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
Now you understand why the Queen : god love: her will stay in power for many years to come .I hope she will see 105 years If that happens Charles will not be happy but we headless chooks will be
February 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm | James Abbott says:
——-
That’s laughable … sea level ‘rises’ in the UK are not cause of rising water but rather sinking land and erosion.
You can Google it … you can Google ?
eyesonu
The hierarchy is there solely to delineate the order of precedence to succeed to the throne in the event of the current incumbent dropping down dead, becoming a heroin junkie, being bumped off by murderous foreign marauders or suffering the ill-effects of an abortive military coup.
Traditionally, the women were kept firmly in their place, only being allowed to succeed in the dreadful event that the previous King couldn’t produce a son (the lack of which caused ore than one queen to be bumped off). Nowadays, they have recently introduced equal rights for women in the rules of succession, which won’t matter a jot for the next two generations as old Charlie Boy and Wills were first out of their mothers wombs.
It’s a bit like you lot having strict rules for what to do when you bump off a President who tried to stand up to the gun lobby, who thought that military conquest wasn’t the sole raison d’être of US foreign policy or was simply too good looking to be controlled by the Federal Reserve oligopolists who rule your major banks with such compassion, distinction and humanity.
James Abbott says:
February 5, 2014 at 5:31 pm
——————————————
James,
just give up on the “Extreme Weather” tactic, it can never work. There is too much historical data contradicting it. The “Extreme weather” meme is just extreme propaganda, being used by those desperate to keep pushing politically motivated pseudo science. No matter what lies the propagandists try, their foundation is still the failed hypothesis that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. They failed to correctly model the role of radiative gases in tropospheric convective circulation and this fact is recorded forever on the Internet. All the pseudo scientists, activists, journalists and politicians who promoted or sought to profit from this hoax cannot erase this historical fact.
Speaking of historical facts, this is link to James A. Marusek’s “A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events”.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
At over 15Mb the pdf may be a large download for some, but it is a must read document. With translated reports of weather from 6AD it is a fascinating read. It is full of fantastic records such as –
“Winter of 763 / 764 A.D. In the same year (763 A.D.), it was bitterly cold after the beginning of October, not only in our land, but even more so to the east, west, and north. Because of the cold, the north shore of the Black Sea froze to a depth of 30 cubits (~ 45 feet) a hundred miles out. This was so from Ninkhia to the Danube River, including the Kouphis, Dniester, and Dnieper Rivers, the Nekrophela, and the remaining promontories all the way to Mesembria and Medeia. Since the ice and snow kept on falling, its depth increased another twenty cubits (~ 30 feet), so that the sea became dry land. It was travelled by wild men and tame beasts from Khazaria, Bulgaria, and the lands of other adjacent people. By divine command, during February of the same (764 A.D.) second indication the ice divided into a great number of mountainous chunks. The force of the wind brought them down to Daphnousia and Hieron, so that they came through the Bosporos to the city (Constantinople or Istanbul) and all the way to Propontis, Abydos, and the islands, filling every shore. We ourselves were an eyewitness and, with thirty companions, went out onto one of them and played on it. The icebergs had many dead animals, both wild and domestic, on them. Anyone who wanted to could travel unhindered on dry land from Sophianai to the city and from Chrysopolis to St. Mamas or Galata. One of these icebergs was dashed against the harbour of the acropolis, and shattered it. Another mammoth one smashed against the wall and badly shook it, so that the houses inside trembled along with it. It broke into three pieces, which girdled the city from Magnaura to the Bosporos, and was taller than the walls. All the city’s men, women, and children could not stop staring at the icebergs, then went back home lamenting and in tears, at a loss as to what to say about this phenomenon. (Theophanes the Confessor).3”
Anyone who reads this document will never again believe any global warmist who tries to push “extreme weather” propaganda.
February 5, 2014 at 5:55 pm | cohenite says:
——
A suppository would be more fitting (pun intended).
The most memorable boots I ever purchased for my kids were wellies with frog faces. Camillies with the face of Camilla as the toe and Charles as the heel are in order.
James Abbott says:
February 5, 2014 at 5:31 pm. Gary Pearse
Some of the structures built in the C19th have just been smashed to pieces.
You cannot explain this away, its actually happening right now:
______________________________________
Not only CAN it be explained away, the reason is bl**dy obvious. This particular railway was built on the beach and in the sea, because the hinterland is too hilly for a railway, without incurring huge expense.
It is hardly surprising that a railway built in the sea eventually gets washed away. The only surprising thing, is that it lasted so long, which is a testament to the engineers who built it. (It was a Brunel project, so it is not surprising it lasted so well.)
ralph
P.S. to my mate Monckton,
If the royalty goes, so does your title and your privilages.
See you down the pub, mate………
😉
Well done CM.
A challenge that could not have happened to a nicer ‘unfrocked’ Chaz, Chip, Chuck (English) and Charlot (French).
http://www.behindthename.com/name/charles
5 Feb: TechWeekEurope: EU Carbon Trading Chokes On Data Centre Diesels
Data centres burn almost no diesel, but the EU’s carbon trading scheme is taxing them by mistake, says Peter Judge
But entry to the ETS isn’t about how much fuel you burn. It’s based on the capacity. If you have generator capacity of more than 7MW, you may well have to register, even if you never use it. Whether you register or not depends on the exact nature of your diesel generator, Fryer told TechWeek…
Unintended consequences
This is where it gets screwy. Because you have a big set of generators, you have to register, but because you rarely use them, you don’t actually have to buy much in the way of allowances. And in any case carbon credits are actually pretty cheap.
So, data centres have to buy a few hundred pounds worth of allowances per site… and spend something like £10,000 registering for the scheme and administering it.
***That’s a pretty hefty unintended consequence. How did it get that way? Fryer told us data centres are “collateral” or innocent bystanders…
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/comment/carbon-trading-data-centre-diesels-138293
4 Feb: EurActiv: France launches probe into EU carbon market reform plan
The European Commission’s proposed carbon price stabilisation mechanism is a “masterpiece of Brussels technocracy” that could fuel greater market volatility, says a group of academics on the proposed package of 2030 climate legislation, EurActiv.fr reports…
‘Robot’ to regulate carbon prices
Thanks to an econometric model called Zephyr, the university researchers analysed in detail the proposals put forward by the EU executive.
The good news is that the mechanism could push prices up – at least as of 2021…
The bad news is that the “stability” mechanism could be a source of further volatility, the researchers found…
***Rather than entrusting the management of the carbon market to a robot, France is favourable to establishing a genuine “central bank for carbon” which could manage the carbon market like a currency.
“It’s been one of the topics of discussion but the mission continues and no conclusion is adopted at the time being,” Charpin cautioned.
http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/french-academic-question-eu-carb-news-533248
John Hopper says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Monkton, unfortunately, has become such an object of widespread ridicule he’s more part of the problem than the solution. Sure, if you want skeptics to be marginalized as whackos, then by all means align yourselves with his showboating, but he’s an easy target for the straw man that is the so-called “denier.”
Surely, we can do better.
——————————————————————————————
Glad to see someone on this site has a sense of humour and understands irony.!!
/sarc – this is for your benefit John H.
rtj1211 says:
February 5, 2014 at 8:36 pm
=========
Thanks for your reply. I was honestly referencing as to what power or influence the crown has in modern political/policy matters. In past history (my understanding) the king/queen called all the shots. Does it still work that way?
Needless to say there are serious issues with the way things now work on this side of the pond.
***is sanity being restored in Australia?
6 Feb: ABC: Prime Minister vows to revisit renewable energy target
ELEANOR HALL: The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is vowing to look closely at changing Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET), as Queensland’s biggest energy generator warns that the target is pushing up costs in the industry…
STEPHANIE SMAIL: Stanwell delivered a bombshell yesterday, announcing it will close its gas-fired power station west of Brisbane in favour of reopening one of its cheaper coal-fired power stations…
TONY ABBOTT: We’ve got a Renewable Energy Target review coming up soon and what it will be looking at, amongst other things is the impact of the RET on people’s power prices. Now plainly there is an impact and we want to moderate and reduce that impact and that’s what the review will be looking at.
STEPHANIE SMAIL: Stanwell also wants the carbon tax and uncapped solar feed-in tariffs dumped.
Mr Abbott agrees that Australia has become one of the world’s most expensive countries for energy.
He says the carbon tax needs to go and other energy policies might need tweaking…
***TONY ABBOTT: Australia has an abundance of coal, we have an abundance of gas. We should be the affordable energy capital of the world but instead, as this particular company has pointed out, we are becoming amongst the most expensive energy countries in the world and that’s wrong and its going to do everyone – our companies, our workers, our consumers – every household is going to be worse off if we don’t get power prices down and that means get rid of the carbon tax and get rid of it now…
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3939181.htm
CofB says: “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.”
That is not really correct. IPCC had always based their conclusions of this ill-defined, unrecorded, behind closed doors, kind of “expert opinion’ rather than hard science.
What happenned in AR5 was that the “expert opinion’ finally realised that the models they had previously placed so much faith in were seriously flawed and could not be relied upon to estimate climate sensitivity and future climate variations.
Rather than admitting a major U-turn, they dressed this up in typical bureaucratic double-talk as their having even more certainty than for AR4 and carefully moved the terms of reference to prevent a direct comparison in what they were so certain about.
Charles will not be debating with anyone because he is a bafoon. He is however, a well advised bafoon and his PR team will not let him walk into such an obvious pitfall.
Premature abdication. Ya gotta luv it!
Well said Lord Monckton.
Chaarles has been a warmist all along, but this is I believe the first time he has been so open about it.
If he becomes King I will become a republican overnight.
Just stopped by to feed the troll:
“James Abbott says:
February 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm
The imperitive is just to stop it [CO2] going up but there is no sign of the rate of growth slowing yet.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why? Why is it “The imperative…?”
It’s 35C below outside my door as I sit in front of my WOOD fire in central Alberta today. Seems like everything is normal. I’ve been stacking wood for 66 of my 68 years. It all looks like weather.
David L. Hagen says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm
“Well put M’Lord.
We look forward to the Charlie’s (aka Prince Charles) response.
Will he have the courage to pick up your gauntlet?
Or will he earn the sobriquet of “Charlie the Chicken Heart”? (with apologies to Richard I Coeur de Lion aka “Richard I the Lion Heart”)”
Charles III, Coeur de Poulet? It does have a certain je ne sais quoi.
Well done, Lord Monckton!
The gauntlet has been thrown…
We all well know your gauntlet will lie there in situ gathering dust and rust until the earth freezes over and Buckingham Palace is under a mile of ice, as that area of London was 12,000 years ago.
Your letter was the best laugh I had all week!
Thank you.
@the Abbott
I am not sure if you take advice but after making about a dozen false claims you are losing your potential audience here. Please accept the offer above of a link to the weather of times past. The usual audience here is far better read than your average ‘public domain’ blog-point. You might get takers at the Verge, for instance where the audience gets their education from TV.
You are very specifically critical of the scientific credentials and worthiness of Lord Monckton. The revered IPCC does not agree with you or your ilk. I do not agree with you or your ilk. The reason is that Lord Monckton has done original and innovative work on atmospheric science and has a website where you can read the papers. He is an expert in some matters. Go there and learn what to say and not say about such basic facts as to whether mankind or the ‘environment’ faces any human-sourced weather related dangers from CO2.
In case you think I was not listening to your input, please consider that the fact CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ has been known since 1895 (when it’s influence was greatly but temporarily overestimated) it is very clear in this century that the effect of AG CO2 cannot be discerned against the dramatic changes wrought by a natural variation.
This matters, a lot. So many baseless and downright ridiculous claims are made in the name AG CO2 that it falls to the warmistas to demonstrate the truth of their assertions. You for example could provide some proof that the SE UK and The Wash are Not Sinking, but are being swamped by a rising North Sea.
I don’t see how Charles can become king. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, and the situation is no different with Camilla.
James Abbott, please take your ignorance and arrogance elsewhere. I’m sure I’m not the only poster here who is tired of it. You take advantage of Anthony’s generosity and open-mindedness (such a contrast to the ideological bigotry of your kind), for what? You’ll find no converts here.
It’s an affront for you to even mention Lord Monckton. He could run circles, figure 8*s and Mobius strips around you without breathing hard. He is a hero in the skeptic community, and rightly so.
@ur momisugly fobdangerclose says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm
G’day Mr Fob.We West Aussies,that’s Western Australia,look it up,it’s not in America it’s down under,Crocodile Dundee territory and bigger than Great Britain,Japan and Texas combined,don’t ‘know a thing or two about weather trends’ we know plenty.We have to,seeing as we are dealing with Stations(that’s what we call ’em) 4 times bigger than Texan Ranches.A Ranch is something in the backyard that the kids play in.Kerry Packer is what we would call a gambler.When confronted by a Texan ‘high roller’ trying to muscle his way in to a private game Kerry said to him”Look mate how much is your firm worth”?The guy replied”$100 million dollars” Kerry said”I’lle toss you for it”Round these parts we think Mr Watts is fair dinkum and doing a bonza job,good on ya Wattsy.
Zeke Hausfather says:
“Also, your claim of 25 years of zero trend in the UK seems to run somewhat counter to the data: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-kingdom-(europe) ”
Is it? Where is the 25 year trend with estimation of significance in those graphs? Your runny mean stops before the end (as it should) and so gives a very stong visual impression of a long term rise but trying to ignore that and look at all the annual data it is a lot less clear whether there is a significant rise.
Also you crappy 10 year RM does great job of pronounced dip around 1983 that is a fitler artefact due to the dips before and after then date.
In fact it gets pretty much the whole period from 1975-2000 almost perfectly out of phase with the underlying data, especially for the Tmax plot.
Is your inability to chose an appropriate fitler why the project calls itself “BEST” ?
You may find it useful to read my article on the subject of running mean distortions and then chose a better filter for presenting your data.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
Since those graphs look like they may be created real-time some kind of triple running mean may be a computationally effiecient alternative.
PS Hadley use a 21 pt binomial that at least looks like it follows the data.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/