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.
MattS says:
“Four words: American Pit Bull Terrier.”
Yep, my son has one. Difference is that with an electric collar it is much MORE controllable than the Chessies. Smarter, I believe, as well. Or simply not as able to deal with electrical “stimulation” as well as the Chessies. Biggest problem with both breeds is they are not very fond of other dogs that they are not very well acquainted with and sometimes even those with which they are. My two Chessies occasionally still try to kill one and other after six years of being together.
To keep on topic, are there comparisons here with the royals?
From charles the moderator on February 1, 2014 at 2:57 pm:
It says you’re due for another lecture from Gail Combs about the Monsanto monopoly due to their selling of sterile hybrid seeds. If you want the crops then you must buy their seeds for every planting, and they are pushing for the adoption of their genetically-modified plants for marginal circumstances, for which patents and other protections will lock in Monsanto as the sole supplier, at their asking prices, for the seeds you will need to get the crops the marginal people desperately need.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947
She’ll inform you the overall message is still good, even if a certain royal messenger is otherwise a bit nutty with his own interpretation of it.
I don’t mind GMO per se, but I would like to see new useful GMO strains released on a “public good” basis that breed true, yielding fertile seeds, permanently benefiting the destitute of the world rather than benefiting Monsanto and cronies at every planting.
James Abbott:
re your post at February 1, 2014 at 3:34 pm.
NO! Answer the question you have evaded for a week.
I will not – and I hope nobody will – get trapped into one of your silly discussions unless and until you answer the question. You raised the subject of “committed warming” again in this thread. Answer the outstanding question on “committed warming” before trying to deflect the thread onto other of your nonsense.
Richard
Speed says:
February 1, 2014 at 9:15 am
Nice suit.
================
Empty suit?
richardscourtney
I am not at all clear what it is you want me to answer.
If it is about committed warming, that is the temperature response yet to come from the energy imbalance generated from the raised CO2 levels – ie reaching equilibrium of the system (such as there can be in a complex system with natural variability).
To claim now that there is little or no committed warming to come is rediculous. Given that there has been a pause for just 12 years we simply do not know. We will know one way or the other several decades from now, but not at present – to say so with such conviction is just wishful thinking.
Getting back to my question – that is for AW to answer – namely why is such an obviously wrong basis being used to justify the claim that saturation has been reached ?
James Abbott says:
“…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.”
First off, models are used primarily by the alarmist crowd, while empirical [real world] observations are used by scientific skeptics. So far, the skeptics have been correct, and the computer modelers have been wrong.
At what point will you admit that your models are junk? Ever? Art what point will you admit that your climate alarmism has no valid scientific basis? Ever?
Next, you say that low CO2 levels cause lower global temperatures. However, there is no correlation showing that cause and effect relationship. You simply cherry-picked one example, and extrapolated from there. But in fact, global temperatures have been much lower when CO2 was much higher, and vice-versa. So your conclusion is based on wishful thinking, nothing more.
Finally, Richard Courtney is correct, as usual. There is no “committed warming”. In fact, there has been no global warming at all for the past decade and a half — while China, Russia, India and a hundred other countries were pouring harmless CO2 into the atmosphere [the US has actually reduced its CO2 emissions]. The alarmist crowd ‘explains’ the lack of warming by saying, ‘Global warming causes global cooling’. Preposterous and ridiculous. So much for your false claims of “significant warming”.
Now, why don’t you do the right thing, and finally admit that you were wrong. That way, you would have some credibility. Now, you have none.
For the benefit of our transatlantic former colonials – or ‘Sceptic Tanks’ in English English (see Austin Powers for what this means) – the Queen of England is Elton John, Elizabeth the Second is Queen of the UK and some current and former colonies plus sundry small islands around GB. Mind you, if you go to Jersey in the Channel Islands (those little ones that are ‘ours’ even though they are quite near to France), they will tell you that England is their oldest possession!
Most of us here don’t want big ears to be king and hope Liz II lives longer than her mother did (102). Then the throne can pass directly to William who seems to have maintained a bit of sensible decorum and made a popular couple with his new trouble and strife. They seem to have something of the George VI Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon about them. That said, if Harry Pothead became king, it would certainly be fun.
I don’t think Charlie boy has any idea how foolish he makes himself look with his periodic outbursts – slag off your potential subjects at your peril!
James Abbott:
If this is not a very good example of saturation, what is?
Yes, another huge dollop of CO2 could raise global temperatures a minuscule amount. But that is not likely. Over a century we have seen the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rise from around 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000. That hardly seems alarming. A 40% rise of an extremely tiny amount is still an extremely tiny amount.
Question: at what point will you admit that your climate alarmism has been falsified? At twenty years with no global warming? When glaciers descend on Chicago a mile deep? Or, will you never admit that your cAGW conjecture is wrong?
Take your time answering. Cognitive dissonance is difficult to accept…
dbstealey
What are you talking about ?
Its not my model I was referring to or anyone else’s other than the model AW relied on in making claims about sensitivity in his article.
Real world observations are of course vital, I would hope we can agree on that.
And real world measurements show a very good correlation between big changes in global temperatures and big changes in CO2 concentration. If you deny that then there is no point in any further debate. Its like trying to discuss the shape of the Earth with someone who still thinks its flat.
And if you and the rest of the sceptic community are going to rely on sensitivity models that cool the Earth by just 2C when there is a (theoretical) zero CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then good luck. You appear to live in a parallel universe with different physics to this one.
@ur momisugly dbstealey
People like James Abbott will never admit they are wrong, they will simply quietly drop cAGW when they find another faux “we are all doomed” crisis they can obssess over (:
dbstealey:
Thankyou for your post at February 1, 2014 at 4:13 pm but all of that and much more was explained to James Abbot by several people a week ago.
In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, James Abbot made his first post in that thread here.
As anybody can see, a long series of exchanges with several people then ensued before everyone agreed he was merely trying to be a troll. He was an especially effective troll because – unusually – I was far from the first to recognise that he was trolling.
It ended with my question to him (repeated by me above in this thread) concerning where he thinks the “committed warming” has gone. He was pressed on the matter so went away until he appeared in this thread and raised the same issue!
Hence, my request that he be ignored because he has already started his tricks in this thread as he did in the thread I have linked in this post. Clearly, his intention is to disrupt this thread as he did the previous thread and he has nothing – n.b. nothing – to contribute.
Richard
We can get rid of our messiah in 3 years. England is stuck with theirs until his death. Pity the UK.
From James Abbott on February 1, 2014 at 3:57 pm:
Using the SkepSci temp trend calculator, default settings of 12 month moving average and °C/decade units, and not fussing too fine, GISTEMP land+ocean yields 0.106 +/- 0.107 from 1996.75 to 2014, so that’s at least 17.25 years without provable warming, amount is still below uncertainty.
NOAA land+ocean yields 0.088 +/- 0.095 from 1994.75 to 2014, thus at least 19.25 years
HADCRUT4 land+ocean yields 0.095 +/- 0.098 from 1994.75 to 2014, thus also at least 19.25 years
Satellite records, RSS yields 0.118 +/- 0.120 from 1989.5 to 2014, thus over 24.5 years without provable global warming.
UAH yields 0.152 +/- 0.152 from 1993.5 to 2014, so 20.5 years where technically there might have absolutely no warming at all.
Where are you getting that “The Pause” has only been 12 years? SkepSci is yielding an average of over two decades without provable warming. Why are you reporting so much less?
Charles, the scion of one of the families that has done the most damage to the planet, or at least the people on it, is intellectually stunted like his SS loving cousins who kick started the modern envirofascist movement with the WWF. By the way, who says rational skeptics accept the greenhouse theory, which has been disproved twice? Are you kidding? There is no there there in greenhouse land.
dbstealey:
While I was making my post to you at February 1, 2014 at 4:32 pm James abbot was making his post to you at February 1, 2014 at 4:18 pm.
Please note that James Abbot says to you
But that is a gross distortion of what you had presented to him.
You gave him a graph which shows the Earth would be much cooler than 2C if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere. And that graph is theoretical physics and NOT a climate model. So, can you see where this will go if you try to correct his gross misrepresentation of you? If you don’t know then use the link I provided in my previous post and see for yourself. Also, remember that James Abbott started his tricks in this thread by attempting to misrepresent our host.
I again suggest that everyone ignores this especially egregious troll unless and until he answers the clear question that he has been evading for a week. He can’t and he knows he can’t. But he will keep expecting others to provide explanations and corrections to his misrepresentations.
Richard
dbstealey
You said
“If this is not a very good example of saturation, what is?”
You are right – its terrible. Have a look at it, it completely fails to explain the 8C difference between 180ppm and now.
As to your next questions, they are more of the same but happy to answer them:
1. I am not a climate alarmist. Long before the internet fuelled merry-go-round of self reinforcing scepticism that exists today, I started to study this subject over 30 years ago at university.
2. If there is still no warming after 20 years, then I agree that will stretch the current understanding of the science a lot.
3.Glaciers may descend on Chicago – tens of thousands of years from now. We are not out of the ice ages.
4. No I won’t admit that AGW is wrong because it is not wrong as we best understand the science. Sceptics seem to want to have it both ways – at times they have to admit the physics means that substantially increasing CO2 will cause warming and at others they try to argue that its not worth bothering about as the warming will be so small.
I am off to bed now but think on your rediculous statement about CO2 concentration:
“3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000. That hardly seems alarming. A 40% rise of an extremely tiny amount is still an extremely tiny amount.”
That displays a fundamental failure to understand science. Just because something is present at small concentrations compared to the body it is part of does not mean that it has little affect.
CO2 is essential to the survival of the biosphere – even at a few hundred parts per million.
And it is a powerful greenhouse gas that helps keep the planet habitable for us.
You also appear to fail to understand that different substances have different properties. Other gases would have less or more affect depending on what they are (eg methane).
Concentrations of CFCs would presumably be “tiny” according to you but the chlorine released from CFCs destroys ozone in catalytic reactions where 100,000 molecules of ozone can be destroyed per chlorine atom. Hence the severe ozone depletion over Antarctica in particular – or do you deny that too ?
Take the positive: the Prince is a walking advertisement for CAGW Scepticism. Long may he reign.
After abdicating as King, Edward (VIII) visited his friend Adolf Hitler in Germany. When Churchill became Prime Minister, he sent Edward to the Bahamas to be Governor. He wanted Edward a long way from Britain so that he could not become a puppet King for Hitler if the Germans invaded Britain. After the War, Edward never served in another official position, but lived out his life in France. Perhaps, he can be an inspiration to his grandnephew Charles to abdicate and live in exile.
dbstealey:
At February 1, 2014 at 4:45 pm I wrote saying to you of James Abbott
At February 1, 2014 at 4:46 pm James Abbott has written his post to you which fails to answer the question but introduces effects of methane, and the controversial issue of the ozone hole while waving a host of Red Herrings.
QED
Richard
rogerknights says:
February 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Another guess is that he’s glommed onto warmism, in part, as a “motherhood”-type issue as a way to make himself and the monarchy more popular.
———————————————————————–
Now, why does that remind me of Al Gore?
I note that the Telegraph does not allow for comments on the article referencing the Prince,s remarks.
I met him about 25 years ago. He had more color to his hair, but then again so did I.
I think they’re on to him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145127/The-Prince-hypocrites-Charles-embarks-16-000-mile-green-crusade–aboard-private-jet.html
“…also spoke out against “the barrage of sheer intimidation” from powerful anti-climate change groups…”
I’ll take those totally made up powerful lobbying organisations and raise you the WWF, i’m pretty sure you’ve heard of them Charles. Being President of the organisation i’m pretty sure you’d never use the influence of your lowly position to lobby Members of Parliament and then have the High Court rule that the public have no right to read documents highlighting your unconstitutional meddling.
/sarc
The man is an intellectual desert. He was never the sharpest tool in the box. Little more needs to be said.
richardscourtney says:
February 1, 2014 at 5:01 pm,
Yes, I think Abbott needs to quit avoiding your question.
Also, anyone who claims to have attended university, but who still cannot spell ‘ridiculous’, or use ‘effect’ correctly, might lack credibility in science.