The royal prince in waiting of Britain labels climate skeptics as “headless chickens”.
From The Telegraph:
Prince Charles has criticised climate change deniers, describing them as the “headless chicken brigade” during an awards ceremony recognising a leading young green entrepreneur.
Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, also spoke out against “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups during the event held at Buckingham Palace last night.
The mark of a true leader is bringing people with diverse views and backgrounds together, clearly with this recent pronouncement, Prince Charles clearly has failed as a leader.
I’ll point out a few things the prince who may be king should know, but doesn’t, or chooses not to.
1. Rational climate skeptics don’t doubt that some portion of the proposed greenhouse effect is real, it’s just that nobody (and that includes many scientists) seems to be able to agree upon how much. The few who actually deny the Greenhouse effect exists, such as the “Slayers” aka “Principia Scientific” only represent the views of a fringe.
2. Item 1 then leads to arguments about climate sensitivity, values are literally “all over the map”:
3. The global climate isn’t responding as it was predicted by government scientists, the trend over the last 12 years is basically flat:
Compare that to climate sensitivity predictions, which center around .2°C
The three graphs above are from Michaels and Knappenberger in this post.
4. The response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation, which may explain why there is little warming over the last 12 years:
Figure 4 is from this WUWT post: Sensitivity Training: Determining the Correct Climate Sensitivity
5. While rational climate skeptics point out reality based factual inconsistencies with warming projections, the global warming movement has been hijacked by emotional activists, such as Bill McKibben and Al Gore, who use emotional pleas and invective to motivate people. You won’t see them ever show the graphs above because they don’t deal in facts, only emotional appeals.
6. By making an emotional label about climate skeptics, instead of dealing with facts, Prince Charles demonstrates that’s he’s no different than Bill McKibben and Al Gore. Given recent opinion polls, he’s basically called about half of his potential subjects “the headless chicken brigade”, yet it is he who seems to be centered on the emotionalism and randomness more suited to that label.
Perhaps there is a reason the Queen has held on so long.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excuse me? I was born in Sydney and I AM a British subject.
To the ghost of big jim cooley
RE: “I’m for a Republic, myself, and I can understand the feelings of Australians”.
the feeling s of Australians was expressed at the last referendum when we voted in the majority to reject the call by some to become a republic and remain as a commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state, the same QE II that I swore to defend with my life when I took an oath of allegiance in the 60’s.
Furthermore, having seen the deplorable antics of Presidents of Republics we took the right decision then and more than likely would do so again.
You Yanks need a better geopolitics lesson.
England is one country of the 4 making up Great Britain, the others are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom alone is part of the whole and its correct name is United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
Simple.
It is not just the ”Slayers” who do not agree with you about the GHE. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you cannot see this then that explains why your experiment ”proving” back radiation as you claimed showed only that you do not understand basic physics.
The Ship of Fools does, indeed, have a Prince. Perhaps their rescue should be paid out of his yearly allowance?
The day that idiot becomes king will be the day I become a Republican.
Still, at least he’s against wind farms….
Chris
For those who think the royals in the UK don’t have any real power:
“It has emerged that Charles has held 36 meetings with ministers since the government took power in May 2010. He has met the prime minister, David Cameron, seven times, four different ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government and held six meetings with ministers in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which oversee areas in which the prince campaigns on planning and the environment respectively. Neither Whitehall nor Clarence House will elaborate on what was discussed in the private meetings”……
“Later this year, the court of appeal will hear the latest stage of an eight-year battle by the Guardian to get the government to reveal a set of 27 letters written by the prince to ministers in seven departments over a nine-month period.”
From the following article:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/12/prince-charles-scrutiny-mps-lobbying
Turns out Prince Charles is desceded from Vlad the Impaler, who was the inspiration for Bram Stoker’s novel, “Dracula”:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9656769/Prince-Charles-heir-to-Draculas-blood-line.html
“Transylvania is in my blood,” he jokes in an interview first shown on satelite television last year. “The genealogy shows I am descended from Vlad the Impaler, so I do have a bit of a stake in the country.”
At least he’s got a sense of humour – he’s got that going for him.
Patrick says:
February 2, 2014 at 12:52 am
“That’s because he is a product of German and Greek interference and centuries of static DNA replication. But then the Germans call the British “Englanders”, or “Anglanders” and, if my memory serves, the “Angles” (Anglanders) originated in what is now northern Germany.”
We call the English Engländer, we call the British Briten. Scottish, Schotten; Welshmen, Waliser.
Angles are Angeln; Saxons Sachsen.
So don’t worry, we know all the distinctions and have words for them. The Angles were a tribe from what is today Schleswig-Holstein, slightly north of Hamburg.
Davidg says:
February 1, 2014 at 6:21 pm
“It’s a historical fact that Prince Edward was a Nazi in all but name […]. Of course many people were attracted to the idea of Hitler as a bulwark against the red menace of the Slavs. That was the basis for appeasement.”
Well, the Brits also supplied Uncle Joe with a quarter of their airplane industry’s output while America still hadn’t started supplying Uncle Joe via the Lend & Lease program; so obviously the anti-German faction knew which genocidal maniac to ally themselves with. After all, it was Germany that was an upcoming competition to the UK’s industry, not the USSR, which had no competitive products.
Rather simple Churchill Realpolitik;
http://rense.com/general83/dett.htm
“Germany is too strong. We must destroy her.”
– Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936.
“The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of
obtaining German sales markets.” – Winston Churchill. March, 1946.
It was all rather well planned.
Fortunately the monarch has a mostly ceremonial role, and we’ll get another King William before too long anyway 🙂 . Thank god Brenda’s still hanging in there…
It’s all very simple:
England is the land of the Engs.(No, not the Ents)
Britain is the land of the Britons, and the home of the Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Northmen,
Poles, Planks, Pakistanis, Hungrys, and Rumainheres.
Great Britain is Britain with the addition of Wales, Scotland and Ireland – the obvious inference
is that addition, not multiplication, brings true greatness.
The UK is the United Kingdom, that is Great Britain with the subtraction of most of Ireland (All Gaul is occupied? No, one small village … etc etc) ergo the ‘UK’ is used because Lesser Britain has not the same ring.
None of this is to be confused with Britannia, a fairy Godmother who ruled the Waifs.
Nor is any of this to be confused with “Little Britain” which are small regions of no accounting where the rules are waived. (Not to be confused with the EU, or the UN)
And to all those sand trolls and likkle engs who squeak of Caledonia and bankrupt in the same sentence: BUD, take your FUD and SCUD.
And yes, Charlie is a loon, for he has the brain of a loon, and a loon of England too.
The Prince of Wales is not likely to be happy with his subjects after the next election, since he is calling a significant and growing number of them names.
How weak must your beliefs be if they are trounced by headless chickens?
It is a pity that comments ignore the wonderful summary of climate scepticism and focuses on attacking the Prince.
Question 1: Does climate sensitivity mean the change of the temperature when CO2 doubles from 200 ppm to 400 ppm or from 400 ppm to 800 ppm or something else?
Question 2: How can we apply climate sensitivity to regional temperatures? Does it apply only on NH temperatures outside the tropics?
Oscar Bajner says: “Nor is any of this to be confused with “Little Britain” which are small regions of no accounting where the rules are waived”.
—————————-
Are you talking about the City of London there? It does have it’s own legal jurisdiction (and police) and it is a financial sesspool of fraud (13% of UK GDP I believe, the financial services industry). “The Corporation”, I think they refer to it as, at the annual Lord Mayor’s banquet.
When I say fraud I am, of course, speaking of money laundering for drug cartels ($600Bn +) and financing of t3rrorist organisations as well as pedelling toxic derivative financial products designed to enrich the wealthy and trash the global economic system. And nobody goes to jaii (apart from in Iceland, which is doing just dandy, for the time being).
I only bring this up because it is on-topic with the royal family. I will leave it to the late, great George Carlin to explain it (in a US context). It’s a club….
A system based on debt is unsustainable – it will be destroyed. It is what it is replaced with that bothers me.
He really look like a chicken doesn’t he?
And he certainly talks like one.
He talks like a chicken without a head.
There once was a prince named Charlie
The years had made old and gnarly
One day he awoke
Found he was a joke
And his rants turned snide and snarly
Eugene WR Gallun
I must correct one mistake in the comments. The Duke of Edinburgh does not, from comments he himself has made, share the beliefs of his eldest son.
Frankly we find Charles a bit embarrassing – which is why we all say “Long live the Queen”.
johnmarshall says:
February 2, 2014 at 3:09 am
Quite right, quite right, many of us could use a little lesson but you seem to have made a mess of it. I was always taught that Northern Ireland was not part of Great Britain and that’s why the country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And that the United Kingdom is the whole, not part of the whole. The united whole. Simple.
Also, when it comes to world politics, I would suggest adopting a more authoritative and geographically correct nickname for Americans. Yanks is not really used that much among the geopolitical elites, especially not in our hemisphere. Here we are best known as Gringos, i.e. Greeks (derived from Spanish ”griego”).
Just reviewing the options for describing Chuckie. In GB he would be a silly goose. in Canada a loon, and in the US a turkey. We have had Charles the Fat and Charles the Simple so why not Chuckie the Green. Ironic that his “rule” will be in a cooling trend.
Long Live the Queen
Is it time for those of us in the US to request those across the pond start using ‘the United States of America’ in all blog posts? Wouldn’t want to confuse the USA with the United States of Stellaland.
Nah, didn’t think so.
Mark Besse (@MarkB1205):
Your post at February 2, 2014 at 10:35 am is silly.
Calling the British “English” is similar to calling Americans “Californians”.
Do you really think Texans would like that?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 2, 2014 at 10:54 am
Calling the British “English” is similar to calling Americans “Californians”.
True, that would be silly. On par with calling a Southern or a Western man Yankee or Yank (not that you personally did).
On the other hand, you did not make it exactly easy for us. I use British when not referring specifically to the English but I sometimes wonder what the Northern Irish think of that. Do they mind competing as Great Britain in international sports *)? I assume they are less touchy about British than being called English. It seems that Great Britain is used as synonym for the U.K. by the “British” themselves because it’s convenient even when not correct.
*) Besides those Northern Ireland athletes competing for Team Ireland.
Colorado Wellington:
re your post at February 2, 2014 at 11:36 am.
All your problems of nomenclature would possibly be resolved if you Americans all unified all your flags to agree with the flag of Hawaii. We Brits could then address all Americans as being colonials.
Richard
From johnmarshall on February 2, 2014 at 3:09 am:
Not quite.
From http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/britain.htm, which has a copyright stating for school and classroom use only without written permission so I’m not directly quoting:
Great Britain is the official name given, a political term, for the two kingdoms England and Scotland with the principality of Wales.
Great Britain is frequently but incorrectly used as a synonym for the sovereign state correctly known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
As noted, the UK is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not “United Kingdom and Northern Ireland” as you said.
So far that’s 2 of 3 of your sentences that are incorrect. And this Yank found a better geopolitics lesson than yours, from a website by Kent schoolteacher Mandy Barrow. Good job there, lass.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics, simply stated, is energy does not like to be concentrated, it wants to disperse into the lowest concentration possible. To concentrate energy takes work, you will always end up with less concentrated energy than the total of the energy you started with and the energy used for the concentration process.
The greenhouse gases are not perfect insulators, they allow energy to be dispersed from the warmer surface to the colder outer space. They just slow the rate of transfer. As the concentrated energy at the surface, which overwhelmingly originates as even more concentrated energy dispersed from the Sun, is still allowed to eventually disperse into a less concentrated form throughout space, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated.
Glad to help you there with your continuing education, mate. Cheerio!
We’ve got rebels and yanks, but:
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.