In the summer of 2025, the UN Court issued a ruling stating that countries which emit too much of the plant nutrient CO2 may have to pay compensation if they violate their so-called climate obligations. Now the UN General Assembly has adopted support for the ruling: States may be held accountable for nature’s unpredictable climate changes.
On Wednesday evening, the resolution supporting the ruling was adopted by a large majority in New York. It has thereby been established that it may be unlawful not to implement so-called climate measures, and countries may be compelled to pay compensation if they violate their climate obligations. Many will probably think that China voted against, since this will become very expensive for the worst offender in coal power?
A dangerous paper tiger for Western countries
In fact, China voted for. So did 140 other countries, including Norway, of course. As climate hysteria collapses, it is becoming increasingly important to legislate the climate targets, so that it becomes illegal to oppose or stop climate hysteria. There are, however, still some rocks ahead for the climate activists: The UN resolution has no power behind it, and is not binding on a single country. But that is not the objective either.
The objective is to establish legally that climate change is no longer a natural phenomenon. (!) Instead, it is now exclusively fossil CO2 emissions that govern the climate on Earth, and we humans are to blame for it. This is naturally far beyond anything that can be called fact and science, but that plays no role: It opens the door to hundreds of climate lawsuits before courts all over the world – and not least climate lawsuits against Western, wealthy countries.
The UN resolution is now becoming part of the legal basis that judges must assess, and this may in turn set precedent in the flood of climate lawsuits that may now come from poor, underdeveloped countries claiming to be “climate victims”. These countries already receive large amounts of aid from countries such as Norway – but even more money is, as we know, better than merely large amounts of money.
The dictatorship of China will naturally summarily reject all such lawsuits – but Western countries will take them seriously and process them. And most of the countries that voted for the resolution in the UN are also hunting for Western cash … or they wish to damage and weaken the economies of Western countries in order to win the competition. That is why China votes for something that appears to be a threat to them.
141 countries in favour, 28 abstained and 8 voted against
Those who voted against the resolution were Belarus, Iran, Israel, Yemen, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the USA. Among those abstaining from the vote was, ironically enough, Turkey, which is the host country for this year’s climate summit. India, Qatar and Pakistan and Kuwait were also among the countries that abstained.
The Norwegian climate industry is naturally as euphoric as NRK. So too is the UN Secretary-General António “We-Are-On-The-Road-To-Hell” Guterres, who believes the resolution is a strong confirmation of international law, climate justice, science and states’ responsibility to protect people from the escalating climate crisis.
– Those who are least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price. That injustice must come to an end, Guterres states regarding the resolution.
With this, the UN continues to refuse to take on board the negative results of 35 years of “climate struggle”. They will also continue to ignore science, observation and data, and refuse to relate to scientific facts about the climate: There exists no scientific method for establishing that, for example, a hurricane is created by CO2 emissions, or whether nature would have created the hurricane regardless. It is pseudoscience based on commissioned research.
Lack of scientific basis
Those of us who actually understand science and relate to observable results and mathematics are, however, not surprised by the resolution in the UN. The climate industry is a money mill encompassing trillions of dollars, and has systematically cancelled and removed all critics and falsification from public discourse. NRK not least. But facts and documentation are still as indisputable as they were 35 years ago:
There exists no science that can establish the climate of the future in the year 2100 with empirical certainty, as the UN has in fact resolved. There is zero data basis behind the claim that the “green transition” can replace the need for fossil energy. And establishing that the climate will in fact “obey” our wishes, and stop warming if the “climate measures” succeed, lacks both scientific basis and data basis.
The fact is that the world has increased its dependence on fossil energy since climate hysteria became international policy in 1992. Nor are there any figures indicating that China, India, South America, Africa, Russia or the USA will cut their CO2 emissions towards 2050.