Chicken al la still not a king

The royal prince in waiting of Britain labels climate skeptics as “headless chickens”.

From The Telegraph:

Prince Charles has criticised climate change deniers, describing them as the “headless chicken brigade” during an awards ceremony recognising a leading young green entrepreneur.

Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, also spoke out against “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups during the event held at Buckingham Palace last night.

The mark of a true leader is bringing people with diverse views and backgrounds together, clearly with this recent pronouncement, Prince Charles clearly has failed as a leader.

I’ll point out a few things the prince who may be king should know, but doesn’t, or chooses not to.

1. Rational climate skeptics don’t doubt that some portion of the proposed greenhouse effect is real, it’s just that nobody (and that includes many scientists) seems to be able to agree upon how much. The few who actually deny the Greenhouse effect exists, such as the “Slayers” aka “Principia Scientific” only represent the views of a fringe.

2. Item 1 then leads to arguments about climate sensitivity, values are literally “all over the map”:

image

Figure 1: Climate sensitivity estimates from new research published since 2010 (colored, compared with the range given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (gray) and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5; black). The arrows indicate the 5 to 95% confidence bounds for each estimate along with the best estimate (median of each probability density function; or the mean of multiple estimates; colored vertical line). Ring et al. (2012) present four estimates of the climate sensitivity and the red box encompasses those estimates. The right-hand side of the IPCC AR4 range is dotted to indicate that the IPCC does not actually state the value for the upper 95% confidence bound of their estimate and the left-hand arrow only extends to the 10% lower bound as the 5% lower bound is not given. The light grey vertical bar is the mean of the 14 best estimates from the new findings. The mean climate sensitivity (3.4°C) of the climate models used in the IPCC AR5 is 13 percent greater than the IPCC’s “best estimate” of 3.0°C and 70% greater than the mean of recent estimates (2.0°C).

3.  The global climate isn’t responding as it was predicted by government scientists, the trend over the last 12 years is basically flat:

image

Figure 2: Global Average Surface Temperatures, 2001-2012

Compare that to climate sensitivity predictions, which center around .2°C

image

Figure 3: 12-year Trends compared to climate sensitivity predictions from Figure 1

The three graphs above are from Michaels and Knappenberger in this post.

4. The response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation, which may explain why there is little warming over the last 12 years:

The Inconvenient Skeptic

Figure 4: Red: The AGW accepted climate sensitivity of 0.81 (3C for doubling) Green: Climate sensitivity of 0.28 (1C for doubling) Blue: Climate sensitivity of 0.066 (0.24C for doubling)

Figure 4 is from this WUWT post: Sensitivity Training: Determining the Correct Climate Sensitivity

5. While rational climate skeptics point out reality based factual inconsistencies with warming projections, the global warming movement has been hijacked by emotional activists, such as Bill McKibben and Al Gore, who use emotional pleas and invective to motivate people. You won’t see them ever show the graphs above because they don’t deal in facts, only emotional appeals.

6. By making an emotional label about climate skeptics, instead of dealing with facts, Prince Charles demonstrates that’s he’s no different than Bill McKibben and Al Gore. Given recent opinion polls, he’s basically called about half of his potential subjects “the headless chicken brigade”, yet it is he who seems to be centered on the emotionalism and randomness more suited to that label.

Perhaps there is a reason the Queen has held on so long.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Climate sensitivity, Climate ugliness and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

317 Responses to Chicken al la still not a king

  1. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

    Erm… ‘Pleas,’ not ‘please.’ Please. [fixed - voice recognition doesn't always choose the right word -A]

    And: The image of a headless chicken implies PANIC. Skeptics are not the ones panicking- the likes of prince Charles would prefer that people blindly listen to ‘science’ AND PANIC.

  2. Oldseadog says:

    Tsk Tsk, Mr. Watts, “Britain” not “England”
    Otherwise, fair comment.

    REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony

  3. Speed says:

    Nice suit.

  4. nigelf says:

    Charles is a Malthusian just like his father. The Queen I’m unsure of.

  5. Rick says:

    The Prince of Wails has shown a complete disregard and lack of understanding regarding his role of titular head of state. I believe Queen Elizabeth will be the last monarch if the crown is passed to this foolish man.

  6. markhighland says:

    Great stuff Anthony, but the fact that you regard Britain and England as interchangeable is one of the reasons Scots are pushing for independence!

  7. Jim Brock says:

    Prince Charles reminds me of another headless chicken…the rooster that had his head chopped off but lived on. No brain, but just the stem. Rational thinking exterminated.

  8. David Chorley says:

    Until Scotland decides to leave and re-enter bankruptcy, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is the largest island in the Northwestern European Archipelago. Britain is divided into England Wales and Scotland. Wales was conquered by the English under Edward I. Scotland craved union in the early 1700s due to bankruptcy from the failed Darien expedition which tried to establish a Scottish colony in the central American isthmus.

  9. Oldseadog says:

    Thanks for the correction.
    The country is called “Great Britain and Northern Ireland”; the type of country is a Kingdom as opposed to a Republic, and in 1707 England and Scotland, as separate sovereign nations, joined together to become a new country called “Great Britain”, and thus a “United Kingdom” in that two Kingdoms united to become one.
    Ireland joined G. B. in 1800 to give G. B. & Ireland, and Eire left last century leaving only N. Ireland.
    V. confusing to almost everyone including lots of folk over here.

  10. markstoval says:

    Nice post Anthony. It was simple and to the point. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Prince has the intellectual tools with which to comprehend even this simple, short, and direct argument. I would love to be proved wrong of course.

  11. John Law says:

    Be careful Anthony previous Kings had the power to render people “headless”.

    But we in the “United Kingdom” will ensure that, at his coronation, he is wearing the “Crown Jewels” and a specially designed Royal “Straight-Jacket”.

  12. HenryP says:

    I note my projection and my name is missing
    I am saying in 2038 we will will be back with temps.to where we were in 1950
    just saying
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  13. markstoval says:

    Mods.

    I think my use of the word “Anthony” landed my comment in the moderation basket. Weird.

    REPLY:
    Nothing weird about that, comments addressed to me are held so that I have a better chance to see them – Anthony

  14. pokerguy says:

    “The global climate isn’t responding as it was predicted by government scientists, the trend over the last 12 years is basically flat:”

    Anthony, Why are you under selling this? The trend can be just as credibly described as flat for 17 years.

  15. Richard M says:

    Anyone else notice the big divergence in 2013?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2013/plot/rss/from:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2013/trend

    Part of that is due to the high January anomaly that affected satellite data the most, but it still diverges independent of that factor. Before 2013 the divergence was much less.

  16. john robertson says:

    Charles; The reason Queen Elizabeth will not relinquish the crown.
    When our Queen passes, so does the monarchy.

  17. Novantae says:

    Go easy on him – he comes from a very dysfunctional family background. He’s really quite a pitiful creature.
    Did you know he talks to plants?

  18. G. Karst says:

    Why do suppose Mum (Queen Elizabeth) is so reluctant to pass leadership over to her son? GK

  19. troe says:

    Scotland, Britain, or England this fellow makes a poor pitchman. On a brighter note one of our cable channels is running a retrospective on the “British Invasion” We are still in your debt for that.

    An Anglophile

  20. cnxtim says:

    OSD,
    AW said Britain did he not?, Where did you see England?

    Still, if Scotland and maybe Wales make their decision to secede, there won’t be much of a Great Britain left, will there?

    And, on the subject of Scotland, I feel confident in saying, if the theory AGW or GHG effect were to be tried in a Scottish court, the result would have to be the very sensible Scottish verdict ‘Not Proven’.

    From Phillip’s POV Charles is carrying on his fathers tradition of ‘foot in mouth’ whilst his beleaguered mother remains aloof.

    Headless chickens? The Madness of (NOT THE) King Charles.

  21. Jeff says:

    “REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony”

    Hi Anthony. Don’t worry, even some native Brits getaren’t even aware. This may help:
    United Kingdom = England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
    Britain (or Great Britain) = England, Scotland, Wales
    As for Charlie boy, he’s universally known as a loony here lol

  22. suissebob says:

    As someone on BH pointed out, the klutz believes in homeopathy!

  23. Ralph Kramden says:

    Since the temperature rise has leveled off around 0.6 C I would think anyone could look at the “Impact of Climate Sensitivity” graph and see the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity must be less than 0.07. I have trouble understanding why some people find this so hard to see.

  24. Vince Causey says:

    I like the way this privileged and wealthy aristocrat, who lives in castles and is driven in expensive cars, lectures the hoi polloi to cut their energy consumption.

    Actually I don’t like it. It’s about time we found another Lenin.

  25. Lars P. says:

    Projections and projections again, ” “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups “ as mentioned in the telegraph article.
    In what alternate universe does he live?
    No wonder no reply is there possible.

    And as the post says above:
    “Perhaps there is a reason the Queen has held on so long.”
    maybe “they” know something, as Jo nova said: “I’m not Monarchist or Republican, but if Charles keeps talking, that could change.”
    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/prince-charles-says-we-should-have-more-blind-trust-in-science/

    He should better not insult the people of the kingdom where he wants to be a king.
    Or maybe this is the problem? he does not want to be that? Well, I guess even in such case he could find more elegant ways, but not insulting.
    Insults are just prove of stupidity.

  26. Robin Hewitt says:

    Possibly not easy to understand in America but so long as Charles doesn’t kill anyone he can do and say most anything wants to. He doesn’t have to worry about elections, public opinion, money etc. He owns most of Cornwall and about the only person he is accountable to is his mother. If Victoria didn’t disown her son Bertie I can’t see Elizabeth dumping on Charles. He has nothing to prove, in fact you can disapprove of him until you are blue in the face for all the good it will do you.

  27. Ric Werme says:

    Oldseadog says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:14 am

    > Tsk Tsk, Mr. Watts, “Britain” not “England”

    What’s the difference between “Great Britain” and “Britain”? Is the latter just a nickname? I assume there’s no “Lesser Britain” unless that’s what the EU and British energy policies have created. :-)

  28. Flydlbee says:

    Charles is not all that bright, but he is sincere and honest, which is really all that his job requires. If the position was held by a highly intelligent, forceful personality then the true elite would see him as competition and a threat, and they would get rid of him one way or another. By maintaining a kindly, slightly woolly style he remains popular and safe. On the positive side, once you have got through to Charles you have probably gained the support of the majority of public opinion anyway. I do not think you will get through to him with this kind of insolent sarcasm, though. He doesn’t like it any more than you do.

  29. MarkG says:

    Britons seem to generally agree that Charles is a loon. Most of us are hoping the monarchy can skip a generation and go to one of the kids.

  30. DirkH says:

    Novantae says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:32 am
    “Go easy on him – he comes from a very dysfunctional family background. He’s really quite a pitiful creature.
    Did you know he talks to plants?”

    Yes; many people do that; but he is one of the few who maintain that the plants answer.

  31. Richard Sharpe says:

    Makes me wonder if the Royal Family has sunk a lot of money into green schemes.

  32. elmer says:

    Prince Charles and Al Gore should start a carbon footprint hypocrites club.

  33. Steven says:

    Didn’t he once say that the best thing for the environment would be for a deadly virus to wipe out half of humanity?

  34. john s says:

    King Charles, should he ever ascend, will be the last English monarch. I have no doubt that that is why Elizabeth will die as Queen regent rather than step down while her embarrassment of a son yet lives.

  35. DirkH says:

    Steven says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:48 am
    “Didn’t he once say that the best thing for the environment would be for a deadly virus to wipe out half of humanity?”

    That was a different one of the Welfen. Prince Philip I think.

  36. ShrNfr says:

    About all you can say for the Hapsburgs is that they were slightly smarter than the Stuarts. But that is not saying much at all.

    However, I cannot forgive Charles for being an adulterous cad. He had the morals of a snake. One of the best things that ever happened to me is that grandad and grandmom got on the boat and left that freak show.

  37. troe says:

    Ouch!

    Did not mean to tread on silk shod slippers. In this arena all public figures are fair game. He raised his head “above the parapet” and there it is. Do you really think he’s reachable through logic.

    We got into this mess by placing way to much weight on the loose thoughts of the high and mighty. Putting them in their proper place in our minds is a big part of the solution.

  38. kim says:

    Prince Charles finds himself at the Head of the Chicken Little Brigade, clouds to the left of him, models to the right, onward, onward, into the Valley of the Shadow of Doom.
    ===============================

  39. Bob Weber says:

    Anthony, I hope someday it may dawn on you that what you now consider to be “the fringe” – those like me who disregard any significant CO2 influence – have been in the right place all along. I think the true deniers are people who deny the Sun’s variability is the reason for “climate change”.

    All are encouraged to spend 48 minutes watching a fascinating video from 1977 called ‘The Sunspot Mystery’ at http://youtu.be/v3frXY_rG8c to see what scientists back then knew about the sun-earth weather/climate connection. It’s interesting to see how far from that basic understanding we’ve come in the last 37 years as scientists ignored history while taking us down the wrong road.

    Notice that Dr. Stephen Schneider in this video was firmly in the solar warming camp before he later turned towards CO2 as the cause of warming. My own soon-to-be-released fact-based video on this same channel will support solar-caused warming and cooling. Preconceptions of out-of-box thinking will soon crumble as the truth is revealed…

    As for Charles, Gore, and Obama: they are protecting their agenda (21) driven lockdown and regulation of all energy sources worldwide. They are the real “chickens” and the real “deniers”. They are very afraid to sit down with people they disagree with and come to a real consensus. They are the people who have gone to great lengths to intimidate anyone who gets in their way.

    Right now I think they are afraid – very very afraid of an increasingly wary and resistant public. Will we see a backlash from the government with further demonization of people in their way? I think they are setting the stage for that. Have a nice day and keep up the good work.

  40. REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony

    Anthony

    The time to start worrying is when you call Scots, “North Britons”!

  41. martinbrumby says:

    One or two points to note.
    I wouldn’t expect him to understand anything that you couldn’t sketch on a stable door with a stick of chalk. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity trends and frequencies? You’re having a laugh!
    This is a guy who believes in Homeopathy and talks to his tomatoes.
    After Climategate broke, he re-arranged his (admittedly busy) schedule to drive to UEA to express his sympathies and strong support for the CRU incompetents and con men.
    He may talk of ‘deniers’ having ‘vested interests’ but he makes Millions every year from Big Wind. Apart from the Whirligigs on land which he controls, the power from every offshore subsidy farm obviously has to come on shore, across the land / sea bed below low tide level, all of which ‘belongs’ to the Crown Estates.
    I guess our American readers knowledge of English history may be understandably rusty. But the first Royal Charles (Charles Stuart or Charles I) came to a bad end. Captured and tried by Parliament in the name of the People, the Chief Judge’s verdict was that “he, the said Charles Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy to the good of this nation, shall be put to death by severing of his head from his body.” One might have expected that even Prince Chuckles might have hesitated to use an insult about “headless” anything!

  42. Could this be the same Prince Charles, who was so concerned about green issues, that he took the whole Royal Train on a week’s tour of the UK, with just himself and a few flunkies on board, in order to preach his message!

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/prince-charles-still-does-not-get-it/

  43. Anything is possible says:

    REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony

    =====================================

    Cliff notes version :

    Great Britain is the main island, which consists of England, Scotland and Wales.

    The United Kingdom also includes Northern Ireland, hence the full title “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

    Ireland, despite being part of the same island as Northern Ireland, is a separate independent country.

    Some off-shore islands (Channel Islands, Isle of Man) are self-governing, while others (Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides, the Isle of Wight & the Isle of Anglesey) are not, and are considered part of Scotland, England and Wales respectively according to their geographical location I’ll stop now, because it’s starting to get confusing.

    Hope that helps…..

  44. Anything is possible says:

    Oh, and Prince Charles is a twat.

  45. Steve C says:

    Who cares? He’s not a climate scientist, so (as they used to say about us) why should we listen to him?

    @Richard Sharpe – Her Majesty owns rights to the sea bed all round the country. Her Majesty’s Government is planning lots of (highly profitable) wind turbines in offshore locations …

  46. Jim pruitt says:

    It would be lovely if the majority did indeed listen to rigorous scientific discourse. Such has been absent in these considerations and has resulted in much ado about nothing. Charles lost out in arithmetic. PDE are so far beyond him as to appear magical. There’s the rub, it’s magic.

  47. M Courtney says:

    Ric Werme says at February 1, 2014 at 9:43 am

    What’s the difference between “Great Britain” and “Britain”? Is the latter just a nickname? I assume there’s no “Lesser Britain

    Lesser Britain is Brittany, currently in NW France. It is lesser in area.

    About a thousand years ago it was in the Dukedom of the Normans (Norsemen who’d settled there and converted to Christianity). When William I (the Conqueror) defeated Harold Hardrada at the Battle of Hastings this island became the other part of his territory and the “Great” came into use for the land of the Britains (Bretons) in the northern part of his lands.

    Both were already lands of the Bretons.

  48. Peter Plail says:

    You can tell him what you think here ( https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/contact-us ) as I have, but please remember not to play using his tactics. Ad hominems never improve an argument.

  49. Zeke says:

    For the UK, let’s hope instead for “sprinklings of real ale in the low lying areas, outbreaks of common sense, and absolutely no chance of cyclonic fruitcakes.” Nigel Farage of UKIP reports:

  50. heysuess says:

    I just can’t see Charles surfing the net to educate himself on matters of which he so ignorantly, and pompously, opines, so he, like so many, will remain ignorant. The rest of us, well, WUWT is just a click and some study time away…

  51. JohnOfEnfield says:

    Prince Charles is thick, arrogant and totally self absorbed (does he remind you of anyone?). His knowledge of science is nil so his contribution to this debate can’t be very much. He manipulates our government behind the scenes to his own vision & sometimes to his own advantage using dubious methods. He just doesn’t know how to conduct himself. As a Brit I feel that if he ever gets to be monarch then he will be extremely unpopular & put our monarchical constitution at great risk. That is not in itself a problem but the transition to another constitution would be very very difficult.

  52. Morph says:

    “REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony”

    You are confused ? Imagine being English and living in Scotland, which might be voting for seperation in September…

  53. HenryP says:

    @ Richard M
    perhaps one year is too short?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2012/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:2012/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2012/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2012/to:2014/trend
    However, a small rise within a solar cycle does not mean that we are not cooling
    Here you can my see results from Alaska
    http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
    we are cooling
    from the top [90] latitudes down

  54. Morph says:

    I think the tw@t phrase might need to be moderated ?

  55. jakee308 says:

    He’s being told what to say by his puppet masters.

  56. M Courtney says:

    john s says at February 1, 2014 at 9:50 am

    King Charles, should he ever ascend, will be the last English monarch.
    English?
    The House of Windsor is German.
    We English haven’t had an English Monarch since the ill-counselled Ethelred the Unready who died in 1016.
    Since he first reigned we’ve had Danes, Normans, French (and their junior houses), Welsh, Scottish, Dutch and German Monarchs; but no proper English.

    Except the Lord Protector of course, but he refused the crown.

  57. Dodgy Geezer says:

    …I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony…

    It’s not that difficult – but you do have to remember that the Queen has different ‘styles’ depending on the country she’s in. In the UK, and most of America, she would be known as:

    “Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”

    Here is a wiki page which goes some way to explaining this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II

    You may wish to note that in Nebrasksa she would (apparently) be known as ‘Admiral Elizabeth’, in the Channel Islands ‘Duke of Normandy’, in the Manx territories ‘Lord of Mann’ (which may give you the opportunity for a little pun), in New Zealand Maori territory ‘The White Heron’ , and in Jamaica ‘Missis Queen’….

    How to actually address her, should you come across her in the street, is, of course, a different ball game altogether…

  58. John Riddell says:

    Nothing wrong with talking to your vegetables.

    It provides them with a much needed boost of carbon dioxide which is in such short supply these days.

  59. Colorado Wellington says:

    Flydlbee says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Charles is not all that bright … I do not think you will get through to him …

    I thought so.

  60. gareth says:

    Haven’t met him myself, but Charles seems to be a kind and decent man – it’s just that he’s completely wrong and misinformed on the subject of Climate Change ™. If he ever does become King, I think it would still be better than a President Blair/Thacher/Yeo/Hodge/(insert name of least favorite politician here).

  61. Zeke says:

    What do the Aussies call her? Better yet, what do they call the Prince?

    First question is sincere. Second is a set-up. (;

  62. RACookPE1978 says:

    How to actually address her, should you come across her in the street, is, of course, a different ball game altogether…

    It is usually necessary to use a pen or pencil, an envelope with address and postal code (ZIP code for us colonials) to address most residents of Buckingham palace about rugby, soccer, cricket, baseball and real football. 8<)

    Speaking of which, is there a formal ranked hierarchy between rooks, castles, knights, kings, princes, palaces, dukes and emperors? It seems that it would be appropriate to have an approved promotion scheme going on before assuming arbitrarily that "ruler of this here piece of land is called a ….(fill in the blank) " after the war finishes. /sarcasm

  63. archonix says:

    @m courtney: that he did. But he also banned Christmas and resigned as an absolutist dictator who made Charles the first look positively enlightened. Why people hold Cromwell up as anything to be admired is a question to which I fear I will never have an answer.

  64. Twobob says:

    This is the man who had fake chimneys built onto the
    Houses in his Model village on his estate.
    After the houses were built.
    Why? Because they were more in keeping with the village look.
    Problem! As the chimneys had not been originally designed as part of the properties,
    Additional support work was required, to support the structures.
    The additional structures added cost to original build.
    I call them structures as they serve no useful propose.
    Then again I may be wrong and they look NICE.

  65. zootcadillac says:

    Just to be helpful to our host and my American chums :)

    I’m sure many know but it does no harm to explain:

    England is a country of Great Britain which is made up of England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland comprises the 3 countries mentioned with the addition of Northern Ireland.

    Southern Ireland, Eire, is an independent nation.

    Hope that helps :)

  66. R Taylor says:

    Just 42 more months before another “fail” proves Prince Chuck to be the Chicken Little of our time.

  67. Anything is possible says:

    Morph says:
    February 1, 2014 at 10:15 am
    I think the tw@t phrase might need to be moderated ?

    ===================================

    English to American translation fail?

    Just to be clear, this is what I meant :

    “the word twat is more often used in various other ways:
    As a derogatory insult, a pejorative meaning a fool, a stronger alternative to the word twit – ‘He can be a complete twat’ (often used in the UK)”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat

  68. bubbagyro says:

    Does not anyone find it ironic, that a British monarch accuses others of hiding their heads in the sand to avoid reality? He lectures us on the real world? Comical…

    Spongebob living in a pineapple under the sea is closer to reality.

    They don’t even understand that Elizabeth is the 3rd not the second Queen Elizabeth on the throne. They couldn’t even get themselves right.

  69. Joe says:

    So Chicken Licken accuses those who don’t think the sky is falling of running round like headless chickens. Oh, the irony of it!

    Extending the same thuking a little, woulld that make Big Climate Foxy Loxy?

  70. Jordan says:

    In the following 1.5 minute clip from the TV series “Blackadder”, the Prince of Wales is in full intellectual discourse as Dr Johnson seek his endorsement of the new Dictionary.

  71. richardscourtney says:

    Anth0ny:

    HM Queen Elizabeth 2 has been a blessing to our land and to the world. The potential Charles 3 needs to remember how we got rid of his grandfather before he became Crowned and what we did to Charles 1.

    At this point I think it useful to provide the lyrics of our National Anthem. It had 5 verses prior to 1900 and I provide all of them. Other verses have also existed and there is an alternative version of verse 4. Only the first three verses are now used. Usually only verse 1 is sung but verse 2 is also often sung. Verse 3 is rarely sung and usually only at certain State Occasions.

    Please compare verses 1 and 2 in the context that we decapitated Charles 1
    .
    The first verse is a prayer that God will save the monarch.
    The second verse is about a desire for the monarch to “Defend our laws” so we always have a cause to sing “God save the Queen”.

    1.
    God save our gracious Queen,
    Live long our noble Queen,
    God save the Queen!
    Send her victorious,
    Happy and glorious,
    Long to reign over us,
    God save the Queen.
    2.
    Thy choicest gifts in store
    On her be pleased to pour,
    Long may she reign;
    May she defend our laws,
    And ever give us cause
    To sing with heart and voice,
    God save the Queen!
    3.
    God bless our native land,
    May heaven’s protective hand
    Still guard our shore;
    May peace her power extend,
    Foe be transformed to friend,
    And Britain’s power depend
    On war no more.
    4.
    May just and righteous laws
    Uphold the public cause,
    And bless our isle.
    Home of the brave and free,
    Fair land and liberty,
    We pray that still on thee
    Kind heaven may smile.
    5.
    And not this land alone-
    But be thy mercies known
    From shore to shore.
    Lord, make the nations see
    That men should brothers be,
    And from one family
    The wide world o’er.

    Richard

  72. richard says:

    “The few who actually deny the Greenhouse effect exists, such as the “Slayers” aka “Principia Scientific” only represent the views of a fringe”

    Another fringe thinker,

    (Reuters) – An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals.

    “People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him, saying: “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.”

    After telling Shechtman to go back and read the textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for “bringing disgrace” on the team. “I felt rejected,” Shechtman remembered.

  73. Phil says:

    The political climate spectrum can be viewed along the line of climate sensitivity. At one extreme are those that thing the oceans are going to boil. We could call them boilers. Then come those that think that a doubling of CO2 would cause a warming of about 3°C or so (in rough agreement with the IPCC). We could call them warmers. Below that are a group that think a doubling of CO2 will cause some warming, but that it will be less than 3°C or somewhere between 0°C and 3°C. We could call them lukewarmers. Then there are those that don’t believe that a doubling of CO2 would cause any appreciable warming. We could call them zeros, for want of a better moniker. Finally, at the other extreme are those that believe that a doubling of CO2 would cause cooling. We could call them coolers.

    The problem is that I, for one, do not accept that the world’s climate is a univariate system. So I would not place myself on that line from boilers to coolers. Systems as complex as the world’s climate are almost never univariate. They usually behave in response to multiple significant variables. So I would place myself somewhere off to the side of the line from boilers to coolers.

    CO2 may well have some influence over the world’s climate, but it is unlikely to be the only influence.

  74. Michael D says:

    Upper Class twit of the year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imWlSMgMFGE

    God Save the Queen.

  75. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @archonix

    Why people hold Cromwell up as anything to be admired is a question to which I fear I will never have an answer.

    Another pertinent question is why his statue should be placed in such a prominent position outside the Houses of Parliament, given that he ruled for most of the time without calling one…

  76. David, UK says:

    REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony

    Apologies for being OT, but: Wow. Just wow. I admire your honesty.

    If it helps to clarify, think of England, Wales, Scotland and N Ireland as states that make up the UK, just as California, Texas, Alaska, etc make up the USA.

    Great Britain is the geographical island that contains England, Wales and Scotland.

  77. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Why people hold Cromwell up as anything to be admired is a question to which I fear I will never have an answer.

    P.S.

    There is, of course, a military reason to admire him. I believe he never lost a war, a pitched battle or failed in a siege.

  78. Berényi Péter says:

    Prince Charles has criticised climate change deniers, describing them as the “headless chicken brigade”

    Well, it should be possible to make royalty, outrageous like that, abdicate in Britain. It was already done to Edward VIII, pro-nazi Emperor of India, King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, on 11 December 1936 after a reign of 326 days.

  79. richardscourtney says:

    OOPS!
    Second line should be
    Long live our noble Queen,

    Finger trouble. No offence intended. Sorry.

    Richard

  80. zootcadillac says:

    some correction for bubbagyro

    Charles is not a Monarch. He is the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne.

    Elizabeth the 2nd is not the 3rd Queen Elizabeth.

    The Elizabeth I expect that you refer to would be Elizabeth Woodville, wife to Edward IV? It was commonplace for the wife of the king to be named as queen but they were never Monarchs and so not requiring a number designation. Queen Elizabeth Windsor is the 2nd Monarch to bear that name. Consorts of the monarch remain just that. Prince Philip is not king, he is the Prince Consort. Elizabeth Woodville was a Queen Consort not a Queen Regnant.

    I think you are mistaking spouses of Monarchs with Monarchs. Confusing I know. The sooner we are done with it the better.

  81. DirkH says:

    ShrNfr says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:54 am
    “About all you can say for the Hapsburgs is that they were slightly smarter than the Stuarts. But that is not saying much at all.”

    “House Of Windsor” = descendants of the Welfen / House of Hannover. Not Habsburgers. Habsburgers ruled Austria/Hungary.

  82. Paul Hanlon says:

    Just to stir the confusion a little more, there is also the British Isles, which includes Southern Ireland.

  83. M Courtney says:

    archonix , Dodgy Geezer:
    The reason I referred to Cromwell is the same reason he is honoured by Parliament.

    Cromwell had a decisive way with inconvenient Monarchs (named Charles).

  84. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Markhighland 9:23am

    I think you have it wrong. I believe Prince Charles is the real reason Scots are pushing for independence.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  85. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    John Law 9:28am

    Royal straight-jacket. Got to love it.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  86. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Ah, for the good old days, when such insensate irrational behavior among royals was readily attributable to chronic syphilis.

  87. Jimbo says:

    Prince Charles tels us to listen to the climate scientists because we listen to other scientists. He tells us to make do with less and try to reduce our co2 output. In the above post video I heard him say Prince Charles – “We are making it cool to use less stuff.”

    Prince Charles is an advocate and lobbyist for homeopathy yet ignores the scientific consensus that says it’s no better than a placebo. He pays no attention to the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government who has said “homoeopathy is nonsense, it is non-science.”

    In a speech he gave to industrialists and environmentalists at his James’s Palace in 2009 he said that the “age of convenience” was over. He added that we have just 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” In 2007 he was labelled an eco-hypocrite by environmental campaigners for planning a 7,000 mile convenient round trip by on a jumbo jet with 20 of his staff to the USA to accept an environmental award.

    For his further convenience he has “161.1 full-time equivalent staff” and 4 “homes in England, Scotland and Wales.” Clarence House – 40,000 sq. feet, Highgrove Estate – 900 acres,

    The likes of Prince Charles, Al Gore and James Cameron want us to live with less while they live with more. Do as we say and not as we do.

  88. Greg says:

    “He should better not insult the people of the kingdom where he wants to be a king.”

    Why the hell not? You don’t get elected to be King, it’s a God given right. Literally.

    The very existence of the monarchy is an insult to people. But if you are to be king , why not go all out and be a condescending, hypocritical prat? It part of the job description.

    The french had a much better idea, converting their royalty into headless chickens.

  89. Janice Moore says:

    Kevin Knoebel!! I have not even read one thing on this thread, but when I saw YOUR NAME in the recent posts queue, I HAD to come here and say: I am so glad that you are okay! You’ve been gone a loooong time and well, you were such a regular contributor… . Hope all is well.(soiprayedquiteabit).

    Take care, back there,

    Janice

  90. Joe Paisan says:

    Give the crown to William. With that gorgeous wife of his, the people will love it, and the monarchy will be a top tourist attraction for a long time to come.

  91. Greg says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    Ah, for the good old days, when such insensate irrational behavior among royals was readily attributable to chronic syphilis.

    … and inbreeding.

  92. Otteryd says:

    At least our Royals don’t actually have any real power. I am quite relieved. We don’t have a King Bush and a Queen Palin. That would really cause a revolution!

  93. Otteryd says:

    Sorry not sure how the full stop (period) got between ‘relieved’ and ‘we’

  94. Col Mosby says:

    Charles, who has amply demonstrated total ignorance in the arena of love , romance and marriage, now extends that same ignornace into arenas about which he also knows from nothing.

  95. Latimer Alder says:

    @Anthony

    It’s not hard to understand. You are already familiar with similar arrangements.

    Charles may one day be King of the United Kingdom (analog President of the United States).

    The United Kingdom (UK) is currently composed of 4 countries – England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (analog States of the US)

    3 of the 4 countries (E,W,S) are co-resident on the island of Great Britain. NI is on a different island (analog CONUS, Hawaii) NI shares a border only with separate country, Eire. (Analog Alaska, Canada)

    And just as a man from California may not like being referred to as a Texan, so a Scotsman, Welshman or Irishman is annoyed at being referred to as English, even though England is the major partner in the UK. For convenience, ‘British’ covers all four and will not cause offence.

    NB: This *may* all change at some point in the future as Scotland is having a referendum this year to decide whether to become ‘independent’. The constititutional arrangements that may ensue are unclear.

    FYI – The capital of UK Is London, as is the capital of England. Capital of Scotland is Edinburgh, Wales is Cardiff and NI is Belfast. Each has some degree of autonomy within the UK. And we’re all part of the European Union…but that is a whole different basketcase.

  96. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    flydlbee 9:44am

    You open by saying “Charles is not all that bright” and then end by condemning Ant. Wattts’ “insolent sarcasm”. What are you missing here?

    Eugene WR Gallun

  97. M Courtney says:

    DodgyGeezer, just read your second comment on Cromwell.

    It’s a good point that the Conqueror of Jamaica has a military record that is second to none.
    But I wouldn’t honour him for never failing in a siege. I’ve read Macauley and I know about Waterford.
    Some wins do not bring glory.

  98. Jimbo says:

    Oldseadog says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Tsk Tsk, Mr. Watts, “Britain” not “England”
    Otherwise, fair comment.

    REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony

    Here is a little help on the matter. Sometimes people refer to the British Isles.

    Countries within a Country
    The name United Kingdom refers to the union of what were once four separate countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (though most of Ireland is now independent).
    http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain.html

    Think of the union as the United States and the countries within (England, Wales) like Texas and California, though its a little more complicated. ;-)

    Most of the time use UK or Great Britain (does not include N. Ireland) and avoid using England.

  99. mpaul says:

    For people outside of the United Kingdom, understanding the naming ontology requires specialized skills in set theory.

  100. Barry Sheridan says:

    The Prince of Wales is perfectly entitled to his own perspective, even to the point of rubbishing those who fail to agree with his notions if that is what he wants to do. After all internet commentary ranges over everything from the lucid brilliance of some to the abysmal ranting nastiness of others. What is most surprising however about his view is most governments, the corporate world, academics and the various NGO’s and international bodies support what he has to say. Those demanding a little more in the way of verifiable solid science and proven facts tends to largely emanate from a small number of people either working on their own or at best supported by modest voluntary contributions. That this little group has demolished much of what is being said should prompt HRH The Prince of Wales to wonder why the line they are selling garners so little public support. Could it be something to do with the fact that they themselves do not want to change their luxurious life one iota but instead expect everyone else to sacrifice theirs.

  101. TomRude says:

    Prince Charles is living proof that intelligence can jump a generation…

  102. Steve from Rockwood says:

    If I lived on a 900 acre enclave with money inherited through centuries of royal dominance I would probably behave like a wing nut too. I suspect Charles will forgo a coronation and let the next generation take the helm (mommy – I’m not ready).

  103. M Courtney says:

    Clarification:
    M Courtney says at February 1, 2014 at 11:38 am

    DodgyGeezer, just read your second comment on Cromwell.

    Should be,
    “DodgyGeezer, I’vejust read your second comment on Cromwell.”
    Forgot that “read” can be pronounced in two ways.

    Sorry, I forgot that “read” can be pronounced in two ways.

  104. richardscourtney says:

    Otteryd:

    Your post at February 1, 2014 at 11:32 am says

    At least our Royals don’t actually have any real power. I am quite relieved. We don’t have a King Bush and a Queen Palin. That would really cause a revolution!

    The Royals don’t have any power but the Monarch has immense power.

    That is why the great uncle of Charles was forced to abdicate before being Crowned with the result that Charles is heir to the throne. His great uncle was a Naz1 when we were about to go to war with H1tler. This was spun as being his desire to marry a divorced woman which – given the marital history of British monarchs – has to be one of the greatest pieces of political spin in the history of the world! He then went off to spend the war in German-occupied France.

    If Charles keeps up his present behaviour then finding anywhere to retire may prove problematic.

    Richard

  105. Jimbo says:

    Flydlbee says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Charles is not all that bright, but he is sincere and honest, which is really all that his job requires. ……………

  106. Roy UK says:

    The Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Commonwealth, (The United Kingdom) used to be addressed as an Emperor (Empress) of the British Empire. For example Queen Victoria, “Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India.

    Empress Victoria was the last Empress of the British Empire.

    King George was the last King of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    When Charles Windsor becomes the Head of State for the Country of England, what will he become?

  107. Berényi Péter says:

    Hilarious. Turns out this clown does not even have a legitimate claim to the throne. That belongs to Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun, son of an Australian repubican forklift driver.

  108. Jimbo says:

    Steven says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Didn’t he once say that the best thing for the environment would be for a deadly virus to wipe out half of humanity?

    That was his father who complains about over population while forgetting he has 4 kids.

  109. Roy UK says:

    Empress Victoria
    King George.
    **** Charles

    Although he already has that title for talking to his plants. He really is the modern day Knut.

    Sorry my spelling is a bit off.

  110. Harry Passfield says:

    I have just sent he following email to HRH Prince Charles:

    “To: HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales.

    Sir, I have the honour to be one of your future subjects. In my previous life in the Royal Air Force, I pledged my allegiance to your Mother, HM the Queen – and thus to you.

    However, that allegiance is strained when I hear that, because I doubt the belief in the extent of ‘Man-Made’ Climate Change (although I do believe in Climate Change), you seem to think I am a “headless chicken”, and worse, a “denier” (do you even begin to realise the obscenity of that epithet?).

    There is no reason not to believe in ‘Climate Change’: it happens, as you know. However, you should be aware that not one of the IPCC computer models, which were used to project climate future, has come anywhere close to any kind of reality based on empirical measurements. And not one of them has been able to predict the 17 years (and counting) of the warming pause which is currently going on. It may be that we are at a peak in warming – before entering a 30 year cold period – even as CO2 has risen without temperature.

    It could be that a very small part of the warming over the last 30 years of the 20th century was as a result of Man, but the huge costs that you and government would have us pay to mitigate that is, as Professor Lindzen says, not worth it: better to wait another 50 years.

    In closing, I would respectfully request you have a bit more respect for those you will one day rule who disagree with your analysis and accept that you and your friends in the RS do not yet have all the answers – nor, as it happens, a majority.

    With great respect,”

    I doubt I’ll get a response – but if I do, I’ll post it here.

  111. Louis says:

    “Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, also spoke out against ‘the barrage of sheer intimidation’”

    Apparently, being confronted with facts and actual observations feels like “sheer intimidation” to Prince Charles. He expects everyone to bow down to his opinion without questioning it. Perhaps his comment describing skeptics as a “headless chicken brigade” was meant to be a threat should he manage to outlive his mother.

  112. Fabi says:

    Prince Charles dresses much better than Albert. Otherwise, they’re two peas in a very green and disturbing pod.

  113. Latitude says:

    “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups…

    Admitting the crowds are getting larger…
    ….twat

  114. Colorado Wellington says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 1, 2014 at 10:56 am
    Second line should be
    Long live our noble Queen,

    I can only join with a heartfelt wish to our British and Northern Irish friends:

    Long live the Queen.

  115. rtj1211 says:

    He’s in good company: Professor Sir Mark Walport, Head Honcho of the Wellcome Trust, the UK’s largest private biomedical research funder, was quoted in this week’s London Times as saying that ‘climate skeptics need to grow up’. A day or so later, the President of the Royal Society, Professor Sir Paul Nurse, had a letter to the Times published, again pushing the climate change mantras.

    The House of Commons Select Committee on Climate Change did at least invite 3 witnesses from both camps (two Professors from Oxford and Imperial College and one from the Met Office for the warmers, Lindzen from MIT, Donna Laframboise and a UK researcher for the more skeptical position) this week and the questioning was open and fair minded, if only for the cameras. Time will tell what the committee writes in summary.

    Prince Charles is a well known environmentalist, which I don’t have too much of a problem with in some ways. Organic farming has little harm to it and many habitats can be improved through its judicious use.

    I’m not in favour of subsidies to rich landowners to site windmills on their land, as the energy generated therefrom is insufficient to power a modern economy. Solar has more chance, although I’ve not seen the detailed mathematics for UK sunshine hours to know how effective it would be here. I hope that his Royal Highness’ views do not depend on any subsidies paid to rich friends of the family…….

    I think that the skeptics question the following:

    1. The accuracy, consistency and reliability of temperature datasets, particularly those using proxies and whether the most reliable data sets using radosondes and satellites are yet of long enough duration to make binding conclusions.
    2. The inability of computer models to predict the next 15 years accurately, let alone the next 115 years.
    3. The inability of proposed remedies to abate carbon dioxide levels to achieve the desired impact despite enormous financial outlays.
    4. The harm caused to the earth and its citizens by a modest rise in temperature.
    5. The assumption that crop production regions cannot shift latitude and/or longitude in response to climatic changes.
    6. The assumption that the ‘external forcings’ over-ride the natural variability and the naturally occurring temperature stabilisation mechanisms.
    7. That the alarmist community should have the right to denigrate those who provide alternative explanations before then taking on board the messages of those alternative proponents whilst retaining power, influence and access to research funding.
    8. That the financial interests of carbon capture and storage technology providers, wind turbine manufacturers, solar panel manufacturers, electric car manufacturers, university researchers, environmental activists etc etc can be safely set aside when considering the motivations of those groupings in promulgating the political lines they choose to forward.

    There may well be others, but those issues are not those of ‘headless chickens’, rather engaged, concerned, analytical, rigorous thinkers.

  116. TimC says:

    I’m really not clear what HRH wants – here is the Mail joining the fray too:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132878/Royals-1m-wind-farm-hypocrisy-45-wind-turbines-described-Charles-horrendous-blot-built-Crown-land.html

    So, he regards wind energy as a “blot on the landscape” – despite the Crown Estates potentially making a cool £1 million per annum from their 45 approved turbines. And making political comments is frowned upon as heir – he will one day be a constitutional monarch whose role is to act on the advice of the government of the day, keeping all political comments private as between himself and the then prime minister. As you say, the indications are not very positive that he will shape up to be a good, or well-informed, leader.

    And it’s easy to forget that the land area of the whole of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) is less than that of the (single) state of Oregon. We’re really not too important these days …

  117. Jimbo says:

    Prince Charles once called wind turbines a ‘horrendous blot‘, ‘useless’ and a ‘disgrace’. Yet he receives “income on crown estate, which rents out land for turbines”

    ✔Do as I say and not as I do.

    ✔ Not In My Back Yard (know in UK as ‘Nimbies’), but I’ll take the hard cash thanks.

    Old Charlie boy really is performing better than I previously thought. He makes Al Gore look like a sandal wearing, lentil eating green who lives in the the woods.

  118. Rick says:

    Hapsburg’s? Confused about the order?

    Willie Willie Harry Stee
    Harry Dick John Harry three;
    One two three Neds, Richard two
    Harrys four five six….then who?
    Edwards four five, Dick the bad,
    Harrys (twain), Ned six (the lad);
    Mary, Bessie, James you ken,
    Then Charlie, Charlie, James again…
    Will and Mary, Anna Gloria,
    Georges four, Will four Victoria;
    Edward seven next, and then
    Came George the fifth in nineteen ten;
    Ned the eighth soon abdicated
    Then George six was coronated;
    After which Elizabeth
    And that’s all folks until her death.

  119. Victor Frank says:

    I would like to thank the responders from Great Britain for enlightening us (in the USA, and the rest of the world for that matter) on their politics and history.
    I also encourage WUWT climate responders to leave sufficient references so that those of us who are not regulars can access the documents they cite. (I just received Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and have managed to download the Pattern Recognition issue {Sorry I don’t have that reference handy here.)
    Finally, I’d like to thank the BBC and Welsh for Dr. Who, which I have been able to enjoy on DVDs here in CA.

  120. Chad Wozniak says:

    @pokerguy -
    More than just flat for 17 years – even so cautious a commentator as Dr. Judith Curry speaking of cooling since 2002? And Dr. Tim Ball making no bones about it, and Habibullo Abdussamatov, at Pulkovo Observatory.

    It is unfortunate that Prince Charles should display this sort of ignorance-cum-ad hominem. Doesn’t befit his station, methinks. But then here in the US we have RINOs like John McCain and Chris Christie exhibiting similar disconnects from reality.

  121. Michael Larkin says:

    “Prince Charles is an advocate and lobbyist for homeopathy yet ignores the scientific consensus that says it’s no better than a placebo.”

    Hmm. And yet we have the placebo effect, than which conventional drugs have to be better. Strange that the placebo effect isn’t considered nonsense even though, like homeopathy, no one has a clue how it works. And some of the placebo cures are quite remarkable: placebo surgery works too:

    I have an open mind about homeopathy. If it works only as well as placebo, it might not be doing that bad, really.

  122. M Courtney says:

    TimC “We’re really not too important these days …”?

    Once upon a time we were a small island divided into warring nations somewhere off the north-west of Europe.

    Then we started to run out of useful things like markets for our wool, trees for our ships, coal to heat London and freedom to worship.

    So we had a few wars (by private corporations with a monopoly), conquered the seaways and took control of most of the world’s exploitable natural resources. Everything was owned and traded by the elite in London who had gathered from around the Globe.

    But then (tragedy) the foreign folk, who had benefited from our enlightened education, railways and abolition of slavery, decided they wanted to rule themselves.
    Thus we abandoned India and the Empire and became, again, a small island off the north-west of Europe.

    Now, our only point of interest is that the City of London still houses the elite who own and trade the world’s exploitable natural resources.
    But it’s no longer an Empire so people don’t care.

  123. MattS says:

    Novantae says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Go easy on him – he comes from a very dysfunctional family background. He’s really quite a pitiful creature.
    Did you know he talks to plants?
    =========================================================================

    Nothing wrong with that, lots of people talk to plants. Now if he thinks the plants are talking to him, that’s a different story.

  124. Jimbo says:

    Small correction for Charles above

    His father Prince Philip called wind farms ‘useless’ and a ‘disgrace’ while Prince Charles called them “A horrendous blot on the landscape”.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132878/Royals-1m-wind-farm-hypocrisy-45-wind-turbines-described-Charles-horrendous-blot-built-Crown-land.html
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/28/prince-charles-windfarm-funding

  125. J. Swift says:

    He was the first English Royal to get a degree. Bachelor of Arts but only a 2:2 sadly. The British won’t think anything of his remarks we’ll just say to each other “Their he goes spouting off about the environment again, such a shame they never let him have a proper job”. He is sixty-five poor fellow with nothing much to show for it.

  126. Colin.A says:

    M Courtney says:
    February 1, 2014 at 10:09 am

    It was king Harold (Godwinson) who was defeated at The battle of Hastings.by William 1. Harold Hardrada was king of Norway and was dfeated and killed at the battle of Stamford Bridge.

  127. rogerknights says:

    jakee308 says:
    February 1, 2014 at 10:16 am

    He’s being told what to say by his puppet masters.

    Another guess is that he’s glommed onto warmism, in part, as a “motherhood”-type issue as a way to make himself and the monarchy more popular. I’ve read that unpopular figures in the public eye are advised by PR consultants to attach themselves to some feel-good cause. It’s believed that Nancy Reagan was advised to make herself less unpopular by promoting the Just Say No campaign. There are other celebrities I’ve read about who’ve employed this PR tactic.

  128. Frans Franken says:

    There might be a correlation between centuries of royal inbreeding and rudimentary brain power.

  129. Steve B says:

    Zeke says:
    February 1, 2014 at 10:28 am

    What do the Aussies call her? Better yet, what do they call the Prince?

    First question is sincere. Second is a set-up. (;
    **********************************************************************************************************************
    Lizzie and Wacko

  130. M Courtney says:

    Colin.A says at February 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm:

    It was king Harold (Godwinson) who was defeated at The battle of Hastings.by William 1. Harold Hardrada was king of Norway and was defeated and killed at the battle of Stamford Bridge.

    Spot on right, doh.
    My mistake. I am wrong. You are right.

    Bloody Norwegians; it’s so hard to remember the incredible fact that those Knut’s ever ruled us (ahem).

    Sorry, should have bothered to check my facts on Wiki.

  131. Otteryd says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 1, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    There is little doubt that Teddy Eight was a closet Nazi – much like many influential Americans at the time – probably including Wallis or Gromit or whatever his squeeze’s name was. However, when the Nazis invaded France, diplomacy prevailed and he was sent off to Bermuda where he spent the war as Governor. It says something about the ‘power’ of British royals that when push came to shove, the elected government did not allow him to become King.

    D

  132. rogerknights says:

    He then went off to spend the war in German-occupied France.

    Wasn’t he bundled off to an island colony in the Caribbean before the Germans occupied France?

  133. Robin Hewitt says:

    I think Charles plans to become King George VII.
    His great uncle was not a Nazi.

  134. Chris Edwards says:

    The term United Kingdom is redundant since Blair extinguished the 300 year old laws! I believe Liz and Phil are cousins with Victoria as grandma! there my friends is the reasons cousins should not breed if they marry!

  135. Eric Worrall says:

    Prince Charles has done a lot of good, he runs the Princes Trust. Unfortunately he is completely blind on the issue of global warming. He is also an anti-globalisation campaigner, he believes that businesses should be small, and tries to encourage cottage style industries. Its a real shame, because overall he is a good man – just stubborn and hard to reason with.

    Ask him to do a post on WattsUpWithThat. I sent him a letter once about global warming, and got a detailed response. He might well be up for giving a greater airing to his views and reasons.

  136. Andrew says:

    Confirmation that the sceptics have won the argument: Charlie is a warmer!

  137. Chris Edwards says:

    Jimbo! Im shocked, thats twice in his life charlie said something smart! I always liked Phil the greek he said a lot of smart but un PC stuff

  138. TimC says:

    M Courtney says: “Now, our only point of interest is that the City of London still houses the elite who own and trade the world’s exploitable natural resources. But it’s no longer an Empire so people don’t care.”

    I think most people are aware of the history – that in Victorian times “the sun never set” on the British Empire, created broadly when we first led the world’s industrial revolution. Also that we have indeed only ever been a small island state off the coast of continental Europe.

    But while we may still trade quite a lot of the world’s natural resources, in 2011 financial and insurance services in the City contributed £125.4 billion value added to the UK economy – but the same sector in the USA accounted for $1.24 trillion, some 6 times as much. And ownership of natural resources is effectively territorial – while organisations in the City may own quantities of UK natural resources, I hardly think they can be assumed to own those in the US, or Russia, or of the oil producing states in the Gulf…

    Again I suggest we’re really not too important these days, in financial services, natural resources, or whatever – so perhaps best that the rest of the world turns away in embarrassment when HRH starts sounding off about headless chickens…

  139. John Boles says:

    Interesting little news reel from early 1960s concerning the shore management problems in England, storm surges and such;
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=185_1391277385

  140. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Regarding the common US confusion between England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. CGP Grey explains it here (quite entertainingly I think).

  141. Greg says:

    Jimbo says:

    His father Prince Philip called wind farms ‘useless’ and a ‘disgrace’ while Prince Charles called them “A horrendous blot on the landscape”.

    I guess that’s what psychologists refer to as ‘projection’.

  142. dbstealey says:

    When Prince Charles pontificates on the “carbon” scare, he sounds like a swivel-eyed lunatic.

    My apologies to our UK friends. Most of you seem very normal by comparison.

  143. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Harry Passfield on February 1, 2014 at 12:07 pm:

    I have just sent he following email to HRH Prince Charles:
    (…)
    I doubt I’ll get a response – but if I do, I’ll post it here.

    How do you post a knock on the door followed by polite questioning from the relevant security forces to confirm you’re just a common nutter and not a serious threat? You won’t be posting video of it from any inside security cameras you installed for your own protection, as if you had any then GCHQ will have already accessed the files by the hardware backdoors to assess you in an “unobserved” state without needing such a meeting.

    (Don’t worry about them rummaging through your home and work computer files, as all serious revolutionaries now maintain a schizophrenic existence with separate personas and equipment and networks for “normal” and “for the cause”. If there’s suspicious stuff on your everyday kit, you’re obviously not serious enough. Meanwhile covert surveillance of at-rest subjects does yield revealing slips, but don’t expect thanks for providing the cameras for them.)

    Make sure to leave a Quran on the table by the front door, so as per the current sentiment against “profiling” they’ll be forced to conclude you can’t possibly be a threat.

  144. Tonyb says:

    M Courtney

    Your comment about the battle of Stamford bridge permits me to comment that it happened on an unseasonably warm September day and that the battle of Hastings brought to an end Anglo Saxon rule of which the most famous king was Alfred

    He hid from the Danes in the Somerset levels which at that time was even more of a flooded area than it is now

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athelney

    So we can see that even then the climate was frequently an important factor in our nations history and warmth and flooding are nothing new

    Tonyb

  145. ch says:

    [Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, also spoke out against “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups during the event held at Buckingham Palace last night.]

    …from powerful anti-climate change groups?

    This terminology is getting confusing. I thought the warmists are against “climate change.”

  146. Chris Edwards says:

    Anything is possible, don’t trust wikpedia! I am from London and twat always meant the colloquial for vagina! Fair comment for charles except twats are useful!

  147. glaxxzontar says:

    Novantae says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:32 am
    Did you know he talks to plants?

    I’m sure the plants talk back to him as well, only the plants have the advantage of a higher iQ.

  148. M Courtney says:

    TimC says at February 1, 2014 at 1:23 pm…
    If your point is that London is a smaller financial centre then NY then I agree with you. Because you are right, of course.
    But that doesn’t make us unimportant. It makes New York important.

    I talked about natural resources. Because, historically, the British Empire was all about control of the world’s natural resources by the elite, who were based in London.

    And the world’s natural resources are still controlled in London – except for nationalised industries.
    KSA are their own masters as are Venezuela. And so is Russia. But note that Russia is looking to use UK financial and legal expertise to help expand.

  149. Jim G says:

    MarkG says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:46 am
    “Britons seem to generally agree that Charles is a loon. Most of us are hoping the monarchy can skip a generation and go to one of the kids.”

    I am surprised that Anthony is posting this since I thought most Britons considered the royals as something akin to national house pets. Not sure what my chesapeake bay retrievers think of global warming, but then it might well be interesting to know. They are wonderful creatures but perhaps using the word “think” with respect to them is a bit overboard. As anyone who has one probably knows, there may be no more stubborn dog on the planet.

  150. David Wells says:

    The only reason we have a monarchy is because we don’t want Obama, Mugabe, Hollande, Merkel, Blair, Clegg, Balls or either of the Milibands. Instead we are going to get a barking mad clown who has conversations with trees but clearly the next conversation has to be something to do with starving them to death to save the planet. His Father the Duke is funny, Charlie is a proper Charlie and he most definitely is not funny at all. I have a feeling that Mumsy is determined to out live him because she shudders at the prospect of having all of her hard and discrete work completely undone by Charlie and blowsy fag ash Lil, we can only hope. Mumsy would have never ever got involved with anything to do with indicating that her subjects might be mentally retarded and in desperate need of being shackled to the wall of a padded cell and subjected to ECT every fortnight to ensure their compliance. George Monbiot has suggested many times as has David Suzuki that anyone who disagrees with them should be hung drawn and quartered maybe they hope Charlie gains sufficient influence to make sure an example is made.

  151. Mike Maguire says:

    Novantae says:

    “Did you know he talks to plants?”

    That’s obviously a one way conversation/relationship.

    Anybody that listens to plants………by observing their massively positive response to increasing CO2, would clearly understand what it is they want.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/

    But then, maybe he secretly hates plants and wants them punished (:

  152. M Courtney says:

    TimC, for clarity I’m not saying Brittania rules the world – or even just the waves.
    But we still have influence over those who do.

  153. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Chris Edwards said on February 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm:

    Anything is possible, don’t trust wikpedia! I am from London and twat always meant the colloquial for vagina! Fair comment for charles except twats are useful!

    Do you have Prince Albert in a can?

    -No, but I have Prince Charles in a fanny pack.-

    Strewth! Now that is honest packaging.

  154. Anthony S Adams says:

    I took some pleasure in writing to HRH and quoting the words of our PM Tony Abbott “No one, however smart, however well-educated, however experienced … is the suppository of all wisdom”.

  155. goldminor says:

    Vince Causey says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:41 am
    Actually I don’t like it. It’s about time we found another Lenin.
    —————————————————————————–
    Aren’t we supposed to learn from history?

  156. u.k.(us) says:

    Sometimes you see a post, where you just know the comments are going to be brilliant, and you kind of savor the moment and let them build.
    Then begin to read them.

  157. Gareth Phillips says:

    “REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony”

    Cheers Mate, can you just review that difference between Canada, The USA and mexico again? Apparently they all in North America so they must all be called the US.

  158. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    Those who think HRH Charles has adopted ‘environmentalism’ for PR reasons are mistaken. He is – and for decades has been – in the thrall of his Cotswold neighbour Jonathon Porrit who is an extremist eco-loon.

    Please remember that Charles has been raised from birth to do one very special job and he is still waiting to do it now he is 65. His life has been purposeless, and he has looked for purpose by ‘playing’ with architecture (e.g. setting up a real-world toytown for people to live in on the edge of Dorchester), and doing good works (e.g. setting up the Prince’s Trust). He was ripe for Porritt to offer him a ’cause’ which would give him purpose.

    One can only hope that the period between Her Madge. leaving and William taking her job will be short. William is already schooled in the military matters he needs to know, is starting to undertake ceremonial duties, and it can be assumed he is getting the political education he needs. It would be a tragedy if he were to end up like his father before he wears the crown.

    Richard

  159. MattS says:

    Jim G says:
    February 1, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    MarkG says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:46 am
    “Britons seem to generally agree that Charles is a loon. Most of us are hoping the monarchy can skip a generation and go to one of the kids.”

    I am surprised that Anthony is posting this since I thought most Britons considered the royals as something akin to national house pets. Not sure what my chesapeake bay retrievers think of global warming, but then it might well be interesting to know. They are wonderful creatures but perhaps using the word “think” with respect to them is a bit overboard. As anyone who has one probably knows, there may be no more stubborn dog on the planet.

    ============================================================================

    Four words: American Pit Bull Terrier.

  160. Mac the Knife says:

    Does his Mum know he has escaped the royal pram?
    My condolences to our British friends, for your ‘boob in residence’.

    Commiserate with us, as we have more than one of our own here in the USA.
    We elect them …..

  161. ntesdorf says:

    Her Majesty the Queen is stalwartly soldiering on as she is aware what a disaster Prince Charles would be as a Monarch. There is no reason why Her Majesty should not live to well over 100 years-old and still be reigning. This would certainly increase the odds that Prince Charles would pass away and his son could assume the throne and be another successful Monarch.

  162. eb99 says:

    May Her Majesty reign for a Hundred Years.

  163. James Abbott says:

    Prince Charles may have used a poor choice of words, but if AW is going to produce a serious response based on “evidence” then maybe he needs to look more closely at his para 4 and accompanying figure 4.

    AW claims that

    “The response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation, which may explain why there is little warming over the last 12 years”

    Evidence for that please ?

    If the evidence is the graph figure 4 then forget it.

    For a start the axes are not properly labelled. We assume the x axis is CO2 in PPM – but what is the y axis ? Change in temperature from what ?

    If it is – as it appears to be – a model of the atmosphere starting from no CO2 in it, then its not clear how the blue and green lines relate to known response to actual CO2 levels that have occured in the atmosphere in the last few million years.

    Worse still, the lowest sensitivity model would have us believe that taking ALL of the CO2 out of the atmosphere would result in only a 2C cooling !

    The blue line (lowest sensitivity) would imply that there is almost no change in temperature from deep ice age levels of CO2 (190ppm) through pre-industrial (280ppm) to now (400ppm) even though we know that it was about 8C colder than now at the depths of the ice ages.

    The green line (sensitivity of 1C to doubling pre-industrial CO2) does little better.

    Its also not clear if this is an attempt to just model atmospheric sensitivity in isolation or if it includes known powerful feedbacks (such as the role of oceans in absorbing CO2 and ice area/albedo).

    Are the model scenarios settled at an equilibrium level ? If so, in making his 12 years claim AW is ignoring committed warming

    It is almost universally agreed that there is a range of scenarios for future (real world) temperature response to rising CO2 levels. But if the model you are using to try and argue for very low sensitivity in the future cannot explain the known past, it is useless.

  164. DirkH says:

    James Abbott says:
    February 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm
    “It is almost universally agreed that there is a range of scenarios for future (real world) temperature response to rising CO2 levels. But if the model you are using to try and argue for very low sensitivity in the future cannot explain the known past, it is useless.”

    As no GCM can explain the LIA or the MWP, you are implying that climate science has not produced a correct model.

    We are in agreement about that.

  165. Charles said it was

    baffling … that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science.

    So his highly publicized opposition to GMO crops, despite decades of overwhelming scientific evidence as to their safety and cost effectiveness says what?

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_PRINCE_CHARLES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-01-31-11-12-23

  166. Anything is possible says:

    Chris Edwards says:
    February 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm
    Anything is possible, don’t trust wikpedia! I am from London and twat always meant the colloquial for vagina! Fair comment for charles except twats are useful!

    =============================

    Mostly used in the way I described in the part of London (West) I grew up in.

    Are you from the East?

  167. rogerknights says:

    Chucky La La King

  168. DirkH says:

    charles the moderator says:
    February 1, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    “Charles said it was

    baffling … that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science.


    Strawman anyway. Dark Matter was a protective hypothesis from the start; and currently they’re changing their ideas about Black Holes, another McGuffin.

  169. James Abbott says:

    DirkH

    No I am referring to the model that AW has used to try to claim that there will be no further warming due to CO2 saturation.

    Also those periods you refer to have relatively small temperature differences to now.

    The main point is that significant warming is expected as a result of doubling, or more, CO2 levels. If AW is going to rely on a model that says that will not happen, then that model has to also explain the fact that deep ice ages temperatures, at a time when CO2 was about 180ppm, were 8C cooler than now. And it does not.

  170. richardscourtney says:

    James Abbott:

    Your post at February 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm questions the above article by our host.

    You ask

    “The response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation, which may explain why there is little warming over the last 12 years”

    Evidence for that please ?

    Say what?!
    ALL the time series of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) show more than 12 years of no warming discernible at 95% confidence.

    The “response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation” as a result of the logarithmic nature of the response. This is a matter of fundamental physics. And it is why each doubling of atmospheric concentration from present level has the same effect.

    This was repeatedly explained to you by several people for example hereon the thread you polluted last week.

    You ask

    Are the model scenarios settled at an equilibrium level ? If so, in making his 12 years claim AW is ignoring committed warming

    It does not matter because, as was also explained to you, the committed warming has disappeared. That was explained to you in that same thread here. And I am astonished that you have the gall to raise the matter again because you ran away from my question which I remind you was first posed to you in the link I provided in this paragraph and was

    Simply, the ‘committed warming’ has disappeared. Can you tell me if it has eloped with Trenberth’s missing heat?

    You have raised the subject again so please answer the question before making another post. Or do you intend to troll this thread then run away as you did a week ago?

    Richard

  171. richardscourtney says:

    James Abbott:

    I see that while I was making my reply to your first post you had already started your tricks again in your second post which is at February 1, 2014 at 3:07 pm.

    In your first post you quoted that our host wrote

    The response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation, which may explain why there is little warming over the last 12 years

    Note that, James Abbott, you quoted that he said that he was referring to “the last 12 years” and NOT the future.

    But in your subsequent post which I am addressing you write

    No I am referring to the model that AW has used to try to claim that there will be no further warming due to CO2 saturation.

    HE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM AND YOU KNOW HE DID NOT BECAUSE YOU QUOTED WHAT HE DID SAY!

    That is precisely the same kind of deliberate misrepresentation you repeatedly made in your last escapade on WUWT. So, I repeat, please answer the question you have evaded for a week before making another post.

    Richard

  172. James Abbott says:

    richardscourtney

    AW claimed that CO2 is saturated and that explains the 12 year pause. No evidence is produced at all to back that up other than the dodgy graph – which is what I am referring to.

    Yes temperature has a logarithmic response to CO2 – you don’t have to keep saying it to sound important – we know that and that is what AW’s model shows too.

    Problem is, as I have pointed out, and you obviously do not want to acknowledge, his two low sensitivity scenarios collapse for past climate.

    As to your claim that

    “committed warming has disappeared”

    well if fundamental physics is your game, why are you ignoring the thermal inertia of the oceans ?

    Fact is that publishing models that try to predict the future whilst ignoring the past are completely useless.

    As to trolls, is that your definition of anyone who dares to get off the self-congratulatory “climate change is not happening” internet roundabout ?

  173. Jim G says:

    MattS says:
    “Four words: American Pit Bull Terrier.”

    Yep, my son has one. Difference is that with an electric collar it is much MORE controllable than the Chessies. Smarter, I believe, as well. Or simply not as able to deal with electrical “stimulation” as well as the Chessies. Biggest problem with both breeds is they are not very fond of other dogs that they are not very well acquainted with and sometimes even those with which they are. My two Chessies occasionally still try to kill one and other after six years of being together.

    To keep on topic, are there comparisons here with the royals?

  174. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From charles the moderator on February 1, 2014 at 2:57 pm:

    So his highly publicized opposition to GMO crops, despite decades of overwhelming scientific evidence as to their safety and cost effectiveness says what?

    It says you’re due for another lecture from Gail Combs about the Monsanto monopoly due to their selling of sterile hybrid seeds. If you want the crops then you must buy their seeds for every planting, and they are pushing for the adoption of their genetically-modified plants for marginal circumstances, for which patents and other protections will lock in Monsanto as the sole supplier, at their asking prices, for the seeds you will need to get the crops the marginal people desperately need.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947

    She’ll inform you the overall message is still good, even if a certain royal messenger is otherwise a bit nutty with his own interpretation of it.

    I don’t mind GMO per se, but I would like to see new useful GMO strains released on a “public good” basis that breed true, yielding fertile seeds, permanently benefiting the destitute of the world rather than benefiting Monsanto and cronies at every planting.

  175. richardscourtney says:

    James Abbott:

    re your post at February 1, 2014 at 3:34 pm.

    NO! Answer the question you have evaded for a week.

    I will not – and I hope nobody will – get trapped into one of your silly discussions unless and until you answer the question. You raised the subject of “committed warming” again in this thread. Answer the outstanding question on “committed warming” before trying to deflect the thread onto other of your nonsense.

    Richard

  176. eyesonu says:

    Speed says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:15 am

    Nice suit.

    ================

    Empty suit?

  177. James Abbott says:

    richardscourtney

    I am not at all clear what it is you want me to answer.

    If it is about committed warming, that is the temperature response yet to come from the energy imbalance generated from the raised CO2 levels – ie reaching equilibrium of the system (such as there can be in a complex system with natural variability).

    To claim now that there is little or no committed warming to come is rediculous. Given that there has been a pause for just 12 years we simply do not know. We will know one way or the other several decades from now, but not at present – to say so with such conviction is just wishful thinking.

    Getting back to my question – that is for AW to answer – namely why is such an obviously wrong basis being used to justify the claim that saturation has been reached ?

  178. dbstealey says:

    James Abbott says:

    “…significant warming is expected as a result of doubling, or more, CO2 levels. If AW is going to rely on a model that says that will not happen, then that model has to also explain the fact that deep ice ages temperatures, at a time when CO2 was about 180ppm, were 8C cooler than now.”

    First off, models are used primarily by the alarmist crowd, while empirical [real world] observations are used by scientific skeptics. So far, the skeptics have been correct, and the computer modelers have been wrong.

    At what point will you admit that your models are junk? Ever? Art what point will you admit that your climate alarmism has no valid scientific basis? Ever?

    Next, you say that low CO2 levels cause lower global temperatures. However, there is no correlation showing that cause and effect relationship. You simply cherry-picked one example, and extrapolated from there. But in fact, global temperatures have been much lower when CO2 was much higher, and vice-versa. So your conclusion is based on wishful thinking, nothing more.

    Finally, Richard Courtney is correct, as usual. There is no “committed warming”. In fact, there has been no global warming at all for the past decade and a half — while China, Russia, India and a hundred other countries were pouring harmless CO2 into the atmosphere [the US has actually reduced its CO2 emissions]. The alarmist crowd ‘explains’ the lack of warming by saying, ‘Global warming causes global cooling’. Preposterous and ridiculous. So much for your false claims of “significant warming”.

    Now, why don’t you do the right thing, and finally admit that you were wrong. That way, you would have some credibility. Now, you have none.

  179. Sunny Jim says:

    For the benefit of our transatlantic former colonials – or ‘Sceptic Tanks’ in English English (see Austin Powers for what this means) – the Queen of England is Elton John, Elizabeth the Second is Queen of the UK and some current and former colonies plus sundry small islands around GB. Mind you, if you go to Jersey in the Channel Islands (those little ones that are ‘ours’ even though they are quite near to France), they will tell you that England is their oldest possession!

    Most of us here don’t want big ears to be king and hope Liz II lives longer than her mother did (102). Then the throne can pass directly to William who seems to have maintained a bit of sensible decorum and made a popular couple with his new trouble and strife. They seem to have something of the George VI Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon about them. That said, if Harry Pothead became king, it would certainly be fun.

    I don’t think Charlie boy has any idea how foolish he makes himself look with his periodic outbursts – slag off your potential subjects at your peril!

  180. dbstealey says:

    James Abbott:

    If this is not a very good example of saturation, what is?

    Yes, another huge dollop of CO2 could raise global temperatures a minuscule amount. But that is not likely. Over a century we have seen the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rise from around 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000. That hardly seems alarming. A 40% rise of an extremely tiny amount is still an extremely tiny amount.

    Question: at what point will you admit that your climate alarmism has been falsified? At twenty years with no global warming? When glaciers descend on Chicago a mile deep? Or, will you never admit that your cAGW conjecture is wrong?

    Take your time answering. Cognitive dissonance is difficult to accept…

  181. James Abbott says:

    dbstealey

    What are you talking about ?

    Its not my model I was referring to or anyone else’s other than the model AW relied on in making claims about sensitivity in his article.

    Real world observations are of course vital, I would hope we can agree on that.

    And real world measurements show a very good correlation between big changes in global temperatures and big changes in CO2 concentration. If you deny that then there is no point in any further debate. Its like trying to discuss the shape of the Earth with someone who still thinks its flat.

    And if you and the rest of the sceptic community are going to rely on sensitivity models that cool the Earth by just 2C when there is a (theoretical) zero CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then good luck. You appear to live in a parallel universe with different physics to this one.

  182. Anything is possible says:

    @ dbstealey

    People like James Abbott will never admit they are wrong, they will simply quietly drop cAGW when they find another faux “we are all doomed” crisis they can obssess over (:

  183. richardscourtney says:

    dbstealey:

    Thankyou for your post at February 1, 2014 at 4:13 pm but all of that and much more was explained to James Abbot by several people a week ago.

    In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, James Abbot made his first post in that thread here.

    As anybody can see, a long series of exchanges with several people then ensued before everyone agreed he was merely trying to be a troll. He was an especially effective troll because – unusually – I was far from the first to recognise that he was trolling.

    It ended with my question to him (repeated by me above in this thread) concerning where he thinks the “committed warming” has gone. He was pressed on the matter so went away until he appeared in this thread and raised the same issue!

    Hence, my request that he be ignored because he has already started his tricks in this thread as he did in the thread I have linked in this post. Clearly, his intention is to disrupt this thread as he did the previous thread and he has nothing – n.b. nothing – to contribute.

    Richard

  184. philjourdan says:

    We can get rid of our messiah in 3 years. England is stuck with theirs until his death. Pity the UK.

  185. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From James Abbott on February 1, 2014 at 3:57 pm:

    (…)
    To claim now that there is little or no committed warming to come is rediculous. Given that there has been a pause for just 12 years we simply do not know. (…)

    Using the SkepSci temp trend calculator, default settings of 12 month moving average and °C/decade units, and not fussing too fine, GISTEMP land+ocean yields 0.106 +/- 0.107 from 1996.75 to 2014, so that’s at least 17.25 years without provable warming, amount is still below uncertainty.

    NOAA land+ocean yields 0.088 +/- 0.095 from 1994.75 to 2014, thus at least 19.25 years

    HADCRUT4 land+ocean yields 0.095 +/- 0.098 from 1994.75 to 2014, thus also at least 19.25 years

    Satellite records, RSS yields 0.118 +/- 0.120 from 1989.5 to 2014, thus over 24.5 years without provable global warming.

    UAH yields 0.152 +/- 0.152 from 1993.5 to 2014, so 20.5 years where technically there might have absolutely no warming at all.

    Where are you getting that “The Pause” has only been 12 years? SkepSci is yielding an average of over two decades without provable warming. Why are you reporting so much less?

  186. Davidg says:

    Charles, the scion of one of the families that has done the most damage to the planet, or at least the people on it, is intellectually stunted like his SS loving cousins who kick started the modern envirofascist movement with the WWF. By the way, who says rational skeptics accept the greenhouse theory, which has been disproved twice? Are you kidding? There is no there there in greenhouse land.

  187. richardscourtney says:

    dbstealey:

    While I was making my post to you at February 1, 2014 at 4:32 pm James abbot was making his post to you at February 1, 2014 at 4:18 pm.

    Please note that James Abbot says to you

    And if you and the rest of the sceptic community are going to rely on sensitivity models that cool the Earth by just 2C when there is a (theoretical) zero CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then good luck. You appear to live in a parallel universe with different physics to this one.

    But that is a gross distortion of what you had presented to him.

    You gave him a graph which shows the Earth would be much cooler than 2C if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere. And that graph is theoretical physics and NOT a climate model. So, can you see where this will go if you try to correct his gross misrepresentation of you? If you don’t know then use the link I provided in my previous post and see for yourself. Also, remember that James Abbott started his tricks in this thread by attempting to misrepresent our host.

    I again suggest that everyone ignores this especially egregious troll unless and until he answers the clear question that he has been evading for a week. He can’t and he knows he can’t. But he will keep expecting others to provide explanations and corrections to his misrepresentations.

    Richard

  188. James Abbott says:

    dbstealey

    You said

    “If this is not a very good example of saturation, what is?”

    You are right – its terrible. Have a look at it, it completely fails to explain the 8C difference between 180ppm and now.

    As to your next questions, they are more of the same but happy to answer them:

    1. I am not a climate alarmist. Long before the internet fuelled merry-go-round of self reinforcing scepticism that exists today, I started to study this subject over 30 years ago at university.
    2. If there is still no warming after 20 years, then I agree that will stretch the current understanding of the science a lot.
    3.Glaciers may descend on Chicago – tens of thousands of years from now. We are not out of the ice ages.
    4. No I won’t admit that AGW is wrong because it is not wrong as we best understand the science. Sceptics seem to want to have it both ways – at times they have to admit the physics means that substantially increasing CO2 will cause warming and at others they try to argue that its not worth bothering about as the warming will be so small.

    I am off to bed now but think on your rediculous statement about CO2 concentration:

    “3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000. That hardly seems alarming. A 40% rise of an extremely tiny amount is still an extremely tiny amount.”

    That displays a fundamental failure to understand science. Just because something is present at small concentrations compared to the body it is part of does not mean that it has little affect.

    CO2 is essential to the survival of the biosphere – even at a few hundred parts per million.
    And it is a powerful greenhouse gas that helps keep the planet habitable for us.

    You also appear to fail to understand that different substances have different properties. Other gases would have less or more affect depending on what they are (eg methane).

    Concentrations of CFCs would presumably be “tiny” according to you but the chlorine released from CFCs destroys ozone in catalytic reactions where 100,000 molecules of ozone can be destroyed per chlorine atom. Hence the severe ozone depletion over Antarctica in particular – or do you deny that too ?

  189. Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia says:

    Take the positive: the Prince is a walking advertisement for CAGW Scepticism. Long may he reign.

  190. Hockeystickler says:

    After abdicating as King, Edward (VIII) visited his friend Adolf Hitler in Germany. When Churchill became Prime Minister, he sent Edward to the Bahamas to be Governor. He wanted Edward a long way from Britain so that he could not become a puppet King for Hitler if the Germans invaded Britain. After the War, Edward never served in another official position, but lived out his life in France. Perhaps, he can be an inspiration to his grandnephew Charles to abdicate and live in exile.

  191. richardscourtney says:

    dbstealey:

    At February 1, 2014 at 4:45 pm I wrote saying to you of James Abbott

    I again suggest that everyone ignores this especially egregious troll unless and until he answers the clear question that he has been evading for a week. He can’t and he knows he can’t. But he will keep expecting others to provide explanations and corrections to his misrepresentations.

    At February 1, 2014 at 4:46 pm James Abbott has written his post to you which fails to answer the question but introduces effects of methane, and the controversial issue of the ozone hole while waving a host of Red Herrings.

    QED

    Richard

  192. goldminor says:

    rogerknights says:
    February 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm
    Another guess is that he’s glommed onto warmism, in part, as a “motherhood”-type issue as a way to make himself and the monarchy more popular.
    ———————————————————————–
    Now, why does that remind me of Al Gore?

  193. goldminor says:

    I note that the Telegraph does not allow for comments on the article referencing the Prince,s remarks.

    I met him about 25 years ago. He had more color to his hair, but then again so did I.

  194. DDP says:

    “…also spoke out against “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups…”

    I’ll take those totally made up powerful lobbying organisations and raise you the WWF, i’m pretty sure you’ve heard of them Charles. Being President of the organisation i’m pretty sure you’d never use the influence of your lowly position to lobby Members of Parliament and then have the High Court rule that the public have no right to read documents highlighting your unconstitutional meddling.

    /sarc

  195. RichieP says:

    The man is an intellectual desert. He was never the sharpest tool in the box. Little more needs to be said.

  196. dbstealey says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 1, 2014 at 5:01 pm,

    Yes, I think Abbott needs to quit avoiding your question.

    Also, anyone who claims to have attended university, but who still cannot spell ‘ridiculous’, or use ‘effect’ correctly, might lack credibility in science.

  197. Orson says:

    I’m enjoying the thumbnail reminders of British history, addressed to my fellow Americans. as an Anglophile who studied in the UK twice, thank you!

    Prince Charles is surely the dimmest bulb in the Monarchy’s “kitchen cabinet” (to employ the most delightful Americanism)! Maybe that helps humanize them, too?

  198. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Long live the Queen, I say! Longer than her idiot son I hope.

  199. Davidg says:

    If anyone wants to see a devastating and real portrait of Prince Charles, watch ‘To Play the King’, played with delicious savagery by Ian Richardson; Michael Kitchen plays Charles and it is on the internet.

  200. Gail Combs says:

    “Given recent opinion polls, he’s basically called about half of his potential subjects “the headless chicken brigade”
    ……………..
    That was an older poll ago a more recent poll:

    A recent poll found the just one in five people believe climate change is man-made, compared to one in three a year ago.

    The survey of 1,000 people found people over 65 were more likely to be sceptical. link

    So he is now calling 80% of his subjects headless chickens. Maybe he needs a Dale Carnegie Course.

  201. Davidg says:

    It’s a historical fact that Prince Edward was a Nazi in all but name and his Nazi loving tramp Wallace Simpson attracted that kind of trash to parties all over England until they fled. Not to mention that he committed treason and should have been shot, but wasn’t. His cousin Bernhard was a Lt. Col. in the SS. Phillip Spoke German and was totally sympathetic to the Nazi message, as were all too many English, like the Duke of Kent, whom Hess visited. Of course many people were attracted to the idea of Hitler as a bulwark against the red menace of the Slavs. That was the basis for appeasement. Dickie Mountbatten was not a Nazi, however, just to be clear.

  202. Gail Combs says:

    Novantae says: @ February 1, 2014 at 9:32 am
    … Did you know he talks to plants?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Plants LOVE to be talked to … or rather they love all that CO2 humans exhale while speaking. SHHHhhhh don’t tell Prince Charlies, I doubt he knows he is exhaling EVIL CARBON.

  203. Half Tide Rock says:

    Speaking to understand the role of IQ in success. It is not just the horse power under the hood as much as the balance between the horsepower and the skill of the driver.

  204. rogerknights says:

    I read that, after WW2, certain documents collected in Germany by allied forces were handed over to the UK and sealed because they were “embarrassing to the royal family.”

  205. rogerknights says:

    . . . spoke out against “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups . . .

    For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

  206. Patrick B says:

    This kind of idiot always get the same answer from me – “OK, I promise not to produce any more CO2 than you do.”

  207. James the Elder says:

    Otteryd says:

    February 1, 2014 at 11:32 am

    At least our Royals don’t actually have any real power. I am quite relieved. We don’t have a King Bush and a Queen Palin. That would really cause a revolution!

    Ah, you conveniently forget the monarchy of, FDR, the attempt at Camelot in the 60s by the sons of a bootlegger, the ongoing attempt at a Clinton monarchy, and now we have he who orders the planet to cool and the waters to recede by wielding the mighty executive order pen that you apparently have no problem accepting. You also seem to forget that this country has NO royals. Wishful thinking on your part?

  208. higley7 says:

    Actually, it can be stated that we have no effect on climate as far as our CO2 emissions are concerned. No gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can do what they claim. It is simple thermodynamics. IR radiation sent back down by the atmosphere by definition cannot be absorbed by the surface as those energy levels are already filled. The surface is always hotter than the atmosphere (and the global climate models all have sunlight 24/7). The IR will be rejected by the surface and sent back up, with no warming occurring.

    CO2 and water vapor might convert a tiny bit of this IR to heat while it is absorbed in the atmosphere but the amount of conversion is tiny and undetectable.

    Nope, we may cause some urban heat island effect and changed land use effects, but our use of carbon-based energy is nothing but a win-win as increased CO2 is greening the planet, increasing plant growth, broadening their temperature tolerance, and improving their use of water and nutrients. With the coming cooler period due to two ocean cycles gone to their cooling phases and the Sun going into a Grand Minimum, meaning cooler temperatures for 30 to 120 years, we will need all the food we can grow.

  209. TimC says:

    M Courtney says “And the world’s natural resources are still controlled in London – except for nationalised industries”.

    I’m sorry, I’m not with you there: I think we are using different terminology. Are you talking of the persons (individuals, corporates or governments) with power of decision as whether to open up and exploit natural resources in the first place, or those that they then look to hire (the contractors) once the decision is made to go for exploitation?

    I accept that London has attracted a number of contractors – mainly due to convenience, certainty (of contractual and legal process), stability and beneficial taxation treatment. However if any of this changes (even if only the new UK general tax anti-avoidance rule) they can and will relocate elsewhere, quick as a flash. And to a lawyer’s eye this is not “control” at all – control is the right to decide whether or not to exploit in the first place (not who you hire to carry it out).

  210. Patrick says:

    I seriously hope Queen Elizabeth does not abdicate leaving Charles to the Throne, that will be a sad day for Britain. The Mountbattens were Battenbergs until WW1.

  211. Bob Diaz says:

    Prince Charles has NO scientific qualifications to be taken seriously.

  212. rogerthesurf says:

    I don’t think there will be much place for kings, queens and princes under United Nations Agenda21. Useful at the moment but I suspect irrelevant under any Global totalitarian government.
    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  213. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From higley7 on February 1, 2014 at 9:03 pm:

    Actually, it can be stated that we have no effect on climate as far as our CO2 emissions are concerned. No gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can do what they claim. It is simple thermodynamics. IR radiation sent back down by the atmosphere by definition cannot be absorbed by the surface as those energy levels are already filled. (…)

    What an utter load of complete bollocks, doesn’t pass the most basic tests of reasoning.

    When a molecule on the surface releases a longwave infrared (LWIR) photon of a certain frequency into the atmosphere, it is immediately available to accept a photon of the same frequency that has been sent back down by a greenhouse gas molecule in the atmosphere. Surface molecules are not being instantaneously “reloaded” the instant they release a photon by energy on the surface, if they were then the Earth’s surface would be as cold as space as the surface molecules would quickly emit all the surface’s energy out to space. Thermodynamics is not keeping them from accepting those returned photons, there are plenty of molecules ready to accept them.

    Besides, photons don’t have fingerprints. A molecule on the surface doesn’t care if it’s a photon returned from the atmosphere or one of the same frequency from another surface molecule 2 miles away, if it’ll accept a photon of that frequency then it’ll take either.

    Please stop bringing this tired old unscientific dreck around here. It shouldn’t be believable to anyone who can deduce if it’s the batteries or the bulb keeping the flashlight from lighting up.

  214. Streetcred says:

    ‘HRH Prince’ Charles is a consequence of too much inbreeding … he has clear physical evidence of ‘Funny Looking Kid’ syndrome. Whenever I hear of his pronouncements, I immediately see him in my minds eye dressed in a court jester’s suits prancing about with his little belled headdress jingling away. The bloke is an embarrassment to the British people.

  215. Hari Seldon says:

    You’ve got the wrong youtube clip. This one says it all about anarchist view of life and Prince charles’s approach.

  216. Kitefreak says:

    Steven says:
    “Didn’t he once say that the best thing for the environment would be for a deadly virus to wipe out half of humanity?”
    —————————–
    That was his dad and he wanted to be that virus. Charming.

  217. Patrick says:

    “Streetcred says:

    February 2, 2014 at 12:12 am

    The bloke is an embarrassment to the British people.”

    That’s because he is a product of German and Greek interference and centuries of static DNA replication. But then the Germans call the British “Englanders”, or “Anglanders” and, if my memory serves, the “Angles” (Anglanders) originated in what is now northern Germany.

  218. M Courtney says:

    TimC says February 1, 2014 at 9:15 pm
    Yes, we are using different terminology. My clarification post was trying to get to the root of that. London has influence, not power, over the world’s natural resources.

    So the final arbiter is the one who has all the power and thus where the contractors gather is irrelevant?
    I disagree. Compare it to Horse Racing. The Owners decide what horse gets bought but the Trainers and Jockeys make the innovations that improve the string. And the Owners always listen to the experts – if they wish to be successful.

    Also the experts affect their social environment as well being affected by it.
    London has influence.
    And, arguably, the Monarchy still has influence in the highest circles within London.

  219. D Cage says:

    My feeling on reading about Charles was that he is demonstrating the same superb interpersonal skills he displayed in his marriage. Perhaps it is time the public took his approach by using the same one used on his namesake. I would add that given the soundness of his mind being headless is a considerable improvement on having him as head of anything.
    As for trusting scientists, we do not trust them,We expect to judge them on their skill in predicting accurately events based on their understanding of their particular field.
    If he deserved his history degree he would know from that point of view alone that the claims of climate scientists are unfounded.

  220. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Unfortunately, it is little understood here in the UK, that the Monarchy actually has power, not just influence. I’m for a Republic, myself, and I can understand the feelings of Australians and New Zealanders. New Zealand looks like they’re about to change their flag, which is a great shame, but understandable. But even Hawaii still haven’t changed theirs!

  221. D Cage says:

    Whoops sorry it was archaeology so forget that last bit. Wish this had an edit!

  222. cnxtim says:

    Excuse me? I was born in Sydney and I AM a British subject.

  223. cnxtim says:

    To the ghost of big jim cooley
    RE: “I’m for a Republic, myself, and I can understand the feelings of Australians”.

    the feeling s of Australians was expressed at the last referendum when we voted in the majority to reject the call by some to become a republic and remain as a commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state, the same QE II that I swore to defend with my life when I took an oath of allegiance in the 60′s.

    Furthermore, having seen the deplorable antics of Presidents of Republics we took the right decision then and more than likely would do so again.

  224. johnmarshall says:

    You Yanks need a better geopolitics lesson.
    England is one country of the 4 making up Great Britain, the others are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom alone is part of the whole and its correct name is United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
    Simple.
    It is not just the ”Slayers” who do not agree with you about the GHE. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you cannot see this then that explains why your experiment ”proving” back radiation as you claimed showed only that you do not understand basic physics.

  225. cedarhill says:

    The Ship of Fools does, indeed, have a Prince. Perhaps their rescue should be paid out of his yearly allowance?

  226. Chris Wright says:

    The day that idiot becomes king will be the day I become a Republican.
    Still, at least he’s against wind farms….
    Chris

  227. Kitefreak says:

    For those who think the royals in the UK don’t have any real power:

    “It has emerged that Charles has held 36 meetings with ministers since the government took power in May 2010. He has met the prime minister, David Cameron, seven times, four different ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government and held six meetings with ministers in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which oversee areas in which the prince campaigns on planning and the environment respectively. Neither Whitehall nor Clarence House will elaborate on what was discussed in the private meetings”……

    “Later this year, the court of appeal will hear the latest stage of an eight-year battle by the Guardian to get the government to reveal a set of 27 letters written by the prince to ministers in seven departments over a nine-month period.”

    From the following article:
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/12/prince-charles-scrutiny-mps-lobbying

    Turns out Prince Charles is desceded from Vlad the Impaler, who was the inspiration for Bram Stoker’s novel, “Dracula”:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9656769/Prince-Charles-heir-to-Draculas-blood-line.html

    “Transylvania is in my blood,” he jokes in an interview first shown on satelite television last year. “The genealogy shows I am descended from Vlad the Impaler, so I do have a bit of a stake in the country.”

    At least he’s got a sense of humour – he’s got that going for him.

  228. DirkH says:

    Patrick says:
    February 2, 2014 at 12:52 am
    “That’s because he is a product of German and Greek interference and centuries of static DNA replication. But then the Germans call the British “Englanders”, or “Anglanders” and, if my memory serves, the “Angles” (Anglanders) originated in what is now northern Germany.”

    We call the English Engländer, we call the British Briten. Scottish, Schotten; Welshmen, Waliser.
    Angles are Angeln; Saxons Sachsen.

    So don’t worry, we know all the distinctions and have words for them. The Angles were a tribe from what is today Schleswig-Holstein, slightly north of Hamburg.

  229. DirkH says:

    Davidg says:
    February 1, 2014 at 6:21 pm
    “It’s a historical fact that Prince Edward was a Nazi in all but name [...]. Of course many people were attracted to the idea of Hitler as a bulwark against the red menace of the Slavs. That was the basis for appeasement.”

    Well, the Brits also supplied Uncle Joe with a quarter of their airplane industry’s output while America still hadn’t started supplying Uncle Joe via the Lend & Lease program; so obviously the anti-German faction knew which genocidal maniac to ally themselves with. After all, it was Germany that was an upcoming competition to the UK’s industry, not the USSR, which had no competitive products.

    Rather simple Churchill Realpolitik;
    http://rense.com/general83/dett.htm
    “Germany is too strong. We must destroy her.”
    – Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936.
    “The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of
    obtaining German sales markets.” – Winston Churchill. March, 1946.

    It was all rather well planned.

  230. Mark says:

    Fortunately the monarch has a mostly ceremonial role, and we’ll get another King William before too long anyway :) . Thank god Brenda’s still hanging in there…

  231. Oscar Bajner says:

    It’s all very simple:
    England is the land of the Engs.(No, not the Ents)
    Britain is the land of the Britons, and the home of the Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Northmen,
    Poles, Planks, Pakistanis, Hungrys, and Rumainheres.

    Great Britain is Britain with the addition of Wales, Scotland and Ireland – the obvious inference
    is that addition, not multiplication, brings true greatness.

    The UK is the United Kingdom, that is Great Britain with the subtraction of most of Ireland (All Gaul is occupied? No, one small village … etc etc) ergo the ‘UK’ is used because Lesser Britain has not the same ring.

    None of this is to be confused with Britannia, a fairy Godmother who ruled the Waifs.
    Nor is any of this to be confused with “Little Britain” which are small regions of no accounting where the rules are waived. (Not to be confused with the EU, or the UN)

    And to all those sand trolls and likkle engs who squeak of Caledonia and bankrupt in the same sentence: BUD, take your FUD and SCUD.

    And yes, Charlie is a loon, for he has the brain of a loon, and a loon of England too.

  232. hunter says:

    The Prince of Wales is not likely to be happy with his subjects after the next election, since he is calling a significant and growing number of them names.

  233. Mark Besse says:

    How weak must your beliefs be if they are trounced by headless chickens?

  234. Global cooling says:

    It is a pity that comments ignore the wonderful summary of climate scepticism and focuses on attacking the Prince.

    Question 1: Does climate sensitivity mean the change of the temperature when CO2 doubles from 200 ppm to 400 ppm or from 400 ppm to 800 ppm or something else?

    Question 2: How can we apply climate sensitivity to regional temperatures? Does it apply only on NH temperatures outside the tropics?

  235. Kitefreak says:

    Oscar Bajner says: “Nor is any of this to be confused with “Little Britain” which are small regions of no accounting where the rules are waived”.
    —————————-
    Are you talking about the City of London there? It does have it’s own legal jurisdiction (and police) and it is a financial sesspool of fraud (13% of UK GDP I believe, the financial services industry). “The Corporation”, I think they refer to it as, at the annual Lord Mayor’s banquet.

    When I say fraud I am, of course, speaking of money laundering for drug cartels ($600Bn +) and financing of t3rrorist organisations as well as pedelling toxic derivative financial products designed to enrich the wealthy and trash the global economic system. And nobody goes to jaii (apart from in Iceland, which is doing just dandy, for the time being).

    I only bring this up because it is on-topic with the royal family. I will leave it to the late, great George Carlin to explain it (in a US context). It’s a club….

    A system based on debt is unsustainable – it will be destroyed. It is what it is replaced with that bothers me.

  236. R. de Haan says:

    He really look like a chicken doesn’t he?
    And he certainly talks like one.
    He talks like a chicken without a head.

  237. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    There once was a prince named Charlie
    The years had made old and gnarly
    One day he awoke
    Found he was a joke
    And his rants turned snide and snarly

    Eugene WR Gallun

  238. Dizzy Ringo says:

    I must correct one mistake in the comments. The Duke of Edinburgh does not, from comments he himself has made, share the beliefs of his eldest son.

    Frankly we find Charles a bit embarrassing – which is why we all say “Long live the Queen”.

  239. Colorado Wellington says:

    johnmarshall says:
    February 2, 2014 at 3:09 am

    You Yanks need a better geopolitics lesson.

    England is one country of the 4 making up Great Britain, the others are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom alone is part of the whole and its correct name is United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

    Simple.

    Quite right, quite right, many of us could use a little lesson but you seem to have made a mess of it. I was always taught that Northern Ireland was not part of Great Britain and that’s why the country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And that the United Kingdom is the whole, not part of the whole. The united whole. Simple.

    Also, when it comes to world politics, I would suggest adopting a more authoritative and geographically correct nickname for Americans. Yanks is not really used that much among the geopolitical elites, especially not in our hemisphere. Here we are best known as Gringos, i.e. Greeks (derived from Spanish ”griego”).

  240. Exiled Maritimer says:

    Just reviewing the options for describing Chuckie. In GB he would be a silly goose. in Canada a loon, and in the US a turkey. We have had Charles the Fat and Charles the Simple so why not Chuckie the Green. Ironic that his “rule” will be in a cooling trend.
    Long Live the Queen

  241. Is it time for those of us in the US to request those across the pond start using ‘the United States of America’ in all blog posts? Wouldn’t want to confuse the USA with the United States of Stellaland.

    Nah, didn’t think so.

  242. richardscourtney says:

    Mark Besse (@MarkB1205):

    Your post at February 2, 2014 at 10:35 am is silly.

    Calling the British “English” is similar to calling Americans “Californians”.
    Do you really think Texans would like that?

    Richard

  243. Colorado Wellington says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 2, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Calling the British “English” is similar to calling Americans “Californians”.

    True, that would be silly. On par with calling a Southern or a Western man Yankee or Yank (not that you personally did).

    On the other hand, you did not make it exactly easy for us. I use British when not referring specifically to the English but I sometimes wonder what the Northern Irish think of that. Do they mind competing as Great Britain in international sports *)? I assume they are less touchy about British than being called English. It seems that Great Britain is used as synonym for the U.K. by the “British” themselves because it’s convenient even when not correct.

    *) Besides those Northern Ireland athletes competing for Team Ireland.

  244. richardscourtney says:

    Colorado Wellington:

    re your post at February 2, 2014 at 11:36 am.

    All your problems of nomenclature would possibly be resolved if you Americans all unified all your flags to agree with the flag of Hawaii. We Brits could then address all Americans as being colonials.

    Richard

  245. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From johnmarshall on February 2, 2014 at 3:09 am:

    You Yanks need a better geopolitics lesson.
    England is one country of the 4 making up Great Britain, the others are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom alone is part of the whole and its correct name is United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

    Not quite.

    From http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/britain.htm, which has a copyright stating for school and classroom use only without written permission so I’m not directly quoting:

    Great Britain is the official name given, a political term, for the two kingdoms England and Scotland with the principality of Wales.

    Great Britain is frequently but incorrectly used as a synonym for the sovereign state correctly known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    As noted, the UK is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not “United Kingdom and Northern Ireland” as you said.

    So far that’s 2 of 3 of your sentences that are incorrect. And this Yank found a better geopolitics lesson than yours, from a website by Kent schoolteacher Mandy Barrow. Good job there, lass.

    It is not just the ”Slayers” who do not agree with you about the GHE. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you cannot see this then that explains why your experiment ”proving” back radiation as you claimed showed only that you do not understand basic physics.

    The 2nd law of thermodynamics, simply stated, is energy does not like to be concentrated, it wants to disperse into the lowest concentration possible. To concentrate energy takes work, you will always end up with less concentrated energy than the total of the energy you started with and the energy used for the concentration process.

    The greenhouse gases are not perfect insulators, they allow energy to be dispersed from the warmer surface to the colder outer space. They just slow the rate of transfer. As the concentrated energy at the surface, which overwhelmingly originates as even more concentrated energy dispersed from the Sun, is still allowed to eventually disperse into a less concentrated form throughout space, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated.

    Glad to help you there with your continuing education, mate. Cheerio!

  246. u.k.(us) says:

    We’ve got rebels and yanks, but:

    Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

  247. Ruairi says:

    Like a chicken who loses its head,
    The Prince staggers on in great dread,
    Of those climate deniers,
    And cold hearted liars,
    Who claim Global Warming is dead.

  248. M Courtney says:

    Just to make a serious point about the English/British thing.
    On the 18 September 2014 the Scottish people will vote on whether to leave the Union or not.
    Feelings are, therefore, running high.

    The original objection came from Oldseadog who was identified as Scottish in Willis Eschenbach’s tour of Britain.

    This subject may seem obscure but it has very real implications.
    One of the main allies of the USA may be about to fall apart into separate regions.
    Mistaking one of the regions as the only region that matters is not helpful.

  249. Colorado Wellington says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 2, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Colorado Wellington:

    All your problems of nomenclature would possibly be resolved if you Americans all unified all your flags to agree with the flag of Hawaii. We Brits could then address all Americans as being colonials.

    True, that would simplify things. And we Americans would swear loyalty to the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha and to the flag of the East India Company. Except for the Hawaiians themselves who may prefer the royal House Kalakaua-Lili’uokalani.

  250. Colorado Wellington says:

    M Courtney says:
    February 2, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Irreverent teasing aside, many of us are watching the Scottish independence referendum with bated breath. I personally don’t consider it an obscure subject.

  251. Robuk says:

    4. The response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation, which may explain why there is little warming over the last 12 years:

    Are you sure you mean this Anthony,

  252. Robin Hewitt says:

    Don’t worry about Charles, the scary scenario is what happens should Charles pre-decease Elizabeth. Sarah Ferguson could end up as Queen Mother.

  253. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From M Courtney on February 2, 2014 at 12:26 pm (originally in bold):

    On the 18 September 2014 the Scottish people will vote on whether to leave the Union or not.

    If Scotland secedes from the UK/Great Britain, will they automatically have left the European Union?

    Could Scotland leave the EU right now?

    If Scotland leaves, will we no longer see Charles and sons walking around with their tartan kilts and sporrans? It’d be awkward if they still did, sort of telling the Scots “We’ll rule you again some day!”

  254. Santa Baby says:

    I think international Marxism is laughing all the way. They have Charles hooked on their scheme, climate and Agenda 21 etc , that in the end will end the British monarchy?

  255. richardscourtney says:

    Colorado Wellington:

    This is an off-topic aside in response to your post at February 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm.

    However, I draw your attention to verse 5 of our National Anthem which I provided here because I think it is important to what – until now – has been our jocular conversation.

    You say to me

    Except for the Hawaiians themselves who may prefer the royal House Kalakaua-Lili’uokalani.

    Yes, it surprises me how many of them do want that especially in the South of the Big Island but I think independence would have real problems for them.

    In the days of your President Carter I sent him an email to express my sadness at the then state of the Royal Palace built by Kamehameha 1 because it is world treasure and its construction initiated history which has affected the entire world. Americans expect others (e.g. the Egyptians) to look after their historic treasures and I was saddened that Americans would allow their teuly historic artifacts to get into that state (e.g. abandoned car in the Royal Lake).

    I have twice attended Kamehameha Day celebrations. The most recent provided me with one of the greatest memories of my life. The locals were celebrating with music and dancing at the back of the Royal Palace in downtown Kona. The MoC called on an elderly lady (probably in her 80s) to dance, but she was reluctant. However, there was such vocal public demand that she agreed. She went to the front, the band started, and she danced the hula with such style and grace it was comparable to the prima ballerina of the Bolshoi. That elderly lady dancing her beautiful dance on that sunny afternoon is a true treasure of memory which I often bring to mind when I need to smile.

    That is culture. That is beauty. That is humanity at its best.

    Again, I ask you to consider verse 5 of our National Anthem. All peoples everywhere have treasures to share with others.

    Richard

  256. richardscourtney says:

    Robin Hewitt:

    You mistakenly assert at February 2, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Don’t worry about Charles, the scary scenario is what happens should Charles pre-decease Elizabeth. Sarah Ferguson could end up as Queen Mother.

    No, William is Second In Line to the throne. Indeed, that is why the scenario you suggest is a secret hope of many of us.

    Richard

  257. richardscourtney says:

    Colorado Wellington:

    In reading my post to you I notice I said I wrote your then President about the state of the Royal Palace: that is a mistype, I wrote about the Royal Temple. Sorry for this mistake. Oh, and I did not get a reply.

    Richard

  258. Colorado Wellington says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 2, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    Richard, your sunny recollection as well as your thoughts on culture and independence resonate with me.
    *****
    I’m sorry: I do not understand your remark in your follow up post about not getting a reply.

  259. Hot under the collar says:

    I prefer the Daily Mail Version;

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549658/Prince-Charles-hits-climate-change-deniers-labelling-headless-chicken-brigade.html

    Read the comments !!!
    No need for me to comment further.

  260. richardscourtney says:

    Colorado Wellington:

    re your question at February 2, 2014 at 1:58 pm.

    I emailed your then President Carter explaining my dismay at the State of the Royal Temple of Kamehameha 1. President Carted did not acknowledge and did not reply to my email.

    I hope that is clear now.

    Richard

  261. “”Did you know he talks to plants?”

    “Yes; many people do that; but he is one of the few who maintain that the plants answer.”

    Talking to plants gives them more CO2 – which they like of course!

  262. “The main point is that significant warming is expected as a result of doubling, or more, CO2 levels. If AW is going to rely on a model that says that will not happen, then that model has to also explain the fact that deep ice ages temperatures, at a time when CO2 was about 180ppm, were 8C cooler than now. And it does not.”

    CO2 in the ice cores is stored non-conservatively, The older the core sample the more CO2 has dissipated – and it outgasses on being brought to the surface. At a ‘depth’ of 400,000 years the pressure is around 500 atmospheres. So the ice cores only give trends in CO2 not true values: true values would have been considerably higher than 180ppm… conceivable 1000ppm or more.
    Life survived major ice ages only because CO2 levels were higher than now. Life would possibly not restart after another big ice age – not enough free CO2.

  263. M Courtney says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) asks at February 2, 2014 at 1:21 pm…

    If Scotland secedes from the UK/Great Britain, will they automatically have left the European Union?

    It is unclear if a newly independent Scotland would remain part of the EU. Spain insists that such a country would have to re-apply (this is because of their own Catalonia issues). If Scotland has to re-apply then they would be accepted as they have proven themselves fit to be members. However, new members have to adopt the Euro as their currency. If they remain independent then they will have to overcome the trade restrictions that arise. Considering that England an Ireland would remain in the EU it is unclear how this could work. Although England is not in the Schengen agreement so immigration issues would not arise.

    Sorry, it turns out I can’t answer that question. But I doubt anyone else could either.

    If Scotland leaves, will we no longer see Charles and sons walking around with their tartan kilts and sporrans? It’d be awkward if they still did, sort of telling the Scots “We’ll rule you again some day!”

    Actually, The SNP want independence from Westminster rule but they still want to retain the Monarchy. Charley will still be heir to their throne too.
    The Royal Family rule both Scotland and England separately. They have two crowns. That is why we are a United Kingdom not a single Kingdom.

  264. M Courtney says:

    richardscourtney says at February 2, 2014 at 2:03 pm…
    You emailed President Carter?

    I thought you went to Hawaii during President Clinton (the first)’s reign.

  265. Hot under the collar says:

    Daily Mail article 1487 comments so far, read the best rated and worst rated. Not many consensus or ‘Charlie’ supporters on there.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549658/Prince-Charles-hits-climate-change-deniers-labelling-headless-chicken-brigade.html

  266. richardscourtney says:

    M Courtney:

    Yes, you are right. It was President Clinton I emailed. I get all these foreign Presidents muddled up because most of them change frequently.

    Sorry.

    Richard

  267. Colorado Wellington says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    I get all these foreign Presidents muddled up because most of them change frequently. Sorry.

    No worries. We appreciate the U.K. going steady for so long.

    Of course, others like Porfirio Diaz, Stalin, Franco, Mao, Tito, Ceausescu and Castro have made their countries well-liked by pupils for the same reason.

  268. Gunga Din says:

    Mr. Ignorant here.
    The Monarch in Britain has no real political power but has great political and financial power?

  269. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    February 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Mr. Ignorant here.
    The Monarch in Britain has no real political power but has great political and financial power?
    ===================================================================
    Sorry about that. The second political should be PR.

  270. Gunga Din says:

    I don’t think I’ll try to redeem that last botch. You know what I meant.

  271. M Courtney says:

    Gunga Din:
    The Monarch has two key powers and also a lot of soft power (how many politicians are more popular or newsworthy than Her Majesty?)

    The 2 powers:
    1 The Prime Minister of the UK must meet and discuss with the Monarch on whatever the Monarch wants at least once a week.
    The Monarch provides continuity and has knowledge of the thought processes of previous PMs. Politicians rely on the Civil Service for technical expertise. The Monarch can let the PM know if the Civil Service is spinning the PM. As the Monarch has soft power no PM can go head-to-head with the Monarch so they always submit to the benefits of Royal influence.

    2 The Monarch can refuse Royal Assent. That is, they have a theoretical veto on anything. It is never used but why would anyone risk such a confrontation? Who can force a revolution without committing political suicide?
    This is a nuclear option. It would destroy the whole constitution. But it does exist so everyone avoids the possibility of it being required. That effects a Royalist agenda.

  272. richardscourtney says:

    Gunga Din:

    re your post at February 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm.

    The UK is one of the few true monarchies remaining in the world and has a monarch with immense political power.

    Americans often doubt this because their culture expects power to be overtly displayed. So, to prove the fact before explaining it, I point out that the Prime Minister (PM) has a meeting with the monarch each Tuesday. No politician would do that if the monarch had no power: the practice would have been dropped long ago.

    The monarch has three great powers.

    First, the monarch can appoint and can dismiss a Prime Minister (PM). And the monarch calls upon an appointed PM to form a government. Normally the appointment of PM is a foregone conclusion because one political Party wins an overall majority in a General Election and the Leader of that Party is appointed as PM.

    However, the decision whom to appoint as PM is important when no Party gains an overall majority and, in that case, the monarch makes a decision. The most recent General Election was such a case but the problem was overcome because Cameron agreed to form a coalition of his Party (Conservative) and Clegg’s Party (Liberal) which together formed an overall majority. The previous occasion was when Heath’s (Conservative) government did not get an overall majority and no other Party did. Heath said he wanted to stay in office as PM but Wilson’s Party (Labour) had won more seats. The monarch considered the matter for more than a week before dismissing Heath as PM and appointing Wilson as PM. Thus, a minority government was established.

    Secondly, and most importantly, the monarch has effective veto on a subject before Parliament discusses it. This is because the PM provides the draft ‘Queen’s Speech’ to the monarch before the annual State Opening of Parliament. The draft Speech is very confidential. Its contents are known only to the Cabinet and it relates all that the government intends to do during the coming Session of Parliament. The monarch assesses the Speech in collaboration with her advisors and decides which parts of it she will read: other parts are deleted.

    At the State opening of Parliament the monarch reads the Queen’s Speech which she has amended. By reading those parts she agrees she is willing to give the Royal Assent to the announced proposals if they are approved by Parliament. And by having deleted items from the Queen’s Speech she informs the government that she will not give the Royal Assent to the deleted items. A Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament becomes Law if – and only if – it obtains the Royal Assent.

    This is immense power. There is no point in Parliament spending time on a matter which will not obtain the Royal Assent, and the matters the monarch has not agreed are confidential. So, in effect, the monarch has vetoed debate of those matters before they are raised. Despite that, in the last century two Bills were passed by Parliament but did not obtain Royal Assent: they each called for Abolition of the House of Lords.

    A government which broke the confidentiality of the draft Queen’s Speech would induce a constitutional crisis. It would put Parliament in conflict with the Crown and we had a civil war the last time that happened. The present monarch has done an excellent job. She has devoted her life to her subjects and the nation. And her decisions have enabled the Empire to be converted to the Commonwealth with surprisingly little bloodshed (consider what happened in the Congo when Belgium gave them independence). The armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and not Parliament while the people trust the Queen but not politicians. No government would dare to oppose the present monarch. However, you must have noticed the concern at Charles wearing the Crown which several Brits have expressed in this thread, and perhaps you can now understand that concern.

    Thirdly, the power of the Royal Assent is – in itself – great power. The monarch has actual right of veto on all government decisions. Some of this is delegated and, importantly, the right to call a war has been delegated to HM government in the event of a crisis (nuclear attack could have happened with only 4 minutes warning during the Cold War).

    Clearly, interaction between the monarch and Her government is important. And that is why the PM has at least one meeting a week with the monarch. And what happens in those meetings is one of the most secret of State Secrets which is only recorded in the memories of the monarch and the PM.

    I hope that is sufficient answer to your question.

    Richard

  273. richardscourtney says:

    Gunga Din:

    Matthew answered your question while I was writing my answer. But I think they are complimentary so I think you would find it useful to read both.

    Richard

  274. goldminor says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says:
    February 2, 2014 at 10:00 am
    —————————————-
    classic!

  275. Colorado Wellington says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Thank you for your excellent summary, Richard.

  276. Colorado Wellington says:

    …. and Matthew.

  277. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 2, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    Gunga Din:

    Matthew answered your question while I was writing my answer. But I think they are complimentary so I think you would find it useful to read both.

    Richard

    ================================================================
    Thank you both.
    It sounds that the British Monarch is a bit like the Japanese Emperor in that the authority is hereditary. In Japan that authority was, for all practical purposes, theoretical and rarely used until the end of WW2. In the UK the authority is also hereditary but routinely used but on a low profile basis. I mean no offense in the comparison to the Japanese Emperor but am I “in the ball park”?
    Before your comments I saw the British Crown as sort of a flesh-and-blood Old Glory. The Stars and Stripes are a wonderful symbol but they don’t have a vote.

  278. Mervyn says:

    “The mark of a true leader is bringing people with diverse views and backgrounds together, clearly with this recent pronouncement, Prince Charles clearly has failed as a leader.”

    Well said. (And he has also failed the common sense test … that science is never settled.)

    What is puzzling is that Prince Charles is a mature individual who, one would have thought, should have learnt an important lesson set by his mother in that she never makes known her personal views on issues that are potentially divisive and highly political. This is why Prince Charles will never make a popular King. By insulting an element of society he has taken sides when he ought to remain neutral.

  279. Robin Hewitt says:

    richardscourtney says: No, William is Second In Line to the throne.

    If Charles outlives his mother then the throne will be his to pass on to William. If he doesn’t then it goes to her oldest surviving son, unless they get the rule change through which will put Anne in the running.

  280. Richard Thal says:

    A quick laugh…..
    The difference between England, Great Britain and the UK explained.

  281. Brian H says:

    If Steve Goddard is right about the 1°C “step fudge” in the ’90s, you can extend the Pause back to the ’30s.

  282. Brian H says:

    We pray the Queen outlasts Princes Charlie and Phil. William would be far better.

  283. Robin Hewitt says:

    Phil can’t get it. Look at Henry VIII, a late son overtook two daughters and a surviving wife.
    Popularity counts for nothing, nobody wanted James I. If they could have taken one of Charles II illegitimate offspring rather than his ghastly brother James I am sure they would.

  284. Patrick says:

    “DirkH says:

    February 2, 2014 at 4:15 am”

    Thanks for the clarification from a German perspective. Given “English” and “British” people are also considered “anglo-saxon”, it’s not a surprise.

  285. richardscourtney says:

    Gunga Din:

    At February 2, 2014 at 7:31 pm you ask me

    I mean no offense in the comparison to the Japanese Emperor but am I “in the ball park”?

    Sorry, but I do not know enough about the role of the Japanese Emperor to answer your question. This is not an evasion, it is merely my ignorance.

    Richard

  286. SteveP says:

    Nobody in Ireland uses the term ‘Eire’. We call our country Ireland. The ‘six counties’ is called ‘Northern Ireland’. For some reason many English football commentators persist in calling Ireland ‘The Republic’, as though there are no other republics in the world.

  287. richardscourtney says:

    Robin Hewitt and Brian H:

    I write to correct misunderstandings which may mislead people and you state in your posts at February 3, 2014 at 12:59 am and February 3, 2014 at 1:13 am, respectively.

    I pointed out that William is Second In Line to the throne and Robin replied

    If Charles outlives his mother then the throne will be his to pass on to William. If he doesn’t then it goes to her oldest surviving son, unless they get the rule change through which will put Anne in the running.

    No, Anne will not be “in the running”.
    The eldest son of the monarch or future monarch inherits the position of next in line to the throne.

    Charles is the eldest son of HRH Queen Elizabeth II. He is next in line to the throne and will inherit the throne (i.e. Charles is first in line to the throne). The eldest son of Charles is William so he inherits from Charles (i.e. William is second in line to the throne).

    In the event that HRH Queen Elizabeth II outlives Charles then the inheritance of the throne still passes to Charles and through him to William because William is second in line to the throne.

    Anne is not relevant to this. Before Charles had a son,William, then Anne (being the sister of Charles) was second in line to the throne. But when William was born he displaced her as second in line. And when William’s brother, Henry, was born then he displaced Anne as third in line to the throne. And now William has a son who has displaced Henry as third in line.

    The proposed change of rule is to alter the inheritance from eldest SON to eldest CHILD.
    Elizabeth has a son, Charles has a son, and William has a son, and each of those sons is the eldest child. So, if the proposed change is adopted it will not alter anything until at least four generations have passed.

    Brian H you say

    We pray the Queen outlasts Princes Charlie and Phil. William would be far better.

    Prince Philip is the Queen’s consort. He is not in line to the throne.

    Similarly, Catherine (Kate) is married to William. She is not in line to the throne but their son is.

    I hope that helps clarify things.

    Richard

  288. richardscourtney says:

    Richard Thal:

    The video you provide at February 3, 2014 at 1:06 am is brilliant!

    It is certainly not a “laugh” although it is provided in humorous style. Anybody still confused by the nature of our country needs to use it.

    Its short length does have provide some inevitable minor inaccuracies. For example, not all British Protectorates were part of the Empire; some requested that status from Britain instead of being part of the British or some other Empire. But few Brits are aware of such trivial details.

    I commend it to everybody. It is here and I thank you for providing it.

    Richard

  289. Rick says:

    richardscourtney: excellent
    If you want to listen to a person of depth with the wisdom of what ‘service’ means:

  290. jon leach says:

    Coming back to this site, after a while, it seems to have become a journal where people of a certain world view (which, may i acknowledge up front, could well be the right one). It reads as if you all sit around agreeing with each other and mocking or rubbishing anyone who disagrees with you.

    And there is clearly much pleasure in that.

    On the small chance that anyone here is interested in increasing their knowledge of the world, contemplating the alternative perspectives that might be available, and indeed understanding the variety of people who live in it (beyond your rather closed community) then let me offer you this.

    What follows is is not based on ever having met or talked to the man. Nor is it based on agreeing with him. Rather it is based on having met and talked to people who have worked for him for many years and being struck by the unique and rather odd job he has (or chooses to have).

    His people say that the key to understanding him is to grasp that he knows he will never face a vote, will never need to be popular, will never need to work within a 5 year election cycle, will never have to face an annual shareholders meeting, will never be sacked. You can say all of that is “wrong” (or that he might be wrong and will get deposed) but given the political stability of the UK, the track record of his ancestors (especially his mum), it is a not an unreasonable point of view.

    He also knows that he has no real, immediate power (or, put another way, if he did try to interfere in the rhythm of the ruling of this country (i.e those affairs that are supposed to be scheduled by Prime Ministers, CEOs and Arch Bishops) then he could find himself out on his rather large ears)

    So what does he do?

    Well he sees his job, his duty, his obligation, is to address the issues that he not only cares for (natch) but, in particular, to speak on those issues that work to very long time scales. And by “very long” he means over the generations. Not “5 or even 25″ but over multiple generations i.e. 50 or 100 years. Because, that is the job of the monarch, as he sees it. (you may not like this, but to understand him, you need to not compare him to the normal sort of people you might meet)

    So if you check his wikipedia page you will find him campaigning/interfering on
    - The Built Environment (buildings can last for centuries so you need to be cautious)
    - The Natural Environment (changing ecosystems, biosystems etc. are all multi-decade things so need to be treated cautiously)
    - Alternative Health (hmm, well he might have backed a bit of a loser with Homeopathy but health is something that you have personally for getting on for a century these days, so i get why he is into it)

    Specifically he “does not want us to make a massive mistake on global warming for future generations ON MY WATCH” {NB this is a reconstructed quote, here}

    He, in summary, is acting like a Steward. All very medieval but then he does come from a line of Kings so what did you expect?

    Now you might argue (eg Lomberg et al) that “going green” will harm future generations. But he chooses to take the bet the other way. It might be wrong, but its not unreasonable.

    Now there are very few people with any real power/influence who can genuinely take this very long term view. I.e. there are very few who truly answer to no one but their own conscience. Off the top of my head only Bill Gates springs to mind (ironically a “warmist” who’s profound smartness is literally before your eyes right now, Microsoft Office fans).

    But back to Charles and the points that he “should know”, according to our host.

    1. How much is man made. He is probably more concerned about it getting worse over the next century seeing as we have done something that is probably damaging over the last few decades. Why take the risk?
    2. Climate sensitivity. Given that the majority of the numbers are positive, even the small ones would cause a lot of damage on a century scale.
    3.A decade (or two) of flat. Well easy one that : Kings think in centuries and generations not decades,
    4. Saturated. He might be finding this one a bit technical. Or one of his ancestors might have been told that London was “full” when it reached a million people. It is now 10 million or so. Perhaps Kings don’t buy saturation arguments…
    5. One side is emotional. I suspect he sees both sides as emotional. He certainly is, He thinks he should be. He’s the King (well almost…) he’s supposed to care!
    6. Gore.His subjects etc. As i explained above he thinks and acts completely differently from Gore. And he sees it as his job to help his subjects by championing the issues that short term politicians and/or businesses may get wrong and harm his subjects.

    So he may use intemperate language. But he thinks you lot are wrong. He sees it as his job to stop you causing harm to future generations. Perhaps if i was him, i might agree with him (but probably not on the homeopathy or plant talking).

    As i said. If you see him as an enemy, now you know more about what you are up against. On the other hand, if you are available to thoughts outside your own court of mockery, he is an interesting, if anachronistic, phenomenon to study

    And, of course, perhaps he is right and we are all lost in our short term battles (e.g. to be the world’s most viewed climate site).

  291. Rick says:

    Jon Leach
    While some comments have bordered on mockery I don’t see that as a theme here. I posted the Queen’s Christmas address to use as a juxtaposition with her son and because of the smart way she gets to the heart of things without pontificating or calling anyone names. Is that so much to ask?

  292. richardscourtney says:

    jon leach:

    It would require writing a book to explain how and why you are wrong about almost everything in your post at February 3, 2014 at 10:08 am. So, I will merely state your major misunderstandings.

    Firstly, your long-winded explanation of the attitudes of HRH Prince Charles does not concur with the facts. Reality is as I said in my above post at February 1, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Those who think HRH Charles has adopted ‘environmentalism’ for PR reasons are mistaken. He is – and for decades has been – in the thrall of his Cotswold neighbour Jonathon Porrit who is an extremist eco-loon.

    Please remember that Charles has been raised from birth to do one very special job and he is still waiting to do it now he is 65. His life has been purposeless, and he has looked for purpose by ‘playing’ with architecture (e.g. setting up a real-world toytown for people to live in on the edge of Dorchester), and doing good works (e.g. setting up the Prince’s Trust). He was ripe for Porritt to offer him a ’cause’ which would give him purpose.

    One can only hope that the period between Her Madge. leaving and William taking her job will be short. William is already schooled in the military matters he needs to know, is starting to undertake ceremonial duties, and it can be assumed he is getting the political education he needs. It would be a tragedy if he were to end up like his father before he wears the crown.

    Those who want to correct Charles’ misunderstandings of climate issues and opponents of the AGW-scare need to expose Porritt. Charles will abandon his AGW-activism if that malign influence is removed.

    Secondly, I have followed all of this thread and I have seen no claims that Charles is “the enemy”. Several people have claimed he is a deluded fool and in a way he is: the search for meaning in his present life makes him susceptible to foolish ‘guidance’ by a titled, rich and nearby extremist like Porritt.

    Thirdly, and importantly, it is NOT that Charles thinks we “lot” are wrong. He has been misled into thinking Porritt is right.

    Richard

  293. James at 48 says:

    Long live the Queen.

  294. Steve P says:

    DirkH says:
    February 2, 2014 at 4:23 am

    Yes, and WWI for much the same reason: eliminate Germany as economic rival

  295. richardscourtney says:

    Steve P:

    re your off-topic post at February 3, 2014 at 12:24 pm.

    No. DirkH likes to pretend he knows about history, but often makes a fool of himself.

    Contrary to his claims in his post at February 2, 2014 at 4:23 am, WW2 was not “well planned” by the British. It was “well planned” by H1tler (who wrote a book about his plans).

    Indeed, we mistakenly tried to appease H1tler and reduced our armed forces while H1tler was preparing for war. Meanwhile, Churchill was considered a crank and was side-lined because he was warning about H1tler and the certainty of war.

    Eventually H1tler’s expansionism had to be stopped and Britain said if he invaded Poland then a state of war would exist between us and Germany. This ultimatum was made despite Britain being unprepared for war. H1tler invaded Germany on 1 September 1939 and WW2 started.

    It became obvious that Churchill had been right about H1tler and Chamberlain’s appeasement policy had been a total failure. So, Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister on 10 may 1940 and he was then replaced by Churchill.

    All of these facts can be verified by anybody with access to a library or the web.

    Ultra-right-wingers like DirkH may pretend that Britain planned that war, but their pretence is merely part of their misrepresentations of Naz11im.

    So, can we now return to the subject of this thread, please.

    Richard

  296. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 3, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    ….H1tler invaded Germany on 1 September 1939 and WW2 started……

    All of these facts can be verified by anybody with access to a library or the web.
    ===========================================================================
    Sorry, Richard, but that typo was too good to pass up. 8-)
    Of course you meant “invaded Poland”.
    (“Bloopers” are one of my favorite forms of humor.)

  297. P Wilson says:

    As a Brit living in London, II actually find this man rather vile

  298. Gunga Din says:

    How likely is it that a “King Charles” would use the Crown’s seldom exercised authority to implement a green agenda?
    ( I suppose I’m asking those who are familiar with British politics.)

  299. Steve P says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 3, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    All of these facts can be verified by anybody with access to a library or the web.

    I’m currently sitting in a library, and logged onto the web, but my readings do not fully support your assertions.

    For example, read Benjamin Freedman, or F. William Engdahl concerning the origins of WWI, or Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace.

    Freedman:

    And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

    There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn’t one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.

    I agree that this is straying a bit off-topic, but that is one of the risks/benefits of lively minds engaged in debate, or as the esteemed Adlai E. Stevenson put it:

    Freedom rings where opinions clash.

    I have nothing to add about Prince Charles, except that I find the very idea of royalty to be one of the lower achievements of our species.

    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis

  300. richardscourtney says:

    Gunga Din:

    Thankyou for your correcting my serious typo. I tend to ‘see’ what I intended to write and not what I wrote when checking my own typing.

    You ask

    How likely is it that a “King Charles” would use the Crown’s seldom exercised authority to implement a green agenda?

    The Crown’s Authority is used all the time as I explained to you earlier.

    Nobody can know how Charles would use it. As can be inferred from my explanation for you of the role of the monarch, our monarch is similar to your Constitution. Hence, in effect our Constitution alters when the monarch changes.

    The monarch can choose his own advisors and Charles seems likely to appoint Jonathon Porritt as one of them. That would encourage him to adopt an extreme position on ‘green’ issues.

    However, there are severe constraints on his adopting any extreme position on anything.

    His upbringing is the greatest constraint on his adopting any extreme position. From birth he has been raised to be King. When he puts on the Crown then he adopts his role of total service and his training from birth ‘should’ take over.

    Then life could be made difficult for him by the Establishment. This has high risk and would not be adopted lightly.

    In the ultimate he could be pressured to abdicate if he were to pursue too extreme a personal agenda. This happened to his great uncle, Edward VIII. However, the ‘lever’ to oust him was to make him choose between marriage and the Crown (I commend you to view the film ‘The King’s Speech’ (2010) if you have not seen it). I cannot see any such ‘lever’ to apply to Charles, but I am sure MI5 must know a few. And it has such tremendous risk that it would only be used if there was a perceived threat to the existence of the nation (as was the case with Edward VIII in 1936)

    And that is the closest approximation to an answer which can be given. Sorry.
    .
    Richard

  301. richardscourtney says:

    Steve P:

    Your post at February 3, 2014 at 2:24 pm is VERY off-topic and my post provided “facts” on WW2, not WW1.

    Find somewhere else and someone else to debate your views of distant history.

    Richard

  302. Gunga Din says:

    Thank you, Richard. It sounds like “tradition” and possible pressure might keep him in check.
    (I did see “The King’s Speech”. A remarkable man. May your nation have more like him.)

  303. Myrrh says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 3, 2014 at 11:17 am
    Secondly, I have followed all of this thread and I have seen no claims that Charles is “the enemy”. Several people have claimed he is a deluded fool and in a way he is: the search for meaning in his present life makes him susceptible to foolish ‘guidance’ by a titled, rich and nearby extremist like Porritt.

    Not so deluded after all…

    “The Royal Family have secured a lucrative deal that will earn them tens of millions of pounds from the massive expansion of offshore windfarms.

    “They will net up to £37.5 million extra income every year from the drive for green energy because the seabed within Britain’s ter­ritorial waters is owned by the Crown Estate.

    “Under new measures announced by Chancellor George Osborne last week, the Royals will soon get 15 per cent of the profits from the Estate’s £6 billion property portfolio, rather than the existing Civil List arrangement.

    “Experts predict the growth in offshore windfarms could be worth up to £250 million a year to the Crown Estate. There are already 436 turbines in operation around the UK’s 7,700-mile coastline – but within a decade that number is set to reach nearly 7,000.

    “Prince Charles is a vociferous campaigner for renew­able energy sources such as these, but is opposed to turbines being erected on land – particularly near his own homes.”

    continued on:

    https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/10/24/queens-38m-a-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall-because-she-owns-the-seabed/

    Some have made a good case accusing the Queen of treason against the people, the charge levelled against Charles I…

    http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm

  304. jon leach says:

    Richard

    Thanks for your reply. I didn’t know about the Porrit thing,

    There is definitely the making of a really good conspiracy theory here if we weave a few threads together,

    1. As you say Porrit “owns” Charles. This could be part of a bigger conspiracy theory that the Establishment owns conservation. As the Telegraph put it “it could, I suppose, only happen in Britain. For much of the Nineties, three of Britain’s bolshiest environmental pressure groups were led by a baronet, a hereditary peer and a prince of the realm. Prince Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron of Greenwich was the international head of the World Wide Fund for Nature (aka the World Wildlife Fund). Peter Robert Henry Mond, 4th Baron Melchett, ran Greenpeace in Britain. And the director of Friends of the Earth was one the Hon Sir Jonathon Espie Porritt Bt.”

    2. The Royals are seeking to enrich themselves by getting wind farms built-off shore where they get 15% of the profits. While looking like champions of the countryside AND fighting CAGW they are really rebuilding their coffers for their cunning plan….

    3. They get the current government (all part of the Establishment, note) to cancel the Civil List that is controlled by parliament and instead put in a “Sovereign Support Grant” that is independent (and boosted by wind farm revenues). This means that they no longer have to operate cautiously as they are set free with their own financial resources.

    4. They get their friends in Hollywood to produce films that show what good people they are (e.g. the Kings Speech) so people tend to trust them. The Royal Baby coverage is also part of the re-launch package orchestrated by their friends in the UK media.

    5. Then, at some point in the future, they start to take over and implement their agenda.

    If anyone has got the requisite green ink or swivel eyes then please could they write this up (maybe as a book?) and put in the public domain.

    Thanks

    PS the other one to watch is that Bill Gates fellow. He’s up to something too….

  305. philjourdan says:

    @Richard Thal – Thank you for a very amusing, but very informative look at the UK, GB, and England.

  306. Colorado Wellington says:

    Jon Leach:

    This thread is growing old but should you be “coming back to this site, after a while”:

    Richard Courtney may be right that it would take a book to refute what you wrote. I will not try but I have a few thoughts. You start with:

    It reads as if you all sit around agreeing with each other and mocking or rubbishing anyone who disagrees with you.

    Huh? The only way you could say that is if you did not read what’s written on these pages, or if it didn’t matter to you because you are a troll not really interested in the discussion. If I give you the benefit of doubt I must assume that you read just a little bit but your urge to tell us what you think prevented you from reading any further. Anyone who spends any meaningful amount of time following the arguments at this site knows that there are deep and passionate disagreements even among the regular posters. You do not know it.

    On the small chance that anyone here is interested in increasing their knowledge of the world …

    I am sorry to say I know a few people who start their arguments with such arrogant statements.
    I find them really tiresome and avoid them as much as possible. If you try to influence anyone’s thinking you don’t start by insulting their intelligence and motivation. You and Prince Charles could benefit from a Dale Carnegie course.

    And finally: You seem to believe that you have profound insights into the heart and mind of Prince Charles. I have no clue if you are right but if so you did not do him any favors by telling the world about it.

    One gets the distinct sense that Her Majesty the Queen is performing her duty as a true Steward of the generations, rather than acting like one ( to paraphrase your words). Prince Charles, on the other hand, is acting more like you did in your comment: imprudently, condescendingly and self-righteously.

    God save the Queen. And God save us all if even more people with the attitudes exhibited by you and Prince Charles get in a position of power over us.

  307. Ach Tongue says:

    I should like to point out that SOME FLUNKY writes those speeches, and they probably hardly even register in the brain of His Royal Highness. He is SENT to give the speech which is written for him to say, and is merely a Puppet of “The Establishment” (err whatever that is anyhoo), Prince Charles is just an Ad Hoc Performer, who can be called upon a moments notice to spout some drivel or other on behalf of whoever the British Civil Service Mandarins decide, and that’s it really in a nutshell.

    Ian Skelly, Long Standing Malthusian Sustainability Freak from the BBC
    is one such Speechwriter and filmmaker, who fills the Prince’s Head with
    all this drivel and poppycock. Skelly has made plenty cash from projects
    that he has involved the Prince with, and has even managed to finagle
    the Prince to be Patron of his “Arts” Charity, to further “Philosophy” among
    the underprivileged of the World.

    Skelly I am calling you out – STOP IT NOW !!!!!!

    Just my opinion, and nobody else’s (unless you know different)

    See the full swish Ian Skelly Website and ask : -
    “is this a man to advise the future King of England?”

    Click My Name Please to see ….

    —– Ach Tongue !

  308. richardscourtney says:

    jon leach:

    re your post at February 4, 2014 at 4:40 am.

    I have not said, suggested or implied any consp1racy. Any implication that I have is wrong, is untrue, and is possibly malign.

    Richard

  309. richardscourtney says:

    Ach Tongue:

    At February 4, 2014 at 11:34 am you assert

    I should like to point out that SOME FLUNKY writes those speeches, and they probably hardly even register in the brain of His Royal Highness. He is SENT to give the speech which is written for him to say, and is merely a Puppet of “The Establishment” (err whatever that is anyhoo), Prince Charles is just an Ad Hoc Performer, who can be called upon a moments notice to spout some drivel or other on behalf of whoever the British Civil Service Mandarins decide, and that’s it really in a nutshell.

    Rubbish!
    Most of the speeches by Prince Charles will be written – in whole or in part – by a speech writer. That is true of most speeches by most public figures everywhere.

    People – including the civil service – will commend subjects for speeches to Prince Charles. That is reasonable because we have Free Speech.

    He cannot be “SENT to give the speech” and the heir to the throne is not – and cannot be – a “puppet” of anybody although his actions are constrained by the monarch.

    He decides what speeches to make and approves what will be in those speeches using advice from his advisors whom he chooses.

    Richard

  310. jon leach says:

    RichardCourtney

    You are quite right nothing you have said implied there was a conspiracy and i did not intend to malign you. I apologise for giving that impression.

    I suppose (this may have been trolling, or an experiment in how conspiracy theories gain supporters, or probably both) but having scanned some (out of 300+) of the replies here, i perceived that the Hive Mind on this thread could be formulating a Conspiracy Theory. By making it explicit I wanted to see if anyone in the Hive would bite.

    It would appear no one.

    What does this mean?

    People don’t perceive a conspiracy? There is no conspiracy? People who like conspiracy theories don’t like it when they are ribbed? Post NSA people are more careful?

  311. Colorado Wellington says:

    jon leach says:
    February 5, 2014 at 6:02 am

    I suppose (this may have been trolling, or an experiment in how conspiracy theories gain supporters, or probably both) but having scanned some (out of 300+) of the replies here, i perceived that the Hive Mind on this thread could be formulating a Conspiracy Theory. By making it explicit I wanted to see if anyone in the Hive would bite.

    It would appear no one.

    What does this mean?

    Ah, serious research. I’m sorry I got you wrong in my original post.

    Steady. Don’t give up. Carry on. It’s all about methodology. Asking the right questions. There must be a paper in it.

    Lewandowsky, Leach, Cook et al 2014.

  312. jon leach says:

    Thanks for the re-rib – touche!

    I kinda remember the Lewandowsky Incident but it (and he) does not appear to be notable enough to be found on Wikipedia much (although he/it is all over WUWT so maybe i should have said “touchy!” not “touche!”)

    But thanks for the stimulation… Lewandosky does appear on Wikipedia on a page called “Debunking” (a rather dodgy page to my eye). This linked across to a thing called “WikiProject : Scepticism”. It turns out there is a long tradition of ribbing people about their “conspiracy theory” tendencies including this piece from 1998 on (i think) quantum physics called the Crackpot Index.

    Have a look (its just for fun) but possibly bear in mind the published works of James Delingpole as you tot up the marks, especially towards the end of the list …

    “The Crackpot Index

    John Baez

    A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

    A -5 point starting credit.
    1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
    2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
    3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
    5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
    5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
    5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
    5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.
    10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
    10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
    10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
    10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
    10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
    10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.
    10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.
    10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.
    10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.
    20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it “suppresses original thinkers” or saying that I misspelled “Einstein” in item 8.)
    20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
    20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
    20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
    20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the “The Evans Field Equation” when your name happens to be Evans.)
    20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
    20 points for each use of the phrase “hidebound reactionary”.
    20 points for each use of the phrase “self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy”.
    30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
    30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
    30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
    30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
    40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
    40 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
    40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
    40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
    50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
    © 1998 John Baez
    baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

  313. Kate Forney says:

    I love the “climate change deniers” thing that the watermelon crowd trots out ad nauseam. I know of not a single soul who would deny that climate changes, although some seem to think that somehow it shouldn’t, and that we should impoverish millions or billions of people in a Quixotic effort to try to prevent it from doing so.

    One might argue that “Planet of the Apes” was a metaphor, but I see it as more as an asymptote of civilization’s current sad trajectory, where even science (save, mercifully, for the Queen of the Sciences) has succumbed to venality and crass materialism on the path to a more generalized and profound retrogression.

    It is, however, always darkest before the dawn, and the Second Renaissance is at hand.

Comments are closed.