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
James Abbot: “…people in the UK are suffering right now from extreme weather that is entirely consistent with predictions of what would happen in a warmer world.”
Well, I figured you’d be challenged on that statement, and you were, though you didn’t answer it you merely ran away from it. So, I’ll ask you again: Point to the papers that actually do predict the weather we’ve been experiencing and show how many years ahead of their prediction they were made.
BTW James, you may think that Farage (UKIP) was wrong to deny his 2010 manifesto but at least he is honest enough to say so before the chance of a vote, unlike, say, Clegg (Lib Dem) who went into government on the back of many pledges from his manifesto whcih he has subsequently broken most cynically.
Richard Courtney: You make some very good points about the constitution, but mainly, you rightly point out the damaging control Jonathan Porritt has over HRH. I agree that the chance of such a debate is highly unlikely but I would love to imagine who the two seconds to HRH would be if it did.
Silver ralph says:
February 5, 2014 at 8:50 pm
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.
============================================
Not really true. There used to be an alternative, inland route from Exeter to Plymouth, until it was closed in 1968. It left the current Exeter to Barnstaple line at a place called Coleford Junction (near Yeoford) and went to Plymouth via Okehampton, Lydford and Bere Alston.
What was interesting (well, o.k., not necessarily to everybody!) was that, at Exeter, trains to Plymouth via Okehampton departed in the opposite direction to those to Plymouth via Newton Abbot (i.e. the current route). The same opposite direction moves occurred at Plymouth.
This sort of thing was quite a regular occurance as a result of relatively unfettered competition in the construction of railways in the nineteenth century. Whilst I accept that Beeching got some things right, closing this route was not a good decision because the vulnerability of the stretch of line along the seawall at Dawlish has always been recognised. In fact, years ago, working on some of the many alleviation schemes earned me much money in the form of overtime and payments for working “away from home”. Since a fair amount of the Oakhampton route is still there (albeit single line in parts and freight only in others), it may not be as expensive to reinstate as some have postulated.
Incidentally, since Abbott has been wittering on about nineteenth century infrastructure being destroyed as a result of CAGW, I think he needs to explain the Tay Bridge disaster. This was a nineteenth century structure too. Unfortunately for him, it fell down in 1879 but at least it gave us the never-to-be-forgotten poem by William McGonagall.
The relevance of that? Both the Tay Bridge and the line along the Sea Wall were Victorian: one fell down a little more than a year after construction during a violent storm; the other is now suffering damage as a result of … yes, a violent storm. At least the Dawlish Sea Wall has lasted a bit longer, having been built around 1846.
OK, that’s enough railways.
He won’t even be shown this letter, his ”aids” dare not in case he throws a wobbly.
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:46 am
Thank you for enlightening me to the workings of the UK monarchy and government. I failed to follow all the comments on the previous thread and appreciate your links to your comments there. I feel sure that many other readers here have gained as much as I have. UK government was not a part of my academic curriculum here in the US.
A fine rapier thrust towards the Prince’s bubble. If it helps deflate it, it would be a mercy for him.
richardscourtney is correct, the Royal Family still has immense political power. This is little understood by my fellow Brits. I didn’t even know it until I read it a few months ago. I was shocked. Contrary to belief, we don’t live in a true democracy (but then neither does the US and 99% of the world!).
Cheese-E-Chuck
(There’s a ‘cheesy” (gizmo-centered) chain of pizza parlors in the US called Chuck-E-Cheese.)
@roger Dewhurst says: February 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm
The Monarchy is an institution we can only discard at our peril. Monarchs and potential monarchs are all human and have human failings. Unfortunately Prince Charles is inclined to display his failings. Let us not, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Overlook his failings.
==============================================================
Yes – it seems that Constitutional Monarchy is perhaps the most stable form of democracy. However, I do think we could well skip a generation and go straight to Prince William, who seems a nice lad without his father’s … foibles, shall we say.
Great letter. I shall be writing to HRH later.
I am afraid Lord Monckton is incorrect.
It is not just half his subjects. In a 2010 UK poll only one in five said climate change was “man-made” [via the Guardian no less!] Given one in four households suffer from fuel poverty following large increases in energy bills, this is not really surprising.
Since both Australia and Canada ousted the Warmists I think we can safely say it is MORE THAN half and growing.
:>)
Huh.
Where’d James go? 🙂
Always amazed at the total lack of logic in some of these “foundation beliefs”.
You develop buildings/communities directly on the seacoast decades or centuries ago.
They get pounded by millions of waves.
They finally succumb to wave # 1,000,0001, and THAT’S the one that was the problem. Everything was just fine until that ONE wave/storm came along. Now what could have caused that? It’s always been fine before this! For hundreds of years!
Seriously?
So for various things that got destroyed/washed out to sea prior to AGW, what would we attribute their demise to?
Jim from Maine
>>> 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)
your graph says the red line is a 10 year moving average, data prior to the 25 year period that monckton is talking about will bleed through on your graph. monckton is talking about the previous 25 years only. take the last 25 years data ONLY and calculate the trend and you’ll at least be on the same page.
http://www.climategate.com/wp-content/uploads/central-england-temperatures.jpg
fobdangerclose says:….
I do not see an El Nino forming this year. The entire climate profile has changed. The jet stream has gone more ‘loopy’ that means blocking highs with drought too much rain very hot very cold. (This is why politically Global warming ==> Climate Change ===> Weather Wierding)
See THE BREWER-DOBSON CIRCULATION
I am a hobby farmer and I gave up and now do my own weather forecasts. For commercial farmers I would suggest Weather Bell (half way down on the right)
fobdangerclose says: @ur momisugly February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm
My last answer got booted into the ether.
In short. Use weatherbell half way down on right.
James Abbott says: @ur momisugly February 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm
…If he wants a televised debate on climate science why not set one up with an actual climate scientist ? That would be essential viewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because they all run for the hills.
You offering?
Dear Lord Monckton,
Somebody should point out to Charles the connotations of the word ‘deniers’. I’m not sure I have the eloquence to do it effectively but I’d be glad to give it a go. However, I am sure that any missive I sent to Clarence House would be intercepted and binned by a flunky. Any suggestions how I should go about it?
enviro mental says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:01 am
================================
Met say NO. CET temps dropping like a stone
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Dear “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,” get used to debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen and drop the title nonsense. Just call yourself plain “Christopher Monckton.”
John F. Hultquist says: @ur momisugly February 5, 2014 at 5:23 pm
I think I am hearing an echo of “rgates” – didn’t the host throw him out about a year or two ago?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This guy is an entirely different dude. You can look him up on the internet as you can R Gates. (just aad climate)
Given who he is, he should be debating Lord Monckton not Prince Charles.
eyesonu:
Thankyou for your reply to me at February 6, 2014 at 3:06 am.
It includes this
Also US government was not a part of my academic curriculum here in the UK.
So, perhaps you can understand my frequent questions concerning the nature of US legal and Constitutional issues that I often make in WUWT threads discussing such matters.
To a Brit such as me it is bemusing that the US – or any other country – has a legalistic system where the Supreme Court decides what is and is not the Constitution. I struggle to understand it.
Our ‘Constitution’ changes with the monarch who is constrained by the threat of civil war with potential result of regicide. The issue of Edward VIII whose politics were not acceptable sums up how we regard our Constitution. And our adulation of our present Queen sums up how we respect a monarch who dedicates her life to the service of Her Subjects and the nation.
Richard
Mike Mellor:
re your post at February 6, 2014 at 4:32 am.
If you feel like that then become an American. The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a peer of the British Realm: live with it.
Richard
Ted Clayton says: @ur momisugly February 5, 2014 at 5:30 pm
….Did you see in Google News today that the entire United States is running out of road salt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The USA is also running out of propane: U.S. propane shortage hits millions during brutal freeze …a fuel that heats homes, schools and businesses across wide swathes of the United States.
Propane is also used as a ‘topping’ for electric generating plants.
This CAGW idiocy is doing real harm including killing people. That is what people like James Abbott refuse to admit.
James Abbott is a a classic example of an unscientific, irrational, science-denying shill.
They cannot stand Monckton as he tells it like it is, uses science to dismantle irrational alarmist zealot claims and is waaaaay smarter than them.
Every one of your claims have been fully debunked. Give it up James, you’re outclassed
Gail Combs:
Many thanks for your post at February 6, 2014 at 4:32 am.
As you suggested, I googled for ‘James Abbott climate’ and was shocked at what I learned. I thought he was merely another ignorant troll trying to be disruptive by spouting nonsense because he knew nothing and understood less than nothing.
Clearly, if the James Abbott who posts here is the Green Part Spokesperson of that name then his ignorance and stupidity are feigned, so he is deserving of even more contempt than he has already earned here.
Richard
Mr Green Genes: Ah, William McGonagall… Back in my youth no session in the folk club was complete without an hilarious rendition of ‘The Tay Bridge Disaster’. (I guess you had to be there). Thanks for the memory.
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:36 am
“To a Brit such as me it is bemusing that the US – or any other country – has a legalistic system where the Supreme Court decides what is and is not the Constitution. I struggle to understand it.”
Originally the system of checks and balances was set up as such:
the People vote for electors who then select the President
the President appoints Supreme Court Justices, with the advise and consent of the Senate
the People directly elect members of the House of Representatives
the State legislatures appoint Senators
the Congress (House of Reps and Senate) pass laws
the President can sign or veto these laws
the Supreme Court can invalidate any signed laws if they violate the Constitution
The reality is that the system has been corrupted over the years by politicians, not the least of which was the passing of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which changed the appointment of Senators by State legislatures to a direct election by the People. While this change may seem “more democratic”, it changed the loyalty of Senators from the State that appointed them to the highest bidder, i.e. the group that provides the most money for the Senator to stay in power.
” Our ‘Constitution’ changes with the monarch who is constrained by the threat of civil war with potential result of regicide. ”
That is also the reason for the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The reasoning being that an armed populace would be feared by a government. Trying to remove this fear of the people is the motivation for government to constantly try to invalidate the 2nd Amendment.
Hope that helps a little.