Uncle Pabai Pabai, Boigu, in their video from The Australian Climate Case
By Jo Nova
Two men from a Torres Strait Island spent four years trying to sue the Australian government for “its duty of care” to change the global weather. Both sides agreed climate change will be a disaster, so the science was never debated in court. Despite this, Justice Michael Andrew Wigney said he accepted “many of the factual allegations” upon which the case was based, even though the claims were never tested, no one spoke against them and they didn’t get a fair trial, or even any trial at all.
Thus Justice Wigney issued his prophecies of biblical hellfire, no doubt raising anxiety levels of the Torres Strait islanders even further, but who cares about their mental health right? They are just the mascots used by The Blob:
Shock result handed down in Torres Strait climate case
By Jack Nivison, The Australian
The Australian government has no duty of care over the people or the islands of the Torres Strait with regard to climate change, even though there is a “real risk” the land could disappear entirely, the Federal Court of Australia has found.
I’ve accepted the scientific evidence … concerning the devastating impacts that human-induced climate change has had, and continues to have, on the Torres Strait Islands and on the traditional inhabitants … their culture and way of life,” Justice Wigney said.
“Severe erosion, the salination of wetlands and previously arable land, the degradation of fragile ecosystems … has become more frequent and more severe in recent times,” he said. “There is a very real risk that the worst fears of the applicants will be realised.”
The defendant*, The Australian Government — could hardly disagree with “the science”. It is spending hundreds-of-billions to protect us from the climate gorgons, after all, so it can hardly argue that climate science is skill-less, unfalsifiable and based on unverified junk simulations. So the whole legal show is mere pantomime theater, and in the end, the ABC and other junk media get to breathlessly tell the world that in a smashingly big climate case, even the Judge has found that climate change is real. Gnash! Gnash! Gnash!
Judge as Weather Prophet
So the Judge is reduced to doing free advertising for The Blob. And perhaps that was the whole point of the case, since it was always ridiculous, in a democracy, that a judge should be the one to set national energy policy.
The islanders have been shamelessly wound up by activists, the ABC and CSIRO lobbyists to serve their own purposes. They were set up to expect something they could never get, and thus their crushing disappointment was just the third act in a badly written play.
The Guardian, with no hint of irony, or any sense of what a democracy is, asked How can governments be held to account on climate? It’s like voters are irrelevant, eh?
But the other point about this case is the way the science debate gets sidestepped yet again — so the judge issues his judgment, but makes a lot of wholly unnecessary statements of climate assumptions that were not tested in his court. And not only do these become free advertising on prime time TV but they will be used in subsequent cases as if they mean something. “Quoted as fact” they may also influence policy and legislation, and help to cement the profoundly unscientific “consensus” and all the Blob institutions that feed off that. So the world just got more cluttered. Science shrank, and everyone, bar the Blob, got poorer.
The Blob pretends to care about the world while it uses and abuses the mental health of the Islanders in a quest to increase their own power and income.
And The Blob pretends to care about “science” even as it destroys the tenets of the Scientific Method.
The antidote, as always, is to tell the world and pop that smug-bubble in public.
Their case is being supported by the Grata Fund, an Australian “strategic litigation funder” and the Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch group that uses lawfare to “help” the renewables transition. Obviously if giant industrial renewables firms and bankers, or the Chinese government were donating to these groups (with the best of intentions) we probably would never know. It’s not like The ABC will ask them hard questions like that, is it?
*Not the plaintiff in this case!
REFERENCES