Monckton: Challenge to Prince Charles

Lord Monckton invites ‘Chazza’ to spar over ‘unroyal’ global-warming remark

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales,
Clarence House, London.

Candlemas, 2014

Your Royal Highness’ recent remarks describing those who have scientific and economic reason to question the Establishment opinion on climatic apocalypse in uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy and a return to the direct involvement of the Royal Family, in the Person of our future king, no less, in the cut and thrust of partisan politics.

Now that Your Royal Highness has offered Your Person as fair game in the shootout of politics, I am at last free to offer two options. I need no longer hold back, as so many have held back, as Your Royal Highness’ interventions in politics have become more frequent and less acceptable in their manner as well as in their matter.

Option 1. Your Royal Highness will renounce the Throne forthwith and for aye. Those remarks were rankly party-political and were calculated to offend those who still believe, as Your Royal Highness plainly does not, that the United Kingdom should be and remain a free country, where any subject of Her Majesty may study science and economics, may draw his conclusions from his research and may publish the results, however uncongenial the results may be.

The line has been crossed. No one who has intervened thus intemperately in politics may legitimately occupy the Throne. Your Royal Highness’ arrogant and derogatory dismissiveness towards the near-50 percent of your subjects who no longer follow the New Religion is tantamount to premature abdication. Goodnight, sweet prince. No more “Your Royal Highness.”

Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects. You will find us a cheerfully undeferential lot. Most of us don’t live in palaces, and none of us goes everywhere with his own personalized set of monogrammed white leather lavatory seat covers.

The United Kingdom Independence Party, which until recently I had the honor to represent in Scotland, considers – on the best scientific and economic evidence – that the profiteers of doom are unjustifiably enriching themselves at our expense.

For instance, even the unspeakable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accepted advice from me and my fellow expert reviewers that reliance upon ill-constructed and defective computer models to predict climate was a mistake. Between the pre-final and final drafts of the “Fifth Assessment Report,” published late last year, the Panel ditched the models and substituted its own “expert assessment” that in the next 30 years the rate of warming will be half what the models predict.

In fact, the dithering old fossils in white lab coats with leaky Biros sticking out of the front pocket now think the rate of warming over the next 30 years could be less than in the past 30 years, notwithstanding an undiminished increase in the atmospheric concentration of plant food. Next time you talk to the plants, ask them whether they would like more CO2 in the air they breathe. Their answer will be Yes.

The learned journals of economics are near-unanimous in saying it is 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its supposedly adverse consequences the day after tomorrow.

Besides, in the realm that might have been yours there has been no change – none at all – in mean surface temperature for 25 full years. So if you are tempted to blame last year’s cold winter (which killed 31,000 before their time) or this year’s floods (partly caused by the Environment Agency’s mad policy of returning dozens of square miles of the Somerset Levels to the sea) on global warming, don’t.

You got your science and economics wrong. And you were rude as well. And you took sides in politics. Constitutionally, that’s a no-no. Thronewise, mate, you’ve blown it.

On the other hand, we Brits are sport-mad. So here is option 2. I am going to give you a sporting second chance, Charlie, baby.

You see, squire, you are no longer above politics. You’ve toppled off your gilded perch and now you’re in it up to your once-regal neck. So, to get you used to the idea of debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen, I’m going to give you a once-in-a-reign opportunity to win back your Throne in a debate about the climate. The motion: “Global warming is a global crisis.” You say it is. I say it isn’t.

We’ll hold the debate at the Cambridge Union, for Cambridge is your alma mater and mine. You get to pick two supporting speakers and so do I. We can use PowerPoint graphs. The Grand Debate will be televised internationally over two commercial hours. We let the world vote by phone, before and after the debate. If the vote swings your way, you keep your Throne. Otherwise, see you down the pub.

Cheers, mate!

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

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

Related: Chicken al la still not a king

336 thoughts on “Monckton: Challenge to Prince Charles

  1. The Monarchy is an institution we can only discard at our peril. Monarchs and potential monarchs are all human and have human failings. Unfortunately Prince Charles is inclined to display his failings. Let us not, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Overlook his failings.

  2. Oh, so well put.
    As a subject of Her Majesty’s Government in NZ in this former British Colony, or at least a citizen in a country that is still a Constitutional Monarchy, my support for it is being sorely tested by the bizarre utterings of the “PC” P.C. (His Royal Highness, P. C. that is).

  3. Ummm…where was this published? I ask, not because I think it’s a bad idea (I don’t), but because this has all the ear-marks of the kind of challenge that Charlie-boy might pretend to ignore.

  4. Magnificent. How do you get it so superb all the time?

    As to– Streetcred says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    lol ! I much rather prefer a single ‘option’, “Off with his head!”

    That was always the Royal prerogative and would be the Prince’s (?) option for what to do with the Lord Monckton for being far better informed than the prince.

    btw, what is he now, Charlie Windsor??

  5. Lovely wordsmithing.

    I wager that Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dare not meet Lord Monckton in the lists of logic.

  6. Charles III could follow the fate of Charles I with such intemperate remarks, if they were to continue ad nauseam..

    Either i) Convert irrevocably to being a kindly, lovable old duffer and become hugely popular, or ii) continue giving outspoken opinions about things you know nothing about and become famous for the one who ended the British monarchy.

    There is a third choice, which most of your subjects currently want: let the crown skip a generation and pass directly from Elizabeth to William.

  7. Surely this is treason? Do they still imprison people in The Tower of London followed by being hanged, drawn and quartered?
    /sarc

    P.S. we out here in the colonies will not be accepting a King Charles.

  8. Princesses and princes belong in fairy tales. Outside of them they are plain amusing. But it is a very expensive entertainment.

  9. Just wonderful Lord Monckton! I do hope he takes you up on your offer. But as long as Mother Nature doesn’t do what they say it should do, that’s alright too. They both will make Chazz & his friends look like the asses that they truly are.

  10. Excuse me Mr. Monckton we Texans have had a problem with the use of “Lord” for some time, no offense intended, Sir.

    On the other hand I will warn you, as you know Royal types do not enter fights where things are fair and balanced. Other hands will be upon you now and later.

    OT to you and Mr.Watts and others sort of and also sort on the point.
    I’m a Texas farmer/rancher and the family goes back to the Apache Chief Mangus Colorados (we are all non-reservation Apache “breeds”) and we do know a thing or two about weather trends as our lives depend on that knowledge. So when I talk to other farmers and ranchers I am worried about the information other farmers and ranchers are depending on to guide them on what to plant, how to plant, when to plant, what grass to use, you know how to “make it”.

    One of the sources is this lady , Evelyn Browning-Garriss of http://www.thebrowningreport.com and here is a sample news letter , http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11554292.htm/
    What do informed people make of her and her work?

    Seems to many that you and Mr. Watts have a huge duty to make sure mis-information aka lies do not mis inform mankind and every day farmers and ranchers into very bad (wrong) decisions.

    Thanks, sorry to interrupt this thead.

  11. I generally do like the patented Viscount Monckton of Brenchley rhetorical parry & thrust.

    But, the Royal Family is rather a bit of a sitting duck. If the Prince were really a compelling figure, who wins minds at his every utterance, that would be one thing.

    In fact, Prince Charles isn’t doing climate skeptics any bother, to fling a silly name.

    On the other hand, I do believe the Family as a whole is an asset to our overall point-of-view; yet they are exposed to hostile camps too, as a whole.

    We have tabloids that specialize in ridiculing Charles and the alchoholic shrew he drags around … hardly a day goes by, that they aren’t far-better pilloried than here. He ain’t git’n away with nothin’.

    I say, buck-up the Family, as a known Enemy of our Enemy.

    Signed, An Envious American ;-)

  12. All is not lost. Her Majesty is still going strong. If Her Methuselah gene is still in good shape (and HM’s mother lived to 102), she will outlive him. And he-who-talks-to-plants will just be a footnote.

  13. Well put M’Lord.
    We look forward to the Charlie’s (aka Prince Charles) response.
    Will he have the courage to pick up your gauntlet?
    Or will he earn the sobriquet of “Charlie the Chicken Heart”? (with apologies to Richard I Coeur de Lion aka “Richard I the Lion Heart”)

  14. Nuts in February – thats new.

    That the sceptic community thinks the Good Lord is so wonderful says it all.

    This is great:

    “The United Kingdom Independence Party, which until recently I had the honor to represent in Scotland, considers – on the best scientific and economic evidence – that the profiteers of doom are unjustifiably enriching themselves at our expense.”

    Best scientific and economic evidence ? He should take up comedy script writing. A discredited party with a leader who has just disowned his own 2010 Manifesto and which keeps having to sack its own elected members and officials for their extreme comments or behaviour !

    Guess who also got their marching orders within UKIP recently – no less than the Good Lord himself; Monckton the Brave:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ukip-wiped-out-north-of-the-border-after-its-scots-leader-is-sacked.22833054

    Getting serious, people in the UK are suffering right now from extreme weather that is entirely consistent with predictions of what would happen in a warmer world. There is serious damage being caused to coastal areas by relentless storms off the Atlantic as well as inland flooding caused by record rainfall.

    Prince Charles may not have chosen his words well, but equally he is not being political. He is just pointing out that there is a concerted attack on science going on by parts of the sceptic community. That Monckton lashed out using his usual convoluted prose was entirely predictable.

    If he wants a televised debate on climate science why not set one up with an actual climate scientist ? That would be essential viewing.

  15. Monkton, unfortunately, has become such an object of widespread ridicule he’s more part of the problem than the solution. Sure, if you want skeptics to be marginalized as whackos, then by all means align yourselves with his showboating, but he’s an easy target for the straw man that is the so-called “denier.”

    Surely, we can do better.

  16. God forbid that this man becomes king of Canada! I’ve just been tipped into the Republican camp.

  17. Charles blowing it like that opens up some interesting possibilities … Is it Charles personally who loses his claim to the throne, or is this a bigger deal? After Edward VIII abdicated, a 1936 Act denied throne access to any of his descendants. Sorry, Wills and Harry, but you may have just lost out too. But let’s face it, the Windsor line is in real trouble anyway if Scottish devolution goes ahead, because that would de-legitimise all royal lines from the Stewarts (James VI/I) onwards. So it looks like the next monarch will be from the Tudor line, and will be King Simon I (Simon Michael Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun) from Wangaratta, Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain%27s_Real_Monarch ….. Oops! ….. Loudoun is a Scottish earldom, do we have to go back to the Plantagenets? This inheritance thing is really rather tricky.

  18. In my youth little prince Charlie spent some years in a private boys school near Melbourne Australia. I do remember the boys having fun with Charlie.
    This Aussie experience may have damaged the poor dear, perhaps some fault on our part
    caused him to be some what peculiar. Genetics and the house training at the palace may also have had a detrimental effect.

    Good to see Chris telling it like it is, headless chickens indeed. The prince has put his head way outside the parapet.

  19. James Abbott says: February 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm;

    …[P]eople in the UK are suffering right now from extreme weather that is entirely consistent with predictions of what would happen in a warmer world.

    If you were planting Roman grapes in Merry England, it would be Global Warming. As the scouring Ice Sheets bear down from Scandinavia … it’s of course Global Warming.

    In fact, “predictions” were otherwise, weren’t they?

    [Didn’t I alert you to this dynamic, Lord Monckton? ;]

  20. fobdangerclose

    Thanks but not sure what info you need.

    The main point is that Monckton is not a credible person on climate science. So for example in his letter he says

    In the UK “there has been no change – none at all – in mean surface temperature for 25 full years.”

    As was pointed out by Zeke Hausfather earlier in this thread:

    The claim of 25 years of zero trend in the UK seems to run somewhat counter to the data: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-kingdom-(europe)

  21. Is there anything that is not consistent with predictions of what would happen in a warmer world?

  22. Prince Charles advises that just as we listen to scientists in other fields we should also listen to the climate scientists. THEN WHY DOESN’T HE LISTEN TO THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON HOMEOPATHY? He now advocates for homeopathy. when the consensus says it’s no better than a placebo.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hes-at-it-again-prince-charles-accused-of-lobbying-health-secretary-over-homeopathy-8723145.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10003680/Homeopathy-is-nonsense-says-new-chief-scientist.html

    PS Princess Charles has a long reputation for talking to his plants.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286883/Prince-Charles-revealed-instructs-plants.html

    You see here is the problem. When you are born with a diamond studded gold spoon in your mouth (on super steroids) you often get deluded. You have no grounding, no sense of no, no sense of freezing to death, no sense of a lack of air conditioning. If anyone disagrees with me then please tell me WHAT Prince Charles has a real world view of understanding???

  23. James, (ok if I use just “James”, anyhow…
    This Berkley info, do they want me to farm and ranch with less CO2 to feed my wheat, oats, and grass? Or do they have another thing I and others can use for plant food.

    Thanks for your response/responses

  24. charles will probably come back with “proof” he’s right!

    the following is attributed to AAP at the top, & AFP at the bottom

    6 Feb: Australian: AAP/AFP: 2013 was the sixth-hottest year on record, UN says
    LAST year tied for the sixth-hottest on record, confirming that Earth’s climate system is in the grip of warming that will affect generations to come, the UN’s weather agency says.
    “This is confirmation of the trend of global warming of the planet,” World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) chief Michel Jarraud said on Wednesday.
    Last year equalled 2007 as the sixth-warmest year since reliable records began in 1850, with a global land and ocean surface temperature that was 0.5 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the WMO said in a statement.
    Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, Jarraud said…
    Jarraud acknowledged in a statement that “the rate of warming is not uniform” in every country.
    Last year, for instance, was the hottest year on record in Australia, while the United States measured record highs in 2012. But, Jarraud said, “the underlying trend is undeniable”.
    “Global warming … is occurring. There is absolutely zero doubt. But more important, it is due to human activities,” he told AFP, pointing to record levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    “Our action, or inaction, to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases will shape the state of our planet for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren,” he said…
    The agency released the temperature data in advance of its Statement on the Status of the Climate in 2013, which will be published in March.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/was-the-sixthhottest-year-on-record-un-says/story-e6frg8y6-1226819287966

  25. Princess Charlie Boy has 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. Princess Charlie girl also likes to fly to receive environMENTAL awards in the USA. What is there not to like? If Charles kept his mouth shut I would not attack as he would be deemed to be just lucky. But he wants to preach therefore I attack. Charles should not preach to anyone about anything. Global warming or fidelity or anything else. Now do not get me going. Charles, [snip].

    http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/residences

  26. Jimbo,
    Thanks for your input, take Air Conditioning, why is it that Michael Mann, Al Gore etal have not gone full in investing in airconditioning manf. on the stock exchanges, seems the “met” retirement funds should have gone there if they would just have folllowed their own ideas on global warming and all that.

    thanks

  27. Ted Clayton

    No, its not the predictions that are the point – its the fact it is actually happening and that is consistent with the science.

    If the climate was cooling, sea level was not rising and storms were not getting more severe the sceptic community would have some evidence to back up their claims.

    But its the other way round.

    Rising sea levels and increased severity of storms are having serious impacts in the UK in terms of coastal erosion, damage to property and infrastructure. The rail link to Cornwall was badly damaged by the storms this week and will take probably months to rebuild. Coastal town proms and piers have been damaged, people have lost their homes to the sea or been flooded out by sea water overtopping the defences.

    For the UK sea level rise is probably the most serious threat from climate change in the short to medium term. Decisions are going to have to be made about which areas are defended and which not as there is not the money to do it all.

    Pretending its not happening – which I think Prince Charles was getting at – is just delusional.

  28. fobdangerclose says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    You make no interruption of the thread at all. As a Texas rancher and farmer, you live weather and know when you’re being hornswoggled. Good to hear from you.

  29. and here’s more “proof”!!!

    6 Feb: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Mid-Century Heat Will Be Tough to Beat in U.K., Study Says
    Hot weather disruptions are projected to rise as decades pass — they already have — taking metropolitan areas dangerously past historic high temperatures, sometimes for days or weeks at a time.
    A study of the U.K. this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, sees a rising probability of dangerous heatwaves as the century progresses. Heat-related deaths could rise by more than 250 percent by mid-century, with some of the most dramatic increases occurring in London.
    Researchers from two British institutions studied the relationship between weather and mortality between 1993 and 2006, then combined their findings with 21st century warming projections…
    The study emphasizes that its projections occur “in the absence of any adaptation of the population” — an assumption already wearing away, as cities and companies reinvent themselves for a changing world.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/mid-century-heat-will-be-tough-to-beat-in-u-k-study-says.html

  30. Also James,

    Help me as I am land bound. Post some facts aka links I/we can review on where the sea levels are rising, with data on how much and when as compared to normal wear and tear from the last million or so years of waves,storms and such.
    Thanks,

  31. fobdangerclose

    No there is not going to be less CO2 anytime soon.

    CO2 is of course vital to the biosphere and for growing crops but like many other substances it has more than one function. In the atmosphere its a greenhouse gas – as has been known since the C19th.

    There is currently about 40% higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in the 1700s (pre-industrial) and its going up every year.

    The imperitive is just to stop it going up but there is no sign of the rate of growth slowing yet.

  32. Waddayah say Charlie?

    Got the nuts for it sonny?

    Yeeup, same old, same old Charlie, he’s got a plantation of plenty in the ‘nuts’ department but no sir, he ain’t got any c8j8*es.

  33. Charlie will claim he’s part of the program:

    6 Feb: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: European parliament votes for stronger climate targets
    MEPs respond to earlier commission proposal with call for binding 2030 targets on renewables, emissions and energy efficiency
    In a decisive vote, 341 to 263 MEPs called for three binding targets for 2030: a 40% cut in greenhouse gases, compared with 1990 levels; at least 30% of energy to come from renewable sources; and a 40% improvement in energy efficiency.
    This was stronger than the proposal from the European commission last month, that called for 27% of energy to come from renewable sources by the same date…
    Ed Davey, secretary of state for energy and climate change said: “The right 2030 package will unlock low carbon investment, while keeping consumers’ energy bills down. The vote in the European Parliament is one stage in the process and we are pleased that MEPs have come out in favour of an ambitious climate package for 2030.
    “I am leading the argument for the right package through the Green Growth Group, which fifteen countries are now part of. Over the last two days I have been talking to my colleagues in Berlin and in Paris to ensure we can get agreement to a progressive plan that will reduce emissions without unnecessary costs.”
    Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate commissioner, said the vote was a “good result” and she hoped European governments would “listen” to it. Green campaigners and renewable energy companies welcomed the vote, saying it showed that the 2030 proposals should be strengthened…
    Stephane Bourgeois, of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), which represents the industry, said: “The European parliament has again shown it is the most forward-thinking of the EU’s institutions…”…
    Jason Anderson, head of climate and energy at WWF, said: “MEPs reacted to the commission’s weak climate and energy proposals with a much-needed reality check. Energy efficiency and renewables are integral to achieving a low-carbon future and can’t be downgraded to afterthoughts.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/european-parliament-votes-renewables-targets

  34. Pat,

    Do you have a link to a study of this relationship between weather and mortality say between 3,000 BC and 1 AD that should help in making long range judgements needed.
    thanks

  35. This post by Monckton is very simple. Can the eco-hypocrites please shut up to allow the rest of us to get on with the debate?

    His former wife died in an accident, she went out in flashing lights, dazed and confused drivers which I thought was conspiratorial nonsense. Yet Charles thinks he can offend skeptics with his eco-tard bullshit. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN. LONG LIVE QUEEN ELIZABETH 2ND. May her grandson take over. [snip] For our US friends, Mrs. Charlie Boy is bored with wealth. He needs to feel important. Climate change makes him feel hypocritical and important. What’s not to like???

  36. Sort of off topic, but…
    When I was a child, we used to talk about the Soviets having a ‘sham’ democracy. Yes, they had a constution, elections, and so forth. But everybody knew the elections were meaningless.

    Some years later I realized that the UK is not in fact a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy is a system where the monarch has specific defined powers and must operate within a constitutional framework. England under George III was a constitutional monarchy. Germany under Kaiser Bill was a constitutional monarchy. A monarchy where the monarch reigns but does not rule is simply a ‘sham’ monarchy.

    Of course nowadays it seems that US elections have also been rendered meaningless.

  37. James at 5:07

    Well it must be my fault as the 40% more CO2 should have made my crops much more productive, possible 40% better or so, sorry I failed you so bad. I may have to sell out and quit.

  38. So the esteemed Christopher Monckton has taken up the lance of Don Quixote.

    He, more than most, should understand that the Royals are above all rules. One reason we do not accept their divine role.

  39. This nitwit, wannabe tampon has shown such poor judgement in his personal life that he came close to bringing down the monarchy. Rescued by his mother’s coughing up of a bit of token tax he still hasn’t tumbled to the fact that he is a fundamentally stupid muppet who was run ragged by a bimbo.
    Headless chicken! [snip]

  40. I like Prince William and his bro.Despite there privilege their mother seems to have done some excellent work. Well done Diana.

  41. James Abbott says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Ted Clayton

    “No, its not the predictions that are the point – its the fact it is actually happening and that is consistent with the science….. The rail link to Cornwall was badly damaged by the storms this week and will take probably months to rebuild.”

    Baaaaah. Baaaah. Get a grip James and keep up. I can see you believing all this stuff 5-10 yrs ago (so did I) but even your IPCC has had to back down on the science and they even say there is no connection between warming/CO2 and extreme weather. It was skeptics doing real science that forced IPCC’s change of heart.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/

    Oh and CAGW floods are hurting your railways, eh? Its been happening since the 1840s!! Having ridden on your rails from Newcastle to London, I’m predicting this line will fail, hopefully not catastrophically, with or without global warming. I couldn’t even raise a cup of coffee safely to my lips as we rock and rolled along.

    http://www.ice.org.uk/ICE_Web_Portal/media/Events/Railway-bridge-failure-during-flood-in-the-UK-v2-Nov-12.pdf

    “There have been15 fatalities and perhaps 4 -5 times that number of injuries which can be attributed to structure failure during flooding on the GB railway system since the 1840s. The resulting economic damage is estimated to be at least £287 million (2004 figures)….”

  42. I did not like what Prince Charles said, but I like that when he sincerely believes something he has the guts to say what is going on in his head, which are very often very cranky thoughts. Occasionally he gets it right, as when he opposed the proposed extension to the façade of the National Gallery in Trafalgar square, and his remark is credited with stopping one of our most important historical landmarks from being used and abused by trendy architects of the 70s many of whom would gladly have pulled down half of Victorian London if it meant that they could replace it with their cheap and tacky creations. The Architects were fuming, most of the rest of the nation were relieved that arrogance had been stopped by one simple remark from the prince.

    Most British people see him as being a little bit pathetic, but well meaning and probably destined to become a weak but sufficient King. They wont like these taunts because they will feel personally offended and protective.

    Charles was not being vindictive, he simply lacks the clarity and independence of thought to to see through what his flunkys are telling him or to realise when he has been duped. In this he is like the majority of people in Britain who read tacky journalism and watch the BBC and Sky. He deserves (needs) some very candid letters, perhaps from Monkton who is after all a Lord. Gentle words and conversation would probably achieve more than this attempt at public humiliation which will cause his friends to point at Monkton and make their own taunts (silly childish taunts)

    A debate will never happen, Charles has no depth of knowledge or debating skills to engage Lord Monkton, so what is the point of this post? It ups the game just in the direction they warmists like, one where everything becomes not about the science but instead about who taunts loudest.

  43. Roger Dewhurst says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    Overlook his failings.
    =============
    The Queen doesn’t trust Charles to be King, so why should we?

  44. fobdangerclose

    Sea level is rising about 3mm per year at present

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/issea.pdf

    Of course we have had changes in sea level, tides and storms for billions of years. But the point is that the current rise in sea level is in a warming world associated with our activities in pumping so much extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere amplifying the greenhouse effect.

    The last time sea level was significantly higher there were not major cities with millions of people living in them in coastal areas – or millions living in low lying farming regions.

    brent

    You might not think light polluiton is an issue, but lots of other people do and there is good work going on around the world to take measures to curb it which brings back the night sky and saves energy – but then maybe you don’t mind if we waste energy ?

    http://darksky.org/

  45. There is currently about 40% higher concentration of CO2 . . .

    I think I am hearing an echo of “rgates” – didn’t the host throw him out about a year or two ago?

  46. why do businesses agree to play this ridiculous game?

    6 Feb: Bloomberg: Ben Elgin: Handshakes and Body English Vex Corporate Carbon-Cutting Goals
    Global companies are trying to shrink their carbon footprints by targeting business travel, and the early results are frustrating, even among companies with celebrated green credentials.
    Consider Nike, which flew several managers to Davos last month, and was proclaimed by Newsweek to be the greenest U.S. consumer products company back in 2010. Since then, it has revealed that its travel-related emissions soared 89 percent from 2008 to 2011 — far outpacing the company’s 12 percent sales growth during that period.
    They’re not alone. “Travel is a tough one,” says Andrew Craig, senior manager of environmental initiatives at Royal Bank of Canada…
    (Bloomberg L.P.’s business air-travel emissions climbed almost 35 percent between 2007 and 2012. Curtis Ravenel, global head of Bloomberg’s sustainability group, notes that the company’s travel emissions have grown more slowly than its 52 percent rise in employee count. “Travel will always be a challenge for us,” he says. “We’re a high-touch business. Customer service is a fundamental part of our business model.”)…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/handshakes-and-body-english-vex-corporate-carbon-cutting-goals.html

  47. I like the mixed lingo – “for aye” (i.e., forever) and “Chazza!” Robin Williams might side with Charles on content but would have to render unto Monckton the palm on form cuz that’s Robin’s speed and whatnot.

  48. James Abbott @ February 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm;

    Such sea level increases as have occurred, are global. Any effects to coastlines etc, would not be peculiar to the British Isles. If peculiar effects are seen there, and not so much elsewhere, this will then be a matter of peculiar susceptibility to erosion etc (which certainly is the case, in some specific locales) rather than from the slight rises of sea level. The rise has really been of modest-enough extent, that it is quite swamped by tides, and storm-surges.

    The ‘extreme weather/storms’ argument is not strong. Many different kinds of specific claims in this category have been tabled, and many have clearly been support mainly by enthusiasm. It’s a ‘bad’ (weak) argument, because even if it were true, it would prodigiously difficult to collect the scientific data to really validate it. As it is, we have anecdotes and ‘trial by media’.

    There was supposed to be progressive warming, with increasing CO2, and instead there is a solid Pause. Have you seen the winter weather patterns in the USA? To label this an effect of the former warming trend, is a position one attempts to take only if in possession of evidence that will be really convincing … to the shivering millions.

    Did you see in Google News today that the entire United States is running out of road salt?

    Everyone is entitled to their view, their conclusions. There are people whom I think are more-egregiously off-mark than yourself. But yes, I think your characterizations of the local pattern in the UK, and the global factors purportedly behind them, are both, indeed, off the mark.

    Ted Clayton

  49. James,
    We do a end of round up deal were we jump our horses into the stock pond all at the same time.
    Makes big waves and all the water in the stock pond moves about. Any chance that gravity, the spin of the earth, and other forces have effects on this 3mm change and or what if say later we find a 3mm lower sea shore? Long data sets seem to be a sure requirement before we all go back into caves or wikeups of grass and mud.

  50. I say
    2 Colt Peacemakers in Dodge City, KS on Wyatt Earp in front of ” El Capitan” ought to solve the problem of a prince.

    Or we could move the gunfight to Ellsworth or Abilene…
    Heck I am sure we can rustle up a few longhorns to boot!
    And let us not forget the gambling in the saloon before.

    A prince – how quaint.

  51. Remember the fate of Thomas Becket under the Plantagenets
    Remember the fate of Thomas More under the Tudors
    What will be the fate of Monckton under Coburg-Gothe / Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

  52. This may get me in trouble. But James you see we Apache did not live down by the sea prior. Oh the fish were easy to catch and food a plenty. But the storms did bad things. So we left that to the poor dumb tribes who no longer exist due to the stroms drowning them all. We like the high mountains of New Mexico and the nice warm springs boiling up in some of the mountin streams.
    Those who live by the sea can and often die by the sea.

  53. Well.I guess the UK may just have to settle for the American claimant to the Crown of St Edward after all then……the rightful heir as it turns out…..besides,it’s high time they had an American King

  54. Careful Christopher…he might de-Lord you. After all he is at the apex of the English Aristocracy of which you are a member!

  55. Julian in Wales @ February 5, 2014 at 5:18 pm;

    Very well said. Hilary Mantel could have advised pointedly on this course.

    Ted Clayton

  56. Can the Queen disown Prince Charles as her heir? He has called me a headless chicken, I don’t want him as my King.

  57. Charles recent statements has changed me into an anti-monarchist in Canada, my allegiance to my figure head Queen will end with Elizabeth II. Charles MUST abdicate his claim to the throne as the constitutional monarch of Canada. Thank you for such well written words Lord Moncton

  58. Charles, you may have been vaguely aware that we ‘subjects’ have kept you and your family in relatively idle luxury for many decades. The ‘quid pro quo’ was that you would spare us your political insights. Clearly, taxpayer generosity is no longer sufficient to buy your neutrality. So be it. I therefore suggest you renounce your office. And with one leap, you would be free – to earn money, pay taxes and express whatever enters your head – just like us.

    Lord Monckton offers an alternative choice – one which would preserve your royal privileges. If you believe you have strong evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, then you could take up his challenge. You must know at least a couple of chums, prepared to back up your beliefs. How hard can it be to argue against three ‘headless chickens’ ?

    So Charles, having your cake and eating it is no longer on the menu. Neither is fudge. I may be wrong – but I believe you have courage. It’s time to show it.

  59. Some time ago Prince Charles advised that nanotechnology would create “grey goo” which would envelope the world.

    His wish to his current wife about his reincarnation preferences is well known.

    Now he has selected AGW, a dismal failure propped up by money, power, vanity and some weird, misanthropic green ideology, and has been as oppressive in his comments as other people like Clive Hamilton who do not want sceptics to have a voice.

    In short he has abused his position many times to promote idiotic positions which have overwhelmed his occasional forays to promote worthwhile ones.

    He should accept LM’s challenge or shut up..

  60. Coronating Prince Charles King of England would be like making Don Knotts head of Interpol. It would be fun as long as everyone realized it was only a joke.

  61. This is precisely the kind of irreverent disregard for hereditary preferment that led hundreds of thousands of Brits to come to America (including my wife’s parents) and get away from a life of deferential humiliation. I would like to recommend you to be an honorary American. Any time you want to hang out with some ex pat Brits of like mind in eastern Pennsylvania come over and we’ll go down to the pub for a pint and some shepherd’s pie

  62. the United Kingdom should be and remain a free country” As a border satrapy of the undemocratic, bureaucracy-addled, fiat-addicted EU, the United Kingdom is now not and may never again be a free country.

    The sole route to survival for the British, that font of freedom and independence, is to repel the EU with peremptory dispatch and as much disdain as is possible to show. Let the continent wallow alone in its priggishness. It will avail them nothing but decline. The world needs an individualistic and British Britain. Today’s horrid social climate requires me to add that by British I mean civil culture, not ethnicity.

  63. Dang! Popcorn! KNEW I forgot something…
    Actually, a much needed wake up call to Royalty.
    Perhaps the Queen will jerk his chain? (Charles)

  64. http://gulfbusiness.com/2013/10/book-review-a-economic-horror-story/#.UvLoarStblg

    When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence

    Charles lives in a bubble, as does the liberal press. They follow the Aunty Mime principal: If you saying something very sincerely three times it must be true. Alternatively, if all your friends say the same thing very emphatically it must be true. No need to look at the facts to weigh pros/cons. There was a time when it was a matter of honor and responsibility to not make statements without thoughtful investigation of both sides of an issue. Leaders do not lead countries off of cliffs.
    The Western economies cannot support the programs we currently have and we have wasted trillions of dollars on green scams that have made almost no difference in world CO2 emission increases which is not a problem anyway.

    The US’s and the EU’s long term security/viability are dependent on economic success and fiscal constraints. There is an idiotic idea that we can use deficit spending and/or money printing schemes to spend our way into prosperity. That has been tried before, it ends in riots and bank collapses. We are losing to China and heading towards a currency collapse.

  65. This could actually be quite healthy for both The Monarchy and the UK as a nation. Two generations prior to Prince Charles’ generation, a reckoning was experienced that made history. The heir to the throne determined he was not fit to rule the Realm and did the honourable thing. That is not to say we will see a similar outcome in this case. However, a healthy conversation is coming due.

  66. Well said, Viscount Monckton. Strong, plainspoken, and a fair challenge. Although Prince Charles would not be my King (in US not UK), I will take his response as a measure of the man who would be King. Recently, humankind was treated to a sort of arrested-puberty accession, Kim Jong Il/Kim Jong Un etc., such that musings regarding “headless chickens” are more readily associated with a state of arrested-puberty not maturity. Meaning there are at least two levels of accession to be considered here; maturity over adolescence and gaining the uber-respect of your peers, things which will always attend a man who would be King.

    Your response will be instructive.

  67. Zeke writes “your claim of 25 years of zero trend in the UK seems to run somewhat counter to the data”

    Ouch. I assume Zeke’s address has been hacked because that post is nowhere near Zeke’s standard.

    Monkton’s claim was 25 years of no warming to which Zeke offered more than 250 years of data where the yearly average doesn’t obviously disagree with the claim and neither does the 10 year rolling average which is a poor choice to dispute a claim of 25 years of anything.

  68. James Abbott says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm Getting serious, people in the UK are suffering right now from extreme weather that is entirely consistent with predictions of what would happen in a warmer world.

    It is entirely consistent with living in England where it often rains a lot, and sometimes rains a lot more.

    When that happens, and it floods, voters start asking serious questions about why the Environment Agency wasn’t doing what it should have been. For crying out loud, the Dutch have built a country below sea-level.

  69. Mike Jonas said:

    “So it looks like the next monarch will be from the Tudor line, and will be King Simon I (Simon Michael Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun) from Wangaratta, Australia.
    .. Oops! ….. Loudoun is a Scottish earldom, do we have to go back to the Plantagenets?”

    Mike, the Abney-Hastings are the heirs to the Plantagenets, not the Tudors (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG4Ec9nEwwk).

  70. Hear, hear!
    You have said what many have thought, but few have the courage and station to say, or be taken seriously!
    Thank you.

  71. And for all of Mr Abbott’s wailing about environmental catastrophes in the UK, he has yet to prove any link to CO2. Let alone that somehow this season is truly unprecedented.

  72. Lord Monckton,

    As the Mexicans say, XLNT!

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

    James Abbott says:

    “…the point is that the current rise in sea level is in a warming world associated with our activities in pumping so much extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere amplifying the greenhouse effect.”

    And:

    “The main point is that Monckton is not a credible person on climate science.”

    Wrong, James. But who’s counting any more?

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

    Zeke Hausfather says:

    “Also, your claim of 25 years of zero trend in the UK seems to run somewhat counter to the data…”

    Zeke, your graph shows that the temperature in England has just dropped below year 1750.

  73. James Abbott says: February 5, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    Decades of green-led inadequate maintenance has nothing to do with it then? My son is a civil engineer who worked on coastal defence and storm drainage in that area after the 2010 floods. He can “explain it away” for you in intimate detail complete with numerous expletives. It’s known as “counting fish instead of pouring concrete” syndrome.

  74. Lord Monckton that was delicious indeed. It is well past time someone stood up to Charles, and he has indeed crossed the lines into politics. This guy is a petty little tyrant – and he is doing enormous damage to the crown just when William, Kate, and Harry have done so much to make it modern and relevant for the first time in decades.

  75. OT
    But to show how these nut job green cult members end up meeting themselves coming both directions and a big wreck of mindless operations comes about.

    In west Texas lots of trouble with the EPA to get the ok to drill for oil due to this poor little rare lizzard.
    Now it seems the wild hogs (who via imported hogs from Argentina got to West Texas via LBJ and the Dept. of Ag. to eat prikly pears back in the 1950’s) are rooting up the lizzards and eating the grass roots the lizzards nest in and around.
    No, your not supposed to kill the hogs also. So they are ruining farm land, pasturer land and messing up the river bottoms all over Texas. In some areas we are hunting them and selling the meat to the French.
    EPA and the nut job Democrats are a dangerous cult who are getting the human race in a lot of trouble and will end up a danger to all mankind.

  76. I guess my Private Eye King Charles III Coronation Mug must have appreciated in value. I left it at my mother’s place. She thought it was “rather unsuitable” but stuck a hyacinth in it.
    Wonder what happened to it …
    I don’t mind him talking to plants. They at least get a CO2 boost (5% instead of 0.04%).

  77. I’ve started a petition on change.org. Having signed it myself, we need only 49,999 more. Put up or shut up, ChuckEChicken! Spread it far and wide. While you’re at it, why don’t you send his Royal self a short (polite, please) note urging him to respect those wiser and more studied on the subject than he.

    https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/contact-us

    Or write him a letter, even give him a dingle. Just keep it civil, thanks. More flies with honey and all that, you know. Not that I’m calling him a fly, headless or otherwise…

    http://www.royal.gov.uk/Contactus/Contact%20a%20member%20of%20the%20Royal%20Family.aspx

    But whatever you do, remember to sign and disseminate the petition. Thanks.

    https://www.change.org/petitions/prince-charles-debate-lord-monckton-on-the-topic-global-warming-is-a-global-crisis

  78. Imagine the turmoil that will follow next time Charles drops in to visit Lieutenant Wales (aka Prince Harry) in the regimental mess; when Charles is heard to mutter, “Who will rid me of this troublesome Lord”.

  79. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:

    Climate Alarmists like Prince Charles believe that nothing about Climate Change is Natural. The Climate started to change 100 years ago due to man’s sin against Nature. Man’s sin against Nature was the discovery of fossil fuel which led to the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, in the lunatic beliefs of Climate Alarmists, is responsible for destroying Mother Earth. According to Climate Alarmists beliefs, the only way to save Mother Earth from the sins of man is to destroy the instrument of that sin, Fossil Fuel. Once Fossil Fuel has been destroyed than man can go back to being one with nature. The problem with this belief is that prior to the discovery of fossil fuel life was short and brutal for 99% of humanity. Mother Earth didn’t fare that well either as forests were chopped down for fire wood and rivers and lakes were polluted with human waste. Typical progressives promising Utopia delivering Hell.

  80. Thank you Lord Monckton and Anthony. My day too was brighter for having read this . Here In Australia our Governor General, as the Queen’s representative, also felt compelled to make political comments in a recent speach. She and HRH are helping the republican cause here. We will not accept King Charles thanks.

    He’s also up to his neck in Agenda 21 having taken his mother’s ship to Rio in 1992 . He’s probably a Malthusian too. No doubt he sees a major role for himself or his successors In the totalitarian one world government that will be the denouement of Agenda 21.

  81. Zeke Hausfather says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    I agree, we should all strive to be an “cheerfully undeferential lot”. But why not go one step further and eliminate the aristocracy all together, so that our fates are determined more by our actions than an accident of birth?

    ————————-

    The most disturbing thing about Charles is that he slimes in with those lefties, who never had or never will appreciate the good that monarchy brought about, and on the other side destroys respect from his once loyal supporters.

  82. As chance would have it I was just reading Cowper’s “Winter Morning Walk:”

    Great princes have great playthings. Some have played
    At hewing mountains into men, and some
    At building human wonders mountain high.
    Some have amused the dull sad years of life,
    Life spent in indolence, and therefore sad,
    With schemes of monumental fame; and sought
    By pyramids and mausolean pomp,
    Short-lived themselves, to immortalize their bones.

  83. It is very difficult for me, and apparently many others, to comment about Chuckie without resorting to expletives and insults.

    However, I give you this: further reason to despise this royal piece of crap.
    GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! Hang in there, Your Highness, let the crown skip a generation

  84. Monkton: It seems to me that you could have just called Charles a dummy and been done with it. Of course, he wouldn’t have answered that letter, either. Good luck.

  85. From the west side of the Atlantic, I have a question. What is the purpose of the royal hierarchy (i.e. king, queen, prince)? Is there any value or power or just a window dressing?

  86. Kate & Wills are the next true King and Queen! not old Catholic Camilla and her silly chicken head husband who talks “defender of faith” instead of “defender of THE faith”

  87. 6 Feb: Courier Mail: Annabel Hepworth: Gas prices force switch to coal for power stations
    QUEENSLAND’S largest power generator will today declare that Australia is one of the world’s most expensive countries for energy and warn that the electricity market is being distorted by the carbon tax, mandatory renewables target and solar-rooftop subsidies. After Stanwell took the extraordinary step yesterday of announcing it would mothball its biggest gas-fired power station and resurrect a coal facility built in the 1980s – sparking predictions that gas-fired power plants would be withdrawn in other states – it will today call for a scaling back of the renewable energy target…

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/gas-prices-force-switch-to-coal-for-power-stations/story-e6frg9df-1226819086580#

  88. premature abdication

    I may…wheeze…wheeze….pant, pant…. have ruptured….wheeze….my spleen.

  89. Now you understand why the Queen : god love: her will stay in power for many years to come .I hope she will see 105 years If that happens Charles will not be happy but we headless chooks will be

  90. February 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm | James Abbott says:

    [ … ] For the UK sea level rise is probably the most serious threat from climate change in the short to medium term. Decisions are going to have to be made about which areas are defended and which not as there is not the money to do it all.[ … ]

    ——-
    That’s laughable … sea level ‘rises’ in the UK are not cause of rising water but rather sinking land and erosion.
    You can Google it … you can Google ?

  91. eyesonu

    The hierarchy is there solely to delineate the order of precedence to succeed to the throne in the event of the current incumbent dropping down dead, becoming a heroin junkie, being bumped off by murderous foreign marauders or suffering the ill-effects of an abortive military coup.

    Traditionally, the women were kept firmly in their place, only being allowed to succeed in the dreadful event that the previous King couldn’t produce a son (the lack of which caused ore than one queen to be bumped off). Nowadays, they have recently introduced equal rights for women in the rules of succession, which won’t matter a jot for the next two generations as old Charlie Boy and Wills were first out of their mothers wombs.

    It’s a bit like you lot having strict rules for what to do when you bump off a President who tried to stand up to the gun lobby, who thought that military conquest wasn’t the sole raison d’être of US foreign policy or was simply too good looking to be controlled by the Federal Reserve oligopolists who rule your major banks with such compassion, distinction and humanity.

  92. James Abbott says:
    February 5, 2014 at 5:31 pm
    ——————————————

    James,
    just give up on the “Extreme Weather” tactic, it can never work. There is too much historical data contradicting it. The “Extreme weather” meme is just extreme propaganda, being used by those desperate to keep pushing politically motivated pseudo science. No matter what lies the propagandists try, their foundation is still the failed hypothesis that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. They failed to correctly model the role of radiative gases in tropospheric convective circulation and this fact is recorded forever on the Internet. All the pseudo scientists, activists, journalists and politicians who promoted or sought to profit from this hoax cannot erase this historical fact.

    Speaking of historical facts, this is link to James A. Marusek’s “A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events”.

    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf

    At over 15Mb the pdf may be a large download for some, but it is a must read document. With translated reports of weather from 6AD it is a fascinating read. It is full of fantastic records such as –

    “Winter of 763 / 764 A.D. In the same year (763 A.D.), it was bitterly cold after the beginning of October, not only in our land, but even more so to the east, west, and north. Because of the cold, the north shore of the Black Sea froze to a depth of 30 cubits (~ 45 feet) a hundred miles out. This was so from Ninkhia to the Danube River, including the Kouphis, Dniester, and Dnieper Rivers, the Nekrophela, and the remaining promontories all the way to Mesembria and Medeia. Since the ice and snow kept on falling, its depth increased another twenty cubits (~ 30 feet), so that the sea became dry land. It was travelled by wild men and tame beasts from Khazaria, Bulgaria, and the lands of other adjacent people. By divine command, during February of the same (764 A.D.) second indication the ice divided into a great number of mountainous chunks. The force of the wind brought them down to Daphnousia and Hieron, so that they came through the Bosporos to the city (Constantinople or Istanbul) and all the way to Propontis, Abydos, and the islands, filling every shore. We ourselves were an eyewitness and, with thirty companions, went out onto one of them and played on it. The icebergs had many dead animals, both wild and domestic, on them. Anyone who wanted to could travel unhindered on dry land from Sophianai to the city and from Chrysopolis to St. Mamas or Galata. One of these icebergs was dashed against the harbour of the acropolis, and shattered it. Another mammoth one smashed against the wall and badly shook it, so that the houses inside trembled along with it. It broke into three pieces, which girdled the city from Magnaura to the Bosporos, and was taller than the walls. All the city’s men, women, and children could not stop staring at the icebergs, then went back home lamenting and in tears, at a loss as to what to say about this phenomenon. (Theophanes the Confessor).3”

    Anyone who reads this document will never again believe any global warmist who tries to push “extreme weather” propaganda.

  93. February 5, 2014 at 5:55 pm | cohenite says:

    His wish to his current wife about his reincarnation preferences is well known.

    ——
    A suppository would be more fitting (pun intended).

  94. The most memorable boots I ever purchased for my kids were wellies with frog faces. Camillies with the face of Camilla as the toe and Charles as the heel are in order.

  95. James Abbott says:
    February 5, 2014 at 5:31 pm. Gary Pearse
    Some of the structures built in the C19th have just been smashed to pieces.
    You cannot explain this away, its actually happening right now:
    ______________________________________

    Not only CAN it be explained away, the reason is bl**dy obvious. This particular railway was built on the beach and in the sea, because the hinterland is too hilly for a railway, without incurring huge expense.

    It is hardly surprising that a railway built in the sea eventually gets washed away. The only surprising thing, is that it lasted so long, which is a testament to the engineers who built it. (It was a Brunel project, so it is not surprising it lasted so well.)

    ralph

  96. P.S. to my mate Monckton,

    If the royalty goes, so does your title and your privilages.
    See you down the pub, mate………
    ;-)

  97. 5 Feb: TechWeekEurope: EU Carbon Trading Chokes On Data Centre Diesels
    Data centres burn almost no diesel, but the EU’s carbon trading scheme is taxing them by mistake, says Peter Judge
    But entry to the ETS isn’t about how much fuel you burn. It’s based on the capacity. If you have generator capacity of more than 7MW, you may well have to register, even if you never use it. Whether you register or not depends on the exact nature of your diesel generator, Fryer told TechWeek…
    Unintended consequences
    This is where it gets screwy. Because you have a big set of generators, you have to register, but because you rarely use them, you don’t actually have to buy much in the way of allowances. And in any case carbon credits are actually pretty cheap.
    So, data centres have to buy a few hundred pounds worth of allowances per site… and spend something like £10,000 registering for the scheme and administering it.
    ***That’s a pretty hefty unintended consequence. How did it get that way? Fryer told us data centres are “collateral” or innocent bystanders…

    http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/comment/carbon-trading-data-centre-diesels-138293

    4 Feb: EurActiv: France launches probe into EU carbon market reform plan
    The European Commission’s proposed carbon price stabilisation mechanism is a “masterpiece of Brussels technocracy” that could fuel greater market volatility, says a group of academics on the proposed package of 2030 climate legislation, EurActiv.fr reports…
    ‘Robot’ to regulate carbon prices
    Thanks to an econometric model called Zephyr, the university researchers analysed in detail the proposals put forward by the EU executive.
    The good news is that the mechanism could push prices up – at least as of 2021…
    The bad news is that the “stability” mechanism could be a source of further volatility, the researchers found…
    ***Rather than entrusting the management of the carbon market to a robot, France is favourable to establishing a genuine “central bank for carbon” which could manage the carbon market like a currency.
    “It’s been one of the topics of discussion but the mission continues and no conclusion is adopted at the time being,” Charpin cautioned.

    http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/french-academic-question-eu-carb-news-533248

  98. John Hopper says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Monkton, unfortunately, has become such an object of widespread ridicule he’s more part of the problem than the solution. Sure, if you want skeptics to be marginalized as whackos, then by all means align yourselves with his showboating, but he’s an easy target for the straw man that is the so-called “denier.”

    Surely, we can do better.
    ——————————————————————————————
    Glad to see someone on this site has a sense of humour and understands irony.!!
    /sarc – this is for your benefit John H.

  99. rtj1211 says:
    February 5, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    =========

    Thanks for your reply. I was honestly referencing as to what power or influence the crown has in modern political/policy matters. In past history (my understanding) the king/queen called all the shots. Does it still work that way?

    Needless to say there are serious issues with the way things now work on this side of the pond.

  100. ***is sanity being restored in Australia?

    6 Feb: ABC: Prime Minister vows to revisit renewable energy target
    ELEANOR HALL: The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is vowing to look closely at changing Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET), as Queensland’s biggest energy generator warns that the target is pushing up costs in the industry…
    STEPHANIE SMAIL: Stanwell delivered a bombshell yesterday, announcing it will close its gas-fired power station west of Brisbane in favour of reopening one of its cheaper coal-fired power stations…
    TONY ABBOTT: We’ve got a Renewable Energy Target review coming up soon and what it will be looking at, amongst other things is the impact of the RET on people’s power prices. Now plainly there is an impact and we want to moderate and reduce that impact and that’s what the review will be looking at.
    STEPHANIE SMAIL: Stanwell also wants the carbon tax and uncapped solar feed-in tariffs dumped.
    Mr Abbott agrees that Australia has become one of the world’s most expensive countries for energy.
    He says the carbon tax needs to go and other energy policies might need tweaking…
    ***TONY ABBOTT: Australia has an abundance of coal, we have an abundance of gas. We should be the affordable energy capital of the world but instead, as this particular company has pointed out, we are becoming amongst the most expensive energy countries in the world and that’s wrong and its going to do everyone – our companies, our workers, our consumers – every household is going to be worse off if we don’t get power prices down and that means get rid of the carbon tax and get rid of it now…

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3939181.htm

  101. CofB says: “Between the pre-final and final drafts of the “Fifth Assessment Report,” published late last year, the Panel ditched the models and substituted its own “expert assessment” that in the next 30 years the rate of warming will be half what the models predict.”

    That is not really correct. IPCC had always based their conclusions of this ill-defined, unrecorded, behind closed doors, kind of “expert opinion’ rather than hard science.

    What happenned in AR5 was that the “expert opinion’ finally realised that the models they had previously placed so much faith in were seriously flawed and could not be relied upon to estimate climate sensitivity and future climate variations.

    Rather than admitting a major U-turn, they dressed this up in typical bureaucratic double-talk as their having even more certainty than for AR4 and carefully moved the terms of reference to prevent a direct comparison in what they were so certain about.

    Charles will not be debating with anyone because he is a bafoon. He is however, a well advised bafoon and his PR team will not let him walk into such an obvious pitfall.

  102. Well said Lord Monckton.
    Chaarles has been a warmist all along, but this is I believe the first time he has been so open about it.
    If he becomes King I will become a republican overnight.

  103. Just stopped by to feed the troll:

    “James Abbott says:
    February 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm
    The imperitive is just to stop it [CO2] going up but there is no sign of the rate of growth slowing yet.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Why? Why is it “The imperative…?”

    It’s 35C below outside my door as I sit in front of my WOOD fire in central Alberta today. Seems like everything is normal. I’ve been stacking wood for 66 of my 68 years. It all looks like weather.

  104. David L. Hagen says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    “Well put M’Lord.
    We look forward to the Charlie’s (aka Prince Charles) response.
    Will he have the courage to pick up your gauntlet?
    Or will he earn the sobriquet of “Charlie the Chicken Heart”? (with apologies to Richard I Coeur de Lion aka “Richard I the Lion Heart”)”

    Charles III, Coeur de Poulet? It does have a certain je ne sais quoi.

  105. Well done, Lord Monckton!

    The gauntlet has been thrown…

    We all well know your gauntlet will lie there in situ gathering dust and rust until the earth freezes over and Buckingham Palace is under a mile of ice, as that area of London was 12,000 years ago.

    Your letter was the best laugh I had all week!

    Thank you.

  106. @the Abbott

    I am not sure if you take advice but after making about a dozen false claims you are losing your potential audience here. Please accept the offer above of a link to the weather of times past. The usual audience here is far better read than your average ‘public domain’ blog-point. You might get takers at the Verge, for instance where the audience gets their education from TV.

    You are very specifically critical of the scientific credentials and worthiness of Lord Monckton. The revered IPCC does not agree with you or your ilk. I do not agree with you or your ilk. The reason is that Lord Monckton has done original and innovative work on atmospheric science and has a website where you can read the papers. He is an expert in some matters. Go there and learn what to say and not say about such basic facts as to whether mankind or the ‘environment’ faces any human-sourced weather related dangers from CO2.

    In case you think I was not listening to your input, please consider that the fact CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ has been known since 1895 (when it’s influence was greatly but temporarily overestimated) it is very clear in this century that the effect of AG CO2 cannot be discerned against the dramatic changes wrought by a natural variation.

    This matters, a lot. So many baseless and downright ridiculous claims are made in the name AG CO2 that it falls to the warmistas to demonstrate the truth of their assertions. You for example could provide some proof that the SE UK and The Wash are Not Sinking, but are being swamped by a rising North Sea.

  107. I don’t see how Charles can become king. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, and the situation is no different with Camilla.

  108. James Abbott, please take your ignorance and arrogance elsewhere. I’m sure I’m not the only poster here who is tired of it. You take advantage of Anthony’s generosity and open-mindedness (such a contrast to the ideological bigotry of your kind), for what? You’ll find no converts here.

    It’s an affront for you to even mention Lord Monckton. He could run circles, figure 8*s and Mobius strips around you without breathing hard. He is a hero in the skeptic community, and rightly so.

  109. @ fobdangerclose says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm
    G’day Mr Fob.We West Aussies,that’s Western Australia,look it up,it’s not in America it’s down under,Crocodile Dundee territory and bigger than Great Britain,Japan and Texas combined,don’t ‘know a thing or two about weather trends’ we know plenty.We have to,seeing as we are dealing with Stations(that’s what we call ‘em) 4 times bigger than Texan Ranches.A Ranch is something in the backyard that the kids play in.Kerry Packer is what we would call a gambler.When confronted by a Texan ‘high roller’ trying to muscle his way in to a private game Kerry said to him”Look mate how much is your firm worth”?The guy replied”$100 million dollars” Kerry said”I’lle toss you for it”Round these parts we think Mr Watts is fair dinkum and doing a bonza job,good on ya Wattsy.

  110. It was pretty tough for my Rooster, Max, this year. He lost two hens to the fox and managed to make Christmas without the loss of even a tail feather.
    Then this unfortunate Royal comment about his agonal struggles if his head is separated from his neck. A famous French past time, beneath the Royal gaze.
    God forbid it enter the Emerald Isle.

    Discussing such methods of dispatch with my rooster reminds him of the rhetoric of violence that it entails, as well as the actuality. We may all reflect that this comment was made against many a common man who is skeptical about the Prince’s beliefs.
    My rooster could well reflect upon the Prince’s words in the context of the rulers of a past that was England:

    ‘A heavy sentence, my most sovereign liege,
    And all unlooked-for from Your Highness’ mouth.
    A dearer merit, not so deep a maim
    As to be cast forth in the common air,
    Have I deserved at Your Highness’ hands.
    The language I have learned these forty years,
    My native English, now I must forgo;
    And now my tongue’s use is to me nor more
    Than an unstringed viol or a harp.

    Or like a cunning instrument cased up,
    Or, being open, put into his hands
    That knows no touch to tune the harmony.
    Within my mouth you have enjailed my tongue,
    Doubly portcullised with my teeth and lips,
    And dull unfeeling barren ignorance
    Is made my jailer to attend on me.’
    Richard 11

  111. Zeke Hausfather says:

    “Also, your claim of 25 years of zero trend in the UK seems to run somewhat counter to the data: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-kingdom-(europe)

    Is it? Where is the 25 year trend with estimation of significance in those graphs? Your runny mean stops before the end (as it should) and so gives a very stong visual impression of a long term rise but trying to ignore that and look at all the annual data it is a lot less clear whether there is a significant rise.

    Also you crappy 10 year RM does great job of pronounced dip around 1983 that is a fitler artefact due to the dips before and after then date.

    In fact it gets pretty much the whole period from 1975-2000 almost perfectly out of phase with the underlying data, especially for the Tmax plot.

    Is your inability to chose an appropriate fitler why the project calls itself “BEST” ?

    You may find it useful to read my article on the subject of running mean distortions and then chose a better filter for presenting your data.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

    Since those graphs look like they may be created real-time some kind of triple running mean may be a computationally effiecient alternative.

  112. The problem with Charles is that he looks so dumb. Then he opens his mouth and removes all doubt. I had a dog with ears like that, and I had them cropped. Gave him a cool Vulcan look. Charles could give that a try, but Camilla would never allow it. She likes them because they make great handles, and even double as a ThighMaster.

  113. PPS, the CET data above looks very much like it shows not trend in 25 years. There’s a good chance that is what CofB was basing his comment on.

  114. Hi Greg,

    The Berkeley plots include a link to the raw data, so knock yourself out choosing whatever linear trend or smoothing method you want. Personally I like Lowess approaches.

    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Text/united-kingdom-%28europe%29-TAVG-Trend.txt

    We include a 10-year running mean by default, but its by no means the only (or best) approach, just the easiest to explain.

    You will find that a linear trend shows statistically significant warming over the last 25 years in the UK.

    • Zekes,
      I am not a climate scientist but what percentage of the values used are null, and do you know the stations? How many stations are located in urban areas thAt are subject to thermal mass retention?
      What is the standard for the construction of those stations and who maintains them to those standards?

      Regards,
      Brad

  115. Charles is advised by aristocrat Porritt of Friends of the Earth, a Marxist cover organisation. Porritt has reportedly called for a halving of the UK population. Hence Charles appears to be a mouthpiece for modern eugenicics (in the US you have Holdren) using fake IPCC science to justify totalitarian government.

  116. Thanks for the reply Zeke. Looking at the stats on that page “since 1990″ shows a significant slope and that’s roughly 25y but starts in a trough , 1988 would be peak. Like I added in PS, I think Monkton is referring to CET. The station count dropping by a couple of orders of magnitude at the end does not inspire confidence in a result that runs up to the end of the data.

    “We include a 10-year running mean by default, but its by no means the only (or best) approach, just the easiest to explain.”

    Well this Tisdale’s excuse as well, but unless you think it is easy to explain what phase distortion is and how that explains the runny mean showing total phase inversion for a good portion of the data it really is not “easiest to explain.”

    Just use proper filter and call it a filter. There’s nothing more to explain to those who would not understand even if you did.

  117. BTW a 5 year triple RM would provide about the same “smoothness” and the kernel would not be much longer and does not have those artefacts.

  118. If this pampered spoiled fool of a man wishes to attack and insult millions of his would be subjects then he is more divisive and arrogant than that other Charles who caused a civil war and lost his head.

    A fool who would be king?

    His selfish desire combined with his arrogance will most likely destroy the monarchy, I for one will become a republican the moment his bottom touches the throne.

  119. Roger Dewhurst says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    The Monarchy is an institution we can only discard at our peril. Monarchs and potential monarchs are all human and have human failings. Unfortunately Prince Charles is inclined to display his failings. Let us not, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Overlook his failings.

    HRH The Prince of Wales may be the most selfless actor on the scene. Now even diehard republicans cry with passion:

    God save the Queen.

  120. As an Aussie and a fan of constitutional monarchy and also the wonderful QE2, I wholeheartedly support the idea of HRH Prince Charles renouncing the throne because he is not popular down under whereas his sons are. They have more than a touch of their mother about them and seem a couple of down to earth, knockabout lads who go about their business and duties with vim and vigour and then get into a respectable amount of trouble when they hit the piss. Sorry Charles but although you spent some time at school out here it did not seem to rub off too much. I hope you and Camilla are very happy together. Valete!

  121. I agree. God save the queen as even a monarchist like myself will become a republican when Charles is king. I object to being called a headless chicken by such a total and utter inferior in this particular area of expertise. Having put his head on the block it is time for us to lop it off.

  122. What the hell is Resurrexi Pharmaceuticals,and why can it only be found on Christopher Monckton’s CV? I searched all Google pages looking for it, so I think it’s fair to ask here.

  123. Julian in Wales says:
    February 5, 2014 at 5:18 pm
    ————————————-
    You make a valid argument. Still, his ‘headless chicken’ comment was poorly conceived, and should have never been published as an article. The public article has left him open to public criticism from any and all comers, just like it exposed Al Gore to similar commentary.

  124. “The Prince is in the altogether, the altogether, the altogether,
    He’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born…”

  125. Isn’t it a crime to even suggest harming a member of the royal family, much less lopping off their head?
    In America such a similar statement directed at anyone in our administration would have the secret service crawling up your backside faster than you could fart. And our Internal Revenue Service would be back checking your taxes for the last 20 years, with NSA listening to your every word.
    I think I just really depressed myself, so much for democracy and freedom.

    Oops, gotta go, someone’s at the door, kinda late for callers…

  126. @Zeke

    Here is 5y triple RM compared to 10y RM you use:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=768

    Firstly note the almost perfect way the running mean inverts the data.
    Second, notice that the “10 year” filter lets through far more h.f. ‘noise’ that a decent 5y year filter.

    re LOESS filters. Yes climate scientists do seem attracted to techniques they don’t understand and LOESS seems to be “fave”. Can you tell me why you would want to use a frequency filter which does not even have a definable frequency response since it depends upon the data itself and applies different filter properties to different parts of the same data set.

    In engineering and any hard science that would be regarded as an abomination.

  127. @ eyesonu

    The Crown hasn’t called all the shots since 1215 (that’s AD, not p.m.) . The Queen is head of state, but this is purely ceremonial. She may “Rule” but she doesn’t “Govern”. The country is run by the elected government in the House of Commons. Legislation has to pass through the House of Lords for review before receiving Royal Assent. This last is a formality.

    This system may look odd to republicans (and hereditary entitlement doesn’t sit well with me), but it has an advantage in that the head of state is not a politician. The Lords have the power to send legislation back to the Commons for revision, but ultimately can’t block it if the government is determined to push it through.

    The Lords were mainly hereditary, and therefore not politicians, but are now mostly Life Peers, and therefore retired politicians/political placemen. Monckton would have been entitled to sit in the Lords under the old rules, but is ineligible now. Thats a shame. He would be a valuable asset, being a maverick, comfortable with holding unpopular opinions and answerable to no-one except his conscience and his maker.

  128. The only thing I care less about than what Charles’ has to say, is Moncktons opinion about what he said.

  129. Some comments I’ve read from the UK mention that their heads get a little rounder every time they hear the heir apparent takes to the media.

    I’ve taken the liberty to update the Prince’s coat of arms to reflect what he does.

  130. Ed Minchau says:
    February 5, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    I don’t see how Charles can become king. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, and the situation is no different with Camilla.

    Well, that gets him out of the queue without a fuss when the time comes.

    You don’t suppose . . .
    . . . it was planned this way . . . ?

  131. You have to love ol’ Moncky boy! Can’t stand the heir to the throne, His Royal Phallicness.

  132. Hector Pascal says:
    February 5, 2014 at 11:43 pm

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

    Thank you for your explanation. That is what I was looking for. Have never had the inclination to try to understand the GB form of government or crown.

  133. Apropos of,

    Charles visit see it here from 1 minute and then scroll to 15.36 min – 23 mins and a little background on the climate change-CAGW BS they talk over here and of the convoluted culpability of who didn’t do what – [lack of or non existent dredging] related to the floods in the Somerset levels – a run of major precipitation events and a very stubborn Jet stream stuck over to the south of southern Britain.

    And <a href="http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84687"another link and here which will further provide further enlightenment, in that, much of this mess is a plan – an operation of progressive Socialist green dogma [UNEP agenda 21] which is sent down from the authoritarian and real governors of the UK – ex the unholy Brussels Empire.

  134. “Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects.”

    Well, actually he’d be a rich commoner, wouldn’t he, unlike most of Her Majesty’s subjects?

  135. “unlike most of Her Majesty’s subjects?”

    There are not more “subjects” of the british monarchy. The people of that country are called citizens now.

  136. Hmmm so please explain what ‘politics’ has he involved himself in? It is his opinion. As no one takes his opinons seriously who cares?

    “In 2012, Charles was nominated for ‘THE GOLDEN DUCK AWARD’ for his achievements in promoting quackery; Andrew Wakefield beat him to it, but Charles was a well-deserved runner-up.”

    http://edzardernst.com/2013/11/a-tribute-to-prince-charles-champion-of-anti-science-on-his-65th-birthday/

    Funny how he dips in and out of ‘Science’ when it suits him!

  137. Greg,

    I might agree with you, except for the fact that we seem to be subjects of
    King Obama now. ☹

    It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
    ~Ronald Reagan’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981

  138. uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy

    Well, in that case you may want to go for some minor constitutional adjustments. I mean nothing radical, the realm may keep its proud monarchical status, except
    1. access to the throne is no longer a hereditary right, but has to be earned by appropriate performance
    2. it is not a gift for a lifetime, but is limited in duration and subject to revision

    So, how about a King or Queen elected in every 4 years by popular vote, who can be re-elected only once? :)))

    I guess the need to move the stone frequently back and forth between London and Edinburgh would only be a minor inconvenience compared to the current state of affairs.

  139. James Abbott says:
    Hi, James. Yes your storms are indeed happening as you say – one would have to be blind not to notice. May I point out however after studying many photos of the sea and your sea walls currently in place I am astonished why this has not happened previously. The sea walls are basically built at 90* angles which is astonishing. No massive boulder in front to break the waves before impacting, no modern concrete designed structure built to modern standards to break the energy of wave action before they hit current structures with full power and stored energy. The present structures, as one can see from photos, are subjected to wave erosion underneath and over time would collapse the structure itself result in flooding. Moreover, the flooding of so many communities was once swamp land and had dredging to lessen the flooding. As you well know the government has not been dredging for years resulting in silting up rivers leading to flooding in heavy rains. The citizens themselves were telling anyone who would listen of the danger to no avail. Suddenly, the government acknowledged their failures after severe flooding and are now gearing up to dredge once again. The government has accepted responsibility. Hopefully your government will produce modern sea structures on coastal areas better suited for the long term that almost eliminate so much damage. The Dutch next door are masters of sea wall engineering that is desperately needed in the UK.

  140. eyesonu:

    At February 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm you ask

    From the west side of the Atlantic, I have a question. What is the purpose of the royal hierarchy (i.e. king, queen, prince)? Is there any value or power or just a window dressing?

    The monarch has very great power being – in effect – our equivalent of your President, your Constitution and your Flag all combined in the form of a person . And I have no idea why some people present such disinformation about this as Hector Pascal has in this thread.

    The reality of the Crown was discussed in the thread concerning Prince Charles “headless chickens” comment. In that thread I answered your question here and M Courtney here. Those two answers are complimentary and I commend both together with the subsequent discussion.

    As a taster, and to save you needing to find it, I copy my answer to here.

    Richard

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

    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

  141. Dafydd – you are quite right, the Abney-Hastings are the heirs to the Plantagenets. That makes it simpler … or does it??

  142. There is a certain irony in a prince who goes by the name of Charles pontificating about losing ones head.

  143. eyesonu:

    I answered the purpose of the monarch in my reply to you at At February 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm you ask February 6, 2014 at 1:28 am. However, there is an alternative understanding of your question which was

    From the west side of the Atlantic, I have a question. What is the purpose of the royal hierarchy (i.e. king, queen, prince)? Is there any value or power or just a window dressing?

    The alternative understanding concerns the purpose of the Royal Family and not only the Monarch.

    The Royal Family provides the succession; i.e. determination of who will inherit the Crown. This is important in avoiding loss a of a Monarch; “The King is dead. Long live the King”.

    And it enables a future Monarch to be trained from birth to fulfill the job of Monarch. This explains the ‘problem’ of Prince Charles.

    HRH 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 has adopted ‘environmentalism’ for because he is in the thrall of his Cotswold neighbour Jonathon Porrit who is an extremist eco-loon.

    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.

    And that returns us to the issue of succession.

    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.

    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.

    So, whatever the meaning of your question, I hope I have now answered it.

    Richard

  144. Ed Minchau:

    At February 5, 2014 at 9:54 pm you say

    I don’t see how Charles can become king. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, and the situation is no different with Camilla.

    Edward VIII was forced to abdicate before being Crowned because he was a Naz1 and in 1936 it seemed that 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!

    Edward then went off to spend the war in France. He was moved from there by Churchill by appointing him as Governor of the Bahamas and, thus, an alternative – and Naz1 – monarch could not broadcast propaganda for H1tler. But after the war, and as soon as possible, Edward returned to France.

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

    Richard

  145. Lets hope you do better in your debates than when with UKIP which you until recently led in Scotland. After being sacked by the party leader and NEC your parting shot was ” “There isn’t any UkIP in Scotland. It’s been wiped out.” As a leading light in that political party, your own political interventions don’t really add up to much either do they? Need I mention glass houses?

  146. Hope for your sake there isn’t a Royalist revival as per the Restoration of 1660. Remember what Henrietta Maria did to the Regicides? Even being dead won’t save you.

  147. Whilst I agree with the general point that Lord Monckton is making; Indeed I wrote a letter of criticism to The Daily Telegraph about the Prince’s headles chicken quote, (which as expected they did not publish) I think his message would have been more powerful had he been more restrained in his criticism of the Prince himself. A more deferential approach might just have had some affect on the Prince, but personal insult and silly ridiculing guarantees that the message will be ignored, thus the totally justified point of the article will have been lost.

  148. Lord Monckton:

    I write with complete sincerity to ask the intended purpose of your open letter to HRH Prince Charles.

    Clearly, Charles will not now abdicate his line to the throne. That would present a Constitutional Crisis concerning inheritance of the Crown, and for what? If he wanted, upon inheriting the Crown then he could immediately abdicate in favour of William. But you know he cannot abdicate the succession at present.

    Which leaves the challenge for Charles to debate. As you say, the debate would be on a matter of politics. Again, he cannot do that without inducing a Constitutional Crisis, so he would be subjected to immense pressure to not have such a debate whether he wanted to or not.

    In these circumstances the only real response to your letter which Charles can make is to thank you for having sent it.

    The important need is to remove Charles from the malign influence of Jonathon Porritt. Unless that happens before Charles becomes King then it can be assumed Charles will appoint Porritt as one of his advisors. Porritt is a rich, titled, and extremist eco-loon whose influence on Charles needs to be overcome before he becomes a personal advisor to the monarch.

    Your letter can only strengthen Porritt’s malign influence on our future monarch.

    Hence, I would appreciate an explanation of the intended purpose of your open letter to Prince Charles.

    Richard

  149. Have a care Lord Monckton, remember The Prince Regent and Beau Brummell, ended with one dying in a lunatic asylum. Anyway Chuck has been talking to trees for years, and that’s not a reference to his first wife – he never spoke to her.

  150. Re: Charles I of England
    For a Prince of Wales called Charles to mention headless chickens must be as ill mannered as a chicken mentioning a headless King of England.

  151. Berényi Péter:

    I am making a reply to your off topic post at February 6, 2014 at 2:31 am because it is another example of misunderstanding in this thread. I provide this one response and will not debate your side-track whatever replies ensue.

    The UK displaced the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands for two reasons and neither had anything to do with Prince Charles.

    Firstly, PM Margaret Thatcher made the mistake of withdrawing the research ship which was the only British Government presence in the area. This was understood by the Argentinians as being an indication that the UK had lost interest in the Falklands which they call the Malvinas and for a liong time have (wrongly) claimed they own. The misunderstanding by the Argentinians as being an invitation for them to take over the Falklands. Thatcher had to overcome her mistake and decided to oust the Argentinian invasion.

    Secondly, and importantly, the Queen was willing to approve and support the retaking of the Falklands because failure to do it could destroy much – if not all – of the Commonwealth. The many British Protectorates would know they have no protection.

    An amusing and almost accurate explanation of the UK and the Commonwealth was provided by Richard Thal in the previous “headless chicken” thread and this is it

    Richard

  152. James Abbot: “…people in the UK are suffering right now from extreme weather that is entirely consistent with predictions of what would happen in a warmer world.”

    Well, I figured you’d be challenged on that statement, and you were, though you didn’t answer it you merely ran away from it. So, I’ll ask you again: Point to the papers that actually do predict the weather we’ve been experiencing and show how many years ahead of their prediction they were made.

    BTW James, you may think that Farage (UKIP) was wrong to deny his 2010 manifesto but at least he is honest enough to say so before the chance of a vote, unlike, say, Clegg (Lib Dem) who went into government on the back of many pledges from his manifesto whcih he has subsequently broken most cynically.

    Richard Courtney: You make some very good points about the constitution, but mainly, you rightly point out the damaging control Jonathan Porritt has over HRH. I agree that the chance of such a debate is highly unlikely but I would love to imagine who the two seconds to HRH would be if it did.

  153. Silver ralph says:
    February 5, 2014 at 8:50 pm

    This particular railway was built on the beach and in the sea, because the hinterland is too hilly for a railway, without incurring huge expense.
    ============================================
    Not really true. There used to be an alternative, inland route from Exeter to Plymouth, until it was closed in 1968. It left the current Exeter to Barnstaple line at a place called Coleford Junction (near Yeoford) and went to Plymouth via Okehampton, Lydford and Bere Alston.

    What was interesting (well, o.k., not necessarily to everybody!) was that, at Exeter, trains to Plymouth via Okehampton departed in the opposite direction to those to Plymouth via Newton Abbot (i.e. the current route). The same opposite direction moves occurred at Plymouth.

    This sort of thing was quite a regular occurance as a result of relatively unfettered competition in the construction of railways in the nineteenth century. Whilst I accept that Beeching got some things right, closing this route was not a good decision because the vulnerability of the stretch of line along the seawall at Dawlish has always been recognised. In fact, years ago, working on some of the many alleviation schemes earned me much money in the form of overtime and payments for working “away from home”. Since a fair amount of the Oakhampton route is still there (albeit single line in parts and freight only in others), it may not be as expensive to reinstate as some have postulated.

    Incidentally, since Abbott has been wittering on about nineteenth century infrastructure being destroyed as a result of CAGW, I think he needs to explain the Tay Bridge disaster. This was a nineteenth century structure too. Unfortunately for him, it fell down in 1879 but at least it gave us the never-to-be-forgotten poem by William McGonagall.

    The relevance of that? Both the Tay Bridge and the line along the Sea Wall were Victorian: one fell down a little more than a year after construction during a violent storm; the other is now suffering damage as a result of … yes, a violent storm. At least the Dawlish Sea Wall has lasted a bit longer, having been built around 1846.

    OK, that’s enough railways.

  154. richardscourtney says:
    February 6, 2014 at 1:46 am

    Thank you for enlightening me to the workings of the UK monarchy and government. I failed to follow all the comments on the previous thread and appreciate your links to your comments there. I feel sure that many other readers here have gained as much as I have. UK government was not a part of my academic curriculum here in the US.

  155. richardscourtney is correct, the Royal Family still has immense political power. This is little understood by my fellow Brits. I didn’t even know it until I read it a few months ago. I was shocked. Contrary to belief, we don’t live in a true democracy (but then neither does the US and 99% of the world!).

  156. Cheese-E-Chuck

    (There’s a ‘cheesy” (gizmo-centered) chain of pizza parlors in the US called Chuck-E-Cheese.)

  157. @Roger Dewhurst says: February 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    The Monarchy is an institution we can only discard at our peril. Monarchs and potential monarchs are all human and have human failings. Unfortunately Prince Charles is inclined to display his failings. Let us not, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Overlook his failings.
    ==============================================================
    Yes – it seems that Constitutional Monarchy is perhaps the most stable form of democracy. However, I do think we could well skip a generation and go straight to Prince William, who seems a nice lad without his father’s … foibles, shall we say.

    Great letter. I shall be writing to HRH later.

  158. I am afraid Lord Monckton is incorrect.

    It is not just half his subjects. In a 2010 UK poll only one in five said climate change was “man-made” [via the Guardian no less!] Given one in four households suffer from fuel poverty following large increases in energy bills, this is not really surprising.

    Since both Australia and Canada ousted the Warmists I think we can safely say it is MORE THAN half and growing.

    :>)

  159. Huh.
    Where’d James go? :)

    Always amazed at the total lack of logic in some of these “foundation beliefs”.

    You develop buildings/communities directly on the seacoast decades or centuries ago.
    They get pounded by millions of waves.
    They finally succumb to wave # 1,000,0001, and THAT’S the one that was the problem. Everything was just fine until that ONE wave/storm came along. Now what could have caused that? It’s always been fine before this! For hundreds of years!

    Seriously?

    So for various things that got destroyed/washed out to sea prior to AGW, what would we attribute their demise to?

    Jim from Maine

  160. >>> Also, your claim of 25 years of zero trend in the UK seems to run somewhat counter to the data: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-kingdom-(europe)

    your graph says the red line is a 10 year moving average, data prior to the 25 year period that monckton is talking about will bleed through on your graph. monckton is talking about the previous 25 years only. take the last 25 years data ONLY and calculate the trend and you’ll at least be on the same page.

  161. fobdangerclose says:….
    I do not see an El Nino forming this year. The entire climate profile has changed. The jet stream has gone more ‘loopy’ that means blocking highs with drought too much rain very hot very cold. (This is why politically Global warming ==> Climate Change ===> Weather Wierding)

    See THE BREWER-DOBSON CIRCULATION

    I am a hobby farmer and I gave up and now do my own weather forecasts. For commercial farmers I would suggest Weather Bell (half way down on the right)

  162. fobdangerclose says: @ February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    My last answer got booted into the ether.
    In short. Use weatherbell half way down on right.

  163. James Abbott says: @ February 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    …If he wants a televised debate on climate science why not set one up with an actual climate scientist ? That would be essential viewing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Because they all run for the hills.

    You offering?

  164. Dear Lord Monckton,

    Somebody should point out to Charles the connotations of the word ‘deniers’. I’m not sure I have the eloquence to do it effectively but I’d be glad to give it a go. However, I am sure that any missive I sent to Clarence House would be intercepted and binned by a flunky. Any suggestions how I should go about it?

  165. Dear “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,” get used to debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen and drop the title nonsense. Just call yourself plain “Christopher Monckton.”

  166. John F. Hultquist says: @ February 5, 2014 at 5:23 pm
    I think I am hearing an echo of “rgates” – didn’t the host throw him out about a year or two ago?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    This guy is an entirely different dude. You can look him up on the internet as you can R Gates. (just aad climate)

    Given who he is, he should be debating Lord Monckton not Prince Charles.

  167. eyesonu:

    Thankyou for your reply to me at February 6, 2014 at 3:06 am.

    It includes this

    UK government was not a part of my academic curriculum here in the US.

    Also US government was not a part of my academic curriculum here in the UK.

    So, perhaps you can understand my frequent questions concerning the nature of US legal and Constitutional issues that I often make in WUWT threads discussing such matters.

    To a Brit such as me it is bemusing that the US – or any other country – has a legalistic system where the Supreme Court decides what is and is not the Constitution. I struggle to understand it.

    Our ‘Constitution’ changes with the monarch who is constrained by the threat of civil war with potential result of regicide. The issue of Edward VIII whose politics were not acceptable sums up how we regard our Constitution. And our adulation of our present Queen sums up how we respect a monarch who dedicates her life to the service of Her Subjects and the nation.

    Richard

  168. Mike Mellor:

    re your post at February 6, 2014 at 4:32 am.

    If you feel like that then become an American. The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a peer of the British Realm: live with it.

    Richard

  169. Ted Clayton says: @ February 5, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    ….Did you see in Google News today that the entire United States is running out of road salt?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The USA is also running out of propane: U.S. propane shortage hits millions during brutal freeze …a fuel that heats homes, schools and businesses across wide swathes of the United States.

    Jan 24, 2014
    …Prices of the fuel, a liquefied petroleum gas, have rocketed to all-time highs in Midwestern states, distributors are rationing supplies, and some schools have shut due to a lack of the fuel during this year’s second bout of Arctic weather….

    Propane is also used as a ‘topping’ for electric generating plants.

    This CAGW idiocy is doing real harm including killing people. That is what people like James Abbott refuse to admit.

  170. James Abbott is a a classic example of an unscientific, irrational, science-denying shill.
    They cannot stand Monckton as he tells it like it is, uses science to dismantle irrational alarmist zealot claims and is waaaaay smarter than them.

    Every one of your claims have been fully debunked. Give it up James, you’re outclassed

  171. Gail Combs:

    Many thanks for your post at February 6, 2014 at 4:32 am.

    As you suggested, I googled for ‘James Abbott climate’ and was shocked at what I learned. I thought he was merely another ignorant troll trying to be disruptive by spouting nonsense because he knew nothing and understood less than nothing.

    Clearly, if the James Abbott who posts here is the Green Part Spokesperson of that name then his ignorance and stupidity are feigned, so he is deserving of even more contempt than he has already earned here.

    Richard

  172. Mr Green Genes: Ah, William McGonagall… Back in my youth no session in the folk club was complete without an hilarious rendition of ‘The Tay Bridge Disaster’. (I guess you had to be there). Thanks for the memory.

  173. richardscourtney says:
    February 6, 2014 at 4:36 am
    “To a Brit such as me it is bemusing that the US – or any other country – has a legalistic system where the Supreme Court decides what is and is not the Constitution. I struggle to understand it.”

    Originally the system of checks and balances was set up as such:
    the People vote for electors who then select the President
    the President appoints Supreme Court Justices, with the advise and consent of the Senate
    the People directly elect members of the House of Representatives
    the State legislatures appoint Senators
    the Congress (House of Reps and Senate) pass laws
    the President can sign or veto these laws
    the Supreme Court can invalidate any signed laws if they violate the Constitution

    The reality is that the system has been corrupted over the years by politicians, not the least of which was the passing of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which changed the appointment of Senators by State legislatures to a direct election by the People. While this change may seem “more democratic”, it changed the loyalty of Senators from the State that appointed them to the highest bidder, i.e. the group that provides the most money for the Senator to stay in power.

    ” Our ‘Constitution’ changes with the monarch who is constrained by the threat of civil war with potential result of regicide. ”

    That is also the reason for the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The reasoning being that an armed populace would be feared by a government. Trying to remove this fear of the people is the motivation for government to constantly try to invalidate the 2nd Amendment.

    Hope that helps a little.

  174. Tom in Florida:

    Thankyou for your information for me in your post at February 6, 2014 at 5:02 am.

    It “helps” a lot.

    I was especially pleased that you told me

    The reality is that the system has been corrupted over the years by politicians, not the least of which was the passing of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which changed the appointment of Senators by State legislatures to a direct election by the People. While this change may seem “more democratic”, it changed the loyalty of Senators from the State that appointed them to the highest bidder, i.e. the group that provides the most money for the Senator to stay in power.

    Thankyou for that. I was not aware of the change you report. And it resonates with me because it has similarities with the debate about the nature of our House of Lords (HoL) which has been raging for over a century.

    Many want our HoL to be an elected Chamber but others fear outcomes similar to that you report from making your Senate an elected Chamber. The HoL is a bit of a ‘botch’ at the moment but it does ensure that a wide variety of expertise and experience is involved in government.

    The other strangeness is that you don’t directly elect your President: you elect people to elect your President. This somewhat similar to our electing MPs who represent political Parties, and the Parties elect their Leader. The monarch selects the Prime Minister from among the Party Leaders.

    I hope this response demonstrates the usefulness to me of your post. Again, thankyou.

    Richard

  175. fobdangerclose….
    Before you believe Abbott. look at the long term view: Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year John Kehr explains a recent peer-reviewed paper in that essay and links to the paper.

    Also look at Kehr’s Himalaya Glaciers are Growing and his NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator

    As William McClenney (geologist) recently said here at WUWT
    “…. we had better hope and pray some well-mixed trace gas can delay the next glacial inception. Onset of the Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period, right when the Holocene reached about half a precession cycle old, was harrowing enough. The Modern Warm Period, reportedly less warm then the MWP, marks the second thermal pulse…..”

    (Thermal pulses are expected during the descent into glaciation)

    Within the circles of geology the hot debate is on whether the Holocene interglacial is about to end or the earth is looking at low solar insolation for the next 4,000 years and a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ . Sunshine now is 9% or ~ 40Wm−2 weaker than during the Holocene Optimum while John Kehr (Chem Eng) calculated the energy from CO2 going from 300 ppm to 390 ppm was just 1.4 Wm−2. (Color me not impressed)

    This does not give me the warm fuzzies when a recent paper says:
    “Despite a conservative tuning strategy, the LR04 benthic stack exhibits significant coherency with insolation in the obliquity band throughout the entire 5.3 Myr and in the precession band for more than half of the record….

    …the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence ….”

    Especially knowing the phrase “without human influence” is needed to get anything through peer-review these days. That paper is A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records

  176. James Abbott says: @ February 5, 2014 at 5:31 pm
    …Some of the structures built in the C19th (to which period you refer) have just been smashed to pieces.

    You cannot explain this away, its actually happening right now…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    What bull!

    That topic was done to death here at WUWT. GREENS (ya you) screamed bl00dy murder about dredging and other routine maintenance so there were floods as a direct result. (The New Orlean’s Leeves are another example)

    We saw the same thing in the USA and Australia with GREENS screamed bl00dy murder about clearing brush, logging and fire break roads and then grab head lines screaming GLOBAL WARMING when the inevitable fires run out of control. Here in the USA Obama did one better by canceling the government contract for aerial firefighting planes.

    I am getting sick to death of politicians and lobbyists setting up people for destruction, loss of property and even death and then turning around and morphing the tragedy to their advantage when they were directly responsible.

  177. Blimey, if it ain’t Balmy Prince Charlie, and the Frostbite Revolution! AND, he took the Low Road!

    You ROCK, Christopher Monckton!!

  178. Sorry to foist a political viewpoint here but Mr Monckton (a “titled” individual you might have noticed) opened the door. The monarchy and its unelected minions – protectors of privilege, status, power and wealth, the most entrenched enemies of democracy – have never stopped interfering in the running of our “democracy”. Charles has been voicing his opinions openly for decades. Let him and the rest of them keep rabbitting until they finally convince enough of their “subjects” that there can be no place for unelected power (including Lords and viscounts etc, whether legitimate or otherwise) in the process of governance if we are to eventually become a genuine democracy.

  179. jim hogg:

    You conclude your rant at February 6, 2014 at 6:31 am saying

    … if we are to eventually become a genuine democracy.

    Fortunately, that horrific outcome is not possible here in the UK. Mob rule and lynch mobs are not a good idea.

    Our present system has evolved over 1,000 years. It has much wrong with it, and it cannot be transported to other cultures, but it always continues to meet present needs because its evolution is formed by present needs and not ideological abstraction.

    Richard

  180. Gail Combs:

    “I am getting sick to death of politicians and lobbyists setting up people for destruction, loss of property and even death and then turning around and morphing the tragedy to their advantage when they were directly responsible.”

    Absolutely bloody spot on! Well said.

  181. William Astley says: @ February 5, 2014 at 6:07 pm
    ” When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence”

    … The Western economies cannot support the programs we currently have….

    The US’s and the EU’s long term security/viability are dependent on economic success and fiscal constraints. There is an idiotic idea that we can use deficit spending and/or money printing schemes to spend our way into prosperity. That has been tried before, it ends in riots and bank collapses. We are losing to China and heading towards a currency collapse.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You do not understand. The elite hate and fear the middle class. The whole goal is the collapse of western civilization to usher in a global government.

    “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong

    “Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?” – Pascal Lamy former director of the World Trade Organization (responsible for the destruction of USA and EU jobs)

    Now Former European Commission President Jacques Delors is backing Lamy to succeed José Manuel Barroso as the head of the EU executive next year.

    They have really made it quite plain they are targeting “the affluent middle class” and the sheeple are just nodding there heads and saying “Yes we want to be poverty stricken serfs forever more”

  182. Your message :
    Jon Snow continues to co opt guests into saying “that the world is still warming” this is a direct lie it is not. You can access the raw data yourself. RSS satellite data the most accurate is specific, no temperature change distinguishable from zero for 23 years, flat line for 17 years and 4 months and down since 2001. Earth warmed by 0.72C in past 100 years (HadCRUt4, Dec. 1913 to Nov 2013) Not unprecedented over past 11,000 years. Central England warmed at 4.33c/century 1694-1733 six times rate observed in past 100 years. Divergence from multi model projection now 3.2C. IPCC AR5/SREX says no plausible link between warming and incidence and strength of so called extreme events. 1762 mentioned, it is has happened before say 1940 then warming or AGW is not to blame. America having coldest winter for decades, cold does not equal hot, get a grip. Even if 0.72C was the anti Christ explain what Cameron is supposed to do as God to get the wind to blow in the opposite direction. Snow once said that to excel on TV you only need to be as bright as the lowest member of the audience and he makes this fundamental truth a reality night after night after night.
    See here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/

    Dear Mr Wells,

    Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding CHANNEL 4 NEWS.
    We are sorry to hear that you were unhappy with the content of this report. Please be assured your complaint has been logged and noted for the information of those responsible for our programming.

    Channel 4 News is made for Channel 4 by ITN. They are asked not only to report on the day’s significant events but to provide analysis. Channel 4 News is expected to examine fresh perspectives and interrogate facts and opinions. It should critically examine policy and comments presented by the government and the establishment here and abroad and it should give a voice to those who may not otherwise be heard.

    Wherever possible it should provide additional information and stories and angles which others have not yet explored. It is not there to provide exactly the same news as that on the BBC or on ITV but to provide a thoughtful alternative.
    Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

    Regards,

    Alex Chase
    Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries

    For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq

    My reply:
    Dear Alex

    You have the right to your own opinion but you do not have the right to invent your own facts and that is what Ch4 News does every day of the week when reporting issues relating to so called climate change. Climate change is a fact during our planets 4.5 billion year history the climate has changed and will continue to change, so what? What else would you expect when we live on a lump of rock hurtling through time and space?

    Interrogate facts and opinions, when precisely? What is evident is that Snow and his mates have a clearly defined agenda but since when did the pursuit of an agenda have any specific relationship to asking questions that reveal the truth; this is especially evident when the discussion relates to climate or weather. Not once have I witnessed Snow taking evidence from a guest or Ch4 journalist who gave an unbiased review of AGW, CAGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Disruptive or Extreme weather, Ch4 has an agenda, fact.

    You cannot express an opinion about a scientific fact, observed recorded data is not a moveable feast for Ch4 to exploit exactly as they see fit otherwise you are lying to your audience and if you were Tesco that would be a criminal offence it is called misrepresentation, deception. IPCC accept that warming has stopped, Met Office accept that fact. IPCC AR5/SREX say there is no plausible link between warming since the end of the little Ice Age and the incidence or strength of weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, flood, drought, cyclones or typhoons, data reveals the are all down, see below.

    Straight out of Black Adder, I have a cunning plan. When warming stopped the greens needed a new tag line to continue fomenting their panic laden doom and gloom hence “extreme weather” like it hadn’t happened before ever, just like warming. Unfortunately NASA satellite data put an end to this notion because it reveals that since the start of the satellite era in 1979 water vapour has in fact declined robbing the greens of their latest deceit. See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/&amp; here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/

    Instead of pandering to your green environmentalist cause and deliberately misrepresenting reality why not focus upon reporting what the current situation is and describe how beneficial it would be to stop wasting billions and trillions on wind and solar in the misleading expectation that by doing so we can stop our climate changing and in the process exercise control over our weather, in your dreams.

    It is not warming, it has stopped, which part of No does Ch4 not understand?

    David Wells

    ________________________________________

    Your message :
    Jon Snow continues to co opt guests into saying “that the world is still warming” this is a direct lie it is not. You can access the raw data yourself. RSS satellite data the most accurate is specific, no temperature change distinguishable from zero for 23 years, flat line for 17 years and 4 months and down since 2001. Earth warmed by 0.72C in past 100 years (HadCRUt4, Dec. 1913 to Nov 2013) Not unprecedented over past 11,000 years. Central England warmed at 4.33c/century 1694-1733 six times rate observed in past 100 years. Divergence from multi model projection now 3.2C. IPCC AR5/SREX says no plausible link between warming and incidence and strength of so called extreme events. 1762 mentioned, it is has happened before say 1940 then warming or AGW is not to blame. America having coldest winter for decades, cold does not equal hot, get a grip. Even if 0.72C was the anti Christ explain what Cameron is supposed to do as God to get the wind to blow in the opposite direction. Snow once said that to excel on TV you only need to be as bright as the lowest member of the audience and he makes this fundamental truth a reality night after night after night.
    See here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/

    Dear Channel 4 News

    You have a license to report the news what you don’t have is a license to distort and misrepresent fact for ratings. Global warming stopped 23 years ago and the upper, middle and lower atmosphere have not warmed, there is no tropical hot spot confirmed by radio sonde balloons and no increase in atmospheric water vapour in fact everything that was projected to happen because of extra Co2 emissions has not happened so to cite a continuing rise in Co2 as the cause of extreme weather is just stupid. Correlation and coincidence are not evidence of causation, unless there is proven evidence to sustain the belief that just because Co2 exists in the atmosphere at any level it has a substantive and proven effect upon our weather or climate then its presence is benign and what we are experiencing now is just weather, the strongest system wins. We in the UK are getting very wet and in American they are getting very cold what would you have Cameron do get on the hot line to God and ask him to change the direction of the wind because having to accept that we are not in control of our environment is just not acceptable, I also go shopping on Wednesday and the gym on Thursday just what is going on David Cameron should sort this out we are suffering.

    The idea that there should be some clear line of descent that revolves around how humanity would prefer to exist when our very existence is no more than a quirk of fate just serves to demonstrate how feeble minded we really are. Every time some demented retard resorts to doom laden rhetoric about the consequences of more or less Co2 in the atmosphere they serve to demonstrate their ignorance of how our climate behaves not their mastery of the subject matter and Channel 4 News is a classic example of this dysfunctional mendacity.

    The greens since the inception of the IPCC have tried to promote the idea that if we only cover the planet with wind turbines and solar panels then our lives will be pure and sustainable, everything in the garden will be rosy, now we know that just is not true. What would those people in the Somerset Levels prefer; maybe to live in the Central African Republic or Syria and get butchered or blown up, it is only their chosen life style that is at risk not their life.

    Our coupled non linear chaotic climate misbehaves all of the time and instead of Connie Hedegaarde wasting Euros 1 billion every day on wind and solar that money should be diverted into developing our infrastructure so that when it rains, storms, floods or we get drought we can avoid the calamitous consequences of being cast adrift on a lump of rock hurtling through space.

    Remember it was the EU who said no to us developing more reservoir capacity in the UK insisting that we should use the toilet less instead believing that if we saved water here it would automatically benefit people who lived in drought regions in Africa, barking mad. As was the suggestion that bad weather always targets the poorer members of society as if weather systems have the capacity to behave like a cruise missile and deliberately target specific countries and regions. It you life in a typhoon or hurricane region then it is most likely you will get driven to despair by a typhoon or a hurricane. Why do people live in areas like Fukushima which are prone to earthquake and tsunami?

    Where there is a clear history of earthquake intelligent populations renew their damaged infrastructure with buildings capable of resisting and earthquake, Tokyo and Los Angeles are prime examples but here in the UK where we have a known history of storm, flood and drought we spend billions on wind turbines imagining that this appeal to belief will satisfy the Gods that we really do want to save the planet. Now we know the cost of fighting an imaginary foe instead of recognising the real risk imposed upon us by living on a lump of rock.

    Wake up and smell the roses Channel 4, start reporting the reality and investigate the real risk of fighting an imaginary foe for ratings. Every time I witness Jon Snow introducing another flawed climate change disciple I see that lunatic image of the James Bond character in Tomorrow Never Dies who wants to start wars for ratings, unbelievable.

    David Wells

  183. Exactly Gail- this is not some esoteric quibble over statistical impurity! “Given one in four households suffer from fuel poverty following large increases in energy bills, this is not really surprising.”

    31,000 died from the cold in the UK last year from fuel poverty- mostly pensioners:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-31000-people-died-2852677

    Meanwhile jet-setting, palace-dwelling buffoons pontificate about “using less stuff” while jacking up energy costs for poor folks based entirely on concocted (and thoroughly falsified) theories that have survived from the confluence of a conspiratorial commandeering of the peer-review process and compliant left-wing media.

    Truly poor folks are starving and freezing to death in huge numbers around the globe as a direct result of these faux scientists. There is nothing scientific about cherry-picking data while hiding that which contradicts your theory, conspiring to thwart FOIA requests, prejudicing the peer-review process, repeatedly readjusting your “data” to align with your theories…to extract (extort) tens of billions of dollars annually from US families.

    Steve M. is spot on. In the real world, the withholding of material information is the least of the hockey team offenses. Their behavior seems to epitomize RICO violations:
    Racket: “a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist.” GL Mark!

    It’s time for the gloves to come off!
    Thanks Christopher Monckton.

  184. dbstealey says: @ February 5, 2014 at 6:41 pm
    …Zeke Hausfather says:
    “Also, your claim of 25 years of zero trend in the UK seems to run somewhat counter to the data…”

    Zeke, your graph shows that the temperature in England has just dropped below year 1750.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    YOU’RE RIGHT! ROTFLMAO – Good eye Smokey.

  185. Prinny is noe too bright.. Let’s see if he is dumb enough to take up Monckton’s challenge. I hope that he is.

  186. Gail,
    Well I know the danger of the Earth First , Greenpeace kooks. Back in the 1970’s when I was a “keep the nuke info from spreading” was some inside Greepeace. They came clear to me as pure commie thugs and I stood up and said so to them direct. They made it plain that I was not welcome and in fact they made it plain they would take “direct action” on me.

    I try to pull the Abbott types more out in the open and make them easy to trip up.

    Here in the U.S. we have a “two party evil money cult” in Washington D.C. who will use any means to gather up more tax money to pass the pork to one another with.

    The whole of it a great danger to all mankind. They are a danger to themselves and us all.

    ps
    Mr Goode from the land down under. I am not understanding you one bit mate.
    I was at the “Euata Ma Pup” out in no where land once on a time in 1969 on R & R, met some roudy cow hands, we were dancing with their ladies and bore the brount of that, all ok.
    Do not know if you have a “beef” with me or not, but thanks any way.

  187. I believe I read Charles has a substantial chunk of the royal treasure invested in wind ventures, at what point do statements of individuals that could influence markets constitute tampering in England?

  188. Harry Passfield says:
    February 6, 2014 at 4:58 am

    Mr Green Genes: Ah, William McGonagall… Back in my youth no session in the folk club was complete without an hilarious rendition of ‘The Tay Bridge Disaster’. (I guess you had to be there). Thanks for the memory.
    ============================================================
    I’m glad I prompted a look back to your youth. I can only imagine how it was presented at a folk club, especially towards the end of the evening. I am only sorry that I never experienced such a thing (but Fred Wedlock was amazing anyway).

    For those who have never experienced William McGonagall, I now present The Tay Bridge Disaster:-

    Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv’ry Tay!
    Alas! I am very sorry to say
    That ninety lives have been taken away
    On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
    Which will be remember’d for a very long time.

    ’Twas about seven o’clock at night,
    And the wind it blew with all its might,
    And the rain came pouring down,
    And the dark clouds seem’d to frown,
    And the Demon of the air seem’d to say-
    “I’ll blow down the Bridge of Tay.”

    When the train left Edinburgh
    The passengers’ hearts were light and felt no sorrow,
    But Boreas blew a terrific gale,
    Which made their hearts for to quail,
    And many of the passengers with fear did say-
    “I hope God will send us safe across the Bridge of Tay.”

    But when the train came near to Wormit Bay,
    Boreas he did loud and angry bray,
    And shook the central girders of the Bridge of Tay
    On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
    Which will be remember’d for a very long time.

    So the train sped on with all its might,
    And Bonnie Dundee soon hove in sight,
    And the passengers’ hearts felt light,
    Thinking they would enjoy themselves on the New Year,
    With their friends at home they lov’d most dear,
    And wish them all a happy New Year.

    So the train mov’d slowly along the Bridge of Tay,
    Until it was about midway,
    Then the central girders with a crash gave way,
    And down went the train and passengers into the Tay!
    The Storm Fiend did loudly bray,
    Because ninety lives had been taken away,
    On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
    Which will be remember’d for a very long time.

    As soon as the catastrophe came to be known
    The alarm from mouth to mouth was blown,
    And the cry rang out all o’er the town,
    Good Heavens! the Tay Bridge is blown down,
    And a passenger train from Edinburgh,
    Which fill’d all the peoples hearts with sorrow,
    And made them for to turn pale,
    Because none of the passengers were sav’d to tell the tale
    How the disaster happen’d on the last Sabbath day of 1879,
    Which will be remember’d for a very long time.

    It must have been an awful sight,
    To witness in the dusky moonlight,
    While the Storm Fiend did laugh, and angry did bray,
    Along the Railway Bridge of the Silv’ry Tay,
    Oh! ill-fated Bridge of the Silv’ry Tay,
    I must now conclude my lay
    By telling the world fearlessly without the least dismay,
    That your central girders would not have given way,
    At least many sensible men do say,
    Had they been supported on each side with buttresses,
    At least many sensible men confesses,
    For the stronger we our houses do build,
    The less chance we have of being killed.

    What more needs to be said? Janice, beat that :-D

  189. Joe Public says:
    February 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Perhaps Charlie Boy can talk with his plants, and ask their opinion?

    No, no,no. Charles talks TO his plants. If he ever listened to them, everything would be a different story.

  190. I suspect Charlie was only tempted to make his ill-advised ‘denier’ comments to satisfy the ravenous BBC vultures tailgating him around the Somerset Levels. Quite why he feels the need to make his pro-CAGW interventions is a mystery; but he’s been doing it for a long time now and I suppose as long he’s assured of a completely free pass from the BBC (and the rest of the common purpose media) for his non-scientific, non-academic, non-sourced and entirely unproven utterances he’ll just keep right on doing it.

    As a British ‘subject’ (of The Crown – we’re not ‘citizens’ here in Blighty as we have no written Constitution) I pay Prince Charles no attention whatsoever. He’s been a complete irrelevance for decades now and is seen mostly as a pretty pathetic, sad little man (I’m not in favour of abolishing the monarchy, though – I just don’t feel, based on his behaviour up to now, that he’s at all suited the job of ‘being King’), but he can always be relied upon to say something inappropriate about ‘climate change’ and for this his chums in the BBC love him. Perhaps he just likes getting himself on the telly, or something.

  191. richardscourtney says:
    February 6, 2014 at 5:37 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/monckton-challenge-to-prince-charles/#comment-1560045

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

    First, thanks again for your explanation(s) of the Monarchy.

    I’d like to add this to what Tom in Florida said here.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/monckton-challenge-to-prince-charles/#comment-1560035

    I said this some time ago.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/mcintyre-takes-down-lewandowskys-fabricated-statistical-claims/#comment-1085175

    The “Balance of Powers” are supposed to, The Legislative Branch – Congress (composed of The House of Representatives and The Senate) which makes the laws, The Executive Branch – The President etc which implements and enforces the laws, The Supreme Court which rules on whether the laws ‘break the rules”. What is often not considered a “Balance” (or lumped in with The Constitution itself) is The Bill of Rights.
    A couple of examples.
    The Supreme Court ruled that the USEPA , a bureaucracy that is part of The Executive Branch, can regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act (a law passed by Congress). It did not NOT rule that CO2 is a pollutant but only that if it is that the USEPA can regulate it.
    “Executive Orders” are an issue when they are issued, not to implement or enforce a law but to have the effect of a law that Congress won’t pass.
    Religious freedom. “Separation of church and state” is not a phrase in The Bill of Rights. It was in a Supreme Court ruling. (I think the case had to do with forcing, say an atheist, to pray in a public school. It’s been stretched to prevent kids from praying in a public school. One school system even banned the colors red and green at Christmas!)
    The Bill of Rights was to prevent denominational control of Government and Government control of denominations. (Europe had a history of that happening.) It was never to separate “God and County” or “The People from their God” (or lack thereof).

  192. richardscourtney says:
    February 6, 2014 at 6:41 am

    jim hogg:

    You conclude your rant at February 6, 2014 at 6:31 am saying

    … if we are to eventually become a genuine democracy.

    Fortunately, that horrific outcome is not possible here in the UK. Mob rule and lynch mobs are not a good idea.

    Richard, just a short addition to the great primer by Tom in Florida:

    You may have heard the argument that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Tom hinted at it with his remark about the ill-advised changes to our political system to make it “more democratic”. I know from personal experience that such a distinction is typically incomprehensible to Europeans but I came to realize that your appreciation of the limits on the power of popularly elected politicians in the British constitutional monarchy may give you a good basis to understand the difference.

    The idea of a constitutional republic restricting a “democratic majority” is a bedrock principle of our political system. Our success or failure will ultimately be decided by Americans’ will and ability to uphold and restore the founding principles of limited government.

    The “horrific outcome” you mention weighed heavily on the minds of the founders of our republic. I wish you were right about the impossibility of it happening in the United Kingdom but I’m afraid you are wrong just as those who argued it could never happen in the United States.

    The hard truth is that you as a foreigner may come to understand and appreciate our founding system better than many of my fellow Americans who will ultimately decide the fate of our country.

    P.S. Thank you for improving my understanding of the functioning of your political system—and your current predicament—by commenting here and on the previous “Prince Charles” thread.

  193. James Abbott:

    tsk, tsk. You must not swallow all that alarmist hype. CO2 is entirely beneficial. It is the basis of life. It is a plant fertilizer and as such, augments food production for a growing population which will double and re-double this century. The Sahel is greening, thanks to increases in atm CO2 this century. There are many other benefits provided by CO2. Some climatologists have contended that increased CO2 will lead to milder winters,which is nice, but so far this has not happened.

    So relax, prop your feet up next to the fire and have some warm cider, and try not to let those alarmist types frighten you.. Everything is going to be fine.

  194. And still when mob or Monarch lays
    Too rude a hand on English ways,
    The whisper wakes, the shudder plays,
    Across the reeds at Runnymede.
    And Thames, that knows the moods of kings,
    And crowds and priests and suchlike things,
    Rolls deep and dreadful as he brings
    Their warning down from Runnymede!

  195. “Monckton: Challenge to Prince Charles”

    Prince who? Are we talking about: “The Commoner Formerly Known as Prince”?

  196. Jean Parisot says:
    February 6, 2014 at 8:05 am
    I believe I read Charles has a substantial chunk of the royal treasure invested in wind ventures, at what point do statements of individuals that could influence markets constitute tampering in England?

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    if this is true, then Prinny is even dumber than he looks.

  197. Gunga Din and Colorado Wellington:

    Sincere thanks for your informative posts to me at February 6, 2014 at 9:22 am and February 6, 2014 at 9:24 am. They do, indeed, add to the understandings provided to me by Tom in Florida.

    I trust you will understand that the shortness of this simple note of thanks is not an indication of any lack of gratitude. On the contrary, your facts and opinions require serious thought before I would be willing to make any comment, and I have yet to conduct such thought.

    Thankyou.

    Richard

  198. richardscourtney says….
    Glad to be of service Richard and thank you for the lesson in UK Government.

    Our Supreme Court was supposed to be “above politics” since they are appointed for life. Unfortunately no such luck. Our court system was supposed to be a trial by jury with the jury having the RIGHT to judge both the person AND the law. (Jury nullification) This has been slowly removed by the Supreme Court which now allows a bureaucratic tribunal to judge cases involving the same department. In other words the EPA tribunal would judge those the EPA wants to fine or jail for breaking EPA regulations.

    Our Senators were supposed to be appointed by our state legislatures to veto power grabs by the Federal Government. (Article I, section 3,) The Seventeenth Amendment ratified in 1913 changed election of Senators to election by popular vote thus removing this check on our federal government.

    We lost the Senate as a control on the Federal government got the 16th Amendment (ratified February 3, 1913) allowing direct taxation of citizens wealth AND got the bankers as controllers of our economy.( Federal Reserve Act of 1913)

    That is why I point out 1913 as a very bad year for the USA. Makes you want to believe the number 13 is unlucky!

  199. jim hogg: … if we are to eventually become a genuine democracy.
    …………..
    richardscourtney says: @ February 6, 2014 at 6:41 am

    Fortunately, that horrific outcome is not possible here in the UK. Mob rule and lynch mobs are not a good idea.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    AMEN!

    I would like to see our Senate return to the original Constitution voting method or if not that a random drawing of two people from each state.

    Heck, take a leaf out of one of Heinlein’s books and make the drawing open only to veterans with high school diplomas or better. Sure would cut down on the number of overseas military actions and other idiocies. :>)

    Right now we have an Aristocracy, with self-voted privileges, that have to take bribes in the way of campaign contributions to keep their jobs. Some have ‘served’ for more than 50 years.

  200. @Greg @ Zeke. Perhaps Lord Monckton was referring to no statisticlly significant warming CET or global, would one of those get to 25 years perhaps ?

  201. Gail Combs:

    Thankyou for the additional information for me at February 6, 2014 at 10:31 am.

    As illustration of how difficult ‘obvious’ things can be to outsiders, I cite the self-admitted confusion of our host about the differences between the UK, Britain and England. That cuts both ways across the Atlantic.

    I have yet to ‘come to terms’ with all that you and your ‘fellow Americans’ have told me. Hopefully, after I have digested it all then I will not need to interrupt future WUWT threads discussing American issues with questions intended to gain my understanding of ‘what is going on’ but you guys fail to comprehend because you take those matters for granted.

    One response I will now make to your comment to me is the observation you make which echoes a comment from Gunga Din. It seems that your system is based on a written (so fixed) Constitution but is changing with time. As you will appreciate, our system is not ‘fixed’ and has been evolving for many centuries. It is tempting to think change to your system is limited by your Constitution more than change to our system is limited by our monarchy. As a result of comments, I need to think about that a lot more than I have. Perhaps this explains much of my puzzlement in threads discussing American issues.

    And I add a personal point for information but NOT for discussion in this thread. I am frequently abused by Americans on WUWT because I am a socialist. It seems that to many Americans ‘socialism’ means anything they don’t like. In historical reality, socialism was invented in Dorset, England, as a philosophy to protect individuals by providing justice for all individuals in all stations of life (from peasant to King) while avoiding the horrors of the French Revolution. That valuing of the differences between people is a hallmark of what it means to be British, and it can be seen in the support for our Queen from all sections of society (which is not to say we don’t have republicans – we do – but those individuals are entitled to promote their ideas, too).

    Richard

  202. Colorado to Richard: “The hard truth is that you as a foreigner may come to understand and appreciate our founding system better than many of my fellow Americans who will ultimately decide the fate of our country.”

    I’d bet my home this statement is already true!

    Thanks Tom, Colorado, Gunga and Gail for the excellent description of our system and the events that have allowed our government to achieve regulatory control over the gas integral to respiration of humans and animals. While the first step is “bankrupting” coal plants, CO2 regulation permits control of literally every aspect of our lives from family size (2 and 4-legged) to food and housing choices.

    For a statist, CO2 regulation is nothing less than eventual checkmate. And the whole charade teeters precariously on CAGW…

  203. richardscourtney: socialism was invented in Dorset, England. Be proud. The best known form of it was a National Socialism, developed in Germany and in power 1933 – 1945.

  204. to richardscourtney

    richard,
    One additional point on the subject of the U S Constitution. The Constitution is written from the perspective that the people start off with all the rights and that the people, seeing the necessity for a government, grant the government certain restricted powers in order to function for the benefit of the people. Those powers are spelled out in the Constitution. It always makes me very angry when I hear politicians and news people speaking just the opposite, that the people only have rights granted by the Constitution. Now, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution not as a starting point but as an extra measure of certainty for specific rights that the Founders believed were the reasons for the revolution in the first place. History shows that there was a bitter fight over including the Bill of Rights, one side claiming it could be misconstrued as the Constitution granting rights to people and the other side insisting the extra safeguards were needed as all governments eventually take away rights from the people. A compromise was reached by including within the Bill of Rights both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The 10th clearly states that if the Constitution has not delegated a power to the federal government, then the federal government does not have that power. Alas, the 10th Amendment is the most abused and disregarded of all our safeguards.

    And lastly, I have said this before, the United States is not a Country but rather the United States are a Country. The States are individual entities loosely combined to promote unity among themselves. That is the Jeffersonian and States Rights point of view, to which I subscribe. The other view, based on Alexander Hamilton’s reasoning, was that a strong central government was needed to control national economics for the benefit of all the people Our government has been a compromise of both ideologies ever since the beginning, with the advocates of a strong central government clearly prevailing in the last century.

  205. Curious George:

    Your post at February 6, 2014 at 11:52 am says

    richardscourtney: socialism was invented in Dorset, England. Be proud. The best known form of it was a National Socialism, developed in Germany and in power 1933 – 1945.

    Really?
    I suppose then that the best known form of democracy was developed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

    And,yes, I am proud to be a socialist. But, clearly, I am not as proud as you are to demonstrate you are an idiot.

    George, if you were more curious you would have found a clue. As it is, all you have demonstrated is that if your brains were dynamite then you would not have enough to blow your hat off.

    Come back when you understand what you are blathering about.

    Richard

  206. Tom in Florida:

    Thankyou for the additional information you provide to me at February 6, 2014 at 11:58 am.

    It seems that the apparently great differences between our systems reflect some hidden similarities which perhaps may explain why both systems ‘work’.

    In terms of ‘rights’ our system is top-down and yours is bottom-up but in both cases it seems to result in a working compromise.

    Again, thankyou. Most educational.

    Richard

  207. RE: M Seward says:
    February 5, 2014 at 10:47 pm

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

    As you are probably aware, there is something to the seeming stronger showing of the two Princes. The Spencer line brought with it a remnant of the old Carolingian line. :)

  208. Pulseguy,

    I would bet that Lord Monckton would make that wager — assuming that Charlie forfeits his Prince title should he lose the debate.

    But of course, he wouldn’t. What would he do? Go on the dole?

    Monckton is a successful businessman who doesn’t have to worry about that.

  209. Mike Jonas wrote:
    “…Loudoun is a Scottish earldom, do we have to go back to the Plantagenets? This inheritance thing is really rather tricky.”

    The last Plantagenet was the nearest thing England ever had to a ‘good’ king. Betrayed by Lord Stanley (whose life he had previously spared) and then slaughtered and usurped by a Welshman of a bastard line, who was a murderer of children and a paranoid miser, Richard III was generous in victory and brave in defeat, a loving husband and a liberal king: he introduced the idea of bail for prisoners and protection for juries. When that old reprobate Shakespeare sneeringly wrote these lines for his perverted play ‘Richard III’ he was unwittingly writing what England had truly thought of him:
    ‘Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York’

    I understand descendents live in Canada. If they’d like to get in touch….

  210. Richardscourtney – A true conservative reaction Richard, and no less a rant than mine. We all have our values, and even the poor and less well educated are entitled to theirs. And who are you to deny them democratic rights equal to those you surely believe you have the necessary qualities to exercise.. Burke would have been proud of your remarks; Burns would have despised them. Thatcher would have loved them. JsMill would have respected your right to express them but would hardly have agreed with a word of them. Your position of course reveals your view of your fellow man: that most of us are not fit to wield a vote, and to the extent that we have a democratic system it must be compromised for our sakes by the largely hidden powers that serve vested, selfish and mainly exploitative interests. And what a puny viewpoint you’ve fastened yourself to: it’s founded on fear, insecurity and lack of respect for your fellow man. Seems we’re both AGW sceptics though: so here’s to truth, freedom and letting the people flourish, and standing firm against those who think they know what’s best for us . . . the climate establishment for a start.

  211. richardscourtney says:
    February 6, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Tom in Florida:

    Thankyou for the additional information you provide to me at February 6, 2014 at 11:58 am.

    It seems that the apparently great differences between our systems reflect some hidden similarities which perhaps may explain why both systems ‘work’.

    In terms of ‘rights’ our system is top-down and yours is bottom-up but in both cases it seems to result in a working compromise.

    Again, thankyou. Most educational.

    Richard

    =======================================================================
    The problem with both systems (or any for that matter) is that there are people involved. “Human nature” is prone to be selfish and bend the rules for some personal gain, not always financial.

  212. jim hogg:

    I see you have provided another fatuous rant at February 6, 2014 at 12:43 pm which is as devoid of reason as your first failed attempt to post a rational thought.

    The idea of ME supporting Thatcher is too funny for words!

    And YOU are the one who has “a puny viewpoint you’ve fastened yourself to”. Indeed, I have spent much of my time on this thread trying to expand my “viewpoint” by seeking – and attempting to understand – views on government of our American cousins. Whereas you have made pointless rants. But you can take some consolation in that your posts failed to be as daft as the post from Curious George.

    I shall ignore any more of your rubbish. None of it is worth the time or the bother to read.

    Richard

  213. Gunga Din:

    re your post addressed to me at February 6, 2014 at 12:54 pm.

    Yes, I agree. And that is why the Rule Of Law is an imperative under any system.

    Richard

  214. James at 48:

    At February 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm you say to me

    And we can all thank the Magna Carta!

    Well, yes, that was a small step in the evolution of our constitution in that it determined the limits to how regal power could be exercised over Lords.

    You may be interested that I have seen the original document framed on a corridor wall in the House of Lords. Real history which affects us all to the present day.

    Richard

  215. richardscourtney says:
    February 6, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Just a couple of points:

    1. Independence from Britain was motivated by opposition to taxation without representation, and by objection to the rule of men rather than the rule of law. The constitution was drafted largely in an effort to prevent the tyranny of a despot “ruling” arbitrarily (that’s why many Americans choke on the governing party being referred to as the “ruling” party or the “party in power” — the concepts are un-American at their core, yet this terminology is frequently used in our embarrassingly ignorant press).

    2. Americans will generally consider socialism anything that resembles the forcible taking of the property or the freedom of the productive and giving it to the unproductive without requiring anything in return, however noble the motivation for doing so. In America, there is no real reason to do this, as Americans (especially the more conservative of Americans — specifically, those who don’t live in the major cities on either the East or West Coast) are very charitable. Much arbitrary expropriation of property has taken place under the guise of “helping the poor”, yet, after a century of such confiscation, die-hard socialists refuse to come to terms with the fact that the idea is either a massive failure, or massive success, depending on your perspective: there are now more “poor” than ever before, even though the standard of living of our “poor” is better than the standard of living of the “rich” in many other countries. The “poor” and “underprivileged” are now an industry, as are the “minorities”, and those who confiscate property on the behalf of their clients have no interest in resolving their “plight”. Such seems to always be the trajectory of “socialism”: the noble ideals of the naive are no match for the cynicism of the self-seeking hucksters who end up being in “power”.

  216. Kate Forney:

    Thankyou for your post at February 6, 2014 at 1:33 pm.

    Your Point 1 is interesting. Thankyou for stating it.

    Your Point 2 is NOT a description of socialism however, I am willing to accept your information that

    Americans will generally consider socialism anything that resembles the forcible taking of the property or the freedom of the productive and giving it to the unproductive without requiring anything in return

    Purely for the record, and with intention to NOT debate, I point out that socialism boils down to what Marx described (n.b. did not define because it existed long before him) as being
    From each according to ability and to each according to need.
    Nobody has a right to be “unproductive”.
    In the context of this thread, HRH Prince Charles has the “ability” to be available to become King and from him is expected that he will fulfill that duty in the instant it is needed. Hence, his apparently “unproductive” life is him providing his output from his unique “ability”. Indeed, this thread is about Prince Charles behaving in a manner which reduces that which is expected from him as a result of his “ability”. If he chooses to renounce the Crown then he loses that “ability” and does not have a “need” for much of what is provided to him. This is clear concerning Edward VIII who abdicated and was then expected to be a Governor in the West Indies (although that was a useful method to ‘put him out of the way’ throughout WW2).

    Thankyou for your useful information and I hope I have provided some reciprocation.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney says:
      February 6, 2014 at 11:01 am

      Richard, thank you for taking the time to reply.

      I do have a question or two regarding the need/ability bromide and your statement about nobody having the right to be unproductive, if you would be so kind as to enlighten me — I am young and callow and have obviously failed to comprehend socialism (my assessment, although that may be yours as well).

      My questions could undoubtedly be worded more eloquently, but boils down to the following, assuming a context of “ideal” socialism:

      1. How is “productive” decided and “productivity” measured? What, under socialism, are the consequences of being “unproductive”?
      2. How are “need” and “ability” assessed, and how are those assessments translated into the allocation of resources? Is it arbitrary, or is there some non-obvious optimization process at work?

      Are these the undertakings of some kind of “central committee”? If so, have the more spectacular failures of socialism been because of a flaw in the measurement process, or something else? Who assesses the central committee, jointly and severally? What prevents the unproductive from capturing the committee and twiddling the definitions of “need” and “ability” to suit their own selfish purposes?

      If not a central committee, then is it some sort of mob enforcement? What prevents the unproductive from becoming leaders of the mob and perverting the process?

      Does forceful coercion play any role in the allocation of resources? If so, why is it necessary? What are the theoretical limits on such coercion?

  217. @ Tom in Florida

    Your comments on this thread and so eloquently written express the deepest thoughts and emotions in my heart and soul. Thank you sincerely.

    Special thanks to commenters richardscourtney, Gail Combs, Colorado Wellington, and Gunga Din for this most interesting exchange of information.

    Inquiring minds need to know.

  218. I knew Charles only went to the floods to draw
    attention and later bang on about his own vested
    interests and sure enough:

    —-
    6 Feb 2014
    Earlier today he spoke at a leadership summit in east
    London organised by his body Business in the Community
    (BITC) and told delegates who included business leaders:
    “And incidentally I was down in Somerset this week and it
    is, I think, a classic example of what happens if we pay
    little attention to the accumulating impact of
    climate change on the larger picture.

    http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Prince-Charles-gives-warning-climate-change/story-20577095-detail/story.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389461/Prince-Charles-held-36-private-summits-Cabinet-ministers-lobbying-campaign-election.html#ixzz2bjlwpej6

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall–owns-seabed.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10146403/Wind-farms-get-generous-subsidies-for-another-six-years.html

    Man Made reclaimed land that needed Man made
    maintenance but was banned from dredging, by
    Environmental Agency, provoking a flooding disaster.
    —–

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/david-cameron-overrules-environment-secretary-owen-paterson-to-order-urgent-dredging-in-somerset-to-combat-the-flooding-9110120.html

  219. Hmm, I wonder, can the Crown strip Viscount Monckton of Brenchley of his title in a tit for tat war?

    Would love to see one of the thickest Princes ever try to debate Lord Monckton.
    If Camilla has good sense she will box his ears for being so stupid.

  220. In response to Revd Phillip Foster’s comment:

    “The last Plantagenet was the nearest thing England ever had to a ‘good’ king”

  221. Joe says:
    February 6, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Is CET measuring the temperature for the entire country like the BEST dataset?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world.

    Also it is pretty indicative of world ‘temperature’ changes.

  222. richardscourtney says: @ February 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Evil men steal labels to hide their evil. Good men are good no matter what the label.

  223. Kate Forney:

    I am replying to your post addressed to me at February 6, 2014 at 3:08 pm.

    Importantly, I do not have the impression that you are “young and callow”, and if I have said anything which implies that then it was an error for which I abjectly apologise.

    I said I would not debate socialism here, and there are two reasons.

    Firstly, socialism only has relevance to this thread in the context that privilege such as held by HRH Prince Charles is not opposed by socialism of the old-fashioned British kind. However, all privileges of position, power, wealth, etc. obtain commensurate responsibilities. Many Brits vote Labour (i.e. socialist) so they expect Prince Charles to fulfill his duties: they don’t object to paying for his needed privileges but they do object when – as in the case which is the subject of this thread – the responsibilities of those privileges are not fulfilled.

    Secondly, I have debated the subject of socialism on WUWT in the past and on an appropriate thread. The heated discussion commences on that thread here.

    Hence, this is my only answer to your post. Sorry.

    If you make any response to this then I will not be replying until tomorrow because it is nearing midnight here and I am going to bed. Sorry for that, too.

    Richard

  224. Christopher, this is but a waste of time on a hopeless errand. Charles will never debate you, and would not be allowed to face you by his handlers and you know that very well, I suspect anyway.
    The Hanoverian succession has certainly saddled England with a piss poor gene pool among its royals to find brains and sense in. The few who have had them are women. God save The Queen!:] I’d love to see Charles confronted by the late Ian Richardson (of the great British series House of Cards & To, PlayThe KIng) and wickedly dismanteled. If you want people to believe what you say, you must know they are very rarely convinced by debate. They are convinced by having it repeated and shouted at them. No intellectual procesing involved. So unless you are prepared to do that you are just tilting at windmills. This is a propaganda war and it’s being mishandled.

  225. James – after looking at the graph you so thoughtfully pointed me toward, it seems to me that the last 25 years would in fact average out to a nearly horizontal line. Score one for Monckton.

  226. Mike Mellor, you are telling him to drop his title?? I don’t use titles to address people but why on earth should he drop it? It also gives secret American monarchists here a chance to suck up to someone. Since 1915 when Asquith diluted the Peerage beyond recall, none of this stuff ha really mattered. De Brett’s would choke on the Peerage, the British socialists have invented, Jews, Women, Moslems, are you kidding? What next? It’s a good way to get rid of annoying faces from the House of Commons and stuff them in the Lords. It still riles me that Asquith tried very hard to steal the vacated title of the De Vere’s, who I just found out I’m related to! Upstart! It’s history and wiping out history, like the Taliban and our public schools do, is bad for the huam race!:]

  227. And the crown watches as the Worthless Wind Armada destroys your electricity supply, and the last aluminum plant is shut down.

    As Athena said in Homer, rarely does a son possess the great inward qualities of his father, still less those of his ancestors.

  228. Sorry to have not replied sooner to all the posts – been sleeping, eating, working, etc.

    And thanks for all the insults.

    A few points from reading the thread:

    1. To reiterate, the reason why a warmer world is so significant for the UK is sea level rise. It seems very few contributors are interested in this issue (maybe as its undeniable). Sea level rise follows from thermal expansion of the oceans and grounded ice melt. Its currently about 3mm per year which means each year countries like the UK – which has a long coastline but also a high population density – are that bit more vulnerable.

    2. The UK has invested massively in coastal defences. The comparison with the Dutch is not that helpful – they have a much shorter coastline and not so varied. Furthermore the Dutch too are going to have to spend shed loads more money as sea level continues to rise – their defences will not cope with continued sea level rise and the consequences for them of breaches or overtopping are far worse owing to large areas with towns and cities being below, at or near sea level. There are local and regional geological factors too (faulting and isostatic rebound) but a prolonged period of sea level rise simply cannot be dismissed. London would flood now were it not for the Thames Barrier – which itself will need replacing.

    3. If AW decides to ban me so be it. All I am doing is debating the science. I will not resort to insults and don’t hide behind false names or identities.

    4. Monckton is widely discredited (he has trouble with the truth) but if he wants the spotlight of a televised debate then I agree that would be good. He clearly is not going to get Prince Charles, but he might get a climate scientist. Thing is – which would he prefer ?

    • I think James Abbott justifies his very existence on fighting the demon “Global Warming”, and all those evil capitalists who he thinks are responsible. He is incapable of thinking otherwise. that would require him to truly see himself in the mirror….
      Not a pretty picture.

  229. I didn’t realize, Christopher, how much he put your nose out of joint, but, he crossed the line of being a constitutional monarch long ago, as shown in House of Cards from the 80’s. This cow left the barn long ago and the argument you advance is weaker than the one advanced in that show. He is certainly no threat to anything and his sons seem to be better than him at any rate.The weak and serially incompetent British governments since 1964 have flooded the isles with potential enemies with unchanging foreign beliefs that will never be integrated into English life without bloodshed, wasted trillions on a social cradle to grave Mommystate tyranny and are destroying Britain’s last shreds of industry, energy and independence. Britain has more cameras than a baseball has atoms. The Magna Charta, the 800th anniversary of which will no doubt be celebrated with hypocritical cant and full regalia, just exposes how far down we have come from a great promise of freedom. On the other hand you have Downton Abbey, that’s something anyway.:]

  230. It ill becomes Charles Windsor a man whose lifestyle involves constant travel, multiple vehicles and residences to lecture us on changing our ways. Likewise Al Gore and many others.

  231. James Abbott says, February 6, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    The UK has invested massively in coastal defences …

    And needs to continue doing so. But maintenance in recent times has been badly neglected. You can read about one topical example here. More green plague and intransigence, our institutions are riddled with it.

    Sea level rise has had a linear trend for over a century and there is no evidence of acceleration, if anything the reverse in recent years.

  232. James Abbott,

    There is no educating you about anything, because your mind is already made up and closed tight. You have arrived at your conclusion, and now you search for facts to support it.

    But even facts debunk your conclusion. For example, you write that the rise in sea level is: “…currently about 3mm per year…”.

    That is correct. Further, that has been the approximate rise since well before the industrial revolution. Therefore, human emissions have nothing to do with it.

    But you Believe, which is enough for you. Even though you quote facts that show your alarmism amounts to nothing more than natural climate variability, you insist on blaming human activity.

    Do you really wonder why you come across as a wild-eyed Chicken Licken? [‘Chicken Little’ in the U.S.] You need a doomsday scenario to be content. Many people do. That’s what kept witch doctors employed for so long.

  233. James Abbott says @ February 6, 2014 at 4:54 pm;

    To reiterate, the reason why a warmer world is so significant for the UK is sea level rise.

    Of course, any rise of sea level is the same for everyone. UK isn’t experiencing any more of sea-level increase than anyone else. It’s the same sea level, everywhere.

    Any given region can have factors that make it more or less susceptible to assorted environmental factors, sea level among them. Some landmasses are naturally sinking, while others are naturally rising.

    Some regions, England for example, are made of rocks that dissolve readily. England consists of very large geological formations – like the famous White Cliffs of Dover – which steadily dissolve and flow away in the stream & aquifers.

    On the UK HomeProtect Insurance site, solubility-subsidence is explained for the layman:

    The dissolution of soluble rocks creates landforms and features known collectively as “karst”. In Britain we have four primary types of soluble or “karstic” rocks, each coming with their own specific characteristics and potential associated hazards. The four karstic rock types we have are limestone, chalk, gypsum and salt. Subsidence is one of the primary hazards that can be associated with karst formation, though karst may be a less common factor when it comes to subsidence house insurance claims.

    Karst is only one type of subsidence; HomeProtect have a large Subsidence Index, with dozens of articles on the ways England and the UK is slipping back into the sea … regardless whether sea level is rising or falling.

  234. James, would you debate him?
    At #3 you claim to be debating the science. I see lots of statements made but no science.
    Saying the sea level has risen 3mm doesn’t mean it is so: it is merely an assertion. I could just as easily say that the UK coastline has sunk 3mm because of all the sea walls weighing it down!
    What do the tide gauges say over a reasonable period, say the past 100 years? (assuming the coastline hasn’t been sinking)

  235. As a kiwi I think “Prince” Charles is a stupid old fool, widely disliked.
    I heard this story about him – Every morning he used to go for a walk near Buckingham Palace and was accosted by a prostitute who offered him her services for a 100 pounds. She was persistent so to get rid of her he used to mutter “I’ll give you 10 pounds” and hurry on. One day he was walking with Camilla so he hastily crossed the road to avoid her, but she yelled out from across the road – “See what you get for 10 pounds you cheapskate!”

  236. Brad says: @ February 6, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    I think James Abbott justifies his very existence on fighting the demon “Global Warming”, and all those evil capitalists who he thinks are responsible….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually it is his paycheck he is justifying. If the internet search I did is correct his paycheck is more dependent on CAGW than the ‘Team’s’™ paychecks. That means he is only interested in data (or hearsay) that supports that paycheck and nothing else.

    He does not care about WUWT regulars, he is trying to persuade the fence sitters who lurk or casually visit this site.

  237. Gail Combs says at February 7, 2014 at 3:23 am

    He does not care about WUWT regulars, he is trying to persuade the fence sitters who lurk or casually visit this site.

    Which is a good thing. The debate is an important part of the site – it draws in the fence sitters.

    And it let’s the regulars present their arguments in a challenged environment.

    Don’t scare off the opponents who can’t be persuaded with logic. They still have a purpose.

  238. M Courtney:

    At February 7, 2014 at 3:35 am you say to Gail Combs

    Don’t scare off the opponents who can’t be persuaded with logic. They still have a purpose.

    I agree BUT this particular “opponent” relies on offensive propaganda which has no relation to reality and applies misrepresentation of responses to his comments, changing the subject, and Red Herrings.

    If James Abbott came here to advocate his view then that would be good. He does not. He comes here to disrupt threads by clearly dishonest methods.

    Richard

  239. I revere Lord Monckton and his work, but the Monarchy does not need this disrespect, whatever you think of His Royal Highness. There have been no perfect Monarchs, even our beloved Queen Elizabeth II. And I hope we are all believers in freedom of speech, and showering friends and relatives with Steyn’s books and CDs. When His Royal Highness spoke out about architecture, monstrous carbuncle an’ all, many of us were cheering him on…though I think Auberon Waugh’s advice to hit any architect you ever met smartly in the face had a lot going for it. Given the impossibility of any real debate with the Snake-oil Science Settlers, Goremons and the Church of the Latter Day Suzukis, that must be a tempting approach but I’m pleased to see how well behaved Team Skeptic are.

  240. James Abbott says:
    “If the climate was cooling, sea level was not rising and storms were not getting more severe the sceptic community would have some evidence to back up their claims.

    But its the other way round.”

    “Among other things, the three researchers report that (1) “the content of marine-source ssNa aerosols in the GISP2 ice core record, a proxy for storminess over the adjacent ocean through the advection of salt spray [ss], is high during the LIA with a marked transition from reduced levels during the MCA [hereafter MWP] (Meeker and Mayewski, 2002; Dawson et al., 2007),” (2) “the onset of the LIA in NW Europe is notably marked by coastal dune development across western European coastlines linked to very strong winds during storms (Clarke and Rendell, 2009; Hansom and Hall, 2009)” and often inundating local settlements and therefore with supporting archival evidence (Lamb, 1995; Bailey et al., 2001),” (3) “a number of studies of Aeolian sand deposition records from western Denmark exist that have recorded a period of destabilization of coastal sand dunes and sand migration during the LIA and have ascribed it to a combination of increased storminess and sea-level fluctuations (Szkornik et al., 2008; Clemmensen et al., 2001; Aagard et al., 2007),” (4) “similar records and interpretations are available for the British Isles (Hansom and Hall, 2009) and Scotland (Gilbertson et al., 1999; Wilson, 2002),” (5) “in an analysis of Royal Navy ships’ log books from the English Channel and southwestern approaches covering the period between 1685 and 1750 CE, Wheeler et al. (2010) note a markedly enhanced gale frequency during one of the coldest episodes of the LIA … towards the end of the Maunder Minimum [MM],” (6) “this late phase of the MM is also registered by the deflation of sand into the ombrotrophic peat bogs of Store mosse and Undarmosse in southwest Sweden (De Jong et al., 2006),” (7) “more evidence for increased storm severity during the MM is provided by an archive-based reconstruction of storminess over the Northwest Atlantic and the North Sea (Lamb and Frydendahl, 1991),” (8) “increased storm activity during the LIA was not restricted to northwestern Europe, but was also recorded further south along the Atlantic coast in The Netherlands (Jelgersma et al., 1995) and northern (Sorrel et al., 2009) and southwestern France (Clarke et al., 2002),” and (9) “sedimentary records of LIA coastal dune accretion have also been found further south on the French Mediterranean coast (Dezileau et al., 2011) and in the western Iberian Peninsula (Borja et al., 1999; Zazo et al., 2005; Clarke and Rendell, 2006).”

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/sep/11sep2012a4.html

  241. Duncan Veasy- revering people is dangerous and unwarranted. That must be why you have such a neanderthal’s view of the monarchy? Sucking up no longer required.

  242. David G said @ February 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm;

    Duncan Veasy- revering people is dangerous and unwarranted.

    “Reverend” in centuries past was just another honorific form of address. It meant merely, ‘to revere’ or, ‘revered one’ … then gradually became the standard way of addressing a Minister. Like, The Reverend Jesse Jackson (US usage).

    The form of address per se is not the source or cause of the hazard. The risk is embodied in the person, and exists – such as it does – irrespective of the honorific by which one might be addressed (or isn’t).

  243. John W. Garrett says:
    February 5, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    Charles is a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, not a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His dad, aka Phil the Greek (or Dane), adopted his maternal grandparents’ name of Mountbatten, anglicized from Battenberg during WWI, just as his mom’s family became Windsors instead of Saxe-et ceteras. The Queen at least is half British, unlike her mostly German ancestors & kids.

  244. Religious freedom. “Separation of church and state” is not a phrase in The Bill of Rights. It was in a Supreme Court ruling. (I think the case had to do with forcing, say an atheist, to pray in a public school. It’s been stretched to prevent kids from praying in a public school. One school system even banned the colors red and green at Christmas!)
    The Bill of Rights was to prevent denominational control of Government and Government control of denominations. (Europe had a history of that happening.) It was never to separate “God and County” or “The People from their God” (or lack thereof).

    ========================================================================
    I thought I should add for clarification the actual wording of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights (there are 10) pertinent to this example (in bold):

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    Somehow from that it was deduced that a kid couldn’t pray in a public school if he or she wanted to.

  245. Perhaps David G is from the rebel colonies, but a moment’s comparison of our beloved monarch with His Imperial Majesty Barack I, and more importantly a more reflective comparison of the institution of constitutional monarchy with republics wherever you chose, shows that what we have still is worth defending, old son. There are numerous folks in the fight for science and free speech whom I revere…for their intellect, honesty, bloody minded persistence, drive and megacojones. I don’t think any of them encourage up-sucking.

  246. Somerset Levels: There’s nothing ‘natural’ about this man-made flooding
    Catastrophic Somerset floods are the result of the Environment Agency’s policy against dredging its rivers

    Talk to the locals, and to the experts of the Royal Bath & West agricultural society, representing hundreds of farmers – the Levels comprise a fifth of all Somerset’s farmland – and they are in no doubt as to why these floods are the most devastating in memory: it is because, since it took over prime responsibility in 1995 for keeping this vast area drained, the Environment Agency has deliberately abandoned the long-standing policy of dredging its rivers.

    Thanks to the agency, the four main rivers have become so clogged with silt that there is no way for floodwaters to escape. The farmers and the local drainage boards that used to keep the pumping stations in working order are only too keen to play their part in clearing the maze of drainage ditches. But the agency’s officials have decreed that, as soon as silt is lifted on to the banks, it cannot be spread on nearby fields without being classified as “controlled waste”, making it so difficult to move that much of it just slides back into the water.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10595534/Somerset-Levels-Theres-nothing-natural-about-this-man-made-flooding.html

  247. JO:

    I apologise for missing your question at February 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm. If you are still following the thread then this is the answer to your question; viz.

    Hmm, I wonder, can the Crown strip Viscount Monckton of Brenchley of his title in a tit for tat war?

    Yes.
    The Monarch issues Letters of Patent which award titles, and can revoke them for any reason at any time. Titles are either hereditary or Lifetime. An hereditary title passes from father to son upon the demise of the father. A Lifetime title dies with its owner so the pertinent Letters of Patent become void at that time.

    The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley inherited his Letters of Patent from his father and so has his hereditary title. This makes him a Peer of the Realm and, therefore, he is a Lord so is technically a Member of the House of Lords. However, under the existing rules he does not have a seat in the House so cannot speak or vote on legislation.

    At least one Peer who does have a seat in the House, Matt Ridley, often contributes to WUWT.

    Richard

  248. Re: pat frank @2/5 6:03
    In regards UK and EU, may I refer you to a written opinion from a few years back, beginning with “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary …”

  249. Hey, “fellow Texan” (which I seriously doubt – do you hail from Austin?) – one of your links doesnt work, conveniently the first one, which you forward as some kind of ‘proof’ that ol Chazzy knows wherefore he speaketh – whats up with that, hombre? The second I checked out – never heard of the site, never heard of the harridan that is mentioned, and frankly, is about as politically motivated as ol Princey baby in Merrie Old. Guess all those scientists working in Houston, Dallas, et al who have observed the drop in sunspot activities that coincide with global cooling periods means nothing at all? Or that the “hell or high water” the country has been experiencing is just natural fluctuations. Dayum, pardner, in these here parts we call that ‘weather.’ You write as if it were some kind of corporate conspiracy.

    I suggest you take your ‘findings’ (talked with farmers my native Texan cowgirl butt!) and go back to Hippie Hollow. I’m sure some freeze-dried 60s radical there will lend you sympathetic ear…

  250. Richard said in an earlier post “Nobody has a right to be “unproductive” (in reference to what socialism/marxism actually is)

    It is strikingly funny then that socialism/marxism breeds the worst sort of indolence and apathy of ambition. You speak of Chazzy’s duties, in his elevated state. I guess some are more equal in their ‘productivity’ than others, then? Welfare rolls here in the US speak volumes of the “duties” of a certain segment in the name of ‘equalizing’ and ‘greater good.’

    And don’t lecture us Americans about what we do or do not understand about socialism. Those of us who have lost our freedoms through the EUROPEAN encroachment of socialism understand all too well…and there are plenty of us who have ancestry near enough to remember what EUROPEAN STYLE “EQUALITY” was all about. I wonder, Richard, if it upsets you that socialism/marxism has killed more people in the name of breaking a few eggs to perfect a flawed system than American wars combined? And you wonder why you’re not invited to freedom?

    But you said you didnt want to ‘debate’ socialism here. How mighty white of you to defer a thread you high-jacked with your socialistic comments back to its original owner!

  251. thegardentart:

    I am writing to inform you that I wasted a couple of minutes of my life reading your ignorant, untrue and offensive tripe at February 8, 2014 at 10:01 am.

    I did NOT hijack the thread with “socialistic comments”. On the contrary, I refused to debate the issue with the series of anonymous zoolites like you whose only contribution is ignorant lies.

    When questioned about it by Kate Forney, at February 6, 2014 at 3:30 pm I explained why I was not willing to debate the issue here and I provided her with a link to another WUWT thread where I had explained my political views and engaged in debate of them.

    I cannot express the degree of my contempt for whatever despicable creature wrote your post and I sincerely hope that such filth as you have provided will never pollute WUWT again.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney says:
      February 8, 2014 at 10:34 am

      I am embarrassed that my sincere questions could have somehow been responsible for such acrimony.

      My intention was not to debate anything — as I said, I am still very green and don’t feel I’ve been taught properly about various forms of government. Thus, I am in no position to debate anything.

      While I understand free markets (as opposed to “capitalism”, which now in many countries seems to have the flavor of what I understand to be “fascism” — that is, private ownership but state control (whether explicit or implicit) of the means of production — that eventually devolves to “crony capitalism”) and how they allocate resources, I sincerely do not understand how socialism does not devolve in the same manner. This seems to have been the path followed by, for example the USSR.

      Because I understand free markets, it seems to me that they are the most “natural” form of economic activity. The logical consequence of my comprehension of markets is the conclusion that limited government, with the emphasis on “limited”, is necessary to their operation.

      The old “from according to ability/to according to need” platitude seems to imply, in the abstract, a 3rd party: the recipient in the “from” clause and the benefactor in the “to” clause. I’m assuming that this 3rd party is the state in both cases. But what comes of people who do not wish to contribute their economic output to the state but to their families? Are they criminals? As I understand it, according to lawyers I know,there is a problem in ever-expanding partnerships in that dilution of reward results in dilution of effort. I cannot see how socialism escapes this problem.

      Again, I don’t wish to debate, but to learn, and my questions are sincere, and I had hoped to learn from someone intelligent who proudly claims to be a “socialist”.

      My apologies for somehow triggering such an unnecessarily harsh and unseemly turn in the discussion. Had I foreseen such an outcome, I would have taken my questions elsewhere.

      With contrition,

      Kate

  252. Kate Forney:

    Thankyou for your post at February 8, 2014 at 11:44 am.

    Please be assured that you have nothing to regret and no need for contrition.

    I clicked on your name and I assume you are one of the two lovely young ladies who appeared. If so, then I urge you to continue to question, to learn, and to think for yourself. This applies to all things including politics. You may harden into one of the American political right like the admirable Gail Combs, or you may turn into some leftie like me, or more likely you will adopt views which are somewhere in between, but you will then be your own person.

    I knew from past experience on WUWT that if I were to debate socialism then some slime mold would seep from under a rock, and that was why I tried to evade the subject. However, given the difference between British and American politics it needed to be mentioned.

    What happened was not your fault so please do NOT allow it to deter you from asking questions of anybody in future. You already display the confidence to express your opinions in clear fashion, and that is good.

    Anyway, I hope that a young lady such as yourself will accept these comments with the same good will as they are offered from this boring old foggie who is old enough to be your grandfather.

    Richard

  253. What can one expect from the heir to the throne. He’s always been a “veddey proppah Chaley”.

  254. As an American who has a great deal of admiration for the Royalty – perhaps that is my first mistake – I still wish all of us were able to select our leaders based on their demonstrated self-sacrifice, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

    I am assuming that Prince Charles is a reasonably intelligent person. With all due respect to the people of Great Britain, does he not have a clue as to the hypocrisy of his statements or has he so assimilated himself into the Climate Change collective that he is unable to see beyond his pint?

    Does he not even think for one minute that implementing some of the IPCC conclusions and proposals might very well be the end of Great Britain (and the United States) as we know it? By cosying up to the demands of the IPCC and their ilk, he essentially gives up his throne, either now or sometime in the near future.

    Maybe that’s what some of the IPCC members want, i.e., to take from the rich and developed nations like Great Britain and the United States of which they are clearly so envious. This is one of the primary characteristics of any collective, i.e., “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

  255. The gloves are off, take your sword…all this acrimony and downright violence for two words spoken by a British citizen voicing his personal opinion to peers…. This sounds more like a personal battle between a man who has a title but no seat and a citizen who his higher on the pyramid this “Lord” cannot climb..People like me have nothing to do with that. But for those here who gave information on climate change thank you for all the websites. I would like to propose a new point of view on ” climate change” which is different than “global warming” given by systems science. Nature (as our body and even humanity for that matter) is a self-regulatory biosystem. This means that the weather degrees wont change much overall but the variations will be more extreme. Eventually, how the system reacts on the long run cannot be foreseen since it depends on its resilience. Longtime gardeners (30+) such as myself have observed this. This implies more catastrophes. I believe some who invest money in commodities are aware of this http://www.thebrowningreport.com/. So whatever we do to curb this variations and augment nature’s resilience is good. The thing is, we have now to find what is the proper prescription. I believe we are all here united on one point : what is good for nature is good for humanity. That we might disagree on details is not important, we are of the same battle.

  256. Haven’t read all comments, so don’t know if anyone has observed that Lord Monckton’s granddad, the 1st Viscount M of B, was the lawyer who advised King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis. Prince Jugears would be well advised to heed the 3rd Viscount’s wise counsel now, as his great uncle did the 1st.

  257. richardscourtney says: @ February 8, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Kate Forney…

    I clicked on your name and I assume you are one of the two lovely young ladies who appeared. If so, then I urge you to continue to question, to learn, and to think for yourself. This applies to all things including politics. You may harden into one of the American political right like the admirable Gail Combs, or you may turn into some leftie like me, or more likely you will adopt views which are somewhere in between, but you will then be your own person….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Kate, I agree with Richard. Do your own thinking.

    Richard- Actually I am somewhat middle of the road.(You can tell by the constant attacks from _Jim.) Though at times I am ready to join the ranks of the Anarchists in sheer disgust with our so called leaders. [search Mark Stoval “The State versus Governance” ]

    My thinking is: Leave people as much freedom as possible. Protect their property and wealth and have enough government to ensure that protection. Provide a safety net for the less fortunate. (This does NOT have to be via a corrupt wasteful government BTW) Honest politicians NEVER make it high up in politics so keep the government small and as close to home as possible so citizens have direct control of their politicians.

    Pure dog-eat-dog ‘Capitalism’ devolves into the bullies owning the government and just about everything else. Unfortunately in the USA the checks to prevent this have been removed one by one over the years as I have detailed here at WUWT on occasion.

    E.M. Smith, an economist, has a couple good threads discussing stuff you will never find without a lot of digging.
    “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

    isms, ocracies and ologies

    Make sure to listen to all sides. The worst mistake is closing your mind.
    Good Hunting Kate.

  258. Richard says:
    February 6, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    As a kiwi I think “Prince” Charles is a stupid old fool, widely disliked.
    I heard this story about him – Every morning he used to go for a walk near Buckingham Palace and was accosted by a prostitute who offered him her services for a 100 pounds. She was persistent so to get rid of her he used to mutter “I’ll give you 10 pounds” and hurry on. One day he was walking with Camilla so he hastily crossed the road to avoid her, but she yelled out from across the road – “See what you get for 10 pounds you cheapskate!”
    —————————————————————————————–
    Classic!!!

  259. Charlie boy is a deluded, but highly dangerous fool ,he must be removed from the succession before he can inflict real damage!

    • DICK R says:
      February 16, 2014 at 12:03 am
      Charlie boy is a deluded, but highly dangerous fool ,he must be removed from the succession before he can inflict real damage!

      ————————

      Rather too late, I’d say. The image of a buffoon-King is burned into the consciousness of many.

Comments are closed.