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
The problem with Charles is that he looks so dumb. Then he opens his mouth and removes all doubt. I had a dog with ears like that, and I had them cropped. Gave him a cool Vulcan look. Charles could give that a try, but Camilla would never allow it. She likes them because they make great handles, and even double as a ThighMaster.
PPS, the CET data above looks very much like it shows not trend in 25 years. There’s a good chance that is what CofB was basing his comment on.
Hi Greg,
The Berkeley plots include a link to the raw data, so knock yourself out choosing whatever linear trend or smoothing method you want. Personally I like Lowess approaches.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Text/united-kingdom-%28europe%29-TAVG-Trend.txt
We include a 10-year running mean by default, but its by no means the only (or best) approach, just the easiest to explain.
You will find that a linear trend shows statistically significant warming over the last 25 years in the UK.
Zekes,
I am not a climate scientist but what percentage of the values used are null, and do you know the stations? How many stations are located in urban areas thAt are subject to thermal mass retention?
What is the standard for the construction of those stations and who maintains them to those standards?
Regards,
Brad
Charles is advised by aristocrat Porritt of Friends of the Earth, a Marxist cover organisation. Porritt has reportedly called for a halving of the UK population. Hence Charles appears to be a mouthpiece for modern eugenicics (in the US you have Holdren) using fake IPCC science to justify totalitarian government.
Thanks for the reply Zeke. Looking at the stats on that page “since 1990” shows a significant slope and that’s roughly 25y but starts in a trough , 1988 would be peak. Like I added in PS, I think Monkton is referring to CET. The station count dropping by a couple of orders of magnitude at the end does not inspire confidence in a result that runs up to the end of the data.
“We include a 10-year running mean by default, but its by no means the only (or best) approach, just the easiest to explain.”
Well this Tisdale’s excuse as well, but unless you think it is easy to explain what phase distortion is and how that explains the runny mean showing total phase inversion for a good portion of the data it really is not “easiest to explain.”
Just use proper filter and call it a filter. There’s nothing more to explain to those who would not understand even if you did.
This is EXACTLY the plot from the UK second series of House of Cards which had Charles abdicating:
BTW a 5 year triple RM would provide about the same “smoothness” and the kernel would not be much longer and does not have those artefacts.
If this pampered spoiled fool of a man wishes to attack and insult millions of his would be subjects then he is more divisive and arrogant than that other Charles who caused a civil war and lost his head.
A fool who would be king?
His selfish desire combined with his arrogance will most likely destroy the monarchy, I for one will become a republican the moment his bottom touches the throne.
Send the prince dude to Switzerland, where all the other gangsters and racketeers live! 🙂
Roger Dewhurst says:
February 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm
HRH The Prince of Wales may be the most selfless actor on the scene. Now even diehard republicans cry with passion:
God save the Queen.
As an Aussie and a fan of constitutional monarchy and also the wonderful QE2, I wholeheartedly support the idea of HRH Prince Charles renouncing the throne because he is not popular down under whereas his sons are. They have more than a touch of their mother about them and seem a couple of down to earth, knockabout lads who go about their business and duties with vim and vigour and then get into a respectable amount of trouble when they hit the piss. Sorry Charles but although you spent some time at school out here it did not seem to rub off too much. I hope you and Camilla are very happy together. Valete!
I agree. God save the queen as even a monarchist like myself will become a republican when Charles is king. I object to being called a headless chicken by such a total and utter inferior in this particular area of expertise. Having put his head on the block it is time for us to lop it off.
What the hell is Resurrexi Pharmaceuticals,and why can it only be found on Christopher Monckton’s CV? I searched all Google pages looking for it, so I think it’s fair to ask here.
The emperor wears no clothes…
Julian in Wales says:
February 5, 2014 at 5:18 pm
————————————-
You make a valid argument. Still, his ‘headless chicken’ comment was poorly conceived, and should have never been published as an article. The public article has left him open to public criticism from any and all comers, just like it exposed Al Gore to similar commentary.
“The Prince is in the altogether, the altogether, the altogether,
He’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born…”
@Zeke
CET is a little lower than BEST(UK) T AVE but both show about 0.47 K / century linear trend since 1989.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=767
Looks like Monckton is somewhat overstating the length of the “pause” in UK.
Isn’t it a crime to even suggest harming a member of the royal family, much less lopping off their head?
In America such a similar statement directed at anyone in our administration would have the secret service crawling up your backside faster than you could fart. And our Internal Revenue Service would be back checking your taxes for the last 20 years, with NSA listening to your every word.
I think I just really depressed myself, so much for democracy and freedom.
Oops, gotta go, someone’s at the door, kinda late for callers…
@Zeke
Here is 5y triple RM compared to 10y RM you use:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=768
Firstly note the almost perfect way the running mean inverts the data.
Second, notice that the “10 year” filter lets through far more h.f. ‘noise’ that a decent 5y year filter.
re LOESS filters. Yes climate scientists do seem attracted to techniques they don’t understand and LOESS seems to be “fave”. Can you tell me why you would want to use a frequency filter which does not even have a definable frequency response since it depends upon the data itself and applies different filter properties to different parts of the same data set.
In engineering and any hard science that would be regarded as an abomination.
@ur momisugly eyesonu
The Crown hasn’t called all the shots since 1215 (that’s AD, not p.m.) . The Queen is head of state, but this is purely ceremonial. She may “Rule” but she doesn’t “Govern”. The country is run by the elected government in the House of Commons. Legislation has to pass through the House of Lords for review before receiving Royal Assent. This last is a formality.
This system may look odd to republicans (and hereditary entitlement doesn’t sit well with me), but it has an advantage in that the head of state is not a politician. The Lords have the power to send legislation back to the Commons for revision, but ultimately can’t block it if the government is determined to push it through.
The Lords were mainly hereditary, and therefore not politicians, but are now mostly Life Peers, and therefore retired politicians/political placemen. Monckton would have been entitled to sit in the Lords under the old rules, but is ineligible now. Thats a shame. He would be a valuable asset, being a maverick, comfortable with holding unpopular opinions and answerable to no-one except his conscience and his maker.
The only thing I care less about than what Charles’ has to say, is Moncktons opinion about what he said.
Some comments I’ve read from the UK mention that their heads get a little rounder every time they hear the heir apparent takes to the media.
I’ve taken the liberty to update the Prince’s coat of arms to reflect what he does.
Well, that gets him out of the queue without a fuss when the time comes.
You don’t suppose . . .
. . . it was planned this way . . . ?
Superbe !
You have to love ol’ Moncky boy! Can’t stand the heir to the throne, His Royal Phallicness.