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.
MarkG says:
February 1, 2014 at 9:46 am
“Britons seem to generally agree that Charles is a loon. Most of us are hoping the monarchy can skip a generation and go to one of the kids.”
I am surprised that Anthony is posting this since I thought most Britons considered the royals as something akin to national house pets. Not sure what my chesapeake bay retrievers think of global warming, but then it might well be interesting to know. They are wonderful creatures but perhaps using the word “think” with respect to them is a bit overboard. As anyone who has one probably knows, there may be no more stubborn dog on the planet.
The only reason we have a monarchy is because we don’t want Obama, Mugabe, Hollande, Merkel, Blair, Clegg, Balls or either of the Milibands. Instead we are going to get a barking mad clown who has conversations with trees but clearly the next conversation has to be something to do with starving them to death to save the planet. His Father the Duke is funny, Charlie is a proper Charlie and he most definitely is not funny at all. I have a feeling that Mumsy is determined to out live him because she shudders at the prospect of having all of her hard and discrete work completely undone by Charlie and blowsy fag ash Lil, we can only hope. Mumsy would have never ever got involved with anything to do with indicating that her subjects might be mentally retarded and in desperate need of being shackled to the wall of a padded cell and subjected to ECT every fortnight to ensure their compliance. George Monbiot has suggested many times as has David Suzuki that anyone who disagrees with them should be hung drawn and quartered maybe they hope Charlie gains sufficient influence to make sure an example is made.
Novantae says:
“Did you know he talks to plants?”
That’s obviously a one way conversation/relationship.
Anybody that listens to plants………by observing their massively positive response to increasing CO2, would clearly understand what it is they want.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/
But then, maybe he secretly hates plants and wants them punished (:
TimC, for clarity I’m not saying Brittania rules the world – or even just the waves.
But we still have influence over those who do.
Chris Edwards said on February 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm:
Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
-No, but I have Prince Charles in a fanny pack.-
Strewth! Now that is honest packaging.
I took some pleasure in writing to HRH and quoting the words of our PM Tony Abbott “No one, however smart, however well-educated, however experienced … is the suppository of all wisdom”.
Vince Causey says:
February 1, 2014 at 9:41 am
Actually I don’t like it. It’s about time we found another Lenin.
—————————————————————————–
Aren’t we supposed to learn from history?
Sometimes you see a post, where you just know the comments are going to be brilliant, and you kind of savor the moment and let them build.
Then begin to read them.
“REPLY:Changed. I can never figure out which is correct, England, United Kingdom, and Britain are essentially interchangeable terms in the American psyche, at least that’s my view of it – Anthony”
Cheers Mate, can you just review that difference between Canada, The USA and mexico again? Apparently they all in North America so they must all be called the US.
Friends:
Those who think HRH Charles has adopted ‘environmentalism’ for PR reasons are mistaken. He is – and for decades has been – in the thrall of his Cotswold neighbour Jonathon Porrit who is an extremist eco-loon.
Please remember that Charles has been raised from birth to do one very special job and he is still waiting to do it now he is 65. His life has been purposeless, and he has looked for purpose by ‘playing’ with architecture (e.g. setting up a real-world toytown for people to live in on the edge of Dorchester), and doing good works (e.g. setting up the Prince’s Trust). He was ripe for Porritt to offer him a ’cause’ which would give him purpose.
One can only hope that the period between Her Madge. leaving and William taking her job will be short. William is already schooled in the military matters he needs to know, is starting to undertake ceremonial duties, and it can be assumed he is getting the political education he needs. It would be a tragedy if he were to end up like his father before he wears the crown.
Richard
Jim G says:
February 1, 2014 at 1:50 pm
MarkG says:
February 1, 2014 at 9:46 am
“Britons seem to generally agree that Charles is a loon. Most of us are hoping the monarchy can skip a generation and go to one of the kids.”
I am surprised that Anthony is posting this since I thought most Britons considered the royals as something akin to national house pets. Not sure what my chesapeake bay retrievers think of global warming, but then it might well be interesting to know. They are wonderful creatures but perhaps using the word “think” with respect to them is a bit overboard. As anyone who has one probably knows, there may be no more stubborn dog on the planet.
============================================================================
Four words: American Pit Bull Terrier.
Does his Mum know he has escaped the royal pram?
My condolences to our British friends, for your ‘boob in residence’.
Commiserate with us, as we have more than one of our own here in the USA.
We elect them …..
Her Majesty the Queen is stalwartly soldiering on as she is aware what a disaster Prince Charles would be as a Monarch. There is no reason why Her Majesty should not live to well over 100 years-old and still be reigning. This would certainly increase the odds that Prince Charles would pass away and his son could assume the throne and be another successful Monarch.
So the Prince uses the term “Blind Trust”…. Hmmm….
http://www.marketvisual.com/d/2b618c48-6f69-4794-9cb5-33ccf4cb89eb
http://www.marketvisual.com/d/addef569-4d99-431a-9440-a51deb93a8e1
May Her Majesty reign for a Hundred Years.
Prince Charles may have used a poor choice of words, but if AW is going to produce a serious response based on “evidence” then maybe he needs to look more closely at his para 4 and accompanying figure 4.
AW claims that
“The response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation, which may explain why there is little warming over the last 12 years”
Evidence for that please ?
If the evidence is the graph figure 4 then forget it.
For a start the axes are not properly labelled. We assume the x axis is CO2 in PPM – but what is the y axis ? Change in temperature from what ?
If it is – as it appears to be – a model of the atmosphere starting from no CO2 in it, then its not clear how the blue and green lines relate to known response to actual CO2 levels that have occured in the atmosphere in the last few million years.
Worse still, the lowest sensitivity model would have us believe that taking ALL of the CO2 out of the atmosphere would result in only a 2C cooling !
The blue line (lowest sensitivity) would imply that there is almost no change in temperature from deep ice age levels of CO2 (190ppm) through pre-industrial (280ppm) to now (400ppm) even though we know that it was about 8C colder than now at the depths of the ice ages.
The green line (sensitivity of 1C to doubling pre-industrial CO2) does little better.
Its also not clear if this is an attempt to just model atmospheric sensitivity in isolation or if it includes known powerful feedbacks (such as the role of oceans in absorbing CO2 and ice area/albedo).
Are the model scenarios settled at an equilibrium level ? If so, in making his 12 years claim AW is ignoring committed warming
It is almost universally agreed that there is a range of scenarios for future (real world) temperature response to rising CO2 levels. But if the model you are using to try and argue for very low sensitivity in the future cannot explain the known past, it is useless.
James Abbott says:
February 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm
“It is almost universally agreed that there is a range of scenarios for future (real world) temperature response to rising CO2 levels. But if the model you are using to try and argue for very low sensitivity in the future cannot explain the known past, it is useless.”
As no GCM can explain the LIA or the MWP, you are implying that climate science has not produced a correct model.
We are in agreement about that.
Charles said it was
So his highly publicized opposition to GMO crops, despite decades of overwhelming scientific evidence as to their safety and cost effectiveness says what?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_PRINCE_CHARLES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-01-31-11-12-23
Chris Edwards says:
February 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Anything is possible, don’t trust wikpedia! I am from London and twat always meant the colloquial for vagina! Fair comment for charles except twats are useful!
=============================
Mostly used in the way I described in the part of London (West) I grew up in.
Are you from the East?
Chucky La La King
charles the moderator says:
February 1, 2014 at 2:57 pm
“Charles said it was
”
Strawman anyway. Dark Matter was a protective hypothesis from the start; and currently they’re changing their ideas about Black Holes, another McGuffin.
DirkH
No I am referring to the model that AW has used to try to claim that there will be no further warming due to CO2 saturation.
Also those periods you refer to have relatively small temperature differences to now.
The main point is that significant warming is expected as a result of doubling, or more, CO2 levels. If AW is going to rely on a model that says that will not happen, then that model has to also explain the fact that deep ice ages temperatures, at a time when CO2 was about 180ppm, were 8C cooler than now. And it does not.
James Abbott:
Your post at February 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm questions the above article by our host.
You ask
Say what?!
ALL the time series of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) show more than 12 years of no warming discernible at 95% confidence.
The “response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation” as a result of the logarithmic nature of the response. This is a matter of fundamental physics. And it is why each doubling of atmospheric concentration from present level has the same effect.
This was repeatedly explained to you by several people for example hereon the thread you polluted last week.
You ask
It does not matter because, as was also explained to you, the committed warming has disappeared. That was explained to you in that same thread here. And I am astonished that you have the gall to raise the matter again because you ran away from my question which I remind you was first posed to you in the link I provided in this paragraph and was
You have raised the subject again so please answer the question before making another post. Or do you intend to troll this thread then run away as you did a week ago?
Richard
James Abbott:
I see that while I was making my reply to your first post you had already started your tricks again in your second post which is at February 1, 2014 at 3:07 pm.
In your first post you quoted that our host wrote
Note that, James Abbott, you quoted that he said that he was referring to “the last 12 years” and NOT the future.
But in your subsequent post which I am addressing you write
HE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM AND YOU KNOW HE DID NOT BECAUSE YOU QUOTED WHAT HE DID SAY!
That is precisely the same kind of deliberate misrepresentation you repeatedly made in your last escapade on WUWT. So, I repeat, please answer the question you have evaded for a week before making another post.
Richard
richardscourtney
AW claimed that CO2 is saturated and that explains the 12 year pause. No evidence is produced at all to back that up other than the dodgy graph – which is what I am referring to.
Yes temperature has a logarithmic response to CO2 – you don’t have to keep saying it to sound important – we know that and that is what AW’s model shows too.
Problem is, as I have pointed out, and you obviously do not want to acknowledge, his two low sensitivity scenarios collapse for past climate.
As to your claim that
“committed warming has disappeared”
well if fundamental physics is your game, why are you ignoring the thermal inertia of the oceans ?
Fact is that publishing models that try to predict the future whilst ignoring the past are completely useless.
As to trolls, is that your definition of anyone who dares to get off the self-congratulatory “climate change is not happening” internet roundabout ?