UN Human Rights Council Demands Criminalisation of Climate Scepticism Worldwide
There can be no doubt that the global green movement is getting nervous. Its signs of desperation are not owed to the ‘fact’ of a warming planet signalling our imminent doom, but much more to the actual facts that despite any warming, humanity is thriving, and that worse – far worse – people are discussing it. The claims of ideological orthodoxies of all kinds championed by the United Nations, not just climate, are now being challenged by people on social media, and even in mainstream news media. And in response, the global ‘censorship industrial complex‘, as it has been dubbed, is mobilising to shut down those conversations. The problem is that, the more they shift towards draconian interventions, the more they unwittingly signal their inability to understand the debates they wish to proscribe.
At the end of June, the UN Human Rights Council published a report by the agency’s “Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change”, Elisa Morgera. After moving through the long preamble and its obligatory recitation of the climate litany – unimpeachable science… worst year ever… urgent necessity of climate action… blah blah blah – Morgera eventually arrives at her paradox. In order to protect human rights, human rights must be curtailed.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Heres are my thoughts on Elisa Morgeras UN climate proposals…..🖕
I for one would more likely listen to people who were open to argument and discussion. The moment they start to try to shut me done by any method I then smell a rat and look into it much more deeply and generally find the people to be either lazy, stupid or political activists. The “settled science” or “appeal to greater authority” is absolutely guaranteed to trigger me. I urge anyone who is interested in countering bullsh*t to read the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
“I’m not a scientist”, uttered by these fools is the proof that you have won the argument.
Lazy, Stupid AND political activists.
Lazy, stupid left wing activists.
Apart from that I stick with my original.
you forgot corrupt and criminal
Yeah, to me its all the proof I need to know its all BS.
If they have they have the evidence, use it! If the evidence is compelling and decisive then use that to win a debate or discussion, facts and evidence speak for themselves.
Refuse to discuss, you just lost the argument, you got NOTHING!
When I heard ‘the debate is over’ I knew that the climate zealots were losing as this is such a childish and crass way to shut down a debate you are losing.
These brainwashed loons are a danger to the planet.
The planet will survive regardless of what these people do. What worries me is the impending civil strife these idiots will cause.
They are such arrogant assh*les that they believe people are incapable of discussion and analysis.
In fact their lunacy is beyond believe in that they simply don’t understand that if their argument is so watertight and it is opened to discussion then most people will accept it through rational thought and they will win the day.
The fact that they are using dishonest dictatorial methods to silence people speaks volumes. These are tactics reminiscent of Nazis and Communists.
For the likes of the upper powers that want to be civil strife is their intended direction and which they hope will produce significant population reductions.
Proof that care in the community for people with mental illness, has failed..
UN Human Rights Council Demands Criminalisation of Climate Scepticism Worldwide
It’s an often-observed fact of the modern “progressive” world (clown-world) that as “human rights” proliferate freedom diminishes. This, allied to their neo-Lysenkoism, is an indication that the unelected transnational bureaucrats are merely trying to augment their power, and to justify their incomes – incomes which are garnered at our expense.
There’s nothing that shouts “human rights” louder than threatening to send “heretics”
prison.
or ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘free speech’…..
Unsupervised debate is such a dangerous thing. Imagine if people are given free access to opposing points of view and then make up their minds. They might come up with the “wrong” answer. How embarrassing.
Do we expect a clause on climate crisis scepticism to find its way into the workplace banter ban?
You don’t like me criticising man made climate change, I’ll make you a criminal. You don’t like me criticising the more medieval aspects of your religion, I’ll make you a criminal. You don’t like me publicising in the media the hypocrisy of your behaviour, I’ll get a super injunction and make you a criminal and shut down the free press with biased commissions. The theme here runs through the echelons of power to threaten and oppress our free speech using tools that the worst of communist and fascist leaders would be proud.
On the subject of ‘super injunctions’ I wonder how the alleged Ukrainian rent boys are getting on?
The World will be destroyed if we don’t adhere to the solution to the Climate Emergency: the NET Zero policies.
Yes, I’m talking about the Climate Activist World, with generous handouts for Climate Activism.
It’s all so logical, really.
Defossilise is a better term for authoritarians because it has no meaning. So they can give it whatever meaning they like and keep people guessing and on their toes as they like to do.
Chalk and limestone are fossils – does this mean that we now have to defossilize the building industry? Since these rocks are made by small marine critters ‘capturing’ that abominable atmospheric pollutant, CO2, how does this long-established natural ‘Carbon Capture’ technology fit into the anti-fossil rhetoric? Dammit, these critters even do the job for free, (trees, etc as well), and generate an entire global food chain industry. So – we’re back to mud huts, then, are we? Mind you, my traditional old English cobb cottage mixed non-fossil base material (clay) with horse shit and straw, and needed very little additional pollutant-breathing heating to keep winter out. The logic of making it a criminal act to ask these simple little low-tech questions really is getting very difficult to follow.
Can’t someone find these people something useful to do with their time? such as picking litter, looking after the elderly, actually doing some physical work rather than pontificating off and making people’s lives a misery with their b@@@@@@s
Lying down with their head on a railway line?
Climate Change has become a massive industry and those working in it are not going to give up their jobs without a fight. But given it is all propped up by taxpayers cash take that away and it will start to crumble.
I can’t decide whether the term ‘defossilise’ means that fossils should be reanimated a la Jurassic Park or whether it means that the fossil record should be removed from the earth. The latter would then enable TPTB to say that the earth was created in seven days, probably by TPTB themselves whom we should therefore worship…
A failed organisation that cannot unite nations, hence all the current wars, so has to make itself relevant by inventing a humanity threatening hobgoblin. When the real threat is of its own making, overpopulation caused by its food aid and vaccine programs instead of contraceptive programs.
UN organisations are all communist. Shut them down. We should leave thw UN and encourage other countries to do the same. A soviet inspired, and Roosevelt government supported, instituion designed to control the west.
And taxpayers fund idiots like this.
Hopefully Trump is de-politicalizing climate change, allowing for open scientific discussion, the only way to get to the facts
The Left has owned the media for so long – literally in the case of the BBC that it doesn’t see why it has to make its case.
To quote from the abovementioned Climatic Journal, “the high end of the risk, i.e., where risks become existential, is poorly framed, defined and analysed in the scientific literature“, and “limits the ability of scientific communities to engage with emerging debates and narratives about the existential dimension of climate change”:
Isn’t this just a concocted word salad that basically says “nobody’s been able to produce any solid evidence that catastrophic climate change is a real threat”, especially when the author of the report cannot bring herself to abjectly mislead and call these “facts”, instead alluding to “debates and narratives”?
The existential dimension of climate change is just that: A narrative.
Urgent request for rope.
Morgera eventually arrives at her paradox. In order to protect human rights, human rights must be curtailed.
She’s in good company
“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”
Lenin
“It is acceptable to suffocate democracy for the sake of socioeconomic equality”
Lenin
“We will mercilessly destroy anyone who, by his deeds or his thoughts – yes his thoughts! – threatens the unity of the socialist state. To the complete destruction of all enemies, themselves and their kin! (At a celebration of the revolution in 1937, Stalin raised a glass and offered a toast:)”
Lenin
“By the skilful and sustained use of propaganda one can make people see heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise”
A. H.
I’ve just heard that the Wimbledon Centre Court Women’s Final in 1976 was warmer than today’s. That despite all the hand wringing and warnings to spectators. Ok so one example but since 1976 we’ve had the Clean Air Acts which laid waste to Acid rain and significantly reduced SO2 in our atmosphere. That meant clearer skys and stronger sunlight…nothing to do with CO2. Subtract that warming from the CO2 warming hype and the model projections should come down dramatically. Subtract the Urban Heat Island contribution to warming and CO2 is clearly a very minor player in the warming that has been seen. We should no longer have to put up with the rantings of the Climate Catastrophist morons. Let’s get Nuclear Power going, use fossil resources where they add most value and prepeare for the much longer term when fossil fuels will start to run out.