From the UK Express
PRINCE CHARLES ON CLIMATE CHANGE: GLOBAL WARMING SCEPTICS ARE ALL LIARS
Charles, who has campaigned on global warming for more than 20 years, said: “I have watched with growing dismay and alarm the glee with which the sceptics have leapt upon the recent news stories that question the science that climate change is man-made and suggesting it is nothing more than a myth.
 |
| Prince Charles: ‘I’m not willing to play Russian Roulette over climate change’ |
“Well, if it is but a myth, and the global scientific community is involved in some sort of conspiracy, why is it then that around the globe sea levels are more than six inches higher than they were 100 years ago?
“This isn’t an opinion – it is a fact.”
He added: “And, ladies and gentlemen please be in no doubt that the evidence of long-term and potentially irreversible changes to our world is utterly overwhelming.”
Charles spoke after arriving in Manchester by Royal Train pulled by a coal-fired steam locomotive, named the Tornado, which was rebuilt from a 1948 design.
Read the entire article at the UK Express
First let me say that I like trains. But Charles apparently has no clue about how such a pronouncement might be viewed by commoners when he’s apparently doing nothing to curb his own carbon footprint. Will Jim Hansen denounce him for riding on a coal powered “death train”?
Charles also seems to think that sea level is a static feature of our dynamic Earth. Here’s a few reminders about sea level change the prince probably hasn’t discussed in polite conversations. He might also benefit from a visit to Israel, where sea level has been variable for the last 2500 years.
Here’s the last 9000 years which appear almost flat in the graph above due to scale used:
In our current era, while sea level has in fact been rising, continuing the trend started thousands of years ago, it recently appears to have slowed a bit:
Clearly we live in the golden age of relative stability, but Earth is very seldom that way. The rise of man just happened to get lucky…thanks to a warming world.
But who to believe, a coal powered prince or your own lying eyes?
u.k.(us) (07:56:06) :
This is hilarious… I wonder if he downloaded a Torrent copy of each movie and burnt the DVDs himself?
He should have given him “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” or ” Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs” or maybe just a bunch of Woody Allen movies.
But I must admit that it was a sick selection of movies.
Hey! Talking to plants is good science. I talk to some of mine to cheer them up. I’m not sure if they care about what I have to say, but they sure dig the CO2. 😉
Mark (20:18:32) :
Here in Canada, I’d vote to get rid of the monarchy just to lose whacky Charlie!
Well, I kind of like the monarchy, but I would vote to skip Charlie. I would like to go strait to his younger son. He actualy spent time in the military (maybe even earning one or two of the medals that royalty always wear), and was stationed at a British base in Canada for a while.
Speaking of dumb and dumberer:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/dutch-point-new-mistakes-climate-report/
Updated February 05, 2010
Dutch Point Out New Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report
Specifically:
According to an AFP story, IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level — 26 percent — to the area threatened by river flooding — 29 percent — Vallaart said. “They should have been clearer,” Vallaart pointed out, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had the exact figures.
He noted that correcting the error had been “on the agenda several times” but had never actually happened. Vallaart told the AFP that he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed, adding that it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC’s numbers.
But the politicians are the Policy Makers, at the top of the IPCC Pyramid, and that is ‘ by design ‘. Those are the procedures at the IPCC, the top dawgs are the “Deciders”, and it is policy. You could feed that through till you are blue in the face, and the result isn’t going to change.
Guys
Not many people realise that there really is a serious side to having a constitutional monarch and that is this: the British monarch and his or representative has the power to dissolve parliament and call a new election.
As far as I know, it only has happened once in recent times when Gough Whitlam was deposed for nearly turning Australia into a Banana Republic sometime in the mid 1970s. In the subsequent election, his Labour Party was booted out of office in a landslide.
Britain, Canada and Australia can think themselves lucky they have an ultimate sanction against politicians’ stupidity and tyranny. Unfortunately for our American cousins, they gave up this privilege sometime in the 1770s.
Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (09:03:49) :
Mark (20:18:32) :
Here in Canada, I’d vote to get rid of the monarchy just to lose whacky Charlie!
Well, I kind of like the monarchy, but I would vote to skip Charlie. I would like to go strait to his younger son. He actualy spent time in the military (maybe even earning one or two of the medals that royalty always wear), and was stationed at a British base in Canada for a while.
Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (09:03:49) :
Like father, like son…
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article123700.ece
Charlie boy also spent time in the military – Royal Navy as I remember. His Dad was a Greek navy officer before he married his Princess.
Oh my GOD !!!! 6 inches in 100 years, if this keeps up in 100 years sea levels will rise by 6in . Head for the hills!!! What ever happened to the British stiff upper lip? What has happened to the once great empire, land of my ancestors?
If there ever was a reason to abolish the monarchy this guy is it, him and George III, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, ect.
Long Live The Queen.
OT:
Looky! Looky! Data – British public more sceptical on global warming!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm
hide the decline!
Six inches? Six INCHES???
The Prince better not go to the market and try to purchase bananas in those units.
“Charles…. the king that never was.” HA HA.
Al Gores says (I’ll puke if I hear it once more), “Hi my name is Al Gore, once the next president of the United States.”
Chuck could use that line …
Hellooo, pip pip, jolly good … My name is Charles, Prince of Wales, once the next King of England.
He’s lookin’ more like that Norwegian Blue parrot every day. ☺☺
Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (09:03:49) :
That experience alone is reason for the boy to join the food fight. Just another monkey throwing apples at the high brow “elites.” Hee hee.
Can’t make this stuff up!
Perhaps the liberal press in the UK now see Climategate as a weapon against the throne.
In the United States I believe it tends to be seen as a weapon against the President. I do hope his advisors have made him aware of John Costella’s clear analysis of the Climategate documents and their implications regarding the integrity of the science.
Of course, true science is being lost in the noise of political considerations.
The Prince should stick to what he’s good at: reviewing the troops. click
In. Bred. Nit. Wit.
Yes there was:
‘ vigilantfish (07:03:50) :
Alexej Buergin (01:35:57) :
“I would love to see a scientific debate about AGW between the Prince of Wales and Lord Monckton. But, as always, the warmer will welsh on participation. Talk about nomen est omen.”
I hate to play the ‘offense game” but due to my Welsh background I hate to see that use of the word.?
Sorry about that; I did not know the W-Word was an attempt by the English trying to offend your people.
But I can feel your pain; my grandfather is regularly slandered here because of his profession (he was a railway engineer, really).
Is he too old to be young or too young to be old?
Have you seen something more cool than a kool-aid drinking prince?
Dutch to U.N.: We’re Not Under WaterIPCC’s beleaguered climate report hit again as Dutch point out factual inaccuracies about Netherlands
• India to Create Independent Climate Panel
• Blizzard Bears Down on Mid-Atlantic
Why oh why does the Prince go on like he does?
evanmjones (20:20:40) :
“It’s warmed over the last 100 years.
. . . . . .
Man has made a “potentially irreversible impact”.
. . . . . .
Meanwhile, do we have a skeptic alive who does NOT believe this?”
Yeah, and for good reason. It isn’t true.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZfSiy2A9mow/Ssh-uh6T_yI/AAAAAAAABcg/V1OpQEmDP4s/s320/351+year+Central+England+Temperature+record.png
richardb (07:15:09) :
Glad to see that you are all now agreed that the Earth has warmed and that sea levels are rising. I wonder what could possibly have caused it? Maybe an increase in atmospheric C02 by 38% over the past century could have had an impact.
OR the end of the last Ice Age, the end of the Little Ice Age and the warming of the earth (and melting of glaciers) until we descend into another Ice Age (little or otherwise). There is a reason geologists generally do not believe in AGW see Lucy’s graphs: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
And there is a reason the CIA in 1974 was concerned about the ending of the Holocene. The Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is now about due according to several reports.
“Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age …” http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-ice-ages-%E2%80%93-may-also-help-predict-future
MILANKOVICH ANALOGUE DATA QUINN ET AL 1991: Graph http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7e/Milankovitch_Variations.png
The interglacial stages are shaded grey by the authors of the graph. Every interglacial lasts for no longer than a single half cycle in Solar Forcing (TSI), the yellow curve. The temperature goes into decline when insolation is in rapid decline.
The earth according to these graphs is near that position now.
How rapid can the decline in temperature be?
“Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica…. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states…. Researchers always tell you that more research funding is needed, and we are not any different. Our main message is not just that, however. It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.“ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Last updated: September 3, 2009 http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
Here is the most recent paper on Milankovitch cycles discussed here at WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-of-ice-ages-solar-and-earth-wobble/
500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
See it is just as easy to show we are headed straight into another Ice Age. Control of the media is all that is necessary to get the east coast of the USA and the EU to believe it.
How do you figure?
——
Queen Elizabeth II owns 1/6 of the entire land surface on earth (nearly 3 times the size of the U.S.).
——
Assuming she doesn’t own any of Russia, China, the US doesn’t leave much.
Pamela Gray (21:00:34) :
However, the queen ain’t no genius either. I am decidedly unimpressed with Briton’s loyalty. From the queen right on down to the queen’s 3rd cousin once removed. For all that loyal education, ya think ya’ll could come up with a “smarter” be-jeweled majesty. Or at least the offspring.
Don’t be too smug, you Americans. You got heavily reimpregnated with aristocracy early in the 20th century. When the agrarian economy was falling apart, and the toffs were going broke in their hundreds, they did what they had always done – marry for the money. In this case they married rich Americans; only the respectable east coast banker types though, not those nasty industrialists with the dirty finger nails. (Fred Astaire’s sister, Adele, married a Cavendish, and went to live in Lismore Castle, Ireland.) So your wealthy class is full of Lords, Dukes, Marchionesses and all sorts of dross. Might explain some of the crazy people you have over there.
Hope this doesn’t put you off your next meal.
Peter Miller (08:26:15) :
Guys
Guys
‘For the record, there is not too much Brit in Charles; he’s mostly German and Greek.’
Where do you get the Greek from?
There is no Greek blood in the British Royal family. Mostly German, Elizabeth 11 was 50% British blood (via her mother). Phillip was of German, Danish and possibly Russian blood. He might have been born in Corfu as the son of Prince Andrew of Greece but as far as I can ascertain, there were no Greeks under the bed on the nuptial night.
So that makes Charles about 75% German with a dash of Danish and 25% British.
But as I said earlier the royals are of no matter. The real people to focus upon are the politicians who are stealing your money and destroying your economies for these ridiculous and pernicious carbon taxes.