By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Prince of Wales, in aiming to be the end of democracy, may yet be the end of the monarchy. Notwithstanding that Europe’s most climate-skeptical party had just come top in the recent UK elections for the European Parliament, he intervened tendentiously in politics – as he now all too frequently does – to demand no less than an end to capitalism as we know it in the name of Saving The Planet from global warming that has not happened for a decade and a half.
The Prince told a meeting of the overpaid and overfed in London that a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” was necessary in order to halt “dangerously accelerating climate change” that would “bring us to our own destruction”.
That won’t do. Even if “climate change” were “dangerously accelerating” (which it is not, for nearly all the key global indicators – temperature, sea ice, droughts, floods, hurricanes, rainfall, sunshine – show no exceptional trend), an essential duty of a future constitutional monarch is that on all matters of politics he should, as the ancient Greeks used to put it, keep absolute and holy silence.
All parties represented in the UK Parliament are already squandering tens of billions on addressing a non-problem with expensive non-solutions, such as windmills that cause greater CO2 emissions than they abate, and subsidies to all manner of unnecessary, diamond-encrusted boondoggles to make non-existent global warming go away, and madcap proposals such as the multi-billion-dollar deployment of 1500 Flettner-rigged trimarans with Thom fences on the rotating sail cylinders and power from the twin propellers driving atomizers to turn seawater into cloud condensation nuclei and fling them half a mile into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.
Beam me up, Scotty.
It is not the place of the monarchy to take sides in political debates. A monarchy that allows itself to shuffle, mumbling and whining, down into the political arena and to indulge in advocacy for global totalitarianism on the basis of a flimsy and discredited pseudo-scientific pretext is a monarchy that has forfeited its right to rule.
Charles must go. His future, along with that of the thousand-year monarchy, is in the past. It used to be said there would soon be only five kings in the world: spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds, and England. Scrub that last one.
Charles’ latest speech, whether he knew it or not, was part of a concerted campaign on the part of the international classe politique to persuade the world, with the active assistance of the sycophantic Marxstream media, to agree to a binding treaty by which sovereign nations would abandon their right to set their own environmental policy and allow a vast, entirely unelected international bureaucracy to rule them all.
To all who love democracy, this prospect is terrifying. The increasing brazenness and frequency of the lies being told about the climate, from Prince Charles’ more than usually ridiculous speech to the daftly hysterical climate assessments recently issued by Mr Obama and by Britain’s oldest taxpayer-funded pressure-group, the Royal Society, shows how desperate the totalitarians are to persuade the world to let them establish for the first time a global regime of absolute power wielded by supranational institutions entirely beyond the reach of any electorate.
The Founding Fathers of the United States foresaw many things when, in that long, hot Philadelphia summer, they drew up the Constitution. But they did not foresee that the United States, like many other nations, would come to be governed by people whose personal ambitions lay far beyond her shores, for they are global ambitions.
These global ambitions are not to extend nobly in the international sphere the athletic democracy that is their nation’s great gift to itself and to humanity, but instead to use the motive power of speciously-generated fear and the artifice of international treaty-making with like-minded totalitarians in other nations to bind their successors, and to bind the elected Congress in perpetuity without regard to the changing science or to the changing will of any future electorate.
The draft global climate treaty that failed in Copenhagen in 2009 failed in no small part because details of the draft had become public scant weeks before the conference began. There was a justifiable public outcry against it.
At the Durban climate conference in 2011 a further attempt at introducing a ruthless, intrusive and pernickety regime of global control was made, but again it was exposed publicly, exclusively, and in detail here at WattsUpWithThat. That posting became the most widely-read of some 500,000 on WordPress worldwide on the day of publication.
The junta that furtively directs the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change saw from these examples that conducting its affairs in public, as it is mandated to do, would prevent it from establishing its intended regime of absolute control. For if the mere people knew what it was up to they would not endure it.
At the 2012 climate conference in Doha, when I tried to obtain a draft of the Chairman’s conclusions – an always revealing document previously available at every conference but never reported on by journalists – a smirking clerk told me that no such document existed. The UNFCCC, twice before humiliated when its plans for world domination had been exposed, had scuttled, cockroach-like, underground.
Monckton of Arabia, Doha, 2012. The camel is the one on the right.
So now it is a race between the slow, inexorable emergence of the truth that the weather does not and will not change at the predicted rate or to the predicted degree and the vast army of princes, potentates, plutocrats, paper-pushers and pusillanimous panty-waists who have long wearied of democracy and have been quietly misusing the treaty-making power and abusing the scientific method with the undeclared but undeniable aim of eradicating all but the appearance of democracy, worldwide.
The day before yesterday, one nation might adopt Fascism, another Socialism, another Communism, another theocracy, another democracy. The systems competed, and democracy prevailed. The day after tomorrow, if the unholy alliance prevails, there will be one system, and no competition.
While competition existed, the totalitarians were seen off. Like it or not, the Berlin Wall came down. Yet they did not accept their defeat. They took over Greenpeace and other environmental groups and turned them into what have become, in all but name, totalitarian front groups whose real aim is not environmental but political.
That aim is the worldwide annihilation of the democratic and capitalist system that, for all its faults, has delivered more happiness and more benefit – in economic terms, more utility – to more people than any other political or economic disposition the world has known.
The Prince of Wales has morphed into just one more dirigiste, etatiste contre-capitaliste. His speech was framed as a warning – and it is just that: a warning that he and his ilk are intending over the next 18 months to bully or badger or bribe the world into ceding all political power by treaty to them and to those whom they approve. Ballot-box? What’s that? Never heard of it.
Consider the following sentence:
“Over the next 18 months, and bearing in mind the urgency of the situation confronting us, the world faces what is probably the last effective window of opportunity to vacate the insidious lure of the ‘last chance saloon’ in order to agree an ambitious, equitable and far-sighted multilateral settlement in the context of the post-2015 sustainable development goals and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
Sometimes, mixed metaphors are entertaining. This one is merely leaden. We face (but do not pass through) a window of opportunity, then we vacate a lure (this is entirely without meaning), then we do not call in at the last-chance saloon (surely the Prince’s intention was to visit the last-chance saloon rather than missing the bus and failing to catch the tide?).
His is the bloodless, alien tongue of those who have conceived so total a contempt for democracy that they cannot wait to stifle it under a mountain of treaties and carbon controls and reporting requirements and quotas and taxes and subsidies and regulations and restrictions and Thou-Shalt-Nots.
And the Press will not come to the aid of the people. Before the Second World War, they near-unanimously fawned upon Hitler. After it, they near-unanimously fawned upon Stalin.
Now, they near-unanimously fawn upon the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the European Union, and a Lernaean Hydra of pampered, me-too, supranational bureaucracies whose defining characteristic is that not one of them is answerable either via the ballot-box to any electorate or via the courts to any jurisdiction.
Patrick Henry
This is a dangerous moment. All that the Founding Fathers of the United States had sought to achieve may very soon be set at naught. The irony is that in the plot to repudiate and repeal freedom and democracy and the cheerful chaos of the market-place the current leadership in the United States has enthusiastically made common cause with the very monarchy that the American Revolution so vigorously sought to supplant.
The year before that great Revolution, in St. John’s Church, Virginia, Patrick Henry cried, “Give me liberty or give me death!” In the coming months, unless we are very careful and very vigilant, it will not be the former.
Christopher Monckton,
This stanza from a poem adds nicely to your post, perhaps.
John
No. Galileo’s primary crime was demonstrating that the Catholic Church was wrong, and thus not infallible in its pronouncements.
His argument of Heliocentric solar system was well established and wasn’t something unconsidered. The Pope took exception to his writings and not the theory, which was adopted by many in the hierarchy of the Church long before many of his peers in the Academies. You then dream up conflict between ignorant Church and the scientific fraternity, but in truth the Church was one of the main patrons of science during the Renaissance. There were conflicts but this also happened in the Universities and Academies without any need for church input.
And this is why science can never flourish under the rule of ignorant Catholic or Islamic Churches.
So the Italian Renaissance didn’t happen when the Church was at the height of its power. You’re talking absolute nonsense.
Galileo?
Why would anyone think the Catholic Church should have any level of enforced intellectual sovereignty over an individual human mind?
The Catholic Church was on the wrong side of liberty.
John
The underlying commonality between the American ‘left’ and the British elite is anti capitalism.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2009/10/natures-pre-copenhagen-book-club.html?showComment=1254665183360#c4199289421318628671
“The market system is not functional,” insisted the chairman, Sir Crispin Tickell, incidentally, one of Prince Charles’ most trusted advisers.
http://tinyurl.com/q57cua6
The man who ‘invented’ Global Warming
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069775/the-man-who-invented-global-warming/
Blue-blooded and green
It’s no coincidence that many leading greens are privileged: the upper classes have long harboured a fear and loathing of modern society.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/01/bluebloodedandgreen
Revenge of the Aristocrats
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/15778/revenge-aristocrats/brendan-oneill
ralfellis says: “Galileo produced original science despite the Catholic Church, not because of it.”
cd says: June 2, 2014 at 3:58 am: “Oh no, not another fallacy. Galileo only argued that observation trumped dogma! ”
Monckton said: “Yet it is no fairer to say Khayyam was not a Muslim than it is to say that Galileo, for instance, was not a Catholic”
Among the most shameful acts of the Catholic Church was the prosecution of Galileo and among its most shameful documents is the recantation of Galileo, under threat of being burnt at the stake.
The “Islamic” Golden age, which produced scientists and thinkers of great caliber had nothing to do with Islam, just as Galileo’s thoughts and discoveries had nothing to do with Catholicism or religion, but rather with the conquests of many civilisations where such things were already budding along with the liberal Abbasid Caliphate which tolerated things that were non-Islamic.
Many of their greatest examples were not even Muslim like Al-Razi, Avicenna, who rejected the Islamic doctrine of resurrection of the dead in flesh and blood and also rejected religions, including Islam, as lies, Al-Ma’arri, the great Syrian philosopher and poet who wrote “So, too, the creeds of man: the one prevails; Until the other comes; and this one fails; When that one triumphs; ay, the lonesome world; Will always want the latest fairytales.”, Ibn Rushd and Omar Khayyam.
It is ironic that Monckton, who shares many of the characteristics of the “totalitarian prince”, who is about as “totalitarian” or effective as the Red Queen in Alice’s through the looking glass, should argue that Khayyam was a Muslim on the same basis that Galileo was a Catholic.
Maybe Monckton, before criticising the totalitarian prince, should take a good look at himself in the mirror and since he says he is a Christian should read Matthew 7:5 “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Talking about if Islam had an influence on science and discovery one only needs to look at the device used by Muslims to find Mecca in times past. It spawned the sextant. Lets not talk about algebra.
Patrick says: June 2, 2014 at 7:39 am
“Talking about if Islam had an influence on science and discovery one only needs to look at the device used by Muslims to find Mecca in times past. It spawned the sextant. Lets not talk about algebra.”
The modern sextant only came into being with its precursor, the octant, around 1730. Its inventor was John Hadley an Englishman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hadley
The Arabs used the Astrolabe, which was invented around 150 BC by the Greeks. “metal astrolabes were known in the Christian East well before they were developed in the Islamic world or the Latin West.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrolabe#Ancient_world
“The roots of algebra can be traced to the ancient Babylonians…The Greeks created a geometric algebra ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra#Prehistory_of_algebra
Al-Khwarizmi was a Zoroastrian according to the early Muslim historian Al-Tabari and Omar Khayyam was no Muslim. Modern Algebra was a purely European invention Leibniz and Newton.
“Lets not talk about algebra.” Lets not. Nothing to do with Islam. Unless you can prove it is derived from the Koran or the Hadiths. All that’s derived from those sources are the Al Qaeda and Boko Haram and their ilk.
ralfellis & Richard, you do a discourtesy to Lord Monckton and his readers. I agree with you entirely that one of the chief characteristics of an Empire is that it subsumes the achievements, economies, inventions, and literature of the people it conquers. What it does not steal from its conquered peoples, it obliterates and erases from history. This happened under Rome, and it happened in the 700’s under the spread of Is lam, which unified the scattered tribes into one religion through one language.
However, this totally obvious fact has simply escaped most historians, and the prevailing paradigm in most books dealing with these subjects is to glorify the accomplishments of the conquerors, celebrate their outrageous spending on monumental architecture, and admire their central planning.
Those who hold this accepted view regarding ancient and Medieval history should be challenged, but not insulted.
Besides, the people in European countries have a much higher M slim population and are coping in different ways than people in the US. For example, in the UK there are over 80 Shari-a law courts within its borders. All this aside, it is to be expected that a man of intelligence and good will such as UKIP member Christopher Monckton would seek to find areas of common agreement across cultural lines.
A large share of Greek scientific works were not preserved by the Byzantines, but by Arab and Jewish scholars. That is, they were not translated from Greek to Latin, but from Greek to Arabic or Hebrew, to Latin. This is to say, the Islamic lingua franca, Arabic, was instrumental in tiding Western Civilization over the “Dark Ages,” and it goes without saying that they delivered Hellenistic science to Europe in a better state than they found it.
One small example: Al Mamun’s estimate of the size of the earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
Having created a scientific lingua franca, Islam took a language with hardly any scribal tradition, and mediated a far flung scientific civilization. Since he lived outside that linguistic sphere of influence, the Indian Aryabhata’s doctrine of a rotating earth got no further than Eristarchus’ promulgation of the same, and Europe had to reinvent the wheel. This may be compared with the more recent case of the Japanese Wasaburo Oishi’s discovery of the jet stream, published in what he thought was a lingua franca, Esperanto. His work was only recognized later by historians of science. –AGF
Some speculation: Correct me if I am wrong My Lord, but if the current sovereign were to abdicate and explicitly name a successor from the 2nd generation of issue, would that not pass muster in terms of rules of succession?
Richard
Among the most shameful acts of the Catholic Church was the prosecution of Galileo and among its most shameful documents is the recantation of Galileo, under threat of being burnt at the stake.
Firstly, no one said he had been treated fairly. His position was accepted as long he did not publish his work in common language and that he refrained from presenting it as truth. The problem the Church had was that he argued that truth should be ascertained by observation not on any existing knowledge. That was an open threat to the Pope. At this point he was in the Pope’s favour but he went too far when in part of his writings he made a thinly veiled insult on the Pope’s intelligence. Then the knifes came out. But you’re asserting that the Church was and is anti-science. This is just nonsense. Nearly all the great feats in mathematics and engineering during the Renaissance and before had Church patronage. How on Earth do you think they managed to build massive structures found in the Great Cathedrals, Monasteries, Universities and Palaces of the Church.
You have a world view espoused by the likes of Dawkins that science happened in spite of religion and somehow there is an enmity between them. However, historically some science flourished under Church patronage while others did not. The same thing is happening today but now it is the state that determines what science should be funded and what shouldn’t be.
Some famous priests you might have heard of…
Robert Grosseteste, Ignazio Danti, Marin Mersenne…and on and on including one even honoured by Star Trek: Jean-Felix Picard
BTW Galileo was a devout man, several of his children took Holy Orders.
I bet Charles the Halfwit is exceedingly green… with envy, Juan Carlos has abdicated stating that his forty-something son is mature enough to be king
How old is the halfwit, 65?
He will be the undoing of the mediaeval monarchy, trebles all round.
agfosterjr says: June 2, 2014 at 12:14 pm
A large share of Greek scientific works were not preserved by the Byzantines, but by Arab and Jewish scholars. That is, they were not translated from Greek to Latin, but from Greek to Arabic.
____________________________
Sorry, agfosterjr, but you have missed the point completely. The Arabic Muslims could not speak Greek, so they got the Syriac Christians of Mesopotamia to translate these texts, because only they spoke Greek, Aramaic and Arabic (with Aramaic being the lingua Franca of Mesopotamia).
And do remember that these Greek texts came from Greco-Syriac lands, not Arabia. When the Muslims conquered and destroyed Christian Amida (Diyarbakir) in Mesopotamia it was found to contain a million books (an exaggeration, I am sure, but you get the idea).
Conversely, this is what Islam gives us – the bald assertion that the Sun revolves around the Earth:
.
This is why Islam cannot do science, because all of the pronouncements of Islamic science must conform with the absurdities and contradictions contained in the Koran. Thus all science in the Islamic Golden Age was done by heretic unbelievers in the lands that Islam had conquered. But after Islam had plundered all the resources of those lands, research, development, prosperity and Islam itself all dissolved back into the sands from whence they came. The destructive fundamentalism of Islam had not only destroyed the Golden Age, it had also destroyed the Persian, Indian, Greek and Syriac Golden Geese that had laid it.
R
cd says:
June 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm
“His [Galileo’s] position was accepted as long he did not publish his work in common language and that he refrained from presenting it as truth.”
False. From the inquisition file in 1616 “..the said Galileo, having been summoned and being present before the said Lord Cardinal, was…warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter…the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office; ..”
He did not present it as the truth. He presented it as an argument between two people in his “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”, which he had smuggled and published in the Protestant north.
“But you’re asserting that the Church was and is anti-science.” Of course it is. What is its position on condoms and birth control for example?
PS When you talk about THE CHURCH, you mean the Catholic Church, there are other churches also.
“BTW Galileo was a devout man” I doubt it and even if he was it has nothing to do with with the Catholic Church’s’ anti-science stand which is proven by his prosecution.
“several of his children took Holy Orders.” Irrelevant even if true.
“How on Earth do you think they managed to build massive structures” Building massive structures has been undertaken for reasons other than the pursuit of science. The structures were not as massive as the pyramids of Egypt.
The great scientists of the renaissance Gallileo, Kepler, Newton did not have the patronage of the Catholic Church.
ralfellis says:
June 2, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“Thus all science in the Islamic Golden Age was done by heretic unbelievers in the lands that Islam had conquered.”
==============================
What nonsense. Was the caliph (al-Mamun) a “heretic unbeliever”? –AGF
agfosterjr says:
June 2, 2014 at 12:14 pm
“A large share of Greek scientific works were not preserved by the Byzantines, but by Arab and Jewish scholars. That is, they were not translated from Greek to Latin, but from Greek to Arabic or Hebrew, to Latin. ”
I have never heard of Greek scientific works being translated from Hebrew to Latin, but as for the claim that “A large share of Greek scientific works were not preserved by the Byzantines” – it is false.
The Renaissance got an impetus after the fall of Constantinople, after the suicidal charge of its last Emperor Constantine XI with 1,000 Greek soldiers into a force of over 100,000 Turks, which bought time for people fleeing the impending sack of the city along with original Greek works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Classics
And who funds the good Prince? The taxpayer. He wouldn’t want to a alter that cosy arrangement would he?
PS – agfosterjr says:
June 2, 2014 at 12:14 pm
“One small example: Al Mamun’s estimate of the size of the earth”
This was simply a copy of what Eratosthenes did over a 1,000 years before him and is a prime example of how scientific works which may have been carried out or commissioned by Muslims are not Islamic.
Anything contrary to the Quran is not Islamic and the Quran clearly says that the Sun has a “resting place” for the night 36:37,38: “A token unto them is night. We strip it of the day, and lo! they are in darkness. And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. ,,” and that the “resting place”of the Sun is in the Earth.
18:84-86, 18:89,90: “and he followed a way until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, ..” “Then he followed a way until, when he reached the rising of the sun, he found it rising upon a people for whom We had not appointed any veil to shade them from it.”
Richard says:
June 2, 2014 at 2:56 pm
agfosterjr says:
June 2, 2014 at 12:14 pm
“I have never heard of Greek scientific works being translated from Hebrew to Latin, but as for the claim that “A large share of Greek scientific works were not preserved by the Byzantines” – it is false.”
========================================================================
Sorry, but it’s true, and with such statements you merely reveal your profound ignorance and incompetence to be adding your voice here.
1) Learn how to google.
2) Enroll in college.
3) Shut up.
Every thing you say oozed of ignorance and drips with bigotry. Did Genesis anticipate Darwin? Do you expect the Quran to anticipate Copernicus. You are absolutely ridiculous. –AGF
@agfosterjr: June 2, 2014 at 6:04 pm
I have an engineering degree. I would advise you to follow your own advice, but sadly I very much doubt you would make it past primary school. Enrolling in a course of basic English comprehension may do you good, or it may not, as you may not comprehend anything taught to you.
From the link I gave you, which you apparently haven’t followed or haven’t comprehended:
“Greek manuscripts have been maintained in the Greek speaking world in Constantinople, Armenia, Syria, and Alexandria. Interest and availability of Greek text was scarce in the Latin West until with increase traffic to the East, including the Latin Empire during the time of the Crusade, the Sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade, and finally the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire caused many of the original Greek manuscripts to make their way into Western Europe, and thus fueled the Renaissance.”
Bigotry is not displayed by knowledgeable people giving reasoned arguments but by ignorant and stupid people saying “shut up” when at a loss for reason.
“Did Genesis anticipate Darwin? Do you expect the Quran to anticipate Copernicus.”
I really don’t know what argument you are trying to raise here. But the Genesis should have “anticipated” Darwin, considering that, many people believe it was the word of God either literal or inspired, and thus should have known that the Earth was not created in 7 days and that Humans and other animals were not “created” in the forms they are.
The case of the Quran is much worse. It is supposed to be the direct word of Allah and he [Allah] is supposed to have created the Earth and the (seven) heavens. The Quran (or Allah in this case) also says that men and other animals were created as they are and the Earth was created in 7 or 8 days (Allah varies his account somewhat). I would certainly expect that if Allah created the Earth and the (seven) heavens, he should have known that the Sun is not a small body that revolves around the Earth and rests for the night, or sets on Earth at night in a muddy spring, or rises from it. Rather forgetful this Allah.
Richard says:
June 2, 2014 at 7:40 pm
You obviously did not read your own link, where you will find: “This work of translation from Islamic culture, though largely unplanned and disorganized, constituted one of the greatest transmissions of ideas in history.”
You seem to suffer from anti-religious bigotry. Consider this: tell me what script you use and I’ll tell you what religion your ancestors were. If it were not for religion you would be illiterate. –AGF
@agfosterjr:
June 2, 2014 at 8:24 pm
[trimmmed]
I stated your claim that “A large share of Greek scientific works were not preserved by the Byzantines” was false.
Nowhere did I say that Arabs did not translate these works or that these were not used by western Europeans. And as was pointed out these translations were actually done by Greek Christians.
If you had cared to read the next sentence from your quote above “Western Arab translations of Greek works (found in Iberia and Sicily) originates in the Greek sources preserved by the Byzantines.
[trimmed]
[Cut it out. Argue the facts. Only the facts. .mod]
Richard says
False.
Copernicus was a canon of the Church for God’s sake.
Jeez…do you understand history at all (written by the victor etc.). Galileo had a number of audiences with the Pope during his work and through his writings (are you going to say that is wrong as well). Conflict arose after he insulted the Pope in his writings (in the book you mention); everything else was just an excuse to punish someone who had the audacity to actually call the Pope stupid. And as with any good politician [Pope] no one brings an enemy to court on the basis of injured pride.
I have read extensively around this and have watched several TV documentaries on this very issue; and even the most ardent proponent of your position always admits it was the Pope’s vanity that was being defended in the end, not the Church’s position.
“BTW Galileo was a devout man” I doubt it and even if he was it has nothing to do with with the Catholic Church’s’ anti-science stand which is proven by his prosecution.
“several of his children took Holy Orders.” Irrelevant even if true.
You see what happens when facts conflict with the narratives you create to support your world view. Surely even you can see the conflict in the above statement.
Again, even when the very physical evidence of the Chruch’s patronage of the sciences (Cathedrals, Palaces, Monasteries) are there for all to see, you state the same mantra and line in denial, denial, denial!
The structures were not as massive as the pyramids of Egypt.
So you think in terms of geometry, engineering and sophistication the cathedrals are a step backward from the pyramids.
The great scientists of the renaissance Gallileo, Kepler, Newton did not have the patronage of the Catholic Church.
You really are getting desperate – Gallileo and Kepler are said to be post Renaissance or at the cusp of Renaissance science. Newton is post-Renaissance. Please try and get the chronology right.
I gave you list of some clerical scientists and you try to go back to some Dawkinesque caricature of the debate with same old trite arguments. Newton and Kepler were Protestant, both were incredibly religious but since they lived in a protestant country I doubt he’d have been funded by the RC church. Newton’s theological writings are as extensive as his scientific ones.
Try Piero della Francesca for example and his treatise on geometry. One of the many giants of mathematics during the RENAISSANCE.
Newton’s theological writings are more extensive than his scientific. (so I have read) Michael Faraday was also very devout. The age of exploration coincided with the reformation which coincided scientific inquiry. All of it happening in Christendom. Lots a Jews participating. It didn’t happen outside the religious context. It didn’t happen in spite of the religion. It happened because of the Christian religion.
agfosterjr says: June 2, 2014 at 8:24 pm
You seem to suffer from anti-religious bigotry.
__________________________________
Definition of a bigot or a racist – anyone who disagrees with a liberal, or in this case a deist.
Coming back slightly more on topic, I feel it is sad that someone with the intelligence, wit and erudition of Mr Monckton has ruined his entire life and career through his attachment to, and belief in, the unprovable and unbelievable.
It is clear from all I have read that he was dropped from Thatcher’s administration because of his faith-based pontificating, and also from UKIP for the same reason. Likewise he is persona non grata down at Windsor for the same reason. And his every posting on WUWT merely invites bitter divisions and derision, instead of polite debate and discussion.
The guy is a one-man disseminator of discord.
R