Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
I read the news today (oh boy) - Current world events
20 September 2019
2.55pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2602
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2581sp_Permalink sp_Print

Most climate deniers aren't 'sceptics' - they are dishonest actors being paid by billionaires (who profit off of the destruction of our planet) to spout consistently debunked pseudoscience. 

basically the world's climate has always changed..

As far as we can tell, it has never changed this much, this fast.

You conflated climate with weather earlier - "Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term variation in minutes to weeks. People generally think of weather as the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. ... Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years." 

When climate has changed in the past it has been a very slow process, whereas what is happening now is much, much faster. From NASA: "When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster." 

We don't understand why 

Yes, we do. The 'why' is that human activities produce gases such as CO2 which have the effect of trapping heat within the Earth's atmosphere, causing the temperature to increase and thereby melting the ice caps which in turn raises the sea levels. It's not particularly difficult to understand. 

or how much change is down to us.

We don't know this precisely, but it's pretty obvious that the huge increase in CO2 levels (higher today than at any point in the last 800 years, according to climate.gov) coincides with the huge boom in the world population over the last two centuries and the corresponding boom in activities producing CO2, such as industry and agriculture. 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

Richard

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

20 September 2019
5.02pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9799
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2582sp_Permalink sp_Print

@Wigwam said

As for the rest of your post.....I've quoted it because I'm not 100% sure what you're on about...?? The health concerns that stem from smoking are clear and proven......Where that's the case I'm happy to go along with a consensus that makes scientific sense.

 

"Whether you accept it or not, you're arguing the consensus, as were those scientists who claimed there was nothing wrong with tobacco, and that it was actually good for you.

What happens if the deniers you choose to believe are as wrong as those who claimed tobacco had health benefits?

Then the world is fecked, not just your own health."

Apologies for that, Ww, a word was accidentally skipped over by me (though I do think, given the whole post, my meaning was clear).

Those lines should (and now do) have read:

Whether you accept it or not, you're arguing against the consensus, as were those scientists who claimed there was nothing wrong with tobacco, and that it was actually good for you.

What happens if the deniers you choose to believe are as wrong as those who claimed tobacco had health benefits?

Then the world is fecked, not just your own health.

And you're still arguing against the settled scientific consensus, clinging to those few scientists (many of whom are linked to the fossil fuel industries) who disagree and using that small minority to claim the science isn't settled.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

20 September 2019
5.14pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9799
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The interesting thing to see in the longer run, @The Hole Got Fixed, is whether the turnout today in places like Melbourne and Sydney actually starts to damage Scott Morrison's and the Liberals chances of re-election, because they're your biggest roadblock to ending Australia's dependence on coal and other polluting fossil fuels.

Good on you for turning out, though. 100,000 in London I was among.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

20 September 2019
5.32pm
Avatar
The Hole Got Fixed
A Dock at Southampton
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 6995
Member Since:
27 November 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2584sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'd have to imagine ScoMo is on his last legs, no-one in our generation will vote for him! 

Glad to hear about lots of sizeable crowds all over the world, and to hear you were in one of them, @mja5768

20190920_160640.jpgImage Enlarger

20190920_155437.jpgImage Enlarger
20190920_154931.jpgImage Enlarger
20190920_141319.jpgImage Enlarger
20190920_140948.jpgImage Enlarger

And the crowds only got bigger!

The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:

Ron Nasty, Richard

Oh, by the way, this post was made by The Hole Got Fixed!

2016 awards: Username-Badge.png 2017 awards: The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2017.png 2018 awards:The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2018.png

20 September 2019
5.38pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9799
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2585sp_Permalink sp_Print

Second time recently someone's got my @ wrong. It's 6758 (67 - year of birth, 5 - month of birth, 8 - day of birth), not 5768!!!!

ahdn_paul_01ahdn_paul_01ahdn_paul_01ahdn_paul_01ahdn_paul_01

a-hard-days-night-george-10

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

20 September 2019
5.51pm
Avatar
The Hole Got Fixed
A Dock at Southampton
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 6995
Member Since:
27 November 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2586sp_Permalink sp_Print

Ahhhhjhgxkzoysoycljd
Sorry!
I thought it was 5 - day of birth, 7 - month of birth, 68 - year of birth... I guess you're a year younger now!

Oh, by the way, this post was made by The Hole Got Fixed!

2016 awards: Username-Badge.png 2017 awards: The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2017.png 2018 awards:The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2018.png

20 September 2019
6.19pm
Avatar
The Hole Got Fixed
A Dock at Southampton
Moderator

Moderators
Forum Posts: 6995
Member Since:
27 November 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sorry for double post - but just came across this, and thought it might be worth posting (and I hope the embedding works...)

 

Edit: apparently not. Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/watch.....6939610480 (it's a video by... the World Economic Forum!)

Oh, by the way, this post was made by The Hole Got Fixed!

2016 awards: Username-Badge.png 2017 awards: The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2017.png 2018 awards:The-Hole-Got-Fixed-2018.png

20 September 2019
6.20pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1876
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

QuarryMan said
Most climate deniers aren't 'sceptics' - they are dishonest actors being paid by billionaires (who profit off of the destruction of our planet) to spout consistently debunked pseudoscience. 

basically the world's climate has always changed..

As far as we can tell, it has never changed this much, this fast.

You conflated climate with weather earlier - "Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term variation in minutes to weeks. People generally think of weather as the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. ... Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years." 

When climate has changed in the past it has been a very slow process, whereas what is happening now is much, much faster. From NASA: "When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster." 

We don't understand why 

Yes, we do. The 'why' is that human activities produce gases such as CO2 which have the effect of trapping heat within the Earth's atmosphere, causing the temperature to increase and thereby melting the ice caps which in turn raises the sea levels. It's not particularly difficult to understand. 

or how much change is down to us.

We don't know this precisely, but it's pretty obvious that the huge increase in CO2 levels (higher today than at any point in the last 800 years, according to climate.gov) coincides with the huge boom in the world population over the last two centuries and the corresponding boom in activities producing CO2, such as industry and agriculture. 

  

You have proof of your first point that the scientists are paid to mislead ....I'd be very interested.......That proof would of course undermine their arguments.

Not 'conflation' which suggests confusion and not understanding the difference between weather and climate......Just the point that if the science, often with the assistance of world's super computers struggles to accurately predict local weather patterns with any certainty for periods over 5 days, what certainty can we have that climate changes which are not fully understood can be fully predicted and the causes precisely identified? 

The Co2 argument is compelling ......I understand it and and I'm sure that man's activities contribute to the levels in the atmosphere......It makes sense to me to either reduce these levels or not burn down the trees that recycle Co2 into Oxygen......

But the rise in Co2 from man hasn't been present in previous warmings.......So for me it can't be man's output alone which is responsible......In which case other factors are at work, perhaps water vapour is more significant......There must be other factors or there never would have been cycles of cooling and warming ever before....Therefore your sweep 'We understand it ...It's the Co2...... falls short for me.

Until you can explain to me why, before the Industrial age.......Before the missing link between us and the apes ever drew breath.......before the dinosaurs etc that there have been warmings and coolings.....

Simply put if the science is settled explain how without men on the earth it has happened before.

20 September 2019
6.25pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1876
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2589sp_Permalink sp_Print

Ron Nasty said

@Wigwam said

As for the rest of your post.....I've quoted it because I'm not 100% sure what you're on about...?? The health concerns that stem from smoking are clear and proven......Where that's the case I'm happy to go along with a consensus that makes scientific sense.

 

"Whether you accept it or not, you're arguing the consensus, as were those scientists who claimed there was nothing wrong with tobacco, and that it was actually good for you.

What happens if the deniers you choose to believe are as wrong as those who claimed tobacco had health benefits?

Then the world is fecked, not just your own health."

Apologies for that, Ww, a word was accidentally skipped over by me (though I do think, given the whole post, my meaning was clear).

Those lines should (and now do) have read:

Whether you accept it or not, you're arguing against the consensus, as were those scientists who claimed there was nothing wrong with tobacco, and that it was actually good for you.

What happens if the deniers you choose to believe are as wrong as those who claimed tobacco had health benefits?

Then the world is fecked, not just your own health.

And you're still arguing against the settled scientific consensus, clinging to those few scientists (many of whom are linked to the fossil fuel industries) who disagree and using that small minority to claim the science isn't settled.

  

You and I are in our own mini climate change cycle........See my reply to QM and perhaps if the science is settled you can answer the question I asked.....

20 September 2019
9.29pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2602
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2590sp_Permalink sp_Print

You have proof of your first point that the scientists are paid to mislead ....I'd be very interested.......That proof would of course undermine their arguments.

Conservative minded billionaires regularly pay for like minded 'intellectuals' to go on speaking tours round universities delivering propaganda about this stuff. For example, Ben Shapiro's two minutes of hate college tours (in which he spouts his 'if your house is flooding, just MOVE' nonsense) are sponsored by Young America's Foundation, which is funded by the Mercers, DeVos family and the Kochs. They have also funded lectures for the likes of Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. Of course, this isn't objective proof, but it's not hard to fill in the blanks, is it? These billionaires, often in businesses such as oil and coal, have everything to lose from anti-global warming action, so to prevent anything happening about it they pay for propaganda to deliberately muddy the waters. 

Sources: https://www.yaf.org/shapirotou.....um=ios_app

https://www.alternet.org/2017/.....um=ios_app

I'm aware that the latter article talks specifically about hate speech, but most conservative figures offer horrendous takes on a wide variety of topics, of which climate change is pretty often present... and certainly of interest to those they are funded by. 

Not 'conflation' which suggests confusion and not understanding the difference between weather and climate......Just the point that if the science, often with the assistance of world's super computers struggles to accurately predict local weather patterns with any certainty for periods over 5 days, what certainty can we have that climate changes which are not fully understood can be fully predicted and the causes precisely identified? 

Long term trends are much easier to identify than rapidly changing patterns. Short term forecasting depends on factors such as short term temperature changes, clouds, precipitation, wind and pressure. These things all fluctuate more rapidly than the metrics we use to identify long term climate change, which include temperature change over a period of years, amount of sea ice over a period of years and atmospheric pollution also over a period of years. 

The Co2 argument is compelling ......I understand it and and I'm sure that man's activities contribute to the levels in the atmosphere......It makes sense to me to either reduce these levels or not burn down the trees that recycle Co2 into Oxygen......

But the rise in Co2 from man hasn't been present in previous warmings.......So for me it can't be man's output alone which is responsible......In which case other factors are at work, perhaps water vapour is more significant......There must be other factors or there never would have been cycles of cooling and warming ever before....Therefore your sweep 'We understand it ...It's the Co2...... falls short for me.

If you watch Potholer's video that I linked, he debunks this idea that CO2 hasn't been linked to heat levels in the past. The graph used by Patrick Moore and others to attempt to illustrate that point comes from a blog who stuck two different graphs from sources several years apart together. If you look at the sources for the information individually, both of the studies state in their conclusions that there is in fact correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. There isn't correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature in the graph, but there also isn't correlation for the factor Moore himself places great stock in - the warming effect of the sun, which has been getting hotter and hotter over time, and nobody would claim that the temperature of the sun doesn't affect the earth's temperature, surely? The obvious takeaway is that global temperature is influenced by a variety of factors, and when you take them into account the graph looks more like this:

Screen-Shot-2019-09-20-at-22.05.38.pngImage Enlarger

Now, I'm a layman, not a scientist. I got Cs on my chemistry and physics GCSEs. I don't properly understand the ins and outs of this stuff, not even close. That's why I have to place my trust in the hands of the people best qualified to talk about this stuff - the researchers and the experts in the field. To quote Bakunin:

"In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure." 

Unfortunately, my abilities of critique are unfortunately limited by my lack of knowledge. Still, based on what I do know, the hypotheses presented by these scientists all make sense to me, and I've yet to encounter an argument denying... sorry, questioning climate change that held up to either my objections or the objections of those more qualified than me. 

Source: http://www.searchanddiscovery......r.pdf.html

Until you can explain to me why, before the Industrial age.......Before the missing link between us and the apes ever drew breath.......before the dinosaurs etc that there have been warmings and coolings.....

The fact that there have been changes in global temperature independent of human influence does not invalidate the potential for humans to influence it now, but I imagine if you asked a climate scientist on this they would tell you what the CO2 hypothesis itself supports - that amongst other factors, the temperature of the earth is largely dictated by the makeup of its atmosphere and also the amount of incoming solar radiation (which in the former example the CO2 argument facilitates, as its properties as a heat trapping gas help to trap in the heat from the latter solar radiation within the atmosphere). 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed, Richard

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

20 September 2019
11.14pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9799
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Okay, taking on the point about warming and cooling periods in the past. There is a natural cycle which accounts for some of this; however, the speed and degree of change leads to the conclusion that there is something different about this cycle, and that difference has been identified as human activity, especially the effect of our use of fossil fuels.

But what about...? Yes, there have been big swings in the planet's history which cannot be accounted for by human activity, either predating humanity or predating the modern industrial era. How can these be accounted for?

While much of it has to be a degree of scientific supposition because we were either not around as a species or the scientific knowledge did not exist, many of these (if not all) can be attributed to events taking place that the planet's natural warming and cooling cannot compensate for.

A good example of this would be the extinction of the dinosaurs. An asteroid hits the planet roughly in what is now the Gulf of Mexico, the impact causing changes to the environment that most of the larger animals were unable to adapt to, seeing the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals.

Yes, it's impossible to identify all the direct causes as we were not around or didn't have the level of knowledge needed, but we can look to events like volcanic eruptions, natural wildfires, etc.

Interestingly we do have the last period of global cooling at the end of the 19th Century and on into the 20th Century, the cause of which has been identified as the Krakatoa volcano blowing itself apart in 1883, releasing 25 cubic kilometres of rock and ash into the atmosphere.

And, in this period of global warming, the variable added to the planets ecosystem is the increasing industrialisation of man and its reliance on fossil fuels.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

Richard, QuarryMan

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

21 September 2019
7.32pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1876
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2592sp_Permalink sp_Print

I’m away until monday

Two great posts to reply to!

My small screen Iphone SE is really convenient but not suited to doing justice to your posts.

Hope to do so early Monday.

But thanks...

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

QuarryMan
23 September 2019
1.16am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1876
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is so annoying........

I just begin to think after reading quite a lot over the last 3 days..that basically bares out and confirms what RN and QM and everyone else agrees is correct......Then I come across this video which is equally persuasive to me.

I've always thought that there's a lot of funding pressures on scientists to confirm each others findings....Also that some at least of the science has a political purpose......For example here's a damming quote that confirms AOC's true intentions with the Green new deal.......

"The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added."

Cynically preying for political purposes on the natural, eco' anxiety of young people is unforgivable.

However, after my reading I was coming so close to acquiescing with the view  that Climate Change has to be, (well 90+%) man made and that there's no other reasonable possibility.....

And then moving away from interrogating Google to you tube I came across this...... :

 

 

Once again I'm in a quandary....... 

I'm sure it won't convince others here.....A famous Mark Twain quote comes to mind but I don't want to antagonise anyone....Especially after they've gone to some lengths to powerfully and eloquently argue their cases....... Which as far as I know may well be correct......And which I'm grateful for......

 

You see it's what scientists carefully put in and and carefully chose to leave out..Cherry picking......that as a layman I hate....

'If a man tells lies he's hiding the truth ,when a man tells half-lies he's forgotten where he's put the truth"  

 

The boy has cried wolf so often on this subject since the 1970s......Drastic 'end is nigh' worst case scenarios.........But  thankfully I've survived them all and have been please to be disappointed  .......... 

 

Those 3 words....'I don't know' sum up the softening in my position.....Though to be fair I never said i did.

Thank you RN and Qm........

One very good thing is that  the BBC reports today about how quickly China is getting on with their solar energy production.......They certainly would not be doing that if they didn't see a reason to and that in itself is quite a powerful indicator that you are both right........

Anyway

Cheers

23 September 2019
9.06am
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 2602
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2594sp_Permalink sp_Print

a-hard-days-night-ringo-8I don't think it's any secret that the Green New Deal is also intended to do other things than just make the US economy more environmentally friendly. It's named after the New Deal, after all, and having just looked on Wikipedia the first of its ten goals is to "guarantee a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security" to all US citizens. If this was part of some dastardly plan by AOC to smuggle progressive economic reform in with environmental protection, she's doing a pretty poor job of hiding ita-hard-days-night-john-6

In regards to that video, I think a lot of what makes what he's saying sound impressive is how he frames it. Making a big deal about how 'it's only warmed one degree' without properly addressing the huge effects that just one degree of change can have. Admittedly, I'm not capable of fact checking what he says here because I simply don't know enough about the topic, but the only point he makes that I can't see being explained is that the earth's temperature rose in the 20s-40s when according to him there wasn't enough CO2 production for this to occur. 

Also, he's one to talk about political motives influencing climate science, given that he's a scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in 1974 by... well, you can probably guess: it's oil billionaire Charles Koch. No prizes for guessing his motivations in promoting this stuff. 

Overall though, I think we've exhausted the 'is climate change real' debate as far as we can take it with none of us being actual scientists (to my knowledge). I think at this point it would be more interesting to discuss different solutions to the problem under the presupposition that the earth is warming and that human activity is contributing to it. 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

Wigwam, Richard

Tall, dark-haired QuarryMan likes basketball, music, and naturally, boys. He was a valuable participant on the track team. He is one of Freeport's great contributors to the recording world. As for the immediate future, QuarryMan has no plans, but will take life as it comes. 

 

23 September 2019
7.17pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1876
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well said......

I can lay claim a solid science background in physics......

I once had a summer job as a physicist in a lemonade factory 

 

This video is one I came across......Although not serious....there is a point there.

 

 

This is interesting.......Especially how scientists have cherry picked start and end dates........

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

QuarryMan
24 September 2019
4.53am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9799
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Holy shite!!!! The 11 Supreme Court Judges have just found UNANIMOUSLY that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully when he prorogued Parliament for 5 weeks and as a result the prorogation was null and void meaning that, in effect, Parliament was never prorogued.

They've said it's up to the Speakers of the Houses of Commons and Lords to reconvene Parliament, and that the Government has no say in reconvening Parliament.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

24 September 2019
5.09am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1876
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2597sp_Permalink sp_Print

Probably a just decision but.......maybe the Supreme Courts doesn't see the irony that they are turkeys voting for Christmas........

And that perhaps they've just made themselves redundant ...... in future the European Court's will make such rulings......

A sad day for me....Others no doubt cock-a-hoop....BBC et al

That's life.......

Ain't over yet........In the end democracy must rule.....Except when it comes to referendums it seems.

24 September 2019
5.39am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9799
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A misunderstanding on the European Courts.

The court some have complained constantly about the rulings of when Governments of all shades have lost cases brought to it is the European Court of Human Rights, governed by the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe is nothing to do with the European Union. It was founded by ten states, one of which was the UK, on 5 May 1949. It now has 47 member states, many of whom are not members of the EU.

The Brexit vote had nothing to do with our membership of the Council of Europe, it was only concerned with our membership of the EU.

The EU Court is the European Court of Justice, which we will no longer be able to judge on events in the UK after Brexit.

But the role of the European Courts of Human Rights will continue after Brexit; unless we chose to leave the Council of Europe and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

24 September 2019
5.54am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1876
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Not at all........

Currently

The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal against the decisions of national courts in the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ.

But how long, given the EU's long term goals and its current trajectory of increasing its  powers and responsibilities before The ECJ expands its meddling and powers into influencing National courts within the EU.

What happens next will be interesting........ 

Democracy will out and I hope decisively ..........

 

PS.....'Who' fan or not......I for one didn't appreciate Lady Hale's Spider brooch .............If she can guess and pronounce on Boris' intentions........It's only fair for others like to suspect her reasons for such an ostentatious and 'creepy crawly'  choice.

24 September 2019
6.17am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9799
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

But the European Court of Human Rights can, and does, rule on the national law of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

We are not leaving the Council of Europe; and so questions on national law will continue to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

A judgement by the UK Supreme Court can now be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, and will still be able to after Brexit.

It hasn't affected the role of the Supreme Court thus far, though some of those cases that have reached the European Court of European Rights have overturned judgements made by the Supreme Court.

I have seen no plan or suggestion that the European Court of Justice to expand itself into national law or replace the highest courts in European Union Member States.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker John Bercow has just said the House of Commons will sit from 11:30am tomorrow.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

 

The Beatles Non-Canon Poll List

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: Beatlebug, 50yearslate
1
Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15584
Ron Nasty: 9799
Necko: 7856
50yearslate: 7577
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
AppleScruffJunior: 6392
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6063
mithveaen: 4621
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 2733
Moderators: 6
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4772
Posts: 329250
Newest Members:
BeatleBoyDM05, SirJamesPaulMcCartney, Bohaind, aNowhereMan, osteo
Moderators: Joe: 5062, Zig: 9807, meanmistermustard: 22279, Ahhh Girl: 18441, Beatlebug: 15320, The Hole Got Fixed: 6995
Administrators: Joe: 5062, Ellie: 4