backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Nov 8 at 10:05 AM


Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, smiles after he emerges victorious from the court room. A court ruled that it was wrong for Mr. Nicholson's employer to fire him for his belief in global warming, as it was a philosophy afforded equal protections to religion. Mr. Nicholson refuses to fly for fear of carbon pollution.  (Source: Telegraph UK)
When it comes to climate change, just have a little faith!

In an unusual case in the United Kingdom, it has been ruled that climate change beliefs should be afforded the same legal protections as religious freedoms. The bizarre ruling sets a landmark legal precedent and could have broad implications both in Britain and abroad.

The case began when Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger PLC was laid off in July 2008 for his criticism of management on the basis of climate change beliefs. Mr. Nicholson, who renovated his house to be greener and refuses to fly by air, was upset that Rupert Dickinson, the firm's chief executive, had an employee fly to him in Ireland to deliver his Blackberry.

When Mr. Nicholson began to gripe and express his environmental sentiments, he was later dismissed. He took his former employers to court, contending that the same laws that protect religious freedoms protected his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.”

His employers contended that climate change was a scientific, not a religious or philosophical belief, and thus not legally protected. Mr. Nicholson, however, insisted that climate change was a philosophical belief as “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.” His lawyer, Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, added that to not grant AGW beliefs the same protections as religion would mean “that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination.”

That theory was put to the test in an unusual court case and in the end Mr. Nicholson prevailed. Justice Michael Burton who delivered the ruling, ironically had used the same logic to hand a victory to climate skeptics over advocates of anthropogenic global warming theory seeking to show school children An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.  The court, which Justice Burton served on, ruled that the move was a political, not a scientific work, and was unfit for the classroom. 

Mr Nicholson lauded the verdict, stating, “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe. This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief. Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence." 

His employers have vowed to appeal the decision. If it stands, however, it could have major legal affects in Britain and beyond. Affording environmental beliefs the same status as religion opens companies to suits from employees complaining about lack of recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel. It also prevents employers from dismissing employees from their environmental beliefs, even if they seem radical. 

In the U.S., similar protections exist for employment and religion/philosophy. The laws are certainly worded differently, but the British decision could embolden those seeking similar protections in the U.S. At the end of the day, the ruling forces society to be accept and cater to a variety of opinions on climate change and environmentalism, while at the same time making it harder for organizations, particularly government funded ones, to voice views on such topics.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Sozo on 11/4/2009 10:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but you do. Nobody has ever observed evolution, and observation is an important part of the scientific method.

"Ah, but people have observed evolution," you say. But you're wrong, they've seen natural selection, a very different, and very normal development of life. And no, predictions and theorizations about the fossil record don't count either. You need faith (or belief, since faith isn't a very palatable word for scientists) to make the leap and fill in the millions of years worth of missing evidence.

Why are we even arguing about this? We should be complaining about making Al Gore a billionaire through global warming alarmism. Blast Al Gore, he's cleverer than we thought! o_O


By daInvincibleGama on 11/4/2009 10:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria.

And don't give me any of that microevolution-macroevolution crap.


By Sozo on 11/4/2009 10:38:43 PM , Rating: 1
Antibiotic resistant bacteria develop via natural selection as well, or they can be engineered. In either case, they don't become a new species, just a new strain of the same species. Swine flu is one example.


By rbuszka on 11/4/2009 10:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Correct - the Swine Flu didn't morph into something that was not the flu virus, and MRSA (Methycillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) is just a drug-resistant population of Staphylococcus Aureus - the Staphylococcus bacterium found in your nose. It didn't morph into something that was not Staphylococcus Aureus.

Tame foxes are still foxes. Different breeds of dog are still dogs. They can still interbreed. Breeding for a specific physical trait is still breeding for a specific type of gene expression. And I would posit that selective breeding by humans is a form of intelligent design - in this case, an intelligent agent (a human handler) is determining the genes that are expressed by choosing individuals that display a desired trait. There are many ways that an intelligent agent could have influenced the development of diverse living species, even if evolution that produces speciation is one day proven to occur.


By rbuszka on 11/4/2009 10:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Microevolution = Variation within a particular species that produces adaptations to changes in the population's habitat, but does not produce speciation.

Macroevolution = Variation which produces speciation.

The former has been observed in nature. The latter has not. Extrapolation from the former to the latter is not supported by any of the evidence I've encountered for 'evolution'. In fact, no evolutionary process has ever been demonstrated to produce variation beyond the phylum class. Telling us not to give you any of "that Macroevolution/Microevolution crap" is not making a counterargument. It is insulting the opponent and then sticking your fingers in your ears. And it looks just as silly to anyone who is skilled in debate. (Not that there are many on the Internet. Just plenty of intellectualist poseurs.)


By LRonaldHubbs on 11/4/2009 11:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Telling us not to give you any of "that Macroevolution/Microevolution crap" is not making a counterargument. It is insulting the opponent and then sticking your fingers in your ears.

In this case the opponent deserves the insult because their argument is tired and baseless. Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution compounded over time.


By Jyrioffinland on 11/5/2009 4:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The former has been observed in nature. The latter has not.


Wrong. There is a new algae species in the Baltic Sea that has come about during the last 300-400 years.


By Jyrioffinland on 11/5/2009 5:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry. 'Algae' is a mistranslation. It should say 'seaweed'.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki