Lord Monckton invites ‘Chazza’ to spar over ‘unroyal’ global-warming remark
His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales,
Clarence House, London.
Candlemas, 2014
Your Royal Highness’ recent remarks describing those who have scientific and economic reason to question the Establishment opinion on climatic apocalypse in uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy and a return to the direct involvement of the Royal Family, in the Person of our future king, no less, in the cut and thrust of partisan politics.
Now that Your Royal Highness has offered Your Person as fair game in the shootout of politics, I am at last free to offer two options. I need no longer hold back, as so many have held back, as Your Royal Highness’ interventions in politics have become more frequent and less acceptable in their manner as well as in their matter.
Option 1. Your Royal Highness will renounce the Throne forthwith and for aye. Those remarks were rankly party-political and were calculated to offend those who still believe, as Your Royal Highness plainly does not, that the United Kingdom should be and remain a free country, where any subject of Her Majesty may study science and economics, may draw his conclusions from his research and may publish the results, however uncongenial the results may be.
The line has been crossed. No one who has intervened thus intemperately in politics may legitimately occupy the Throne. Your Royal Highness’ arrogant and derogatory dismissiveness towards the near-50 percent of your subjects who no longer follow the New Religion is tantamount to premature abdication. Goodnight, sweet prince. No more “Your Royal Highness.”
Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects. You will find us a cheerfully undeferential lot. Most of us don’t live in palaces, and none of us goes everywhere with his own personalized set of monogrammed white leather lavatory seat covers.
The United Kingdom Independence Party, which until recently I had the honor to represent in Scotland, considers – on the best scientific and economic evidence – that the profiteers of doom are unjustifiably enriching themselves at our expense.
For instance, even the unspeakable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accepted advice from me and my fellow expert reviewers that reliance upon ill-constructed and defective computer models to predict climate was a mistake. Between the pre-final and final drafts of the “Fifth Assessment Report,” published late last year, the Panel ditched the models and substituted its own “expert assessment” that in the next 30 years the rate of warming will be half what the models predict.
In fact, the dithering old fossils in white lab coats with leaky Biros sticking out of the front pocket now think the rate of warming over the next 30 years could be less than in the past 30 years, notwithstanding an undiminished increase in the atmospheric concentration of plant food. Next time you talk to the plants, ask them whether they would like more CO2 in the air they breathe. Their answer will be Yes.
The learned journals of economics are near-unanimous in saying it is 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its supposedly adverse consequences the day after tomorrow.
Besides, in the realm that might have been yours there has been no change – none at all – in mean surface temperature for 25 full years. So if you are tempted to blame last year’s cold winter (which killed 31,000 before their time) or this year’s floods (partly caused by the Environment Agency’s mad policy of returning dozens of square miles of the Somerset Levels to the sea) on global warming, don’t.
You got your science and economics wrong. And you were rude as well. And you took sides in politics. Constitutionally, that’s a no-no. Thronewise, mate, you’ve blown it.
On the other hand, we Brits are sport-mad. So here is option 2. I am going to give you a sporting second chance, Charlie, baby.
You see, squire, you are no longer above politics. You’ve toppled off your gilded perch and now you’re in it up to your once-regal neck. So, to get you used to the idea of debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen, I’m going to give you a once-in-a-reign opportunity to win back your Throne in a debate about the climate. The motion: “Global warming is a global crisis.” You say it is. I say it isn’t.
We’ll hold the debate at the Cambridge Union, for Cambridge is your alma mater and mine. You get to pick two supporting speakers and so do I. We can use PowerPoint graphs. The Grand Debate will be televised internationally over two commercial hours. We let the world vote by phone, before and after the debate. If the vote swings your way, you keep your Throne. Otherwise, see you down the pub.
Cheers, mate!
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
=====================================================
Related: Chicken al la still not a king
Joe
No, CET measures a specific area of central England as described here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Tonyb
James at 48:
At February 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm you say to me
Well, yes, that was a small step in the evolution of our constitution in that it determined the limits to how regal power could be exercised over Lords.
You may be interested that I have seen the original document framed on a corridor wall in the House of Lords. Real history which affects us all to the present day.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:01 am
Just a couple of points:
1. Independence from Britain was motivated by opposition to taxation without representation, and by objection to the rule of men rather than the rule of law. The constitution was drafted largely in an effort to prevent the tyranny of a despot “ruling” arbitrarily (that’s why many Americans choke on the governing party being referred to as the “ruling” party or the “party in power” — the concepts are un-American at their core, yet this terminology is frequently used in our embarrassingly ignorant press).
2. Americans will generally consider socialism anything that resembles the forcible taking of the property or the freedom of the productive and giving it to the unproductive without requiring anything in return, however noble the motivation for doing so. In America, there is no real reason to do this, as Americans (especially the more conservative of Americans — specifically, those who don’t live in the major cities on either the East or West Coast) are very charitable. Much arbitrary expropriation of property has taken place under the guise of “helping the poor”, yet, after a century of such confiscation, die-hard socialists refuse to come to terms with the fact that the idea is either a massive failure, or massive success, depending on your perspective: there are now more “poor” than ever before, even though the standard of living of our “poor” is better than the standard of living of the “rich” in many other countries. The “poor” and “underprivileged” are now an industry, as are the “minorities”, and those who confiscate property on the behalf of their clients have no interest in resolving their “plight”. Such seems to always be the trajectory of “socialism”: the noble ideals of the naive are no match for the cynicism of the self-seeking hucksters who end up being in “power”.
Kate Forney:
Thankyou for your post at February 6, 2014 at 1:33 pm.
Your Point 1 is interesting. Thankyou for stating it.
Your Point 2 is NOT a description of socialism however, I am willing to accept your information that
Purely for the record, and with intention to NOT debate, I point out that socialism boils down to what Marx described (n.b. did not define because it existed long before him) as being
From each according to ability and to each according to need.
Nobody has a right to be “unproductive”.
In the context of this thread, HRH Prince Charles has the “ability” to be available to become King and from him is expected that he will fulfill that duty in the instant it is needed. Hence, his apparently “unproductive” life is him providing his output from his unique “ability”. Indeed, this thread is about Prince Charles behaving in a manner which reduces that which is expected from him as a result of his “ability”. If he chooses to renounce the Crown then he loses that “ability” and does not have a “need” for much of what is provided to him. This is clear concerning Edward VIII who abdicated and was then expected to be a Governor in the West Indies (although that was a useful method to ‘put him out of the way’ throughout WW2).
Thankyou for your useful information and I hope I have provided some reciprocation.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:01 am
Richard, thank you for taking the time to reply.
I do have a question or two regarding the need/ability bromide and your statement about nobody having the right to be unproductive, if you would be so kind as to enlighten me — I am young and callow and have obviously failed to comprehend socialism (my assessment, although that may be yours as well).
My questions could undoubtedly be worded more eloquently, but boils down to the following, assuming a context of “ideal” socialism:
1. How is “productive” decided and “productivity” measured? What, under socialism, are the consequences of being “unproductive”?
2. How are “need” and “ability” assessed, and how are those assessments translated into the allocation of resources? Is it arbitrary, or is there some non-obvious optimization process at work?
Are these the undertakings of some kind of “central committee”? If so, have the more spectacular failures of socialism been because of a flaw in the measurement process, or something else? Who assesses the central committee, jointly and severally? What prevents the unproductive from capturing the committee and twiddling the definitions of “need” and “ability” to suit their own selfish purposes?
If not a central committee, then is it some sort of mob enforcement? What prevents the unproductive from becoming leaders of the mob and perverting the process?
Does forceful coercion play any role in the allocation of resources? If so, why is it necessary? What are the theoretical limits on such coercion?
Thanks, Christopher. That was enjoyable.
Cheers.
@ur momisugly Tom in Florida
Your comments on this thread and so eloquently written express the deepest thoughts and emotions in my heart and soul. Thank you sincerely.
Special thanks to commenters richardscourtney, Gail Combs, Colorado Wellington, and Gunga Din for this most interesting exchange of information.
Inquiring minds need to know.
I knew Charles only went to the floods to draw
attention and later bang on about his own vested
interests and sure enough:
—-
6 Feb 2014
Earlier today he spoke at a leadership summit in east
London organised by his body Business in the Community
(BITC) and told delegates who included business leaders:
“And incidentally I was down in Somerset this week and it
is, I think, a classic example of what happens if we pay
little attention to the accumulating impact of
climate change on the larger picture.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Prince-Charles-gives-warning-climate-change/story-20577095-detail/story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389461/Prince-Charles-held-36-private-summits-Cabinet-ministers-lobbying-campaign-election.html#ixzz2bjlwpej6
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall–owns-seabed.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10146403/Wind-farms-get-generous-subsidies-for-another-six-years.html
Man Made reclaimed land that needed Man made
maintenance but was banned from dredging, by
Environmental Agency, provoking a flooding disaster.
—–
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/david-cameron-overrules-environment-secretary-owen-paterson-to-order-urgent-dredging-in-somerset-to-combat-the-flooding-9110120.html
Hmm, I wonder, can the Crown strip Viscount Monckton of Brenchley of his title in a tit for tat war?
Would love to see one of the thickest Princes ever try to debate Lord Monckton.
If Camilla has good sense she will box his ears for being so stupid.
In response to Revd Phillip Foster’s comment:
“The last Plantagenet was the nearest thing England ever had to a ‘good’ king”
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DCasz6oeL4&w=420&h=315%5D
Joe says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:35 am
Is CET measuring the temperature for the entire country like the BEST dataset?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world.
Also it is pretty indicative of world ‘temperature’ changes.
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Evil men steal labels to hide their evil. Good men are good no matter what the label.
Kate Forney:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at February 6, 2014 at 3:08 pm.
Importantly, I do not have the impression that you are “young and callow”, and if I have said anything which implies that then it was an error for which I abjectly apologise.
I said I would not debate socialism here, and there are two reasons.
Firstly, socialism only has relevance to this thread in the context that privilege such as held by HRH Prince Charles is not opposed by socialism of the old-fashioned British kind. However, all privileges of position, power, wealth, etc. obtain commensurate responsibilities. Many Brits vote Labour (i.e. socialist) so they expect Prince Charles to fulfill his duties: they don’t object to paying for his needed privileges but they do object when – as in the case which is the subject of this thread – the responsibilities of those privileges are not fulfilled.
Secondly, I have debated the subject of socialism on WUWT in the past and on an appropriate thread. The heated discussion commences on that thread here.
Hence, this is my only answer to your post. Sorry.
If you make any response to this then I will not be replying until tomorrow because it is nearing midnight here and I am going to bed. Sorry for that, too.
Richard
Christopher, this is but a waste of time on a hopeless errand. Charles will never debate you, and would not be allowed to face you by his handlers and you know that very well, I suspect anyway.
The Hanoverian succession has certainly saddled England with a piss poor gene pool among its royals to find brains and sense in. The few who have had them are women. God save The Queen!:] I’d love to see Charles confronted by the late Ian Richardson (of the great British series House of Cards & To, PlayThe KIng) and wickedly dismanteled. If you want people to believe what you say, you must know they are very rarely convinced by debate. They are convinced by having it repeated and shouted at them. No intellectual procesing involved. So unless you are prepared to do that you are just tilting at windmills. This is a propaganda war and it’s being mishandled.
James – after looking at the graph you so thoughtfully pointed me toward, it seems to me that the last 25 years would in fact average out to a nearly horizontal line. Score one for Monckton.
Mike Mellor, you are telling him to drop his title?? I don’t use titles to address people but why on earth should he drop it? It also gives secret American monarchists here a chance to suck up to someone. Since 1915 when Asquith diluted the Peerage beyond recall, none of this stuff ha really mattered. De Brett’s would choke on the Peerage, the British socialists have invented, Jews, Women, Moslems, are you kidding? What next? It’s a good way to get rid of annoying faces from the House of Commons and stuff them in the Lords. It still riles me that Asquith tried very hard to steal the vacated title of the De Vere’s, who I just found out I’m related to! Upstart! It’s history and wiping out history, like the Taliban and our public schools do, is bad for the huam race!:]
Sorry for disgraceful spelling and grammar mistakes!!!Arghh.
And the crown watches as the Worthless Wind Armada destroys your electricity supply, and the last aluminum plant is shut down.
As Athena said in Homer, rarely does a son possess the great inward qualities of his father, still less those of his ancestors.
Sorry to have not replied sooner to all the posts – been sleeping, eating, working, etc.
And thanks for all the insults.
A few points from reading the thread:
1. To reiterate, the reason why a warmer world is so significant for the UK is sea level rise. It seems very few contributors are interested in this issue (maybe as its undeniable). Sea level rise follows from thermal expansion of the oceans and grounded ice melt. Its currently about 3mm per year which means each year countries like the UK – which has a long coastline but also a high population density – are that bit more vulnerable.
2. The UK has invested massively in coastal defences. The comparison with the Dutch is not that helpful – they have a much shorter coastline and not so varied. Furthermore the Dutch too are going to have to spend shed loads more money as sea level continues to rise – their defences will not cope with continued sea level rise and the consequences for them of breaches or overtopping are far worse owing to large areas with towns and cities being below, at or near sea level. There are local and regional geological factors too (faulting and isostatic rebound) but a prolonged period of sea level rise simply cannot be dismissed. London would flood now were it not for the Thames Barrier – which itself will need replacing.
3. If AW decides to ban me so be it. All I am doing is debating the science. I will not resort to insults and don’t hide behind false names or identities.
4. Monckton is widely discredited (he has trouble with the truth) but if he wants the spotlight of a televised debate then I agree that would be good. He clearly is not going to get Prince Charles, but he might get a climate scientist. Thing is – which would he prefer ?
I think James Abbott justifies his very existence on fighting the demon “Global Warming”, and all those evil capitalists who he thinks are responsible. He is incapable of thinking otherwise. that would require him to truly see himself in the mirror….
Not a pretty picture.
I didn’t realize, Christopher, how much he put your nose out of joint, but, he crossed the line of being a constitutional monarch long ago, as shown in House of Cards from the 80’s. This cow left the barn long ago and the argument you advance is weaker than the one advanced in that show. He is certainly no threat to anything and his sons seem to be better than him at any rate.The weak and serially incompetent British governments since 1964 have flooded the isles with potential enemies with unchanging foreign beliefs that will never be integrated into English life without bloodshed, wasted trillions on a social cradle to grave Mommystate tyranny and are destroying Britain’s last shreds of industry, energy and independence. Britain has more cameras than a baseball has atoms. The Magna Charta, the 800th anniversary of which will no doubt be celebrated with hypocritical cant and full regalia, just exposes how far down we have come from a great promise of freedom. On the other hand you have Downton Abbey, that’s something anyway.:]
It ill becomes Charles Windsor a man whose lifestyle involves constant travel, multiple vehicles and residences to lecture us on changing our ways. Likewise Al Gore and many others.
Enviros: Use emotion, not science, to convince others of global warming
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/06/enviros-use-emotion-not-science-to-convince-others-of-global-warming/
That’s what they have been doing all along.
James Abbott says, February 6, 2014 at 4:54 pm
And needs to continue doing so. But maintenance in recent times has been badly neglected. You can read about one topical example here. More green plague and intransigence, our institutions are riddled with it.
Sea level rise has had a linear trend for over a century and there is no evidence of acceleration, if anything the reverse in recent years.
James Abbott,
There is no educating you about anything, because your mind is already made up and closed tight. You have arrived at your conclusion, and now you search for facts to support it.
But even facts debunk your conclusion. For example, you write that the rise in sea level is: “…currently about 3mm per year…”.
That is correct. Further, that has been the approximate rise since well before the industrial revolution. Therefore, human emissions have nothing to do with it.
But you Believe, which is enough for you. Even though you quote facts that show your alarmism amounts to nothing more than natural climate variability, you insist on blaming human activity.
Do you really wonder why you come across as a wild-eyed Chicken Licken? [‘Chicken Little’ in the U.S.] You need a doomsday scenario to be content. Many people do. That’s what kept witch doctors employed for so long.
James Abbott says @ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 4:54 pm;
Of course, any rise of sea level is the same for everyone. UK isn’t experiencing any more of sea-level increase than anyone else. It’s the same sea level, everywhere.
Any given region can have factors that make it more or less susceptible to assorted environmental factors, sea level among them. Some landmasses are naturally sinking, while others are naturally rising.
Some regions, England for example, are made of rocks that dissolve readily. England consists of very large geological formations – like the famous White Cliffs of Dover – which steadily dissolve and flow away in the stream & aquifers.
On the UK HomeProtect Insurance site, solubility-subsidence is explained for the layman:
Karst is only one type of subsidence; HomeProtect have a large Subsidence Index, with dozens of articles on the ways England and the UK is slipping back into the sea … regardless whether sea level is rising or falling.
James, would you debate him?
At #3 you claim to be debating the science. I see lots of statements made but no science.
Saying the sea level has risen 3mm doesn’t mean it is so: it is merely an assertion. I could just as easily say that the UK coastline has sunk 3mm because of all the sea walls weighing it down!
What do the tide gauges say over a reasonable period, say the past 100 years? (assuming the coastline hasn’t been sinking)