'The Telegraph' (UK) of 11th October carries an article headed "Judges Plan to outlaw climate change 'denial'" The journalist, Christopher Booker also refers to to Prince Charles's calling for a "Magna Carta for the Earth" to be presented at the coming Paris Conference. And, the push for outlawing free speech on climage change comes for a good friend of HRH, a Supreme Court Judge!

We've heard this sort of thing before but, I for one, have always thought it was joke. But, the heir to the Throne, and a Supreme Court Judge? HRH is a bit of an odd-bod, but I don't think Supreme Court Judges are supposed to have a sense of humour, are they?

The issue is available online.

Yeh, I saw that and thought it must be April fools day.

You know something is a lie when they have to outlaw opposition to it in that way.

Global Con job = more taxes.

The wellbeing of climate change
Well may be laws are what has got to happen. Time is ticking and the sea is rising. Some would disagree that day follows night.

It is a serious concern that is being rejected by mostly big business and vested interests as $ are at risk.

Others believe it is a conspiracy, which have it’s followers. Another lot say climate change is not man induced and therefore there is nothing that can be done about it. And some say it is a con to raise money for the UN or IPC or Mickey mouse club.

So how do you deal with that when good science and junk science can not cohabitate. Lets remember that B/ S baffles brains. And there a lot of different capacities of brains. Because you are a mathematician does not guarantee that you will be a mechanic.

So with that in mind we have to have an umpire as discussion has run its course. A decision is now in need as to a course of action, so what are the options.

The umpire has 2 options. Do we disagree with climate change, or do we agree climate change.

If the decision is to disagree, we do nothing we are prepared to suffer the consequences if any.

If the decision is to agree, we get about bettering our ways of managing our world with gusto.

Business decisions are hanging on the umpires decision,
The decision is pending

"We've heard this sort of thing before but, I for one, have always thought it was joke."

It's not a joke.
I've tried to tell you all before but y'all cant seem to get it through your thick heads.

Point 1. Whether climate change exists or not is not relevant.
Point 2. What is relevant is that they are using "climate change" as a tool to forward a New World Order agenda.

Understand this first and foremost, then we can go back to the actual issue of whether or not climate change does or doesn't exist.
At least then you can look at the issue in the proper perspective.

You'd think that by mentioning the heir to the British throne and a Supreme court judge you'd have answered your own question.

Do you guys not read the things I post or is it just so hard to believe that these things are actually happening?
(Because I'm really curious - I get the impression that I could hit some of you over the head with a frypan but you still wouldn't get it)

Look.. google "climate change club of rome"
http://www.google.com.au/#q=climate+change+club+of+rome
2nd response returned and you will find an article "Climate Change – Emergency Leadership Needed Now" by a member of the Club of Rome who is also a director of Australia21.
Do you not see how see how think-tank agendas become social policy?

4th Response
"Group That Admitted Manufacturing Global Warming Threat Still Pushes Same Hoax"

Its an agenda by those who want global depopulation.

Sorry if I come across the wrong way, but I often feel like you all think I'm a little nutty for some of my 'conspiracy theorist' type online interests, but what is ironic to me is its you guys that are shocked by these headlines while I'm not surprised in the least.

As we all know, the world is flat and stands on the back of a turtle.
Now unless ocean-levels rise, this turtle will become thirsty and eventually die,
then we shall all fall... down and down and down till we reach hell below.

I did not deny anything, so I hope that nothing I wrote was illegal!

Dear ttbn,

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story/beatup huh?

And to be quoting anything from Christopher Booker takes us into the deep dark realms of idiocy my friend.

This is a bloke who steadfastly denies second hand smoke has any harmful effects and virtually rules out any health implications for asbestos particularly the white kind.

He has a track record of attempting to denigrate scientific consensus on many of the issues where powerful business interests are wanting to put a contrary view into the press.

Tell you what, why don't you watch the speech made by Sands and tell me where he calls for “outlawing free speech on climage change”.

He doesn't.

http://youtu.be/eef1tK8mtEI