Ratcliffe Trial: James Hansen

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 29 Nov 2010, 21:47

James Hansen spoke for the defence at the Ratcliffe trial today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... CMP=twt_fd

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/11/469091.html

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 29 Nov 2010, 22:02

Let's hope what he said has the desired effect.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 30 Nov 2010, 08:03

I have full respect for Hansen, he really has put his money where his mouth is.

However it is a shame he flew over to be an expert witness, I hope the possibility of video link testimony was explored first, otherwise this is a bit of an own goal.

Actually, thinking about it, I'm pretty sure English courts won't allow video link except for vulnerable witnesses, so I guess he took a view on it.

Does anyone else know?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 30 Nov 2010, 12:18

I wonder if he'd count as a vulnerable witness? He might need Protection after all this!

Post by **clv101** » 30 Nov 2010, 12:24

including the ‘dead certainty’ of sea level rise by 12 metres this century.

That just doesn't make sense - I can't see a scenario where sea level rises that much by 2100. It could be the case that the atmosphere reaches a state by 2100 such that the long term equilibrium sea level rise will be +12 m. But not 12 m in 90 years.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 30 Nov 2010, 14:39

clv101 wrote:That just doesn't make sense - I can't see a scenario where sea level rises that much by 2100. It could be the case that the atmosphere reaches a state by 2100 such that the long term equilibrium sea level rise will be +12 m. But not 12 m in 90 years.

If a substantial chunk of the WAIS were to slide into the ocean, what would do it.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 30 Nov 2010, 19:17

Yeah, 12 meters this century is nonsense but did he really say that? It was reported in a blog but what were his actual words in context? 12 metres in a few centuries is what Hansen has written in his book. That's reasonable.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Dec 2010, 22:03

Ratcliffe on Trial has posted a new item, 'Day 7 - Trial lulls due to snow, but action begins elsewhere'

Today saw further snow trouble, with several jurors struggling to make it in at all. Court was dismissed at 11am and the rest of the day was open for meetings and attempts to stay warm. Court in Nottingham should continue as normal tomorrow (snow
pending) including Caroline Lucas MP giving evidence in the afternoon. Meanwhile, the Manchester Airport Trial will begin next week, with 11 defendants facing charges of obstruction of the highway, for shutting off the World Freight Centre of Manchester Airport in May this year. Ratcliffe On Trial support group expresses solidarity with the Manchester Airport on Trial group for taking direct action in a similar vein to the planned Ratcliffe on Soar action. As James Hansen stressed on Monday, coal is the dirtiest form of electricity and must be phased out immediately to give us any hope of avoiding disastrous climate tipping points. However, many other industries in the UK and abroad continue to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. The aviation industry, specifically, is the fastest growing source of emissions internationally. As pointed out by a defendant who gave evidence yesterday, international climate negotiations, such as Kyoto (1997) and Copenhagen (2009) repeatedly fail to produce binding agreements and effective climate action. As similar talks are beginning in Cancun, as ever unlikely to succeed, alternatives like direct action become all the more essential. If you are near Manchester, drop in to court next week to support the defendants on the Manchester Airport Trial. See their website for further information about the trial and how you can support them - manchesterairportontrial [at] gmail.com.

You may view the latest post at http://ratcliffeontrial.org/2010/12/tri ... elsewhere/

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 03 Dec 2010, 13:25

According to a report in schnews, the prosecutor, Miss Gerry suggested that rather than take the action they took, the defendants would have been better off hiring Cheryl Cole to model second hand clothes or voting for Zac Goldsmith.

Brilliant! I think the defence has some sort of double agent in Miss Gerry.

Even the jury was apparently baffled and passed a note to the judge asking what Miss Geryy was going on about.

Next up is Caroline Lucas, who should run rings around the prosecution.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 03 Dec 2010, 14:02

nexus wrote:Next up is Caroline Lucas, who should run rings around the prosecution.

That was yesterday!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Dec 2010, 21:32

t's been a sobering Monday morning in court with evidence presented by Dr Ian Roberts, Professor of Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Medicine. He explained the real and imminent threat to health posed by climate change. His warnings could hardly have been starker: we risk “generational genocide” as we “sleep walk into a nightmare”.

The effects of Climate Change could be “unimaginably horrible” if we don't act now, with mass migration leading to “violence and conflict on an unprecedented scale”. He painted a bleak picture of a world with reduced food security, millions more children dying of preventable diseases and ecosystems across the world collapsing like dominoes.

He spelt out the reasons why the year 2000 World Health Organisation estimate of 150,000 deaths annually due to climate change is certainly out of date. For one thing experts now have a much greater awareness of the extent to which human health is jeopardised by climate change. Furthermore the 2000 model did not take into consideration the increasing number of unpredictable climate events, like heat-waves and floods, that cause mass casualties.

His evidence highlighted that the uncertainty inherent within climate change forecasts is one of the reasons that the problem is so challenging and dangerous, and that it's topsy turvy logic to use the uncertainties in predictions as a reason to ignore the warnings.

In this context of imminent doom the next witness, defendant Bradley Day, sounded reasonable and measured as he explained how he planned to take action to stop emissions from Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.

When the prosecution suggested that the action had been planned in order just to make a point Bradley was quick to clarify things for the court. This plan was all about taking the action we desperately need and that our political process is so totally failing to deliver: action to stop emissions now.

Bradley had his eyes opened to the extent of the problem after attending a march against climate change in 2005, where he was persuaded that this was not just an environmental problem, but a global social problem with devastating human impacts. By the beginning of 2009 it was clear to him that the Copenhagen process was set up to fail and that ordinary people needed to step up to the challenge.

No one can say that awareness raising and campaigning did not have a big part to play in the action that was planned. The coming together of 114 people for an action to shut down a power station to save tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 was a direct consequence of the long term outreach, public education and engagement that the climate movement has been involved in for many years. After all awareness raising is all well and good, but once we can all quote the science and know the risks, it's time to make the change happen ourselves.

If not now then when?


biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 Dec 2010, 20:45

Twenty climate activists who planned to shut down one of Britain’s most polluting power stations for a week were found guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass today.

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/2010/12/pre ... ate-trial/

I happened to drive past the power station this morning (as one does, just casing the joint) and noticed that the perimeter fence was having another fence built on top of it, making it very tall. The vegetation, trees and shruberries, have been removed from a wide strip just inside the fence and there are surveillance cameras at regular intervals. I suppose it's in case invading and shutting down power-stations turns out not to be illegal.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Jan 2011, 16:36

Sentenced:

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/2011/01/jud ... efendants/

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 05 Jan 2011, 16:42

The defendants were given a range of sentences, with the majority receiving conditional discharges – a total of 13. These were either 18 month or 2 years in length. 2 of the defendants who were given conditional discharges were ordered to pay costs of £500 and £1000 respectively.

The judge gave the remaining 5 defendants who were present community service orders, stating that this was due to their previous convictions, which he claimed made him unable to pass a more lenient sentence. The community service orders varied between 60 and 90 hours.

The remaining 2 defendants will be sentenced at a later date.

Before they left the dock for the final time, the judge commended the defendants on being some of the most ‘polite’ and ‘punctual’ he had come across.

Obviously you get a better class of defendant if you don't go after real criminals

Anyone know what a "conditional discharge" actually means in practice? Or what happens to (for example) your job/benefits/housing if you have to do Community Service? Sorry but it's one of those things I've always wondered.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 05 Jan 2011, 17:29

RenewableCandy wrote:Anyone know what a "conditional discharge" actually means in practice? Or what happens to (for example) your job/benefits/housing if you have to do Community Service? Sorry but it's one of those things I've always wondered.

Climate Camp need more activists. Volunteer and you might find out

.