Here's a statement from a UK scientist, made after 5 climate protesters were sent to prison for years.
It's long.
I’m Dr Tristram Wyatt, Senior research fellow in Biology at the University of Oxford. I’m here on behalf of scientists outraged by this trial.
I’d like to begin by reading you Professor Bill McGuire’s response to Judge Hehir’s rulings in the case. He’s not pulling his punches:
● “My name is Bill McGuire and I'm Professor Emeritus of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at UCL.
● I provided the expert testimony in support of the defendants in last week's conspiracy 5 trial.
● It goes without saying that the trial and the verdict were a farce, marked a low point in British justice, and were an assault on free speech.
● The judge’s characterisation of climate breakdown as a 'matter of opinion and belief' is completely nonsensical and demonstrates extraordinary ignorance.
● Similarly, to suggest that the climate emergency is 'irrelevant' in relation to whether defendants had a reasonable case for action is crass stupidity.
● From my point of view, however, the key aspect of the case was the dismissal by the judge of me as an expert witness, because he had deemed me – on the basis of my tweets – to be an activist.
● This has enormous ramifications, because effectively it means that any climate scientist who has spoken out can be banned from providing expert testimony in the future, which – in turn – means that juries will never have a chance to hear the truth.
● The bottom line is that first they came for the climate activists – now they are coming for the climate scientists.
● In the face of catastrophe, and at a time when everyone needs to understand the challenges we are facing, we can't allow this to happen.
● Our world is heating up more than at any time in the geological record, leading to the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, yet the British judiciary is working ever harder to shut us up.
● My message is straightforward. Never give in – never give up.
● At a time when the global average temperature rise since pre-industrial times is more than 1.6C, we simply don't have the right NOT to fight.
● Thank you for listening.”
….
That was Professor Bill McGuire from UCL.
Next we hear from Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government:
“I wish I could join you and Chris Packham. This is so disgraceful. We are all hoping that the change in UK Government will also change the situation in our courts.”
And this from Professor James Hansen, at Columbia University, New York. His testimony to the US congress in 1989 first sounded the global alarm on the climate crisis. He refers initially to Judge Silas Reid’s rulings along similar lines to those of Judge Hehir:
"The cruelty of such 'know nothing' judges is not so much to the defendant as it is to our children and grandchildren."
I’m here today because I am outraged and frightened by the way this trial has been conducted and by the shameful sentences given today.
There are at least three shocking things about the way the Judge treated science in this trial.
First, the judge prevented the defendants from telling the jury about the climate science that has motivated them to act. Nothing could be more relevant.
Second, the judge prevented the defendants from giving the jury a summary of the evidence for climate change, including the UK government’s own findings and advice.
Third, the judge blocked a professor of climate science, on the grounds that he had tweeted about the climate crisis.
The judge is absurd. Scientists have a duty to speak publicly in their area of expertise. What would we think if scientists who discover cancer cures kept quiet about it?
There’s a good example of how important it is that scientists act as advocates. You’ll remember a previous world crisis with the ozone hole.
Chemist Sherry Rowland shared a Nobel prize for identifying the CFC molecules which were causing the hole. He famously said:
“What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around & wait for them to come true?”
His expert advocacy worked. Governments listened and acted, CFCs were banned, and the ozone hole was closed.
With the climate catastrophe unfolding as we speak, we need scientists to speak out.
And we need juries to hear their expert advice.
It’s almost as if some judges don’t want juries to hear the science.
And there might be a reason, because the science is compelling.
In the last year, many juries allowed to hear the science around climate change have acquitted climate protesters.
Without science and reason our democracy will fail. And it will fall into fascism.
Dr Tristram Wyatt
