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
Also James,
Help me as I am land bound. Post some facts aka links I/we can review on where the sea levels are rising, with data on how much and when as compared to normal wear and tear from the last million or so years of waves,storms and such.
Thanks,
Not only must we beware the demon CO2, but beware “Light Pollution” :: )) /sarc
http://tinyurl.com/k5ns7fa
fobdangerclose
No there is not going to be less CO2 anytime soon.
CO2 is of course vital to the biosphere and for growing crops but like many other substances it has more than one function. In the atmosphere its a greenhouse gas – as has been known since the C19th.
There is currently about 40% higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in the 1700s (pre-industrial) and its going up every year.
The imperitive is just to stop it going up but there is no sign of the rate of growth slowing yet.
Waddayah say Charlie?
Got the nuts for it sonny?
Yeeup, same old, same old Charlie, he’s got a plantation of plenty in the ‘nuts’ department but no sir, he ain’t got any c8j8*es.
Charlie will claim he’s part of the program:
6 Feb: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: European parliament votes for stronger climate targets
MEPs respond to earlier commission proposal with call for binding 2030 targets on renewables, emissions and energy efficiency
In a decisive vote, 341 to 263 MEPs called for three binding targets for 2030: a 40% cut in greenhouse gases, compared with 1990 levels; at least 30% of energy to come from renewable sources; and a 40% improvement in energy efficiency.
This was stronger than the proposal from the European commission last month, that called for 27% of energy to come from renewable sources by the same date…
Ed Davey, secretary of state for energy and climate change said: “The right 2030 package will unlock low carbon investment, while keeping consumers’ energy bills down. The vote in the European Parliament is one stage in the process and we are pleased that MEPs have come out in favour of an ambitious climate package for 2030.
“I am leading the argument for the right package through the Green Growth Group, which fifteen countries are now part of. Over the last two days I have been talking to my colleagues in Berlin and in Paris to ensure we can get agreement to a progressive plan that will reduce emissions without unnecessary costs.”
Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate commissioner, said the vote was a “good result” and she hoped European governments would “listen” to it. Green campaigners and renewable energy companies welcomed the vote, saying it showed that the 2030 proposals should be strengthened…
Stephane Bourgeois, of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), which represents the industry, said: “The European parliament has again shown it is the most forward-thinking of the EU’s institutions…”…
Jason Anderson, head of climate and energy at WWF, said: “MEPs reacted to the commission’s weak climate and energy proposals with a much-needed reality check. Energy efficiency and renewables are integral to achieving a low-carbon future and can’t be downgraded to afterthoughts.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/european-parliament-votes-renewables-targets
Pat,
Do you have a link to a study of this relationship between weather and mortality say between 3,000 BC and 1 AD that should help in making long range judgements needed.
thanks
This post by Monckton is very simple. Can the eco-hypocrites please shut up to allow the rest of us to get on with the debate?
His former wife died in an accident, she went out in flashing lights, dazed and confused drivers which I thought was conspiratorial nonsense. Yet Charles thinks he can offend skeptics with his eco-tard bullshit. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN. LONG LIVE QUEEN ELIZABETH 2ND. May her grandson take over. [snip] For our US friends, Mrs. Charlie Boy is bored with wealth. He needs to feel important. Climate change makes him feel hypocritical and important. What’s not to like???
Sort of off topic, but…
When I was a child, we used to talk about the Soviets having a ‘sham’ democracy. Yes, they had a constution, elections, and so forth. But everybody knew the elections were meaningless.
Some years later I realized that the UK is not in fact a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy is a system where the monarch has specific defined powers and must operate within a constitutional framework. England under George III was a constitutional monarchy. Germany under Kaiser Bill was a constitutional monarchy. A monarchy where the monarch reigns but does not rule is simply a ‘sham’ monarchy.
Of course nowadays it seems that US elections have also been rendered meaningless.
James at 5:07
Well it must be my fault as the 40% more CO2 should have made my crops much more productive, possible 40% better or so, sorry I failed you so bad. I may have to sell out and quit.
Chicken Little vs Headless Chicken
So the esteemed Christopher Monckton has taken up the lance of Don Quixote.
He, more than most, should understand that the Royals are above all rules. One reason we do not accept their divine role.
This nitwit, wannabe tampon has shown such poor judgement in his personal life that he came close to bringing down the monarchy. Rescued by his mother’s coughing up of a bit of token tax he still hasn’t tumbled to the fact that he is a fundamentally stupid muppet who was run ragged by a bimbo.
Headless chicken! [snip]
I like Prince William and his bro.Despite there privilege their mother seems to have done some excellent work. Well done Diana.
Candlemas. Nice touch. 🙂
Typo:
Despite their…..
James Abbott says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Ted Clayton
“No, its not the predictions that are the point – its the fact it is actually happening and that is consistent with the science….. The rail link to Cornwall was badly damaged by the storms this week and will take probably months to rebuild.”
Baaaaah. Baaaah. Get a grip James and keep up. I can see you believing all this stuff 5-10 yrs ago (so did I) but even your IPCC has had to back down on the science and they even say there is no connection between warming/CO2 and extreme weather. It was skeptics doing real science that forced IPCC’s change of heart.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
Oh and CAGW floods are hurting your railways, eh? Its been happening since the 1840s!! Having ridden on your rails from Newcastle to London, I’m predicting this line will fail, hopefully not catastrophically, with or without global warming. I couldn’t even raise a cup of coffee safely to my lips as we rock and rolled along.
http://www.ice.org.uk/ICE_Web_Portal/media/Events/Railway-bridge-failure-during-flood-in-the-UK-v2-Nov-12.pdf
“There have been15 fatalities and perhaps 4 -5 times that number of injuries which can be attributed to structure failure during flooding on the GB railway system since the 1840s. The resulting economic damage is estimated to be at least £287 million (2004 figures)….”
I did not like what Prince Charles said, but I like that when he sincerely believes something he has the guts to say what is going on in his head, which are very often very cranky thoughts. Occasionally he gets it right, as when he opposed the proposed extension to the façade of the National Gallery in Trafalgar square, and his remark is credited with stopping one of our most important historical landmarks from being used and abused by trendy architects of the 70s many of whom would gladly have pulled down half of Victorian London if it meant that they could replace it with their cheap and tacky creations. The Architects were fuming, most of the rest of the nation were relieved that arrogance had been stopped by one simple remark from the prince.
Most British people see him as being a little bit pathetic, but well meaning and probably destined to become a weak but sufficient King. They wont like these taunts because they will feel personally offended and protective.
Charles was not being vindictive, he simply lacks the clarity and independence of thought to to see through what his flunkys are telling him or to realise when he has been duped. In this he is like the majority of people in Britain who read tacky journalism and watch the BBC and Sky. He deserves (needs) some very candid letters, perhaps from Monkton who is after all a Lord. Gentle words and conversation would probably achieve more than this attempt at public humiliation which will cause his friends to point at Monkton and make their own taunts (silly childish taunts)
A debate will never happen, Charles has no depth of knowledge or debating skills to engage Lord Monkton, so what is the point of this post? It ups the game just in the direction they warmists like, one where everything becomes not about the science but instead about who taunts loudest.
Roger Dewhurst says:
February 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Overlook his failings.
=============
The Queen doesn’t trust Charles to be King, so why should we?
fobdangerclose
Sea level is rising about 3mm per year at present
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/issea.pdf
Of course we have had changes in sea level, tides and storms for billions of years. But the point is that the current rise in sea level is in a warming world associated with our activities in pumping so much extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere amplifying the greenhouse effect.
The last time sea level was significantly higher there were not major cities with millions of people living in them in coastal areas – or millions living in low lying farming regions.
brent
You might not think light polluiton is an issue, but lots of other people do and there is good work going on around the world to take measures to curb it which brings back the night sky and saves energy – but then maybe you don’t mind if we waste energy ?
http://darksky.org/
“There is currently about 40% higher concentration of CO2 . . .”
I think I am hearing an echo of “rgates” – didn’t the host throw him out about a year or two ago?
why do businesses agree to play this ridiculous game?
6 Feb: Bloomberg: Ben Elgin: Handshakes and Body English Vex Corporate Carbon-Cutting Goals
Global companies are trying to shrink their carbon footprints by targeting business travel, and the early results are frustrating, even among companies with celebrated green credentials.
Consider Nike, which flew several managers to Davos last month, and was proclaimed by Newsweek to be the greenest U.S. consumer products company back in 2010. Since then, it has revealed that its travel-related emissions soared 89 percent from 2008 to 2011 — far outpacing the company’s 12 percent sales growth during that period.
They’re not alone. “Travel is a tough one,” says Andrew Craig, senior manager of environmental initiatives at Royal Bank of Canada…
(Bloomberg L.P.’s business air-travel emissions climbed almost 35 percent between 2007 and 2012. Curtis Ravenel, global head of Bloomberg’s sustainability group, notes that the company’s travel emissions have grown more slowly than its 52 percent rise in employee count. “Travel will always be a challenge for us,” he says. “We’re a high-touch business. Customer service is a fundamental part of our business model.”)…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/handshakes-and-body-english-vex-corporate-carbon-cutting-goals.html
I like the mixed lingo – “for aye” (i.e., forever) and “Chazza!” Robin Williams might side with Charles on content but would have to render unto Monckton the palm on form cuz that’s Robin’s speed and whatnot.
James Abbott @ur momisugly February 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm;
Such sea level increases as have occurred, are global. Any effects to coastlines etc, would not be peculiar to the British Isles. If peculiar effects are seen there, and not so much elsewhere, this will then be a matter of peculiar susceptibility to erosion etc (which certainly is the case, in some specific locales) rather than from the slight rises of sea level. The rise has really been of modest-enough extent, that it is quite swamped by tides, and storm-surges.
The ‘extreme weather/storms’ argument is not strong. Many different kinds of specific claims in this category have been tabled, and many have clearly been support mainly by enthusiasm. It’s a ‘bad’ (weak) argument, because even if it were true, it would prodigiously difficult to collect the scientific data to really validate it. As it is, we have anecdotes and ‘trial by media’.
There was supposed to be progressive warming, with increasing CO2, and instead there is a solid Pause. Have you seen the winter weather patterns in the USA? To label this an effect of the former warming trend, is a position one attempts to take only if in possession of evidence that will be really convincing … to the shivering millions.
Did you see in Google News today that the entire United States is running out of road salt?
Everyone is entitled to their view, their conclusions. There are people whom I think are more-egregiously off-mark than yourself. But yes, I think your characterizations of the local pattern in the UK, and the global factors purportedly behind them, are both, indeed, off the mark.
Ted Clayton
James,
We do a end of round up deal were we jump our horses into the stock pond all at the same time.
Makes big waves and all the water in the stock pond moves about. Any chance that gravity, the spin of the earth, and other forces have effects on this 3mm change and or what if say later we find a 3mm lower sea shore? Long data sets seem to be a sure requirement before we all go back into caves or wikeups of grass and mud.
Gary Pearse
Some of the structures built in the C19th (to which period you refer) have just been smashed to pieces.
You cannot explain this away, its actually happening right now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26042990