Google+
Close

Vague about The Hague



Text  



I saw little point in even bothering to mention this latest, rumored moonbat effort — the claim, “Class action lawsuit against world leaders for allowing global warming being filed at the International Criminal Court in the Hague,” seeking damages on behalf of “future generations of human beings.”

 

Besides certain glaring issues of standing (people of the International Criminal Court, we come to you from the future…) it smacks of the absurd that a tort suit would be filed before the International Criminal Court — and by an individual, since the last time I wrote about it, the ICC was an organization of member countries. Its prosecutor can indeed receive information from individuals, but that is a far cry from claiming that an individual “filed a lawsuit” where such an act does not appear to be possible.

 

After someone asked me earlier in the day if this bizarreness was real, I finally took a look. The copy of the complaint’s style page posted by the bloggers announcing the, ah, suit, happens to be one involving an action by NORML over a Montana law regarding the cultivation of hemp — having nothing to do with the ICC at all. So, while the inhalation of some hemp which managed to catch on fire might be involved in this particular claim, it doesn’t appear that a “global warming lawsuit” is. As Christopher Hitchens says about my particular faith and I repeat about the greens’, that which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof. I await being proven wrong.

 

If this was in fact a bong-dream, I’m sure the crazies will soon crow that their having circulated the claim was really a joke . . . yeah that’s it, a joke, and that a few on our side mocking the idea is evidence that we run with any claim without checking it. Or, viewed another way, that we’ve gotten so accustomed to their nuttiness that we’ll believe anything about them.

  So please take note that this appears to be instead yet another instance where the global warming alarmists are easily taken in. As they, by definition, most certainly are.  


Text  


Subscribe to National Review