Prince Charles: Prince of Green Hypocrites

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.

clip_image002

Figure 1

With six houses from Romania to Wales, his carbon footprint makes a mockery of Al Gore’s hypocrisy. (Figures 2 – 7)

clip_image004

clip_image006

clip_image008

clip_image010

clip_image012

clip_image014

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.”

Advertisements

188 thoughts on “Prince Charles: Prince of Green Hypocrites

  1. 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.

  2. Ah, poor fella; six houses and no home. I’d resent all those billions with homes, too.
    ============

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

    • @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.

  5. 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…

  6. 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.

  7. Sticking his head up above the parapet must be a refreshing change from where it usually is.
    Just saying.

    • 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.”

    The statement is a malformed mishmash. Science is not the same as technology. My cell phone is not science even though much science occurred before it could be built. “Blind trust” is the absolute antithesis of science. Yes, we all accept science, the rational sane ones anyways, but we all (including scientists) do not accept all the results of science all the time. Otherwise physics, evolution, etc could not continue to grow and mature.
    The only certain demonstrable point in his statement is that he is baffled, not that it is baffling.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. “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

  13. 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’.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

      • 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,

  16. 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 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…

    • 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.

  17. Heir to royal throne advocates rule by decree.
    I’m gob-smacked, I tells ya.

  18. 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.

    • 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.

      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.

      • Like the other battle-hardened bulwark, the Vatican?

        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.

  19. 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.

    • 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

      • 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.

  22. He is German/Greek and thus a cnut! Shame he is still supported by the “civil list” to the tune of millions of pounds every year! And building up to the UK elections, we have a woman that had a baby.

  23. We have our own classes of “Royalty” here in the US and most are as big of hypocrites as Charles in their own way. Movie Stars. The likes of Leonardo De Caprio, Barbara Streisand, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are our most visible ultra hypocrites. Then there’s the likes of Al Gore and John Kerry. And there are others.

    • Don’t forget James Cameron and David Suzuki, also rich, fabulous and famous carbon footprint phonies.

  24. I remember hearing Prince Charles tee off against global warming 20 years ago. He gave us 50 years to correct our ship to avoid extinction. So yeah…

  25. Not to be overlooked is that Big Ears is also a keen supporter of that totally discredited snake oil homoeopathy. Man is a complete idiot and one of the best arguments for the UK moving to a republic…

    • At least homeopathy won’t kill you, directly*. The London Homeopathic Hospital had a lower fatality rate during the cholera epidemic of the 1850s than neighboring hospitals**. Can’t say the same for Big Socialism, the cholera of socioeconomic theory, which killed 120,000,000 people in the 20th Century. That’s 20 Holocausts to allow some people to live on other peoples’ money.
      * With quack medicine, the failure to seek competent care is what kills.
      ** Morrell, P and Cazelet, S., The History of the London Homeopathic Hospital

    • Thanks for the link to this excellent series. I discovered Lewis and his deep thinking when I was in my early 20’s. I had almost given up hope there were any thinkers left. CAGW is in many ways dependent on subjectivism: We will tell you what you should be worried about, we know, don’t ask about the man behind the curtain, give me your money.

    • Very nice. Had to watch it twice. Did you notice the hockey stick at the end, adjacent to “…Who will not make up his facts…?”
      This little video sums up our opposition, those who discard law and reason and ethics in favor of the sovereignty of their own interests. They claim to pursue noble causes, but, in the end, it is self-will that drives them. Small wonder they splatter children in their daydreams, urge the death of “deniers,” misrepresent falsehoods as Science, and try to silence all voices but their own.

  26. Ah the comments on in breeding, you forget that many royal offspring were bastard children, figuratively and literally.
    “Big Ears” is more than a few slates short of a full roof, however the more publicity he receives the better, he demonstrates the lunacy of those of a “green ilk”.
    It’s a shame we don’t still have “court jesters” to put the modern royals in their place. Mind you Phil does a pretty good imitation of a jester, it’s a wonder he can still stand up after shooting off so many of his toes.

  27. Health and safety consultant Nikki Hollis said: “Science is pretty sturdy and can generally cope with a person warning about CO2 emissions whilst being chauffeured around in a big fuck-off Bentley.

  28. Charles and many of the members of the cult of CAWG appears to be twits as they have never had the life experiences that bring wisdom and humility.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twit
    If Charles were a younger person he might attain wisdom by trading places. Living a year in say a small village in Mali, with no servants, with his food limited to what he can purchase with money earned by his own labour.

    >About half the population of Mali lives below the international poverty line of US$1.25 a day.[8] A majority of the population (55%) are non-denominational Muslims.[9]
    16.6% of Malians have access to electricity.
    </blockquote
    Charles and the majority of the members of the cult of CAGW have no concept of hardship, fear of lack food, or the problems of no or inadequate shelter. Most members of the cult of CAGW do not understand the reality of no electricity and the implications of having to cook with biomass.
    Globally 1.3 billion people do not have access to electricity. 38% of the global population lack clean cooking facilities, 40% of the population face daily or weekly brown outs.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali
    http://www.iea.org/topics/energypoverty/
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS

  29. As the years turn into decades with no global warming a few of the smarter politicians will begin to doubt catastrophic global warming. Then there are the others.

  30. Here comes Tim Ball with another piece afirming that over population and breeding like rabbits is somehow good and virtuous. Is this reIigiously inspired, by any chance? Conversely, in the UK we have had a long tradition of understanding that no species can truly call itself civilised, unless it can control its own population.
    That aside, Charlie-boy is a retard who needs to be put out to grass. We should have the redhead Harry as king, in the great tradition of all our Scando-Viking monarchs from William The Conquerer onwards (and some before that, too).
    R

    • There you go again, trying to push your failed religion onto others.
      The world isn’t over populated, not even close.

      • Err, I don’t have a religion, I have logic, reason and rationality. You obviously don’t have either.
        And reasoned logic dictates that there is no point pushing the limits of population levels, and despoiling all our countryside. For what purpose would anyone want to do that?
        The average size of a UK house has decreased by 30% over that last 60 years, because of a lack of land-space (ie: higher prices). Why would anyone want to push people into poorer and poorer housing?
        The average journey time on all modes of UK travel – car, train and aeroplane – are increasing, not decreasing with new technologies. Why would anyone want to push people into ever poorer and ever more crowded transport links?
        The idea that we need more people on this planet is plain nuts, driven by a warped ideology.
        R

      • You do have religion, you just call it something else.
        Logic does dictate that we don’t push the limits of population. However logic also demonstrates that those limits don’t exist.
        The fact that you continue to fret that we must limit population without any evidence that we are actually having a problem is just further evidence that you come by your positions from a religious, not a scientific viewpoint.
        The fact that the politicians are creating problems with transportation is not evidence that there are too many people, it is evidence that there are too many politicians.

    • Silver R
      Ing-land was created by the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) followers of Woden and were people of the God of the Sword – Ing – landed from SW Denmark in the 5th century and drove the Romans off the island, saw off the Scando-Vikings and created ‘England’. It was a society of fearsome sailor-warriors who, unlike William the Conqueror, valued equality of the sexes and numerous aspects of independence, fairness and honour. They destroyed utterly everything they could find that reminded them of Rome including the large city of Eagles and its colosseum. Great female warriors were buried with their swords. They were guided by the 9 English Values.
      William I, who was descended from Vikings, brought the misogyny of his culture and once again 50% of the island was oppressed on the basis of gender alone, 100% on the basis of language and origin. His policies included the Doomsday Book and his building programme was ‘a sore burden on the poor’.
      Colourful details are provided at http://www.englandandenglishhistory.com/english-social-history/anglo-saxon-england-449-ad-to-1066-ad
      The Tudors were not foreigners but that didn’t last long.

      • Scando-Vikings and created ‘England’. It was a society of fearsome sailor-warriors who, unlike William the Conqueror, valued equality of the sexes and numerous aspects of independence, fairness and honour.
        ___________________________________
        Err, you appear utterly confused. Wiliam the Conquerer and William I were the same person; and yes, the Norman French were Vikings descended from Rollo the Viking. And I don’t think the Vikings were half as misogynist as you think.

  31. Blindingly obvious is it Chucky? The blindness must explain why he’s completely backwards on everything. He reminds me of someone….

  32. And Malthus was perfectly correct. There should be more to life and civilisation than despoiling your land with so many people that you have to live like caged rats. Just what is wrong with the concept of being able to control your own population levels? What is wrong with preserving a part of your environment for beauty and leisure?
    Why do so many Americans (presumably central belt Americans) want to live and breed like rats in a sewer, until they run out of resources? Perhaps more of them should go and live in the Brazilian Favelas or the Philippine shanties, and see what overpopulation really feels like and provides.
    R

    • Why do so many Americans (presumably central belt Americans) want to live and breed like rats in a sewer, until they run out of resources?

      From which of your orifices did that come out ?
      [Changed to blockquote format for WordPress. .mod]

    • [i]Why do so many Americans (presumably central belt Americans) want to live and breed like rats in a sewer, until they run out of resources?[/i]
      From which of your orifices did that come out ?

      • Do you notice that it’s not so much that there are too many people. It’s the fact that there are too many of the wrong type of people that drives ralphie bonkers.

      • >>It’s the fact that there are too many of the wrong type of
        >>people that drives ralphie bonkers.
        Where did I say that, MarkW ? Show me.
        What I said was go to the Favelas or Philippine shanties, to see what your policy of unlimited population increase does to society and people – because these are perfect illustrations of the perils of overpopulation. Go and live on a Favela for a couple of months, and then come back and tell us that you want all of America to live like that. Go on, do it.
        Do you even have a passport? I have seen before the good folks of rural Nebraska saying we need more and more people on the planet, when they have never been out of the state (or county).
        R

      • Mark evidently does that in lots of posts! He’s only replied to me three times, and he’s done it twice! I’m always amazed that people read something that isn’t there, makes me laugh every time.

      • You said it plain and clear. When you spend your time whining about middle of the continent types.

      • Ghost of an intelligence: The first time you declared that anyone who believed in a God wasn’t intelligent.
        The second time I pointed out the inevitable results of the strategy that you wished to pursue.
        I’m sorry you are so blinded by your ideology that you can’t see past the end of your nose.

    • It sounds like you live like a caged rat in some largely populated sewer-like conditions and you resent it. Please don’t move to middle America — where living is nothing like that — to escape your problem.

      • Do you really want to turn middle America into one vast Favela?
        No? So why champion a policy that will eventually do just that?
        Give us one good reason.

    • I suppose the people in these Brazilian Favelas or the Philippine shanties that have those conditions because of these…”central belt” Americans(whatever that means) are forcing this on them and also forcing these people to have soo may kids. Lets face it, you have never been to these fabled “central belt” or even know what that is supposed to mean. You are also way off on your evaluation of the birth rate demographic in the US. The positive birth rate is coming from immigrants, mostly from Latin America..you know..places like Brazil and Mexico. The birth rate of the ethnic group you are complaining about is negative..as in more of those horrible “white Americans” dying than being born.
      doesn’t that make you happy? i aim to please thinly disguised xenonphobes that use multiple screenames

      • >>Lets face it, you have never been to these fabled “central belt”
        >>or even know what that is supposed to mean.
        Been there many times, chum, but I was refraining from calling it the Bible Belt to keep religion out of this. But since you insist, then I will add it to the mix. But how on earth could you not see the intimation?
        .
        >>The positive birth rate is coming from immigrants, mostly from Latin America.
        Because America and Europe are currently unable to control their populations, due to political failures both sides of the pond – which is not the mark of a civilised society. As you well know, economic levers can be applied either way to control populations internally, without having to open the doors to immigrants.
        .
        >>i aim to please thinly disguised xenonphobes that use multiple screenames.
        The typical straw-man mudslinging technique of the liberal-left. Please explain how controlling population levels domestically within a country can possibly be xenophobic. I presume you know what the word means, and are not simply throwing it in to the thread because you heard it mentioned on the Simpsons. Plus – my iPad gives a different screenname to my desktop. No idea why, and not enough time to try and amend it. Is that another crime in your book, or just another straw-man?
        Wrong on all three points. Not bad eh? Made a right Charlie of yourself…..
        R

      • Problem in the population trend of western Europe or the USA? the bible belt describes really any part of rural America that tends to be more religious and Christian. It doesn’t just refer to the rural south or the Midwest. Rural areas in England are also more religious. Since world population growth had flatlined and has been decreasing get in growth in 40 years, I’m not exactly sure what the problem with global population is. If anything you should be worried about third world countries with larger population growth

      • >>Rural areas in England are also more religious.
        No they are not. You know nothing about UK society.
        Just because genteel rural society gather at the local church does not mean they are religious. A poll of rural CofE priests showed that 20% did not believe in god. Would that happen in America? No, because America is about 300 years behind Europe in its culture.
        R

      • ralfellis, I take it you are not a student of population dynamics.

        Because America and Europe are currently unable to control their populations, due to political failures both sides of the pond – which is not the mark of a civilised society. As you well know, economic levers can be applied either way to control populations internally, without having to open the doors to immigrants.

        Without immigration the populations of most European countries, Canada and the US would be dropping. “America and Europe” are allowing in immigrants to counter that. Without young immigrants their social welfare systems would collapse as will China’s due to their one child policy. Japan already has the same problem of too many elders. Singapore too stopped growing and pays handsomely if citizens will have kids.
        Economic fundamentals can in some ways work independently of the population, to a certain extent. What is clear is that “purposeless, perpetual war” is not viable as an economic policy as it requires exploitation of a supply base larger than the nation. There are big changes a-comin’.

    • What is it about potential totalitarians and their constant desire to control the breeding patterns of others.
      Brazilians are poor because their govt wants them to be, not because there are too many of them.
      Notice how the ignoramus assumes that it is other people who are the problem and right thinking people like him are the solution.
      How long till he proposes a final solution.

      • >> How long till he proposes a final solution.
        Another liberal-left mud-sling, straight from the pages of the Green Peace manual. I think we know where you are coming from, MarkW. Do you see a proposal for a roadside ‘Yield sign’, as meaning that we should shoot all drivers? Is that how your mind works, Mark? If so, I think we should all be worried.
        I think you will find we live in a society, Mark, with many rules and many boundaries. Even petty rules like stopping at Yield signs, instead of running over little old grannies. Or perhaps you like running Yield signs, because you see them as being ‘totalitarian’ and unacceptable in a ‘free’ society. These are the many ‘totalitarian’ rules that make a society work, Mark, instead of it regressing into an anarchic free-for-all. Or perhaps you prefer the anarchic model. In fact, having toured many American cities, I think that is how some of them appear to function, with no design, no planning, and no control.
        Question for you:
        Is the withdrawal of social benefits for parents with more than three children a ‘final solution’?
        Is a government payment of $30,000 for every third and fourth child a ‘final solution’?
        Has the penny begun to drop yet?
        R

      • I see that your hatred of people who aren’t like you is continuing to make you say really stupid things.
        Yes, you haven’t proposed a final solution yet. Never said you had, what I said was that such things are inevitable once you find out your current “solutions” are failing.

  33. ‘This Prince of Hypocrisy inherited his attitudes to his position and the rest of society from his father. In 1986, Philip wrote,
    ‘…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.’
    Did it ever occur to Philip that maybe he already was a virus? Never thought of that did he? In fact, I’ll bet he never needed to be reincarnated as a virus since he was a virus all along, and as such he therefore fathered a virus: his son Charles, who is undoubtedly a virus. Now, look at all the characteristics of a virus and try to prove me wrong.
    First, a virus cannot reproduce itself, and must alter a host cell’s DNA so as to reproduce the virus from the host cell itself. This is indisputable proof that Philip and Charles are viruses. Both had to inject their DNA into a (probably dissatisfied, and possibly sleeping) non-viral organism in order to cause that organism to reproduce them. (And, there is additional evidence. Virile and virus, while similar in word structure, mean two very different things. In the case of Philip and Charles which do you think would apply?)
    Perhaps the most profound evidence of the virus categorization of dashing Philip and dashing (ok, yeah, that’s a stretch) Charles is the nature of a virus itself. Viruses are indisputably useless and annoying organisms. Argue that Philip and Charles aren’t. Can’t, can you? Next; viruses, examined under an electron microscope are real complicated and grandiose appearing things despite how simple and useless they are. Now, anybody care to argue that there’s a lot an awful lot of pomp and grandiosity attached to Philip and Charles despite the fact that they’re truly simpletons and that the world would sail merrily on whether they ever existed or not? Now, again, viruses, despite their Battleship Galactica appearances are, when you think about, really rather unattractive and in relationship to Charles I’ll say no more about that similarity. Finally, and most profoundly; viruses exists solely off the productivity of host cells; getting those host cells to do all the work for them while bleeding those host cells dry. Need I present further argument.
    When I’m reincarnated I hope to be reincarnated as a hermaphrodite.

  34. The wonderful thing about kings is you do not get to choose them without an army. If Charles never becomes king because his mother outlives him then the succession would pass by his sister and go to his eldest brother, Andrew. That would be one step away from Queen Beatrice with Sarah Ferguson as Queen Mother. Now that would be something.

    • If Charles were to die before the Queen, the line continues through his family until that is exhausted – so his son William who would become King, unless he too were out of the picture for some reason, then young Prince George would be king nominally, and if not him the new born Princess Charlotte. Only should they all be gone would the line revert to Andrew and his line.

  35. Readers of this forum may enjoy the story about John Wilkes, a firebrand revolutionary Member of Parliament in the 1750/90s. He was a noted opposer of hereditary privilege, and hence an anti-monarchist. At a function at which royalty was present, it was noted that Wilkes toasted the King – an unusual occurrence – and the Prince of Wales sarcastically asked him: “For how long had he been wishing the King (his father) good health?”
    “Ever since I have had the honour of your majesty’s acquaintance.” was the reply….

    • Was that the Prince Regent?
      If so, I would second John Wilkes’ comment… 😉

  36. Oh dear. Open season for republicans (that’s anti-monarchists, not the American political ones). Yes Charles is quite wrong about climate change, but why conflate the two issues. We are all a mix of views, with which some will agree, others not. His green views stretch to organic farming within the Duchy of Cornwall, and he also abhors hideous modern architecture of the “Look at me, all my contemporaries, look what I can do, aren’t I so clever?’ variety.

  37. Ironically, the only UK political party whose policies include the abolition of the monarchy is…
    … the Green Party.
    Look on their policy website and you’ll find the policy stated there, although with no details as to the manner of the Royal Removal Process. it’s funny that this policy hasn’t attracted more attention during this election campaign. If the Greens were to form a government (not that there’s any chance of that), they would have to approach the Queen to ask to be allowed to form a Government….

  38. Maybe it’s me but the last link in the article under “more blatant” brings up a page not found.

  39. According to Jeremy Paxman, the TV presenter and author, the prince is particularly fond of a boiled egg after a day’s hunting. “Because his staff were never quite sure whether the egg would be precisely to the satisfactory hardness, a series of eggs was cooked, and laid out in an ascending row of numbers. If the prince felt that number five was too runny, he could knock the top off number six or seven.”
    Sorry for using The Guardener as the source
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/23/monarchy.topstories3

  40. Old poem I wrote. Charlie, among other strange things believes in
    homeopathic medicine. And he talks about “deniers” blowing off
    what science says??????? Actually Charlie is quite anti-science.
    King Charlie
    Rue Britannia! Here comes your king!
    The leaden will replace the gold
    He’s something of a feckless thing
    And something of a nasty scold
    The scepter of too great a weight
    His head to small to fit the crown
    And swaddled in the robes of state —
    The monarchy is sizing down
    Eugene WR Gallun

  41. What an avalanche of bile directed against a man who could not help being born in his position , nor do much about his expected role in life . However he has tried to change the traditional image of a king in waiting , not least in his attitude to recognising the changing nature of British society (“Defender of ALL the Faiths”) and his early interest in the environment and our relationship to it , when such interest were considered eccentric in the extreme . That took courage and if he has swallowed the AGW theme completely he is not alone , all the Establishment in UK ( and virtually everywhere else) is singing from that same hymn sheet , as well as the media , BBC , most celebrities and , of course 97% of all scientists.
    You could have mentioned that his interest and concern for the nation’s people led him to start the Prince’s Trust , specifically to help the more disadvantaged youngsters in the UK and to quote from their website :
    “The Prince’s Trust supports 13 to 30 year-olds who are unemployed and those struggling at school and at risk of exclusion. Many of the young people helped by The Trust are in or leaving care, facing issues such as homelessness or mental health problems, or they have been in trouble with the law.
    The Trust’s programmes give vulnerable young people the practical and financial support needed to stabilise their lives, helping develop self-esteem and skills for work.
    Three in four young people supported by The Prince’s Trust move into work, education or training. The Prince of Wales’s charity has helped 750,000 young people since 1976 and supports over 100 more each day.”
    How many of his detractors can claim to have done the same?
    When I consider the alternatives to our constitutional monarch as Head of State , ie Tony Blair as president then my response is ” God save the Queen, and one day , the King”.

    • The bile has nothing to do with his position in life, but rather what he has done with his position in life.

      • He has done a lot , in addition to the Prince’s trust he has supported a number of architectural projects , garden projects and boosted the income of the people of Cornwall through business and tourist ventures . Of course he had the enormous advantage of his position in society , and certainly he has been led astray on global warming ( but who in power in UK, EU , US has not) but to state without serious analysis that he has done nothing is just wrong. He could have led the life of a playboy like his great- uncle, Edward, but has not . His interests may not coincide with yours , but they have been followed through with a constancy and strength lacking in most of . our country’s politicians.

      • mikewaite
        Mussolini made the trains run on time. You are right. Give credit where credit is due and just ignore the other stuff.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • mikewaite
        You say HRH Prince Charles has

        boosted the income of the people of Cornwall through business and tourist ventures.

        Really? Strange that those who live in Cornwall (including me) have not noticed this increase to our income.
        We do know that for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, the duchy of Cornwall was valued at £763 million, and its annual profit to Charles was £19 million. That £19 million was a revenue surplus gain of 4.1% from the previous year and was aided by the duchy being exempt from Corporation Tax.
        Perhaps you can say if our incomes are “boosted” by more than the millions we provide to Charles as his revenue from the duchy?
        Richard

  42. That his reincarnation fantasy is to return to earth as a virulent deadly virus to kill the human race says about all you need to know about this guy. I think that the fawning press corps in the United States should ask Diana’s kids at every opportunity what they are going to do for their lunatic father. Elisabeth may be beloved but she married one and gave birth to another so what does that say about her really.

      • philincalifornia…I thought one of his telling opinions 40 years ago was when he did a tour to “save tigers” he was asked what should be done about Tiger predation on humans. His answer was something on the order of well there aren’t very many Tigers but lots of people so what’s the problem? He’s a true sahib of the old “empah”

  43. @Stacey
    … “Because his staff were never quite sure whether the egg would be precisely to the satisfactory hardness, a series of eggs was cooked, and laid out in an ascending row of numbers. If the prince felt that number five was too runny, he could knock the top off number six or seven….
    Yes – I know – it’s hard to get decent staff nowadays. He should do what I do, and have their houses razed to the ground every time I open an egg which isn’t perfect. You get good eggs first time every time, then…

  44. Even the Grauniad struggled to tolerate this level of absurd hypocrisy.
    Charles’ mission to promote “sustainability” which involved a tour of Britain in his private train.
    Somehow or other he had convinced himself that running the train on veg oil absolved him of the sin of CO2 emission.
    So, what is the take home message? That if we were all rich enough to travel in bio-diesel powered private trains, then the world would be saved?
    Apparently he was joined in this mission by Rolf Harris.
    It’s all here. Dumb and dumber. Almost too dumb to justify rational criticism:
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/06/prince-charles-green-train-campaign

  45. All he has to do is ask the various Royal Societies for a clearer understanding of the science. Oh, hang on, they all promote the climate change agenda too.

  46. I have nothing good to say about Prince Charles….and even less about his wife.

  47. Prince Charles: “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.”
    The other scientists generally abstain from forecasting the future using crude and incomplete models.

  48. Prince Charles doesn’t practice what he preaches, as a firm believer in homeopathy he has lobbied for the NHS, a taxpayer funded health service, to pay for homeopathic medicines. Despite them being called witchcraft.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2370754/Charles-NHS-homeopathy-row-Prince-holds-secret-meeting-Health-Secretary-lobby-treatment-denounced-doctors-witchcraft.html
    Not only that he is happy to put his mother’s subjects lives at risk.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100050334/prince-of-wales-endorsed-company-offers-homeopathic-vaccines-for-polio-this-could-cost-lives/

  49. I think he’s going for a green ticket. It amazes me how people who are accumulating wealth as fast as they possibly can think they have a right to speak about liberal issues.

  50. Wow…interesting read….these comments. 40 years ago, as a Canuck, I swore allegiance to the Queen and had her pin my wings on my uniform. I was only 18, but it was the greatest day of my life. And she stayed all day, drank tea, and played croquet. She’s pretty good at it! I will miss her when she is gone. And as a vet, which she is also, we here in Canada and in Britain, do not realize what we be losing.

  51. The consensus among scientists is that genetic engineering of food crops is good for the people of the world. The Prince is a strong opponent of genetic engineering. So the Prince has a blind faith in science and technology, except when it doesn’t suit him…

    • Very good point!
      I imagine Charles and all the other doom-mongers actually know very little about climate science. They probably get all their “knowledge” from Al Gore and from reading the Guardian.
      Because all the cards are stacked against them, sceptics have to know about the science (for all the good it’s doing them). It’s actually quite remarkable how much of the science and particularly the scientific data supports the sceptical argument.
      Chris

  52. The day that idiot becomes king will be the day I become a Republican.
    Note to our American friends: in the UK a Republican is one who oppses or does not support royalty.
    Chris

  53. Anybody can promote organic crops or support charities, or oppose land mines. These are usually pursuits dreamed up by handlers and public relations manipulators to create an gavorable public profile.
    The question is where would Charles be without his inherited position? How would he fare in society being in a middle class family? He probably would not even qualify for most of the jobs held by people required to provide for his princely needs.
    One hint is the less than mediocre degree he obtained. Of course, he probably wouldn’t even have made it into university if he was not a Royal.

    • My guess is that without his birth position his interest in biodynamic farming would have led him into organic food production. There is a long history of natural gardening systems in the UK and the culture is tolerant of many divergent schools of thought and eccentricity, much more than say, the USA or Russia or China.
      It’s too bad about the homeopathy thing. If the Royals would please stop using it and stop living to be over 100 it would be a lot easier to criticise. We should reject the evidence of their health and longevity and accept the medical models that ‘prove it doesn’t work’. WUWT’ers, your bias is showing. Be a little more skeptical. It’s good for you. A doubter a day keeps the modellers at bay.

  54. Charles burned himself here in bc when he bemoaned the ‘largest clearcut in north america’. Of course the cut was a salvage of beetle killed timber, but that didn’t stop his royal pain-in-the -assness from turning on his hosts and condemning them in front of the world. If he ever becomes king I suspect the english monarchy will be on the way out.

  55. This is probably the worst piece of Ad hominem I have read on WUWT. Lets stick to shooting down fallacious arguments. Once we start on their proponents, we are no better than our opponents and those as yet unswayed by the views of either side will not be able to see the wood for the trees.
    Better to hold fire than loose off cheap shots

  56. Prince Charles talks to plants – a captive audience. But what would they reply if they could? I guess it would run something like this: `CO2 is our food and on it depends the life of the planet`.

Comments are closed.