Tag Archives: Climate change?

Oh no, that’s all we need.

.

From The STRAITSTIMES

Published Jul 30, 2025, 03:58 AM

Updated Jul 30, 2025, 03:58 AM

World Court climate opinion turns up the legal heat on governments

“The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry. 

It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding.

                                     ****

What wonderful news for those who make money of the hoax of man-made climate change. Those who for some reason think that CO2 is going to burn up the planet well they can celebrate too.

But for me it is another sign that the law has turned into a gigantic ASS.  Just one hundred years ago the planet was hotter than it is today, and that is in spite of the huge tracts of earth that have been turned into concrete or asphalt, where cities create heat with huge buildings and masses of people, and yet we are still cooler than even 100 years ago. 

What about I million years or maybe 10 million years ago? Were there voices at this so-called court to talk about that and if there were did the court simply ignore them?

But I decided to dig a bit, and this is what I found,

Opinion or ruling?

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an “advisory opinion” stating that countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate and prevent harm to it. The court emphasized that climate change poses an “urgent and existential threat”. “This ruling” clarifies that countries must uphold international climate laws, including the Paris Agreement‘s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. “The ICJ’s opinion” also suggests that countries harmed by climate change could potentially seek reparations. 

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

  • Obligation to protect the climate:

The “ICJ affirmed” that countries have a legal duty to protect the climate system and prevent climate change-related harm. 

  • 1.5°C target is legally binding:

The “court clarified” that the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is a legally binding benchmark. 

  • Stringent climate plans required:

The “ICJ stated” that national climate plans must be “stringent” and aligned with the 1.5°C target. 

  • Potential for reparations:

“The opinion” suggests that countries harmed by climate change may be entitled to reparations or compensation. 

  • Increased legal pressure on governments:

The “ICJ’s ruling” strengthens legal arguments for climate action and may increase the success rate of domestic climate litigation. 

  • Fossil fuel phaseout:

“The ruling” is expected to increase pressure on governments to phase out fossil fuels and end subsidies. 

  • Landmark legal precedent:

“The ICJ’s opinion” is a landmark decision, providing a stronger legal foundation for climate action and holding countries accountable for their climate obligations. 

The ICJ determined that the 1.5°C temperature target is legally binding under the Paris Agreement and that all states, in particular the largest emitters, must take ambitious mitigation measures in line with the best available science. “The opinion” arrives 6 years after a group of 27 students from the University of the South Pacific began campaigning on this issue, and more than 2 years since the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution requesting the “advisory opinion”.

While the “ICJ’s opinion” itself is not binding—neither on itself nor on domestic courts—it carries considerable legal weight and political legitimacy.

The ICJ has now “authoritatively interpreted international law” in a way that strengthens the legal foundation for ambitious, science-based climate action

(I highlighted the obvious contradictions.)

That may be but it has not stated or given an opinion of those who claim that this whole thing is a hoax based on Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth”.  They did not give an opinion on the concept that the planet has gone through more climate changes over the last few million years than any one of these brilliant manmade climate change advocates can or even will imagine.

What is regrettable to me is that those who sought to get justification or applause for their mania will claim that this “Opinion” or “Ruling” will claim victory for them and say that they now have a world court’s opinion that their hoax is real.   

Well yes, the hoax is real but the sad thing is that if they actually manage to do away with CO2 they too will perish, and probably claim to the end that they were right and the plants and sea let them down.

As an addition I read an article in Macleans titled Canada in 2060

Canada in the Year 2060

Summers lost to fire and smoke. Biblical floods. Dying forests. Retreating coasts. Economic turmoil and political unrest. It’s going to be a weird century. Here’s what it will look like—and how Canada can get through it.

BY ANNE SHIBATA CASSELMAN

And I confess I was laughing quite hard because by 2050 there will be no CO2, so there will be no oxygen so there will be no people to witness what they were predicting.  Oh, there might be a bit of oxygen floating over from China or even the USA, but not enough to sustain Canadians, who will have nothing to eat anyway.  But I realized that this will never happen in time because my grandchildren and great grandchildren and their generations will put a stop to this absolute crazy foolishness.

Yes, it’s time to re-read my copy of 1066 and all that.

The Incredible perfidy of a Canadian Minister

The Honourable Steven Guilbeault

Minister of Environment and Climate Change

MP for Laurier – ST Marie

19th December 2024

From Blacklock’s Reporter

Thursday, December 19, 2024

Minister Puts Costs At $690B

“Climate change targets will cost Canadian electrical utilities about two thirds of a trillion dollars,” Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said yesterday. Guilbeault in a legal notice said the country had no choice but to stop burning fossil fuels for electricity.

“Climate change is a growing threat to Canada and the world,” said a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement issued by Guilbeault. “We are already seeing the costs.”

Well, Minister, when are you going to face the truth and stop selling these lies to help promote another international hoax?

I have asked you to define net zero and you clearly cannot.

I have asked you how we will get our oxygen to breathe and stay alive if you manage this absurd goal?   Again, you have no idea.

(Perhaps you could also advise Mr. Van Koeverden, who definitely understands water very well, that CO2 is actually a plant food not a conservative disinformation hoax as I heard him say in the House of Ill Repute.)

I have asked you where you will get all the new hydro from, and you have no idea.

I have asked you how you will get thousands, if not millions, of miles of new hydro lines all over the country to transmit your 100% electricity mode and how you will protect them from winter damage or summer heat, and you have absolutely no idea.

I have asked you how you are going to electrify the railroads across the country, whether it will be by overhead lines or a third rail? And how you will protect either from the Canadian winters?  Again, you have no idea.

All this is bad enough but you still claim the climate changes we are seeing are man made, which any REAL scientist will tell you is false.

The climate on this planet has changed many, many times over the span of the millions of years since it was created, and human behaviour had absolutely nothing to do with it then and it does not now.  Pollution yes, climate change NO.

Your job is not to spread fake news and asinine ideas to deal with that fake news, but instead to find ways to deal with what is coming as surely as the sun will rise in the morning, and to help the world (Canadians too) to figure out how to survive what is coming. At least it is a gradual change.

If you cannot do this then at least concentrate on the environment side of your job and do something about the poisoning of our land, water and sky.   That you can do something about instead of simply ignoring it.

From the Maple


by Jeremy Appel

December 10, 2024 

In the final year of its third term, the Liberal government has a series of significant climate policies in the works aimed at getting Canada to net zero by 2050. 

When he announced the emissions cap framework, Guilbeault explicitly raised the prospect of a Poilievre government bringing down not only that specific measure, but the entire edifice of the Liberals’ climate policy.

“It’s not just the cap that is at risk,” said Guilbeault in December 2023. “The Conservative Party of Canada (and) Pierre Poilievre don’t seem to be willing or able or capable to understand that pollution kills people in Canada.”

This is what prompted my last request, but you too seem to have forgotten that the environment is your port folio as well and that the environment is dangerous because of all the toxic chemicals you are allowing to be put into our waters, land and air, while you are only interested in depleting the life giving CO2. 

(Perhaps you could also advise Mr. Van Koeverden, who definitely understands water very well, that CO2 is actually a plant food not a conservative disinformation hoax as I heard him say in the House of Ill Repute. By the way I am the only one in 4 generations who does not have a university degree in one form of botany or another.)

If this government falls your legacy will be one of dishonest failure and I don’t think you want that.

Have a great Christmas break and please come back with some real ideas instead of following the ignorant crowd.

Jeremy Arney

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/18/climate/world-first-nuclear-fusion-power-plant-commmonwealth/index.html

Unasked question

Last Wednesday, 2nd October 2019, I attended an all-candidates town hall meeting at Stelly’s School in my riding of Saanich and the Gulf Islands.

I wanted to ask a very particular question about the rolling out of the 5G networks here in Canada with the apparent full approval of Health Canada and all of our so-called representatives in the last parliament in spite of serious questions being asked by scientists.

It seemed a very logical question in light of the massive publicizing of “climate change”, but to my dismay, this was not a meeting at which my question could be asked as it appeared that the questions had been already presented by the pupils of the school.   Good questions too, one or two even had the possibility of humour in the answers but that possibility was largely ignored.

What is referred to as climate change is, I believe partially due to the earth having tilted slightly on its axis, caused maybe by massive earthquakes, underground explosions by nuclear powers (read the USA in particular), and whatever else.  This tilting is evidenced by the fact that the magnetic north of the earth has moved, if that is the right word, and now all old compasses are slightly off when compared to paper maps. Perhaps with Google Earth, GPS etc., paper maps will soon become just like the Dodo bird but until that happens – beware.  There is indeed a clear case for climate change but the reasons presented are perhaps more hysterical and political than real.  The change occurs at the local level, not to planetary one.

In my view, the problem, beside the tilting of the planet, is one of pollution.

Water:           Our already sick seas have been turned into a monstrous plastic garbage heap with the resultant damage to fish, birds, plankton and corral. Without those living things to feed it the sea has warmed and is now a very sick patient. The same applies to our rivers, lakes and aquifers which have been made toxic by cheap corporate dumping.   Read “Sea Sick” by Alanna Mitchell or the example of the Mount Polley Mine tailings pond dam collapsed causing massive damage to Hazeltine Creek and the toxification of the once pristine Quesnel Lake in BC.

Land:             Giant holes have been dug way down into the earth all across the globe and the earth removed has been washed with toxic chemicals and the toxic wash then dumped into manmade lakes only to have them poison the nearby waters when man-made earth dams break.

Air:                 Once there were blue skies with various shades of cloud, white fluffy things or dark storm things and various shades between.  Now there are long strings or plumes of greyish white that are deliberately sprayed into the blue skies. How many times have I been told they are contrails from passing jetliners? Can’t even begin to count. I have seen contrails and they disappear almost as fast as they appear.   That to which I am referring though do not disappear; instead, they grow in size, feather-like spikes come off them and it seems clear that something is dropping from them to the ground. Various claims have been made that they are sprayed from aeroplanes to reduce the heat of the sun and its effect upon the earth. Good lord, how gullible do we have to be to swallow that?  The problem with carbon dioxide is manmade as we continually destroy the earth’s ability to get rid of excess CO2.  The sea and the trees are the lungs of the earth and they need CO2 to grow, or stay healthy – non-acidic and cool in the case of the oceans.  Regretfully we are following the footsteps of previous civilizations such as the Sumerian or Mayan and destroying what is necessary to feed and house a constantly increasing population. There should have been a better way and maybe the next generation will figure it out if we leave them anything with which to work

Back to my question for the candidates which I never got to ask:

“Soo much talk about climate change, and no talk of the 5G networks which, thanks to Health Canada  (a totally compromised organization), are coming very soon to all Canada’s neighbourhoods which will make climate change immaterial as we will not be around to see it.  Do you support this 5G network?”

It would have been interesting to know which, if any of the candidates, were even aware of 5G as none of them mentioned it even obliquely.

If we allow 5G networks to go ahead and put receiver-transmitters on ever second telephone pole so that cars, phones, smart meters, toasters, TVs and washing machines etc., can not only talk to each other but report back to corporate and  government data banks; then the resulting damage to the electrical makeup of man, combined with the death of all bird, insect and other wildlife necessary for the promotion of growth of our foods, will inadvertently make climate change reversible as the most damaging invasive species know to earth will become extinct as well as all the other species we have destroyed.  The earth will recover when we have gone! We cannot eat money or plastic and we cannot drink oil!

19th Century Cree saying

“Only when the last tree has died, and the last fish has been

caught, and the last river has been poisoned, will they realize that

money cannot be eaten”.

 

The Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was in response to very harmful pesticides, and 5G is much, much worse.  Without insects and birds, how will we get our plants – especially food plants – to pollinate and grow to feed us?

Perhaps it would be best for the planet if indeed the human species died out, but I have children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren who I hope will step up and solve the giant mess my generation and those immediately before and after have produced.

Meanwhile, I can become an increasingly grumpy old man I suppose.

Jeremy