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
As a kiwi I think “Prince” Charles is a stupid old fool, widely disliked.
I heard this story about him – Every morning he used to go for a walk near Buckingham Palace and was accosted by a prostitute who offered him her services for a 100 pounds. She was persistent so to get rid of her he used to mutter “I’ll give you 10 pounds” and hurry on. One day he was walking with Camilla so he hastily crossed the road to avoid her, but she yelled out from across the road – “See what you get for 10 pounds you cheapskate!”
Brad says: @ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 8:03 pm
I think James Abbott justifies his very existence on fighting the demon “Global Warming”, and all those evil capitalists who he thinks are responsible….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually it is his paycheck he is justifying. If the internet search I did is correct his paycheck is more dependent on CAGW than the ‘Team’s’™ paychecks. That means he is only interested in data (or hearsay) that supports that paycheck and nothing else.
He does not care about WUWT regulars, he is trying to persuade the fence sitters who lurk or casually visit this site.
Gail Combs says at February 7, 2014 at 3:23 am
Which is a good thing. The debate is an important part of the site – it draws in the fence sitters.
And it let’s the regulars present their arguments in a challenged environment.
Don’t scare off the opponents who can’t be persuaded with logic. They still have a purpose.
M Courtney:
At February 7, 2014 at 3:35 am you say to Gail Combs
I agree BUT this particular “opponent” relies on offensive propaganda which has no relation to reality and applies misrepresentation of responses to his comments, changing the subject, and Red Herrings.
If James Abbott came here to advocate his view then that would be good. He does not. He comes here to disrupt threads by clearly dishonest methods.
Richard
Wetlands Restoration in the UK /sardonic
EU policy: “just add water”
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84689
I revere Lord Monckton and his work, but the Monarchy does not need this disrespect, whatever you think of His Royal Highness. There have been no perfect Monarchs, even our beloved Queen Elizabeth II. And I hope we are all believers in freedom of speech, and showering friends and relatives with Steyn’s books and CDs. When His Royal Highness spoke out about architecture, monstrous carbuncle an’ all, many of us were cheering him on…though I think Auberon Waugh’s advice to hit any architect you ever met smartly in the face had a lot going for it. Given the impossibility of any real debate with the Snake-oil Science Settlers, Goremons and the Church of the Latter Day Suzukis, that must be a tempting approach but I’m pleased to see how well behaved Team Skeptic are.
Saving Birds-Endangering Humans
Man-Made Disaster: Environment Agency Accused Of ‘Putting Birds Before Humans’
The Environment Agency has been accused of putting the needs of wildlife before those of humans in its management of storm-hit places like Dawlish in Devon
http://www.thegwpf.org/man-made-disaster-environment-agency-accused-putting-birds-humans/
James Abbott says:
“If the climate was cooling, sea level was not rising and storms were not getting more severe the sceptic community would have some evidence to back up their claims.
But its the other way round.”
“Among other things, the three researchers report that (1) “the content of marine-source ssNa aerosols in the GISP2 ice core record, a proxy for storminess over the adjacent ocean through the advection of salt spray [ss], is high during the LIA with a marked transition from reduced levels during the MCA [hereafter MWP] (Meeker and Mayewski, 2002; Dawson et al., 2007),” (2) “the onset of the LIA in NW Europe is notably marked by coastal dune development across western European coastlines linked to very strong winds during storms (Clarke and Rendell, 2009; Hansom and Hall, 2009)” and often inundating local settlements and therefore with supporting archival evidence (Lamb, 1995; Bailey et al., 2001),” (3) “a number of studies of Aeolian sand deposition records from western Denmark exist that have recorded a period of destabilization of coastal sand dunes and sand migration during the LIA and have ascribed it to a combination of increased storminess and sea-level fluctuations (Szkornik et al., 2008; Clemmensen et al., 2001; Aagard et al., 2007),” (4) “similar records and interpretations are available for the British Isles (Hansom and Hall, 2009) and Scotland (Gilbertson et al., 1999; Wilson, 2002),” (5) “in an analysis of Royal Navy ships’ log books from the English Channel and southwestern approaches covering the period between 1685 and 1750 CE, Wheeler et al. (2010) note a markedly enhanced gale frequency during one of the coldest episodes of the LIA … towards the end of the Maunder Minimum [MM],” (6) “this late phase of the MM is also registered by the deflation of sand into the ombrotrophic peat bogs of Store mosse and Undarmosse in southwest Sweden (De Jong et al., 2006),” (7) “more evidence for increased storm severity during the MM is provided by an archive-based reconstruction of storminess over the Northwest Atlantic and the North Sea (Lamb and Frydendahl, 1991),” (8) “increased storm activity during the LIA was not restricted to northwestern Europe, but was also recorded further south along the Atlantic coast in The Netherlands (Jelgersma et al., 1995) and northern (Sorrel et al., 2009) and southwestern France (Clarke et al., 2002),” and (9) “sedimentary records of LIA coastal dune accretion have also been found further south on the French Mediterranean coast (Dezileau et al., 2011) and in the western Iberian Peninsula (Borja et al., 1999; Zazo et al., 2005; Clarke and Rendell, 2006).”
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/sep/11sep2012a4.html
Thanks Steve for posting the House of Cards clip. Pictures are worth a 1,000 words.
Duncan Veasy- revering people is dangerous and unwarranted. That must be why you have such a neanderthal’s view of the monarchy? Sucking up no longer required.
David G said @ur momisugly February 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm;
“Reverend” in centuries past was just another honorific form of address. It meant merely, ‘to revere’ or, ‘revered one’ … then gradually became the standard way of addressing a Minister. Like, The Reverend Jesse Jackson (US usage).
The form of address per se is not the source or cause of the hazard. The risk is embodied in the person, and exists – such as it does – irrespective of the honorific by which one might be addressed (or isn’t).
John W. Garrett says:
February 5, 2014 at 3:55 pm
Charles is a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, not a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His dad, aka Phil the Greek (or Dane), adopted his maternal grandparents’ name of Mountbatten, anglicized from Battenberg during WWI, just as his mom’s family became Windsors instead of Saxe-et ceteras. The Queen at least is half British, unlike her mostly German ancestors & kids.
========================================================================
I thought I should add for clarification the actual wording of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights (there are 10) pertinent to this example (in bold):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Somehow from that it was deduced that a kid couldn’t pray in a public school if he or she wanted to.
Perhaps David G is from the rebel colonies, but a moment’s comparison of our beloved monarch with His Imperial Majesty Barack I, and more importantly a more reflective comparison of the institution of constitutional monarchy with republics wherever you chose, shows that what we have still is worth defending, old son. There are numerous folks in the fight for science and free speech whom I revere…for their intellect, honesty, bloody minded persistence, drive and megacojones. I don’t think any of them encourage up-sucking.
Somerset Levels: There’s nothing ‘natural’ about this man-made flooding
Catastrophic Somerset floods are the result of the Environment Agency’s policy against dredging its rivers
Talk to the locals, and to the experts of the Royal Bath & West agricultural society, representing hundreds of farmers – the Levels comprise a fifth of all Somerset’s farmland – and they are in no doubt as to why these floods are the most devastating in memory: it is because, since it took over prime responsibility in 1995 for keeping this vast area drained, the Environment Agency has deliberately abandoned the long-standing policy of dredging its rivers.
Thanks to the agency, the four main rivers have become so clogged with silt that there is no way for floodwaters to escape. The farmers and the local drainage boards that used to keep the pumping stations in working order are only too keen to play their part in clearing the maze of drainage ditches. But the agency’s officials have decreed that, as soon as silt is lifted on to the banks, it cannot be spread on nearby fields without being classified as “controlled waste”, making it so difficult to move that much of it just slides back into the water.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10595534/Somerset-Levels-Theres-nothing-natural-about-this-man-made-flooding.html
JO:
I apologise for missing your question at February 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm. If you are still following the thread then this is the answer to your question; viz.
Yes.
The Monarch issues Letters of Patent which award titles, and can revoke them for any reason at any time. Titles are either hereditary or Lifetime. An hereditary title passes from father to son upon the demise of the father. A Lifetime title dies with its owner so the pertinent Letters of Patent become void at that time.
The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley inherited his Letters of Patent from his father and so has his hereditary title. This makes him a Peer of the Realm and, therefore, he is a Lord so is technically a Member of the House of Lords. However, under the existing rules he does not have a seat in the House so cannot speak or vote on legislation.
At least one Peer who does have a seat in the House, Matt Ridley, often contributes to WUWT.
Richard
Re: pat frank @2/5 6:03
In regards UK and EU, may I refer you to a written opinion from a few years back, beginning with “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary …”
Hey, “fellow Texan” (which I seriously doubt – do you hail from Austin?) – one of your links doesnt work, conveniently the first one, which you forward as some kind of ‘proof’ that ol Chazzy knows wherefore he speaketh – whats up with that, hombre? The second I checked out – never heard of the site, never heard of the harridan that is mentioned, and frankly, is about as politically motivated as ol Princey baby in Merrie Old. Guess all those scientists working in Houston, Dallas, et al who have observed the drop in sunspot activities that coincide with global cooling periods means nothing at all? Or that the “hell or high water” the country has been experiencing is just natural fluctuations. Dayum, pardner, in these here parts we call that ‘weather.’ You write as if it were some kind of corporate conspiracy.
I suggest you take your ‘findings’ (talked with farmers my native Texan cowgirl butt!) and go back to Hippie Hollow. I’m sure some freeze-dried 60s radical there will lend you sympathetic ear…
Richard said in an earlier post “Nobody has a right to be “unproductive” (in reference to what socialism/marxism actually is)
It is strikingly funny then that socialism/marxism breeds the worst sort of indolence and apathy of ambition. You speak of Chazzy’s duties, in his elevated state. I guess some are more equal in their ‘productivity’ than others, then? Welfare rolls here in the US speak volumes of the “duties” of a certain segment in the name of ‘equalizing’ and ‘greater good.’
And don’t lecture us Americans about what we do or do not understand about socialism. Those of us who have lost our freedoms through the EUROPEAN encroachment of socialism understand all too well…and there are plenty of us who have ancestry near enough to remember what EUROPEAN STYLE “EQUALITY” was all about. I wonder, Richard, if it upsets you that socialism/marxism has killed more people in the name of breaking a few eggs to perfect a flawed system than American wars combined? And you wonder why you’re not invited to freedom?
But you said you didnt want to ‘debate’ socialism here. How mighty white of you to defer a thread you high-jacked with your socialistic comments back to its original owner!
thegardentart:
I am writing to inform you that I wasted a couple of minutes of my life reading your ignorant, untrue and offensive tripe at February 8, 2014 at 10:01 am.
I did NOT hijack the thread with “socialistic comments”. On the contrary, I refused to debate the issue with the series of anonymous zoolites like you whose only contribution is ignorant lies.
When questioned about it by Kate Forney, at February 6, 2014 at 3:30 pm I explained why I was not willing to debate the issue here and I provided her with a link to another WUWT thread where I had explained my political views and engaged in debate of them.
I cannot express the degree of my contempt for whatever despicable creature wrote your post and I sincerely hope that such filth as you have provided will never pollute WUWT again.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 8, 2014 at 10:34 am
I am embarrassed that my sincere questions could have somehow been responsible for such acrimony.
My intention was not to debate anything — as I said, I am still very green and don’t feel I’ve been taught properly about various forms of government. Thus, I am in no position to debate anything.
While I understand free markets (as opposed to “capitalism”, which now in many countries seems to have the flavor of what I understand to be “fascism” — that is, private ownership but state control (whether explicit or implicit) of the means of production — that eventually devolves to “crony capitalism”) and how they allocate resources, I sincerely do not understand how socialism does not devolve in the same manner. This seems to have been the path followed by, for example the USSR.
Because I understand free markets, it seems to me that they are the most “natural” form of economic activity. The logical consequence of my comprehension of markets is the conclusion that limited government, with the emphasis on “limited”, is necessary to their operation.
The old “from according to ability/to according to need” platitude seems to imply, in the abstract, a 3rd party: the recipient in the “from” clause and the benefactor in the “to” clause. I’m assuming that this 3rd party is the state in both cases. But what comes of people who do not wish to contribute their economic output to the state but to their families? Are they criminals? As I understand it, according to lawyers I know,there is a problem in ever-expanding partnerships in that dilution of reward results in dilution of effort. I cannot see how socialism escapes this problem.
Again, I don’t wish to debate, but to learn, and my questions are sincere, and I had hoped to learn from someone intelligent who proudly claims to be a “socialist”.
My apologies for somehow triggering such an unnecessarily harsh and unseemly turn in the discussion. Had I foreseen such an outcome, I would have taken my questions elsewhere.
With contrition,
Kate
Kate Forney:
Thankyou for your post at February 8, 2014 at 11:44 am.
Please be assured that you have nothing to regret and no need for contrition.
I clicked on your name and I assume you are one of the two lovely young ladies who appeared. If so, then I urge you to continue to question, to learn, and to think for yourself. This applies to all things including politics. You may harden into one of the American political right like the admirable Gail Combs, or you may turn into some leftie like me, or more likely you will adopt views which are somewhere in between, but you will then be your own person.
I knew from past experience on WUWT that if I were to debate socialism then some slime mold would seep from under a rock, and that was why I tried to evade the subject. However, given the difference between British and American politics it needed to be mentioned.
What happened was not your fault so please do NOT allow it to deter you from asking questions of anybody in future. You already display the confidence to express your opinions in clear fashion, and that is good.
Anyway, I hope that a young lady such as yourself will accept these comments with the same good will as they are offered from this boring old foggie who is old enough to be your grandfather.
Richard
What can one expect from the heir to the throne. He’s always been a “veddey proppah Chaley”.
This is most excellent, Lord Monckton…!
As an American who has a great deal of admiration for the Royalty – perhaps that is my first mistake – I still wish all of us were able to select our leaders based on their demonstrated self-sacrifice, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.
I am assuming that Prince Charles is a reasonably intelligent person. With all due respect to the people of Great Britain, does he not have a clue as to the hypocrisy of his statements or has he so assimilated himself into the Climate Change collective that he is unable to see beyond his pint?
Does he not even think for one minute that implementing some of the IPCC conclusions and proposals might very well be the end of Great Britain (and the United States) as we know it? By cosying up to the demands of the IPCC and their ilk, he essentially gives up his throne, either now or sometime in the near future.
Maybe that’s what some of the IPCC members want, i.e., to take from the rich and developed nations like Great Britain and the United States of which they are clearly so envious. This is one of the primary characteristics of any collective, i.e., “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Touché