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.
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
Gunga Din:
Matthew answered your question while I was writing my answer. But I think they are complimentary so I think you would find it useful to read both.
Richard
Eugene WR Gallun says:
February 2, 2014 at 10:00 am
—————————————-
classic!
richardscourtney says:
February 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Thank you for your excellent summary, Richard.
…. and Matthew.
================================================================
Thank you both.
It sounds that the British Monarch is a bit like the Japanese Emperor in that the authority is hereditary. In Japan that authority was, for all practical purposes, theoretical and rarely used until the end of WW2. In the UK the authority is also hereditary but routinely used but on a low profile basis. I mean no offense in the comparison to the Japanese Emperor but am I “in the ball park”?
Before your comments I saw the British Crown as sort of a flesh-and-blood Old Glory. The Stars and Stripes are a wonderful symbol but they don’t have a vote.
“The mark of a true leader is bringing people with diverse views and backgrounds together, clearly with this recent pronouncement, Prince Charles clearly has failed as a leader.”
Well said. (And he has also failed the common sense test … that science is never settled.)
What is puzzling is that Prince Charles is a mature individual who, one would have thought, should have learnt an important lesson set by his mother in that she never makes known her personal views on issues that are potentially divisive and highly political. This is why Prince Charles will never make a popular King. By insulting an element of society he has taken sides when he ought to remain neutral.
richardscourtney says: No, William is Second In Line to the throne.
If Charles outlives his mother then the throne will be his to pass on to William. If he doesn’t then it goes to her oldest surviving son, unless they get the rule change through which will put Anne in the running.
A quick laugh…..
The difference between England, Great Britain and the UK explained.
http://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10
@richard Thal – Thank you for a very amusing, but very informative look at the UK, GB, and England.
If Steve Goddard is right about the 1°C “step fudge” in the ’90s, you can extend the Pause back to the ’30s.
We pray the Queen outlasts Princes Charlie and Phil. William would be far better.
Phil can’t get it. Look at Henry VIII, a late son overtook two daughters and a surviving wife.
Popularity counts for nothing, nobody wanted James I. If they could have taken one of Charles II illegitimate offspring rather than his ghastly brother James I am sure they would.
“DirkH says:
February 2, 2014 at 4:15 am”
Thanks for the clarification from a German perspective. Given “English” and “British” people are also considered “anglo-saxon”, it’s not a surprise.
Gunga Din:
At February 2, 2014 at 7:31 pm you ask me
Sorry, but I do not know enough about the role of the Japanese Emperor to answer your question. This is not an evasion, it is merely my ignorance.
Richard
Nobody in Ireland uses the term ‘Eire’. We call our country Ireland. The ‘six counties’ is called ‘Northern Ireland’. For some reason many English football commentators persist in calling Ireland ‘The Republic’, as though there are no other republics in the world.
Robin Hewitt and Brian H:
I write to correct misunderstandings which may mislead people and you state in your posts at February 3, 2014 at 12:59 am and February 3, 2014 at 1:13 am, respectively.
I pointed out that William is Second In Line to the throne and Robin replied
No, Anne will not be “in the running”.
The eldest son of the monarch or future monarch inherits the position of next in line to the throne.
Charles is the eldest son of HRH Queen Elizabeth II. He is next in line to the throne and will inherit the throne (i.e. Charles is first in line to the throne). The eldest son of Charles is William so he inherits from Charles (i.e. William is second in line to the throne).
In the event that HRH Queen Elizabeth II outlives Charles then the inheritance of the throne still passes to Charles and through him to William because William is second in line to the throne.
Anne is not relevant to this. Before Charles had a son,William, then Anne (being the sister of Charles) was second in line to the throne. But when William was born he displaced her as second in line. And when William’s brother, Henry, was born then he displaced Anne as third in line to the throne. And now William has a son who has displaced Henry as third in line.
The proposed change of rule is to alter the inheritance from eldest SON to eldest CHILD.
Elizabeth has a son, Charles has a son, and William has a son, and each of those sons is the eldest child. So, if the proposed change is adopted it will not alter anything until at least four generations have passed.
Brian H you say
Prince Philip is the Queen’s consort. He is not in line to the throne.
Similarly, Catherine (Kate) is married to William. She is not in line to the throne but their son is.
I hope that helps clarify things.
Richard
Richard Thal:
The video you provide at February 3, 2014 at 1:06 am is brilliant!
It is certainly not a “laugh” although it is provided in humorous style. Anybody still confused by the nature of our country needs to use it.
Its short length does have provide some inevitable minor inaccuracies. For example, not all British Protectorates were part of the Empire; some requested that status from Britain instead of being part of the British or some other Empire. But few Brits are aware of such trivial details.
I commend it to everybody. It is here and I thank you for providing it.
Richard
richardscourtney: excellent
If you want to listen to a person of depth with the wisdom of what ‘service’ means:
Coming back to this site, after a while, it seems to have become a journal where people of a certain world view (which, may i acknowledge up front, could well be the right one). It reads as if you all sit around agreeing with each other and mocking or rubbishing anyone who disagrees with you.
And there is clearly much pleasure in that.
On the small chance that anyone here is interested in increasing their knowledge of the world, contemplating the alternative perspectives that might be available, and indeed understanding the variety of people who live in it (beyond your rather closed community) then let me offer you this.
What follows is is not based on ever having met or talked to the man. Nor is it based on agreeing with him. Rather it is based on having met and talked to people who have worked for him for many years and being struck by the unique and rather odd job he has (or chooses to have).
His people say that the key to understanding him is to grasp that he knows he will never face a vote, will never need to be popular, will never need to work within a 5 year election cycle, will never have to face an annual shareholders meeting, will never be sacked. You can say all of that is “wrong” (or that he might be wrong and will get deposed) but given the political stability of the UK, the track record of his ancestors (especially his mum), it is a not an unreasonable point of view.
He also knows that he has no real, immediate power (or, put another way, if he did try to interfere in the rhythm of the ruling of this country (i.e those affairs that are supposed to be scheduled by Prime Ministers, CEOs and Arch Bishops) then he could find himself out on his rather large ears)
So what does he do?
Well he sees his job, his duty, his obligation, is to address the issues that he not only cares for (natch) but, in particular, to speak on those issues that work to very long time scales. And by “very long” he means over the generations. Not “5 or even 25” but over multiple generations i.e. 50 or 100 years. Because, that is the job of the monarch, as he sees it. (you may not like this, but to understand him, you need to not compare him to the normal sort of people you might meet)
So if you check his wikipedia page you will find him campaigning/interfering on
– The Built Environment (buildings can last for centuries so you need to be cautious)
– The Natural Environment (changing ecosystems, biosystems etc. are all multi-decade things so need to be treated cautiously)
– Alternative Health (hmm, well he might have backed a bit of a loser with Homeopathy but health is something that you have personally for getting on for a century these days, so i get why he is into it)
Specifically he “does not want us to make a massive mistake on global warming for future generations ON MY WATCH” {NB this is a reconstructed quote, here}
He, in summary, is acting like a Steward. All very medieval but then he does come from a line of Kings so what did you expect?
Now you might argue (eg Lomberg et al) that “going green” will harm future generations. But he chooses to take the bet the other way. It might be wrong, but its not unreasonable.
Now there are very few people with any real power/influence who can genuinely take this very long term view. I.e. there are very few who truly answer to no one but their own conscience. Off the top of my head only Bill Gates springs to mind (ironically a “warmist” who’s profound smartness is literally before your eyes right now, Microsoft Office fans).
But back to Charles and the points that he “should know”, according to our host.
1. How much is man made. He is probably more concerned about it getting worse over the next century seeing as we have done something that is probably damaging over the last few decades. Why take the risk?
2. Climate sensitivity. Given that the majority of the numbers are positive, even the small ones would cause a lot of damage on a century scale.
3.A decade (or two) of flat. Well easy one that : Kings think in centuries and generations not decades,
4. Saturated. He might be finding this one a bit technical. Or one of his ancestors might have been told that London was “full” when it reached a million people. It is now 10 million or so. Perhaps Kings don’t buy saturation arguments…
5. One side is emotional. I suspect he sees both sides as emotional. He certainly is, He thinks he should be. He’s the King (well almost…) he’s supposed to care!
6. Gore.His subjects etc. As i explained above he thinks and acts completely differently from Gore. And he sees it as his job to help his subjects by championing the issues that short term politicians and/or businesses may get wrong and harm his subjects.
So he may use intemperate language. But he thinks you lot are wrong. He sees it as his job to stop you causing harm to future generations. Perhaps if i was him, i might agree with him (but probably not on the homeopathy or plant talking).
As i said. If you see him as an enemy, now you know more about what you are up against. On the other hand, if you are available to thoughts outside your own court of mockery, he is an interesting, if anachronistic, phenomenon to study
And, of course, perhaps he is right and we are all lost in our short term battles (e.g. to be the world’s most viewed climate site).
Jon Leach
While some comments have bordered on mockery I don’t see that as a theme here. I posted the Queen’s Christmas address to use as a juxtaposition with her son and because of the smart way she gets to the heart of things without pontificating or calling anyone names. Is that so much to ask?
jon leach:
It would require writing a book to explain how and why you are wrong about almost everything in your post at February 3, 2014 at 10:08 am. So, I will merely state your major misunderstandings.
Firstly, your long-winded explanation of the attitudes of HRH Prince Charles does not concur with the facts. Reality is as I said in my above post at February 1, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Those who want to correct Charles’ misunderstandings of climate issues and opponents of the AGW-scare need to expose Porritt. Charles will abandon his AGW-activism if that malign influence is removed.
Secondly, I have followed all of this thread and I have seen no claims that Charles is “the enemy”. Several people have claimed he is a deluded fool and in a way he is: the search for meaning in his present life makes him susceptible to foolish ‘guidance’ by a titled, rich and nearby extremist like Porritt.
Thirdly, and importantly, it is NOT that Charles thinks we “lot” are wrong. He has been misled into thinking Porritt is right.
Richard
Long live the Queen.
DirkH says:
February 2, 2014 at 4:23 am
Yes, and WWI for much the same reason: eliminate Germany as economic rival
Steve P:
re your off-topic post at February 3, 2014 at 12:24 pm.
No. DirkH likes to pretend he knows about history, but often makes a fool of himself.
Contrary to his claims in his post at February 2, 2014 at 4:23 am, WW2 was not “well planned” by the British. It was “well planned” by H1tler (who wrote a book about his plans).
Indeed, we mistakenly tried to appease H1tler and reduced our armed forces while H1tler was preparing for war. Meanwhile, Churchill was considered a crank and was side-lined because he was warning about H1tler and the certainty of war.
Eventually H1tler’s expansionism had to be stopped and Britain said if he invaded Poland then a state of war would exist between us and Germany. This ultimatum was made despite Britain being unprepared for war. H1tler invaded Germany on 1 September 1939 and WW2 started.
It became obvious that Churchill had been right about H1tler and Chamberlain’s appeasement policy had been a total failure. So, Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister on 10 may 1940 and he was then replaced by Churchill.
All of these facts can be verified by anybody with access to a library or the web.
Ultra-right-wingers like DirkH may pretend that Britain planned that war, but their pretence is merely part of their misrepresentations of Naz11im.
So, can we now return to the subject of this thread, please.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 3, 2014 at 12:53 pm
….H1tler invaded Germany on 1 September 1939 and WW2 started……
All of these facts can be verified by anybody with access to a library or the web.
===========================================================================
Sorry, Richard, but that typo was too good to pass up. 😎
Of course you meant “invaded Poland”.
(“Bloopers” are one of my favorite forms of humor.)