulting from mechanisation.

Mechanisation on farms has obviously transformed the agricultural sector. But the ability to get foodstuff to markets, refrigeration and shipping are all equally important factors.

None of this would be possible without fossil fuels.