This underscores how truly dangerous the Global Warming people have become: it's only going to get worse.
It is a call for a new International Court to enforce environmental policies.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment"
Hence the court will be able to go after everyone: unless you can prove that you haven't failed to protect the environment, you're guilty. But the next is even worse: how will they "enforce" the right to a healthy environment? This is language so broad, so sweeping that it can mean literally anything.
...the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.
Now you see the underlying fear of the watermelons: that the new conference will provide lip service and business goes on as usual. Agreeing to the concept of such a court is dangerous: backed by politicians, global warming fanatics and the usual group of silly persons who don't have the sense to actually think about what they are doing.
"The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going," he said. "Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments."
As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.
Now that's a mandate: to control climate change? What galling hubris. The real task will be in extorting money from multinational companies: that's what this really is. This will be used to ensure that the environmental laws of the West are used to bludgeon the Third World into submission to laws that will ensure that millions will live and die in poverty, since the environemnt here clearyl trumps everything else.
The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organisations to protest against an environmental injustice.
Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making "declaratory rulings" that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.
In other words, such a court would be the sounding board for the entire watermelon culture, the permanent public place to castigate everyone not toeing the watermelon line. Like they can't get their message out now via the MSM: if anything, this may well be used as a bludgeon to silence the critics.
The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.
Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: "If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion."
And there you go: if you can't win in politics, use the court to dictate what public opinion should be. Retired judges, chosen for their commitment to judicial activism; climate change experts who falsfiy their data and build models that always give the desired results; and nattering fools who think that they - purported - ability to charm the camera means that the rest of their opinions actually carry weight.
This isn't a court: it's a PR action. The only resemblance to a court is to a kangaroo court, for show trials and public castigation of those who dare to point out that not only is the emperor without clothes, he's fat and ugly to boot.
The only way for the environmentalists, the watermelons (red inside, green outside) to be taken seriously is to do the science right and proper, without faked data and with models that give you different results with different inputs (which the global warming "scientists" have failed to do so). The problem then is ...
..that there is no anthropogenic global warming.
If you can't win in politics, then lie and decieve. This court isn't just a bad idea: it's a perversion of the idea.