Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
At a 2014 Buckingham Palace presentation Prince Charles said,
It is baffling, I must say, that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science.”
“All of a sudden, and with a barrage of sheer intimidation, we are told by powerful groups of deniers that the scientists are wrong and we must abandon all our faith in so much overwhelming scientific evidence.”
He also referred to the “headless chicken brigade” who were carrying out “the barrage of sheer intimidation” to push their false agenda. He then said,
“As you may possibly have noticed from time to time, I have tended to make a habit of sticking my head above the parapet and generally getting it shot off for pointing out what has always been blindingly obvious to me.”
Yes, more and more people express concern about this propensity. There is even a very pointed play about his actions. Hopefully, this practice and the inanity of his words will prevent what he likely believes, namely that it is his divine right to be the monarch.
English playwright Ben Jonson (1572 – 1637), best known for his satirical plays, anticipated and almost specifically identified our modern prince when he wrote,
Hood an ass with reverend purple. So you can hide his two ambitious ears, and he shall pass for a cathedral doctor.
Prince Charles doesn’t just talk to the plants, he instructs them. It appears the tree in Figure 1 asked for more CO2 and so the Prince used his Royal prerogative and is trimming its demand. He instructs us to reduce our demand for fossil fuels, but as with all hypocrites does not reduce his.
Figure 1
With six houses from Romania to Wales, his carbon footprint makes a mockery of Al Gore’s hypocrisy. (Figures 2 – 7)
Figures 2 – 7
The following information is only for what Charles controls, the Duchy of Cornwall.
The Duchy of Cornwall was established in 1337 and is passed to the eldest living heir of the reigning British monarch. The Duchy is roughly the size of the city of Chicago and produces income mainly from apartment rentals, agriculture sales and natural resources. In 2012, the Duchy of Cornwall produced an income of $31.77 million for Charles. After $15.22 million worth of costs were removed Prince Charles was left with $16.55 million. He voluntarily pays a 40% tax rate on that income which equaled roughly $6.71 million last year. The total estimated value of the Duchy of Cornwall is $1.3 billion. Interestingly, though Charles volunteers to pay taxes, the Duchy itself does not. Think of the Duchy of Cornwall like a corporation that does not have to pay any taxes. For example, the Duchy owns the land that houses Dartmoor prison. Dartmoor pays $2 million in rent to the Duchy for the use of that land. No tax is paid on that $2 million. Many royal critics cry foul at this arrangement and would love to see the Duchy pay capital gains and corporate taxes like any other major business operation.
Nice work if you can inherit it.
All plants and animals inherit characteristics earned in the Darwinian struggle to survive. Charles has some of those, but he also inherited unearned wealth, power, and beliefs. He is a combination of the worst of nature and nurture. This Prince of Hypocrisy inherited his attitudes to his position and the rest of society from his father. In 1986, Philip wrote,
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers that it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.
By 1988, he condensed the idea.
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
There’s that word overpopulation again. Apparently Philip is frustrated because his ancestors got to decide who lived and died, and he doesn’t. Philip doesn’t specify who would be culled, but it would likely be those Malthus’ advocated and Darwin identified as “unfavorable.”
Overpopulation is related to the concept of carrying capacity not directly examined in my last essay. Malthus’ claim said that the human population will outgrow the ability to feed itself; that is outgrow the Earth’s carrying capacity. It is always discussed in ecology and agriculture, but then animals are unable to enhance their food supply while humans can, a fact Malthus and Darwin overlooked.
The ability to control land and food production is central to power over society. Charles and his ancestors are well aware of that. He knows that political powers ceded were an illusion, and he and an elite few retain control of land and wealth that would make his ancestors proud.
One of the great illusions in British history is that Magna Carta was about rights and freedoms of the individual. Signed in 1215, it involved the power elite, the vast landowners among whom the most powerful was the King, at that time John. Individual peasants owned very little land before or after Magna Carta. The vast majority didn’t own it until enough middle class British people moved to the United States. There they revolted against Prince Charles’ ancestor, George III and established in their Constitution the private ownership of land.
Somebody told me on a phone-in radio program that the US was the last bastion of free speech. Actually it is the first and only bastion of free speech and private ownership of land. The US Founding Father’s understood how important and precious these were and how people, like Prince Charles, would try to take them away. The Second Amendment was created so the people could defend their right to free speech and private ownership of land.
The combination of free speech, private ownership of land and a fertile country led the US to produce more food than any in history. There is now approximately two percent of the population identified as farmers feeding the other 98 percent, with a surplus for export.
In March 2009, Charles said the world had 100 months left “to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.” So, as of May 2015 we have 25 months left. Charles also said, “I believe passionately that everyone has a particular God-given ability.” On the surface, it seems ironic that it was the socialist government of Gordon Brown who identified his ability.
Senior sources have revealed that Gordon Brown’s Government wants to make more use on the foreign stage of Prince Charles’s experience, expertise and contacts, particularly on climate change.
Government officials believe that the Prince’s passion to protect the environment is hugely respected abroad and that he can play an increasing important role as he inevitably moves closer to becoming king.
I say “on the surface” because underneath it is the paradox of totalitarianism of the left supporting totalitarianism of the right. By 2011, Charles had raised the alarmism further.
Referring to himself as “an endangered species”, he warned that the world is already in the “sixth extinction event”, with species dying out at a much faster rate than at any time since the death of most of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
The only comment the claim deserves is the hope that he really is an endangered species. Apparently he is accelerating the demise of his group and its power over society. His ignorance about climate and the environment coupled with his distorted view of his privileged position are pushing him to overstep his “God-given ability”. Unfortunately, all it will do is force another deception of appear to yield God-given rights.
Some believe the Queen is hanging on to bypass Charles and go directly to William. The problem is the nature/nurture hypocrisy will continue. William purchased
“250 pheasant, duck and partridge for a shoot at their grandmother Queen Elizabeth’s Sandringham Estate,”
to celebrate his brother’s birthday. Other stories underscore the inherited hypocrisy. William appears to be more blatant than his father.
A day after going hunting for wild boar and deer in Spain, he appears in a video with his father Prince Charles condemning illegal hunting of endangered species. Non-endangered animals are fair game it seems.
Charles and William confirm Oscar Wilde’s satirical observation,
“And what sort of lives do these people, who pose as being moral, lead themselves? My dear fellow, you forget that we are in the native land of the hypocrite.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If ever there was an advert against inbreeding it is Our Chucky.
what are you talking about? charles is a true sceptic-
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/02/04/king-charles-iii-noooooo/
“After Prince Charles promoted a diet that recommended curing cancer with coffee enemas, Professor Michael Baum told him: ‘The power of my authority comes with a knowledge built on 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer. Your power and authority rest on an accident of birth. I do beg you to exercise your power with extreme caution when advising patients with life-threatening diseases to embrace unproven therapies.’”
hahaha
Indeed, he is a major twat of extraordinary magnitude. I like that he says all that stuff about believing scientists, but when scientists tell him that homeopathy is about as valid as he is, he keeps quiet. I have never thought that anyone should deserve a lady who looks as bad as Bowlesey, but he does.
Ah, poor fella; six houses and no home. I’d resent all those billions with homes, too.
============
Yes indeed! One does begin to wonder whether the time is right to re-examin our constitutional monarchy & its status within the Nation. He will be a bad king & he’s not a patch on his Mother, & never could be!
I pity old Queen Liz, she must hate to get up in the morning and look forward to seeing her son’s obituary. I think Phil feels even stronger about it.
Just read?? No, Phil is planning……
@Craig Is that the same mother who ceremonially signed away our sovereignty each time an official put a piece of paper in front of her? You know, the person whose official job it is to be a living constitution and to defend the Bill of Rights? You know, the one who gave up all that inconvenient duty in return for playing the role of a glorified tourist attraction? Yes, I’m sure we all pity the parasite too. Gawd bless ‘er.
Mentioned this a year ago: Motto: Serve Yourself
That’s why they took real power away from the monarchy.
He is indeed a proper Charlie. He should be limited to amusing comments about architecture and fond remembrance of The Goon Show, not ridiculous statements on theories of anything, or his really unfortunate habit of attempting to influence government.
His dear mum must wonder what went wrong…
He’s Britain’s Biden.
Without the hair plugs.
Thankfully, our Biden need only be tolerated for eight years. Even the left would find it difficult to put crazy Uncle Joe in the Oval Office.
I’d rather bide my time with Joe than Hillary.
Charles embodies the very prejudices and wooly thinking that many in society embrace. Whether it is alternative medicines, talking with plants, climate change, organic vegetables or the supposed ignorance of the great unwashed he is right there with the hippies and marketing executives and organic farmers in our society. Thankfully the great unwashed show a far better grip of reality than he ever will.
Ordinary folk are not taken in by this global warming malarky just ask them. Unfortunately some things are so ridiculous that only a certain type of educated fool can believe them.
Sticking his head up above the parapet must be a refreshing change from where it usually is.
Just saying.
There’s never a big rubber mallet around when you really need one.
Comment of the day award!
Love that! \
I can’t see why everyone is complaining about Charles. It is like those who complain about Michael Mann. Everyone should stop for a mo’ and take a deep breath. If you are in a numerical minority and running a campaign of revolution to overthrow the dominant paradigm, what better agents for achieving this than the likes of Charles, Cook and Mann? Are they not the agitator’s dream team?
If we want people to awaken from their stupor and realise they are being taken to the cleaners by yet another group of vested green interests, who better to lampoon the CAGW movement than this group on the other side of the fence? It’s perfect. They are perfect. Leave them where they. In fact, encourage them with letters of compliment and call for more extreme solutions. Push hard. They’ll do it! In the meantime chain, them to their own beliefs.
When you are stuck in a climate wormhole where the laws of physics are suspended, put the pedal to the metal. You will pop out, intact, on the other side.
Thank you for a very good post. Not only is he a hypocrite but also a deviant who perverts our democracy by secretly contacting ministers and government officials to lobby for his own pet projects. From architecture to Zen Buddhism.
His nasty vicious comments resulted in an architectural practice loo
The power not only resides with him. The property owned in Central London by the aristocracy is worth billions of pounds where a defacto cartel exists. The lands all aquired by legalised theft.
Some people justify all this by saying that they earn a lot of money for the country through tourism etc when actually they earn a lot of money just for themselves.
The love of the royal family is an anathema especially when you consider the devastation caused by the actions of them directly resulting in the American revolution, the first world war and Russian revolution.
But hey ho when you are as fragrant as they are you can get away with anything 🙂
For Americans you should beware of dynasties.
Edwards the VII did a lot to prepare Britian for war with Germany, he could see what was happening on the continent.
Of course he could, because he had planned it.
Germany and Russia were ruled by two of his nephews.
Let’s not go off the deep end, Dirk. Let’s just say that anyone in the know could forsee WW1 coming, and he had enough wisdom to prepare.
>>For Americans you should beware of dynasties.
I don’t agree at all. The idea of the British monarchy is that:
a. They act as a ‘tradition-damper’ on the wild policy swings that democracy can bring. Just imagine what Blair could have done to the UK, without the Queen slapping him down once a month. The House of Lords used to provide this damper, but it has gone now.
b. The army is swears allegience to the Queen, not Parliament. So if we elected a Parliamentary tyrant, like Germany did, they army could quite legitimatly tell him or her to get stuffed, and take over Parliament.
The only problem with monarchies, is that you get the occasional rotten apple – the odd Nero or Caligula, instead of Augustus or Vespasian. All we need is a firmer mechanism to skip over the idiots. Mind you, at least Charlie-boy is well meaning, and not a Nero style despot.
Ralph
A lot of well meaning idiots will still sign the death warrants when given the chance.
Just look at his desire to be reincarnated as a killer virus.
Charlie, although my 2nd cup of tea, after his sister, the Princess Royal – Princess Anne – still preserves something useful.
Since the House of Lords (admittedly dynastic, admittedly self-perpetuating) was ‘democratized’ (another of Labour’s back-of-the-envelope moves) has been practically eliminated, we need a revising chamber here in the UK
Auto [with curbed tongue during this seminal election!]
The Islamic Caliphate solved this problem handily. The ruler sires 20 or 30 princes who are basically raised in a viper’s den. when daddy clocks out there is a vicious but brief power struggle with 19 or 29 (dead) losers, winner takes all. Result: nearly 10 generations of ruthless, effective governance.
Mark, that’s Philip, not Charles.
Alx, that is one great comment, there. Thanks.
It’s interesting to me that all comments I have read from Prince Charles on the bogus subject of AGW are ad hominem touchy feelies. If he wants to show that AGW is real and significant, all he has to do is apply the scientific method and prove it. Lacking that ability, what you see is what you get. I’m not impressed.
sorry posted too soon missing sentance.
architectural practice loosing work and British businesses and workers losing income when he put the kibosh on the Chelsea Barracks scheme.
Thank you for clarifying! I wondered what an “architectural practice loo” might be and how it would be used.
(Translation: “loo” = “toilet” where I live.)
Is it a place where architects practise designing loos? Possibly very advanced, fancy loos.
Are loos difficult to design, thus making it necessary to have a practice loo?
Is it a loo that architects use to test design ideas?
Or a place where they put failed design ideas, possibly failed designs of loos?
Is it a loo that architects practise using before they can use real loos?
The mind boggled….
I thought the same thing. I’d never want to be the janitor in a building that has a “practice loo” of any sort.
Here in the states, we call those training pants.
“Being green” I remember, years ago in my youth,
Meant you were gullible, naive and in search of the truth;
We all think “being green” means something else today,
But how far from that definition do the Greens really stray?…”
Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-c4
Back in the 80’s, the mindless product of 43 generations of inbreeding, did a U.S. tour to bring attention to the need for better urban planning. I have a close friend who has a B.S. in Civil Engineering and MFA in Architecture who went to one of his sessions. When I got home that day there was a brief message on my answering machine, (one of those stupid cassette units for those who like to wax nostalgically about technology), “I’m at the Park House drinking a pitcher of Scotch, be here by 7, I’ll need a ride home.” From what I could make of the accounts the jolly Prince rambled, in broken sentences, for a good 45 minutes, and basically said nothing but platitudes of the sort that sprawl is bad, strip malls are ugly, and the traffic in London is a mess.
unlike his mother, the passing of Philips most erratic and similar offspring will cause very little mourning amongst his ‘subjects’.
It is always rules for me, and rules for thee. I will begin to believe in CAGW on the day that those who promote it actually live the way they tell me I have to live. I am a big believer in leading by example. Don’t ask me to do something you are unwilling to do yourself. If CAGW is such a big problem, you go first. Prove it to me by your actions.
Dr. Ball: Prince Charles is indeed a “climate change” hypocrite given the size of his own carbon footprint. But you badly overstep the limits of your own knowledge to suggest that Prince William is hypocritical because “A day after going hunting for wild boar and deer in Spain, he appears in a video with his father Prince Charles condemning illegal hunting of endangered species. Non-endangered animals are fair game it seems.” As a wildlife biologist and avid sport hunter I can attest to that fact that regulated sport hunting does not endanger any species. Most hunted species in the US thrive because of habitat improvements and hunting regulations supported by sport hunters. All sport hunters of my acquaintance would similarly condemn the illegal hunting of endangered species. John Baglien
It isn’t ‘hunting’, John. It’s a pathetic, sad, and pointless persuit by ‘men’ with guns against animals that couldn’t hurt them. There is never such a great example of masculinity-gone-wrong than to see some bunch of crass neanderthals, armed to the teeth, stalking some poor dumb animal. A ‘hunter’ is someone who has to kill an animal to live, or to protect his fellow people (like in an African village) from a lion (or some such) who threatens. It isn’t some gimp in a hat and khaki trousers, with a packed lunch. “Sport hunter”, jeez! Grow up.
You would rather all the animals be killed and their habitat turned over to something that is more useful to man?
Is that what I said? Do you always see something that someone hasn’t written? Bizarre.
Or maybe you prefer that deer and other game animals be torn to shreds and consumed, alive or dead, by predators?
That’s how nature is! But we have a choice whether to kill or not. We once killed to eat, and a by-product were clothes to wear. Now we have some brave souls loading up a gun and needlessly shooting something dead in the name of ‘sport’, There’s nothing sporting about it. It isn’t difficult or dangerous. It’s entirely one-sided (if would have to be, or these ‘men’ wouldn’t be doing it) and utterly pointless. It’s depravity panders to the section of the brain that requires the need to control. Something in there lacking, obviously, and rather worrying for humanity – in that some people take enjoyment from killing.
I take exception to the “crass Neanderthals” comment. The reason I hunt is for the food which is rather tasty. If I didn’t cull the deer herd in my country neighborhood they will destroy my sixty, twenty foot arbor viteas that fronts my 4 Acre property. I do this legally with archery equipment and I purchase doe permits from our County which issues over 100,000 every year. Post your address and next season I’ll FedX a frozen entrée of my Venison Wellington. By the way the last time my IQ was measured it was 148.
Tell farmers and ranchers that feral hogs are poor dumb animals that don’t hurt anything.
And by the way, I like to hunt and fish because I love smoke venison sausage (made with plenty of pork fat) and fresh caught fish. Yum.
Hunters will always be needed. Hippos, leopards and hyenas can develop a preference for ‘people’ pretty quickly. Tigers too. I am sure polar bears don’t need encouragement at all. The deer population in Ontario is exploding because we killed almost all the predators and stopped living off the land ourselves. We are not interlopers on this planet. Without hunting we would have to turn the planet into a zoo.
Ah, brilliant. More exhibitions of people who can’t read! It’s no good saying you have a high IQ, then showing that you having reading disabilities. I said a hunter is someone who has to kill for food. If you kill to eat, then that’s ok, if you kill because something in your brain gives you a orgasmic kick, then there’s something wrong with you – understand now? JamesD is another one. I said the poor dumb animal couldn’t hurt YOU. You know, it is possible, with some thought, to protect your livestock/land. I live where there are deer and foxes. I haven’t suffered a single incident of deer eating my produce – because I have constructed a high fence. My neighbour (who hasn’t got a fence) lost all his strawberries and lettuces last month. My neighbour is therefore showing signs of stupidity, whereas I am not (well, not there, anyway!).
In some people hunting is an atavistic urge Jim. Hunting is part of what we are, not everybody obviously, but there is a large minority in society who are driven to hunt. We can anthropomorphise the effect on the hunted animal just as we can to the cow or the pig that is slaughtered but it is just romanticism.
I used to hunt. The last thing I killed was an elephant cow that was trying to kill me. It was that kill, 48 years ago, that turned off my joy of the hunt. Now my hunting skills are used for photography but I still carry a rifle in the bush.
Keitho, I agree. If I were photographing in the Bush, I’d carry a big gun too! Have you seen the nature photography on devianart? 90% of the stuff there makes my photography skills look pathetic.
http://www.deviantart.com/browse/all/photography/nature/
Jim,
In characterizing sport hunters as crass neanderthals, suggesting our manhood is wanting (‘men’), and accusing me of being immature (‘Grow up.’), you presume that you are more evolved, more manly and more mature. A fact not evidenced by ad hominem arguments which pretend to some intellectual or moral superiority. You suggest to others in later response that it is OK to kill to eat. This year I have enjoyed the eating of venison, grouse, pheasant, quail, ducks and chukars.
John
JC, it’s not what you said, however it is the logical and inevitable result of the policies you pursue.
John, anyone who gets a kick out of unnecessarily killing another living thing has something wrong in their head. That isn’t ‘normal’ behaviour. Can you not see that? I am not more manly, more mature, or more evolved than the average. But at least I don’t have any urge to kill. To do so is depraved, degenerate behaviour, as I said. I have known, and worked with, many men in my life. After a while you tend to mentally group them. You have your tatooed men, your bodybuilders, your bearded men, and your ‘sport’ hunters. A psychologist has a field day with such men. Here’s a clue: they all have an ‘issue’. Keitho (above) had an epiphany. You may never get one, John, sadly.
MarkW, your rectum-wind of a reply is so amazingly stupid that it isn’t even worth me using up the internet replying at length. As you have shown before, you cannot use logic to deduce someone’s point. And I don’t even persue any policies! Jeez! What are you, 10?
Living on a farm, I trapped muskrats, etc for the Fur money. At 12 I started shotting mallards on our lakes with a 22, My parents and sibs enjoyed eating them. Most of our neighbor 2015 boys still do the same thing.
How did your distant hunter/gather ancestors survive?
Hey Fritz, try reading:
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley. May 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Evidently your ancestors had vision problems that are generic.
Round here wild boar are an increasing problem, fewer hunters as the incoming Brits are, for the most part, anti-hunting so wood land is closed to the hunt. So crop damage and injury the humans are increasing; injury includes motor accidents involving boar.
So getting well off people to pay for hunting problematic boar is a win-win,
I have an explanation. From Wikipedia
Inbreeding results in homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population
Royal intermarriage was often practised among European royal families, usually for interests of state. Over time, due to the relatively limited number of potential consorts, the gene pool of many ruling families grew progressively smaller.
There you have it. It is unlikely that anyone can get so stupid just by normal means.
this is probably the reason why so many of the Royals “play away from home”.
>>This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population.
Only if you have recessive genes in the first place. If you have good genes, inbreeding will provide healthy offspring. The only reason for diversification is to put your eggs in more than one basket, in case yours are suceptable to some ‘orrible disease.
In the past, monarchs marrying a sibling was quite common. In 1st century Near East Queen Cleopatra, King Agrippa II, Simon Magus, Queen Helena and Antiochus of Commagne all married their siblings. As did the legendary Abraham, Lot and King Arthur, of course.
Ralph
” If you have good genes, inbreeding will provide healthy offspring. ”
Unfortunately, this is a very big ‘if’ in the case of the British “royal” family. ‘Tis pity, ’tis true…
Given the fact of random mutation, all lines will eventually develop bad genes.
Chales is not worth listening to. I hope he never becomes King!
I don’t know if you’re British, but there are two schools of thought on that here: One hopes that he will never be, because he’s such a prat. The other hopes he will be king, because he will do so much damage that it will set the Monarchy on the end road.
Heir to royal throne advocates rule by decree.
I’m gob-smacked, I tells ya.
Climate scientists rule by degree.
Yes, Prince Charles likes to ‘style’ himself as a classic (classy?) ‘erudite British mouth’. A hundred years ago, this was a popular social game, even with brick-layers and foresters, but most-fondly among (ivory-tower) academia & (puffed-up) intelligentsia. At the same time, more secure personalities have all along been aware that this behavior is also a classic Freudian ‘pardon, your slip is showing’.
Those of us who have watched the long-form movie, are quite aware of Charles’ entirely-human inadequacy and awkwardness (pity the poor young Diana). The fellow has good cause for his feelings of inferiority, and serviceable excuses for his sometimes-mawkish compensation-devices.
Overall, though, the Royal Family & Crown is our ally – and a HUGE one. Make no mistake, the institution is a battle-hardened bulwark against a package of mayor global trends that are harbingers of an illiberal brave new world.
And then too, with allies like Charles or Al Gore, who needs a recovery of the Arctic ice pack? In all candor, I wonder whether knee-jerk self-unawareness is really the best explaination for the next King’s over-the-top Eco-pronouncements.
The Queen – and the next King – is head of the Commonwealth. Over 50 nations; 1/3rd of the global land area, 1/2 the population. This isn’t solely about exploiting our fondness for a new-born Princess.
Like the other battle-hardened bulwark, the Vatican? That’s a good one. There are no words for it, but luckily Monty Python has created an illustration. Observe King Arthur fighting the illiberal brave new world with Sir Bedevere and his trojan rabbit.
Sure. Literally, Rollo and William The Conqueror took lessons at the Church’ knee, in the great sweep of Northern European christianization … and went on to found not only the English Crown, but Europe as a whole and even Western Civilization itself.
The art of successfully identifying allies is not best guided by what we see on the telly … entertainment industries and journalism serving more as part of the problem, than antidote.
I find the scientific input on this website very interesting and helpful but the occasional pointless personal attack on some people and the enjoyment others seem to have in doing it does not seem to me to help the skeptical message.
Please continue the interesting discussions of the science.
Erik, have you not noticed that this issue is NOT about the “science” anymore? This is a political issue, and Charles is a political leader. He is one of many political leaders out there who NEVER address any actual science, and who instead advocate strongly that all dissent of the “Official Position” be Shut Down.
You can NOT use scientific data to fight a political movement that is preaching that all of your data is “badthink” and must be banned, and that only Official Dogma be allowed.
We are NOT in a scientific battle anymore – we are in a political war. You may not like that fact, I don’t really like it myself – but nevertheless, that is an undeniable fact. If you want to extend the analogy, WUWT is the base camp for the Resistance.
The day that this was an interesting parlor game about esoteric principles is long gone. This issue is now about money, power, and control. We either give those things up to the people who want to use this issue to take them from us, or we fight to keep them from gaining the power they seek.
Pointing out the venality, stupidity, and hypocrisy of the Clown Prince of England seems like a great place to start.
OK, if it is now mainly a political fight, I won’t believe either side because both sides will do anything to win. I will instead let Nature eventually tell me what is the actual truth. I will go back to being an agnostic on the subject.
Erik, in some ways you are correct. But rather naive to think that you will get to see if nature tells you the truth. Erik, ‘they’ are already manipulating PAST records, so what do you think they will do to future ones? I know this sounds like classic paranoia, and there isn’t a single conspiracy theory I believe in (except I think there is evidence that the FBI knew about the Oklahoma bombing). But even I don’t expect to hear the truth if temperatures start to fall. I’m not saying we WON’T get that info, just that I’m not expecting it. Do you really think these people will say, ‘Well how about that, we were completely wrong!’. No, Erik, they won’t. Do you hear any of them admitting that the stratosphere hasn’t been cooling for 20 years, when it should? Do you hear any of them admitting that there isn’t a tropical hotspot after all, that the lower troposphere isn’t heating at 1.2 times that of the surface? Do you hear any of them admitting that Antarctic sea-ice build wasn’t in the models? Do you hear any of them admitting that this ‘pause’ runs counter to EVERY climate model? In some ways I admire your wish for a non-personal discussion. But as wws intimates, Prince Charles spouts complete BS on climate (and everything, actually), and we must tackle these people with everything, not just reasoned argument – which we cannot, as we get banned from climate websites like Open Mind just for pointing out a graph is cherry-picked.
Thumbs up from a layperson. : )
I have been following WUWT for about two years now. It’s become virtually impossible to place science and politics in different arenas lately. Politics have been driving the science community- into politics.
My thumbs up, was for wws. Thanks
I do generally agree with Erik. Letting it become ‘personalities over Principles’, and honoring Form over Function, plays to the Eco-activism scene. This is their game, not ours, and we play to them, by playing their game.
Although it is verily said that War is but Politics by Other Means … so activism is not ‘just politics’.
But yeah, standing around bashing others & mouthing-off … is no better than Charles’ worst.
As WWS says, limiting discussion to pure science is not enough.
When a world figure is pushing a harmful agenda, It is not frivolous to criticize that figure. It’s vital.
Mockery is an effective tool for keeping the BS at bay.
“Please continue the interesting discussions of the science.”
There’s plenty of science on this site. If you don’t like the occasional political articles, then skip them.
Erik says: “I will go back to being an agnostic on the subject.”
+++
Understandable, but not wise. If one side wins the battle then your taxes go up, your electric grid is suspect, your freedom is diminished, your job will probably go over seas, etc.
If the skeptic side wins then your life does not change. How can you be agnostic about that?
Climate seems to me to be a very extremely complicated problem. I don’t think anyone actually fully understands it.
Nature will eventually tell us what will happen and whether one side wins or the other, it might only be due to dumb luck. What actually makes the climate turn warm or cold might not really be fully known.
Governments, societies and people waste money and resources all the time. It would be nice if they didn’t but it seems hardly possible to expect perfection in anyones spending behaviour. One could argue that wasting money actually helps the economy. 🙂
I see alarmists on both sides of this issue and frankly, I don’t expect any of their predictions to come true.
Oh give me a break. It’s Price Charles. Are you soon poltically correct that you have to police people poking fun at Prince Charles?
Because, Charles, we know junk science and lies when we see it. Most other areas of science are trustworthy but climate science has been adulterated by government money to further wn entirely unscientific agenda. What I wonder is why someone in your position would be a Marxist socialist by supporting the goals and means of Agenda 21, which seeks to create a one-world government which would have to be totalitarian and socialist. This is a world-level threat.
Wait, not all other science is trustworthy. We have the EPA, who unilaterally and for no cause banned DDT. It is also pushing a political agenda by pretending CO2 is pollution rather than plant food.
Oh, and we have the medical industry and the Lipid Hypothesis, which demonizes cholesterol and saturated fat and lauding polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, increasing obesity and heart disease for over 50 years. And the cholesterol lowering drugs are really liver toxins that do liver damage and cause liver cancer while NOT decreasing heart disease.
We have the FDA which banned tow artificial sweeteners based on one of the worst studies ever done on rats. The second worst study by the NIH got red dye 1 banned.
Then, there’s the ozone scare, cooked up by Dupont Chemical to get their out-of-patent refrigerant banned so that they could replace it with their more expensive patented refrigerant. They paid a scientist to make up the lie that CFCs broke down ozone; 20 years later, the patent expired and he admitted to the fraud.
Then, their Al Gore, the poster child for global warming propaganda, making millions off his road show and related bad green projects. They know biofuels are stupid, but it’s away to practice crony capitalism while raising the price of food and starving people around the world. It’s a two way success in their eyes.
And, we have Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring. She cherry-picked and misrepresented scientific results to present a false case that never happened in any way. They still treat her like a goddess.
The biggest scam is the best. The Big Bang Theory. As it assumes that all red shift is due to receding objects, it specifically ignores that gravity ALSO causes red shift. With gravity recognized, quasars go from being incredibly distant metaphysically powerful objects to normal energetic objects near nearby galaxies. Because of this and a few other basic problems, they had to invent Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Dark Force, such that 95% of the Universe is undetectable, but they KNOW it’s there.
The Big Bang also opens the door for a multiverse of universes that they now claim are infinite in number. Logic has completely left the building and Occam’s Razor totally ignored. Better yet, there are about seven different explanations for black holes in the Big Bang model and none really work, but they claim to find black holes everywhere. In reality, black holes do not exist and the Steady State Universe is based largely on electromagnetic forces that are a billion, billion, billion, billion more powerful than gravity. The Big Bang “Theory” requires a 10 to the 106th power fudge factor, while the Steady State Universe can be explained by known physics today, without inventing anything.
Big Bang research is a billion dollar industry, as is the cholesterol-lowering drug industry. That’s true job security, when you know that what you are looking for will never be found. But, they keep talking about this scam as if it’s real and just a really hard problem to solve. More funding, please.
“Like” button pressed.
What a bunch of dolts we were. Thanks for setting us straight.
-Einstein, Chandrasekhar, Feynman, Hawking, Guth, Linde, et al.
Do British people actually listen to the royals when they comment on scientific issues? I thought the enlightenment along with the house of commons took care of that a while ago. This is just a cultural novelty like when Gweneth Paltrow tells us to eat kale and live in tepees in the states.
People don’t but gov’nts do.
By and large, no, they don’t. Ministers politely acknowledge his ‘contribution’. If you look at the headlines, you’ll read, “Charles tries to influence…”. He ‘may’ of swayed opinions, but the vast majority of what the prat comes out with is ignored.