It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Prince Charles: 100 months to save the world

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:23 AM

The Prince of Wales is to issue a stark warning that nations have "less than 100 months to act" to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.

Prince Charles will say that the need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever before and that, even in a global recession, the world must not lose sight of the "bigger picture". His warning will be delivered on Thursday in a keynote speech in Rio de Janeiro.

Aides believe it will echo one he gave in Sao Paulo in 1991 at the start of the last recession, when he warned that caring for the world's long term welfare must not become a "luxury". The intervention will help to put the environment at the top of the political agenda ahead of the meeting of G20 leaders in London next month. The Prince starts a ten-day tour of South America today during which he will be playing an elevated role as an international statesman working on behalf of the Government to support British interests on key issues. climate change laws...

This is the agenda that TPTB seem to be up to...globalization of everything. All the little people in the world will be affected by taxes and total infringement of their rights by the governments of the world.

I'd like to know where he gets 100 months....or where he gets any information.

Now...IF THIS ISN'T FEARMONGERING....then nothing is.

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:28 AM
Sounds like another scare tactic to me.

I dont trust anything the Royal family says.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by disfugured]

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:50 AM
Maybe a hundred months for his dad to transform into a virus and depopulate the world?

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by eldard

This is a perfect example of what happens as a result of centuries of inbreeding...

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:04 PM
The royal family is a total joke and so is everything they say.
These are people who need to go get jobs and quit living off everybody else because they have a special name.
Can you see that big eared fool saying..."would you like fries with that sir?"

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:05 PM
100 months seems a bit arbitrary. Always nice to see world leaders using nice big round numbers to scare the population.

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:24 PM
Yep, just like 7 years ago it was we need to do something now because the North Pole was going to be completely void of ice by 2007. Then they changed it and said it was going to be 2008.

As far as man made global warming "science" goes they do change their predictions a lot.

And they never change them to a further time span they always shorten the time span.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by DrumsRfun

If the accident of his birth, over which he had no control, gives him no right to claim the position he does why then does it give you the right to mock him for it?

And Prince Charles isn’t on the civil list by the way so does not receive any money the public.

Anyway, it seems like the thrust of his speech is about how wider needs of future generations are of greater importance than the relatively frivolous needs of the present. I can’t claim to have read all the studies on climate change but the scientific consensus does seem to be that there is a growing problem. This may change but it does so based on observation not whim; I imagine it would be much less damaging if we take action and they turn out to be wrong than if we don’t take action and they turn out to be right.

Planet threatening changes aside there are also other concerns such as the loss of the rainforests and coral reefs or the dwindling supply of fossil fuels that certainly are happening which do need to be addressed; even if the fate of human civilisation doesn’t hang in the balance.

Although I don't know where this 100 months comes from (he may be right) I do think the general message is correct.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Mike_A]


log in