Prince Charles: Climate Change is to blame for War in Syria

Prince Charles, public domain image, source Wikimedia

Prince Charles, public domain image, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, has stepped in the climate issue again, by suggesting that climate change in Syria is the root cause of their barbarous civil war.

According to Charles;

“And, in fact, there’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land.” Asked if there was a direct link between climate change, conflict and terrorism, he added: “It’s only in the last few years that the Pentagon have actually started to pay attention to this. I mean it has a huge impact on what is happening.

“I mean the difficulty is sometimes to get this point across — that if we just leave it and say, well there are obviously lots of, there are endless problems arising all over the place, therefore we deal with them in a short-term way, we never deal with the underlying root cause which regrettably is what we’re doing to our natural environment.”

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-charles-climate-change-to-blame-for-terrorism/news-story/409c6a0191b9dcbd028d07a1d697928f

California is suffering a severe drought, yet very few Californians are flocking to join terrorist groups or commit atrocities. Perhaps there are factors other than the weather, which motivate some people to murder and brutalise their neighbours.

Advertisements

275 thoughts on “Prince Charles: Climate Change is to blame for War in Syria

  1. It may sound strange from an Irshman, but GOD SAVE THE QUEEN and keep her hale and hearty for a good few years to come.

    • It may sound even more strange coming from an American, but, “God, save the queen,” and may the next cry we hear after, “… the Queen is dead,” be, “… long live King William!”

      • The drought was not unusual. What was unusual was that the population had increased from 4 million in 1960 to some 22 million before the mass migration.

        Syria was too poor to develop the infrastructure to cope with the water needs of farmers for irrigation and when a drought occurred the people could not be properly fed. The farmers moved to the cities and the incipient civil war between various sects began helped along by a paranoid president.

        The drought scenario is likely to repeat itself in other countries as weather conditions that are not unusual combine with populations that are highly unusual. Kenya and ethiopia are two countries that have seen staggering increase in their populations and will be very susceptible to drought.

        Anyone care to guess what the population was in Ethiopia at the time of ‘ live aid’ and what it is now?

        Tonyb

      • It really depends on local circumstances – people generally do a decent job of building what infrastructure they need, if they have a government which stays out of their way.

        Hong Kong was a poor fishing village in the 1950s. Cowperthwaite, a Scottish Civil Servant, was sent to Hong Kong just after WW2 with instructions to help the people rebuild. When he got there, he realised people were doing a really good job of rebuilding without government interference.

        Cowperthwaite spent the rest of his career as Hong Kong finance minister defending Hong Kong from well meaning idiotic government intervention, and is now recognised as one of the architects of the Asian economic miracle.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Cowperthwaite

      • Agreed, Eric. JJ Cowperthwaite should be recognized as one of the great heroes of the 20th century, and certainly the Number One Bureaucrat of the 20th C.

        This line from the Wikipedia bio gladdens my heart no end:

        “He refused to collect economic statistics to avoid officials meddling in the economy.”

      • “Syria was too poor to develop the infrastructure to cope…”

        That’s what happens when you have Dictators, Communism, Fascism, Corrupt crony Capitalism and Political Correctness.

      • Cowperthwaite’s story is an object lesson of what is possible if you truly take free markets seriously. A case could be made that we could be enjoying big jumps in productivity every year, and GDP increases in the 5% range.

        Alas, it will not be. Britain never took Cowperthwaite seriously, despite his tremendous success in Hong Kong.

      • I am reminded of the story about John Wilkes, an English MP in the 1750s with distinct anti-monarchist sympathies. These extended to not drinking to the King’s health, so the Prince of Wales was surprised to be sitting near him at a dinner, and to hear him toast the King heartily. The Prince remarked on this, and asked Wilkes for how long he had been ‘accustomed to wishing his father the King a good health?’

        “Ever since I have had the honour of your Majesty’s acquaintance”, came the reply….

      • Tonyb,

        Charlie isn’t the first to come up with this, of course.
        When I came across this claim last year, I think, I did some reading and was unable to find any Syrian source ascribing blame to the drought.
        As I recall, the drought affected herders in the north-eastern regions of the country, rather than farmers with irrigated fields. A very large part of Syria is desert, so agriculture without irrigation is not viable and any drought that occurs is the result of drastically reduced rainfall far away, resulting in no run-off, rather than no local rainfall where you wouldn’t expect any anyway.
        I did read reports of dried-up rivers that were a chronic phenomenon due to increased population and bad planning.
        I think the protests and subsequent deadly response occurred in the south; I don’t think that’s where the drought-stricken herders migrated to.

      • An erratum to my comment, above; it appears that rain-fed arable hectares in Syria outnumber(ed) irrigated land 2 to 1. It was not just livestock farmers that abandoned their villages, but wheat and barley growers, too.

      • TonyB … and they hiked the cost of diesel to farmers needing to run their irrigation pump systems to produce food for the 22 million in the desert.

      • “For the new study, Weiss and co-authors David Kaniewski and Elise Van Campo from the Université de Toulouse, France, used pollen to reconstruct 10,000 years of climate history in the region. Their technique was to take a column of stratified sediment from the side of a dry river channel near Tell Leilan and identify the mix of plant types in different layers. The percentage of pollen in a sample from dry climate plants (like dryland wormwood and tamarisk) or humid climate plants (like flowering sedges and buttercups) provided a measure for estimating rainfall and agricultural productivity at that period. To construct a chronology, the researchers determined radiocarbon ages on plant remains in different layers, using mass spectrometry.

        The pollen record showed a pattern of climate fluctuations, with periods of relatively moist climate vegetation alternating with periods of arid climate vegetation. One such dry spell began suddenly around 1400 and lasted until the beginning of the 20th century, the same bleak era when Weiss’s regional archaeological surveys showed villages on the Khabur Plains being emptied. Because this part of Syria is semi-arid to start with and most farmers depend on a single crop of wheat or barley grown in the moist winter months, people then, as now, were highly vulnerable to climate fluctuations. In the absence of irrigation or other technological means of adapting, they practiced what Weiss characterizes as “habitat-tracking,” or moving to areas that could still sustain agriculture.”

        http://environment.yale.edu/envy/stories/when-civilizations-collapse/

        “One such dry spell began suddenly around 1400 and lasted until the beginning of the 20th century”

        http://www.leilan.yale.edu/pubs/files/Kaniewski_van_Campo_Weiss_2012_PNAS_109_10__3862__3867.pdf

      • Well said. Either of those two young men, despite differences of personality and style, would make better kings than Charles, who seems better suited to remain in his continuing role as court jester.

      • Janice,
        I actually think Charles’s heart is in the right place.
        Not too sure about his advisers.
        And I don’t know if HRH ever comments on this blog (I suspect not), but I think he’d find it refreshing – mind opening, even.

        And, for the record, British Monarchs chose their Regnal Name; Charles’s grandfather, King George VI [the present Queen’s late father] was Prince Albert [after his great grandfather], and the Duke of York, until succeeding to the throne in 1936, when he selected George [after his own father, George V].
        I think the Prince of Wales, given names Charles Philip Arthur George, will be George VII; so his son will become William V, and the little lad, in due course, George VIII, all being well.

        Auto – subject of Her Britannic Majesty.

    • Indeed “God Save the Queen” is a hugely important concept in Britain today, for few Brits want to say “God Save the King”, unless it skips a generation down to Prince William.

      Shame on you WUWT, it is one thing to attack the intellectually dishonest, like most of the current generation of ‘climate scientists’; it is totally another to attack the intellectually challenged like Prince Charles, it is not his fault he is from the shallow end of the gene pool.

    • O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
      To see oursels as ithers see us!
      It wad frae mony a blunder free us.
      – Robert Burns, To a Louse

      Amazingly, the people pushing this meme actually think it will play beyond the choir.

      • I love the Burns quote, it applies equally to all, regardless of power or status.

        However, the choir presently consists of around half of the congregation.
        In addition, many of the choir members hold positions as elders.
        They will use their power to defend the Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse in Carbon.

      • Bartemis November 23, 2015 at 5:11 pm

        – – – – – – –

        Bartemis,

        Wonderful use of that Robert Burns poem toward this post’s subject.

        The following poem often occurs to me when authority is used in argument, like we see in statements like those of Charles Philip Arthur George (of the ‘Princely’ meme).

        Ozymandias

        {by Percy Bysshe Shelley}

        I met a traveller from an antique land
        Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
        Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
        Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
        And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
        Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
        Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
        The hand that mock’d them and the heart that fed.
        And on the pedestal these words appear:
        “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
        Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
        Nothing beside remains: round the decay
        Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
        The lone and level sands stretch far away.

        John

    • Maybe a curse on the House of Windsor would be better, during the World Wars as this is a direct result of them playing The Game of Thrones during the World Wars…pg

      • Well perish the thought that Mr. Wallis Simpson would have remained on the throne.

        We’d all be speaking German, or Japanese.

        I think we can thank Lord M of B’s grandpa for our salvation.

        g

    • Assad had a similar hereditary advantage.

      Who knows there may be a day that we can look forward to Putin saving Charles neck.

      On the other hand, Putin may be silly, but stupid?

    • Absolutely. The day that idiot becomes king will be the day I become a Republican (in the UK a Republican is one who wishes to abolish the monarchy).

      It is said that Charles talks to his trees. But perhaps he hasn’t been listening. If trees could talk they would say they want more CO2, not less.

      It is a sad irony that most environmentalists and useful idiots like Charles demonise the very thing that makes the world green.
      Chris

    • The poor Queen, she must wake up every day and hope to read her son’s obituary, she would probably abdicate within hours of his funeral.

    • It would sound strange coming from one who values individual liberty; it would sound strange coming from one who refuses to subordinate himself to another one who has done nothing to earn it because he has too much self-respect to allow it; it would sound strange coming from one who has even a basic awareness of philosophy and propert rights starting with self-ownership.
      But no, it doesn’t sound strange from an Irishman.

      • Washington and Adams were isolationists and paid bounty to Barbary (Algerian) pirates. Jefferson and John Adams met in London with the Algerian Ambassador who was to have said:
        “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
        Jefferson had no idea of what the Koran was, and after no copy was found in the colonies, he asked for one from London. (So much for the tale of Jefferson’s “sacred Koran”.
        The Islamic scourge is nothing new.

      • Can’t have an Empire if you don’t leave home!
        Pity about all the dead Muslims, though what can you expect from Christian empire-builders?

  2. The climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Man does not have the power to change it. Periods of drought and floods are a part of normal weather patterns and their occurrence does not signify any change in the climate. Man’s out of control population in a world of finite space and finite resources is a lot more responsible for the problem then climate change. Then there are those who do not like dictators and want true democracy. Then there are the general religious problems in the middle east.

  3. And this guy is going to be king someday? God help the U.K. When he is sitting on the throne someday however, it no doubt won’t be the first time a monarch on the throne had ideas in this head that are foolish, naive and laughable. There is a bring side to this however which is that the British royal family have to real political power, correct? That lies with parliament and the government ministers.

    The Washington Post is reporting that the British Govt is pulling the plug on wind and solar:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/on-eve-of-paris-climate-summit-britain-pulls-the-plug-on-renewables/2015/11/20/240c5630-8311-11e5-8bd2-680fff868306_story.html. And naturally, the left wing WaPo is whining and complaining about it.

    Certainly Prince Chuckie would not be doing that if the royals still had political power. So perhaps there is some hope for Britain yet….just perhaps.

    • … the British royal family have to real political power, correct?

      Yes. No. Maybe. The monarch has reserve powers which are rarely exercised. The last time I can recall those powers being exercised was to remove the elected government of Australia in 1975, when that government exceeded its mandate, and looked like it was about to go full Communist, nationalising private businesses, the works. This is still a very controversial period of Australian history.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

      A similar power was exercised very recently to prevent Eurosceptics taking power in Portugal by the President of Portugal – http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/24/president-bans-anti-euro-government-power-portugal/

      One could imagine someone attempting to exercise such powers to intervene to save the country from climate skeptics, but this is just speculation.

      • And, I suppose, if the Islamofascists were to blow up Parliament, a wise, intelligent, loyal, monarch might be a very good thing. Oh, dear God in Heaven, please preserve the life of HRH Queen Elizabeth II until the Royal Adulterer is dead!

      • Actually, HRH is for princes and princesses. The Queen is “Her Majesty”. :-) But yes, God save the Queen!

      • Monna! Good to see you again! And, thank you. I just hope I remember that when I have my next audience with her…. she was so gracious she never said anything last time (lololo).

    • CD153:

      You ask

      There is a bring side to this however which is that the British royal family have to real political power, correct?

      No, incorrect.

      The monarch has much power. This was discussed in a previous WUWT thread about Prince Charles. My summary of the monarch’s power is in that thread here.

      Richard

      • @richardscourtney: Thanks for correcting me. I obviously had heard incorrectly that they did not. Let us hope that they do not exercise that power to keep Britain in the climate alarmist camp if, by chance someday, the govt goes skeptical.

      • While Richard makes a good argument in relation to the UK, the situation in Australia is somewhat difference.
        First, the actual Monarch has in effect no power in Australia other than the actual appointment of the Governor-General of Australia. In making that appointment, she (or he) is bound to take the advice of the Prime Minister of the day.

        Once the GG is appointed, he/she is obliged to accept the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. The single exception is in relation to the actual appointment (and dismissal) of the PM, where the GG must appoint as PM the person who can in effect make the Parliament work. This means that the putative PM must demonstrate control of a majority (or failing that, the support of) the House of Representatives. After that, the GG is bound by the Constitution to sign into law, or otherwise approve matters, recommended to him by the PM or sworn Ministers.

        The only time where any controversy to this simple model has intruded was in 1975 when then-PM Gough Whitlam was sacked. This remains a vexed issue in some quarters, so I’ll simply say that the GG of the day, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the serving PM because he could not get “Supply” (ie the necessary legislation to provide the government with money to operate) passed in the Senate. The legislation had passed the Representatives, and Malcolm Fraser was sworn as a new PM on the basis that he could have Supply passed in the Senate and would then call an immediate election (he did both things). (As a footnote, the election resulted in a resounding victory for Fraser who then served as PM until 1983.)
        The point is that, beyond this, the Monarchy (and the GG as the Vice-Regal presence) has effectively no power in Australia.

        Sir David Smith, Official Secretary to the GG at the time of the Whitlam Dismissal, wrote a very compelling book:
        HEAD OF STATE: The Governor-General, the Monarchy, the Republic and the Dismissal

        Those interested in more information might like to look at the review here: http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=2524.

        At the risk of further boring, I did have the chance to have a meal with Prince Charles a number of years ago (pre Diana). At that time found him intelligent, engaging and fun. Sadly, it seems that hasn’t lasted into later years, and I do find myself agreeing with those who hope for a transition from Elizabeth to William!

      • woz:

        Thankyou for your explanation of the very limited powers of the monarch in Australia.

        My main reason for writing is to respond to your comment that says

        At the risk of further boring, I did have the chance to have a meal with Prince Charles a number of years ago (pre Diana). At that time found him intelligent, engaging and fun. Sadly, it seems that hasn’t lasted into later years, and I do find myself agreeing with those who hope for a transition from Elizabeth to William!

        I doubt that Prince Charles has suffered a significant loss of intelligence with age. I explained the real problem in the previous thread about him here. For your convenience, I copy from it to here.

        Those who think HRH Charles has adopted ‘environmentalism’ for PR reasons are mistaken. He is – and for decades has been – in the thrall of his Cotswold neighbour Jonathon Porrit who is an extremist eco-loon.

        Please remember that Charles has been raised from birth to do one very special job and he is still waiting to do it now he is 65. His life has been purposeless, and he has looked for purpose by ‘playing’ with architecture (e.g. setting up a real-world toytown for people to live in on the edge of Dorchester), and doing good works (e.g. setting up the Prince’s Trust). He was ripe for Porritt to offer him a ’cause’ which would give him purpose.

        One can only hope that the period between Her Madge leaving and William taking her job will be short. William is already schooled in the military matters he needs to know, is starting to undertake ceremonial duties, and it can be assumed he is getting the political education he needs. It would be a tragedy if he were to end up like his father before he wears the crown.

        I add that Porrit is a rich, titled, landowner who is described on wicki and and operates his own blog.

        Richard

    • “… the Tate Modern, the world’s most popular contemporary art museum, is back producing energy again. Its roof has been coated with solar panels, which soak up the sun’s rays even on a cloudy London afternoon…”

      Neat trick, that. Solar power generation at night, as well, hmm? Clever chaps, those museum curators.

      • What makes you think William would be any better? And he’s most likely buys into AGW. And even if he doesn’t, he’ll hardly be able to change things. It’s naive to think he could.

  4. The ignorant delusions that Charles has on global warming are such a crying shame. He has done very many good things for the British countryside and country people and his care for the natural environment is deep, genuine and laudable. Like so many others, however, he’s just been sucked in by ths AGW religion and has failed to check any facts.

  5. Guest essay by Eric Worrall Prince Charles, heir to the British throne

    Is he by gum?

    What a difference (lack of) a comma, makes.

  6. The seven years of abundance in Egypt came to an end, and the seven years of famine began … the famine was severe in all the {known} world.

    Genesis 41:53-57 (and see, passim, chapters 42-47.)

    Funnily enough, they weren’t flying 747’s….. or driving SUV’s….. or mowing their lawns with gasoline-powered lawnmowers in those days.

  7. Dear God, may Australia become a republic before this bloke takes over. How simplistic. He really should stick to gardening – I believe he is quite good at it. I wonder if he is aware of the 3 million Iraqi refugees which were in Syria. Or the fact that they have/had sufficient income from oil to purchase food and other supplies necessary for the running of a country. I wonder if he ever knew that the civilian population held peaceful protests asking for a more inclusive government for 2 years before that minority government sent in the armed forces? How the hell does climate account for that?

  8. Of course no one should suggest a particularly poor policy emanating from Washington DC and London for the last 50 years with a stepping on the banana peal rate of acceleration for the last 10 may have something to do with the unhinging of the Middle East.

  9. Why did Syria collapse and not nearby Greece or Turkey?
    Why does climate change respect political borders so nicely?

    HRH the Prince of Wales is completely wrong, of course. I suspect he is ill-advised.
    Perhaps he has an aspidistra of poor judgement.

    At least the Labour Party has elected a republican leader.

    • I and others sometimes forget that this blog has an international audience. Terms like “liberal’, “conservative”, even “socialist”, carry different nuances of meaning in different countries. Sometimes those terms refer to a political party, sometimes a political philosophy. Here in the US, “republican’ refers to a political party. (Some Republicans here are very “liberal”.)
      I’m only asking for a brief and general definition of what a “republican” is in the UK. For the benefit of those in the US who, like me, don’t know.

      • In the UK a republican is one who wants a Republic rather than a Monarchy.
        It dates back to Herodotus.
        A republican wants the state to be led by an elected leader – respecting the will of the people.
        A Monarchist want the state to be led by a hereditary leader with the authority and cautious-humility that that conveys.

      • MCourtney
        November 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm

        Thank you very much.
        I think I get it.
        In the UK, political philosophy aside, a “republican” wants the outcome of a vote to count more than the heritage of the monarch. Am I close?
        Here in the US, we have no monarch. (Unless your last name is Kennedy or Kardashian. 8-)

      • Gunga Din, you commented that “Here in the US, we have no monarch…” That is because the USA is a Republic. (you remember “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”)

    • {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}

      MCourtney November 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm

      In the UK a republican is one who wants a Republic rather than a Monarchy.
      It dates back to Herodotus.

      A republican wants the state to be led by an elected leader – respecting the will of the people.

      A Monarchist want the state to be led by a hereditary leader with the authority and cautious-humility that that conveys.

      Mcourtney,

      Who could possibly bestow and enforce the “cautious-humility” that you say monarchy” is conveyed to have?

      John

      • Although I am not myself a Monarchist I think it is fair to point out the Monarchist’s arguments rather than to assume the mantle of “Expert” and spread my own biases.

        The answer to ‘Who could possibly bestow and enforce the “cautious-humility” that you say monarchy” is conveyed to have?’ is the British parliament. Or any parliament that represents the people.
        In the case of HRH Charles the 1st parliament enforced humility by beheading.

        The Monarch can (in theory) do anything – unless they need money (taxation needs representation).
        They can sign acts of Parliament or not.
        The Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Monarch.
        They have great influence over the populous – it is a brave elected politician who thinks that they are the more popular.

        But that sweet deal is ephemeral. A Monarch can lose that good will and then they have nothing. This was established over Ship Tax in the Civil War (our Civil War in the UK).

        This is different to the power of an elected Monarch (like Obama) who can wield the might of his mandate until the next election. Assassination can and will occur by the ballot box so there’s no need for a revolution in a republic.

      • It is odd being a republican in the UK. We are, undoubtedly, a minority. None of us want the monarchy deposed by force, but rather by democratic will. So, we have no chance of success any time soon.

        Also being an atheist, it always seems odd to me that, in the first line of our National Anthem (‘God save our gracious queen’) I am expected to beseech a deity in which I do not believe, to ‘save’ a monarch whom I do not support, otherwise I am, in many people’s minds, ‘unpatriotic’. :)

      • soarergtl on November 24, 2015 at 4:20 am

        . . . in many people’s minds, [they think I am] ‘unpatriotic’.

        soarergtl,

        A good patriotic statement by you.

        John

      • MCourtney on November 24, 2015 at 1:55 am,

        The answer to ‘Who could possibly bestow and enforce the “cautious-humility” that you say monarchy” is conveyed to have?’ is the British parliament.

        [&]

        But that sweet deal [of the Monarch’s power if popular with his/her subjects] is ephemeral. A Monarch can lose that good will and then they have nothing.

        This is different to the power of an elected Monarch (like Obama) who can wield the might of his mandate until the next election. Assassination can and will occur by the ballot box so there’s no need for a revolution in a republic.

        MCourtney,

        Thanks for clarifying the authority of your Monarch. Still, it looks like a virtually titular position that mostly serves to respect fond memories and pay sentimental homage to (what to me seems to be) some wonderfully glorious past periods of England (and its associated countries) in Western history.

        Your applying the ‘Monarch’ title to Obama by qualifying that title as ‘elected’, is a rather nice rhetorical touch, so touché. I like it. Obama puts on the airs and behaviors of a wannabe King all right. However, the terms ‘monarch’/ ‘monarchy’ are directly associated with hereditary royalty as sovereign and a caste (class) system where royalty was the privileged highest class. That was historically a prevalent European cultural motif. The USA took a road cultural motif less traveled and it made all the difference**.

        ** apologies to Robert Frost for paraphrasing his wonderful poem ‘The Road Not Taken’.

        John

  10. Watching the international news at the moment. Wall-to-wall coverage of terrorism. No coverage of climate change 30 minutes in.

    The Prince has been very well protected for his entire life. He can afford whimsy. Most of us cannot.

  11. Can a man who would betray his wife, whom he promised to “love and to cherish … forsaking all others…,” be trusted in ANYTHING he says? Can a man who married a lovely young woman KNOWING that he would continue to commit adultery against her be trusted in ANYTHING he says??

    The problem with all l1ars is: you can take NOTHING they say seriously.

    Further, veracity, aside, there’s the issue of competence and simple ignorance… .

    • Janice, in fairness neither side was innocent in that marriage.
      Moral failings may speak of the man but they don’t speak of his intellect.

      As HRH Charles of Wales is only taking about climate change – not acting on the issue – it is only the logic of his argument that matters. He is not giving an example.

      His logic is flawed.
      There’s no reason to look at the other flaws, the moral flaws. They don’t concern us.
      We are all flawed, after all.

      • Moral failings speak loudly as to one’s veracity. The intellect only makes a BETTER l1ar of a man or woman.

        And to create the false impression of moral equivalency in the behavior of Princess Diana and of her lecherous husband simply because she, too, had failings, is to grossly mischaracterize her.

        While her immorality was not excused by his, but-for-his adultery, she would almost certainly have not done what she did.

        RARELY is 50-50 the correct division of moral blame in a marriage — usually, one partner is far more to blame and the other partner is, albeit wrongly, reacting to it. In that particular marriage, I’d put it at: 80-20.

        And my money is on HRH Diana, Princess of Wales.

      • I won’t argue this point, for my belief is that I have no right to judge.
        My only interest in the failings of HRH of Wales is in that which affects the weak.

        I will defend the poor from the costs of fighting cAGW or of tilting at windmills.
        But I won’t judge a man’s personal life.

      • Wow, Janice. When you were quoting the old testament, you were not kidding.

        I had a Christian upbringing, too, although it didn’t take (have been an agnostic for all my adult life). However, among the teachings and stories that left an impression, I always admired this one: ‘And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”’

      • “neither side was innocent ” (MCourtney). I’d call that judging.

        I, too, do not want to continue to discuss this,
        but, I felt that Princess Diana deserved a defense.
        After all, Charles can defend himself, for he,
        unlike she,
        is still
        alive.

      • Mr. Palmer,

        Hitting a woman in the head or body with a stone is one thing; pointing out the past judgment lapses of a man (that is intent on using his position to make economic and societal changes that would directly and indirectly impact the lives of pretty much everyone) is quite another thing.

        Yes, the “don’t cast the first stone” story is a good one. It has been used for various reasons (inclusive of trying to justify bad behavior or silence others). There is no good reason to use it here, it is not applicable.

    • MCourtney on November 23, 2015 at 3:34 pm

      Janice, in fairness neither side was innocent in that marriage.
      Moral failings may speak of the man but they don’t speak of his intellect.

      As HRH Charles of Wales is only taking about climate change – not acting on the issue – it is only the logic of his argument that matters. He is not giving an example.

      His logic is flawed.
      There’s no reason to look at the other flaws, the moral flaws. They don’t concern us.
      We are all flawed, after all.

      MCourtney,

      In a rational man, don’t you think one’s intellectual morality is an integrated part of one’s overall intellectual principles, not separate from them?

      The prince acted with profound dishonor to his wife in his intellectual morality. It is sufficient to cause reasonable questioning of his respect for other humans and therefore sufficient cause to suspect his actual concern for climate’s actual effect on people.

      John

      • If Diana was making dubious assertions about global warming, then her past lapses in judgment could reasonably be brought up to further discredit her.

      • As I recall, she died in the late 1990s – so she may have spoken to the issue of AGW, even though the topic wasn’t as hot back then as now. I wonder if any historian/biographer has any record of her saying anything about that topic?

    • ….forsaking all others…

      Amazing how many members of couples ignore that. They actually still see themselves as part of their parents family, instead of the founders of a completely new family.

      g

  12. Slightly off the topic of Charlie boy and his views, but still relevant in the Climate debate. Recently the UK’s Gruaniad and today the BBC have been trumpeting about about the super solar power station being buiilt in the Moroccan desert (can’t get the link, but key the following into google should find it) “Morocco poised to become a solar superpower with launch of desert mega project”. This is aimed to provide power not only during the day, but, by using heated salt to drive boilers, at night as well.

    Can anyone with more detailed knowledge than me ascertain whether this will,actually deliver on its promises or is just pie in the sky

    • Dear Harrow Sceptic,

      I refer you to Ozzie Zehner who has much detailed knowledge of solar power and why it is a “green illusion.”

      Here:

      (youtube)

      (from my notes on this video):

      Solar Cell Technology Has Not Solved These Problems
      [7:25 ] Mazdar City, UAE (United Arab Emirates) solar cell comparison project discovered problems common to all solar cells:
      1. [7:56] Haze and Humidity — even in a desert – reflected and dispersed TSI? (“sun’s rays”).
      2. [8:02] Dust – almost daily removal needed.
      3. [8:06] Heat – reduced ability to produce energy.

      I’ve shared my notes on the above on at least two other WUWT threads… here is one of them: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/16/green-tech-and-the-climate-crisis-syndicate/#comment-2073062

      Your Ally for Truth in Science,

      Janice

  13. in 1950 the population of Syria was 3.5 million, in 2011 when the troubles started, the population was 22 million … might that have more to do with desertification and overuse of water resources that resulted in the huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land?

  14. Two more thing to add to the list of things caused by CO2, Radical Islamic Insanity and Radical Political Insanity.
    A breath of fresh air might help the later. The former needs something more.

  15. This CAGW movement needs an adult in the room to stand up and say stop! Do you morons realize just how stupid you sound with this nonsense!

    • The “sustainability” industry and Big Wind and Big Solar (and all Enviroprofiteers) are so blinded by greed that they just cannot see it (or don’t care — likely, they wink and nod at their family and cronies (whose opinions they might possibly care about) …. their comrade snakes know they are not stupid, heh, heh, heh, just cunning)). They are making big bucks off the climate scam — and that’s all that matters to them.

  16. Re: “California is suffering a severe drought, yet very few Californians are flocking to join terrorist groups or commit atrocities”

    This is an n=1 study. It’s not capable of determining the extent to which climate contributes to civil conflict.

    If you look at 50 years of climate in conjunction with conflict throughout the tropics you find that *Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate*

    see: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10311.html%3FWT.ec_id%3DNATURE-20110825

  17. re “Perhaps there are factors other than the weather, which motivate some people to murder and brutalise their neighbours.”

    Yes, obviously there are other factors. I don’t think that even Chuck was suggesting that there are no other factors.

    Quite the opposite. He was saying that one factor is climate.

      • He’s certainly not clear, and let’s be frank, the guy believes in homeopathy.

        However his original quote is

        And in fact there’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough, was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land but increasingly they came into the cities.

        Not

        …the only reason for this horror in Syria…

        But no matter what Chuck’s position is there is good evidence that conflict is related to climate in the tropics.

    • “He was saying that one factor is climate”

      Actually Seth, while I respect your comments, I’m pretty sure he wasn’t. He was speaking in shit-weasel, dupe-the-sheeple language and saying that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (or possibly the even more monumentally ludicrous conjecture of carbon dioxide levels going from 360-ish ppm to 400 ppm in the past 20 years) that has caused it. In other words, he wasn’t saying that real climate change caused it – it was the phony variety that the climate liars peddle.

    • Before the Syrian uprising that began in 2011, the greater Fertile Crescent experienced the most severe drought in the instrumental record. For Syria, a country marked by poor governance and unsustainable agricultural and environmental policies, the drought had a catalytic effect, contributing to political unrest.

      – Kelley et al. PNAs (2015)

      http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241

  18. If both sides don’t feel the guilt for being the cause of the conflict, then we’ll have to improve morale!
    =============

    • Yes! That’s it, kim. Let the shooting continue until everyone is friends all ’round again. Sunny days ahead!
      .
      .
      .
      .
      uhhhh… /sarc

  19. An appeal to the authority of the Pentagon is ironic. Congress funds what it wants and the Pentagon provides it.Well other than cost efficient weapons programs.

    Our foes have long been getting all of the major institutions into gear. This was Al Gore’s specialty as Vice President. Clinton who now makes money on it was happy to let him lead.

  20. step 1 Help overthrow Syria.
    step 2 Blame the weather for refugee crisis after overthrow.
    step 3 Hope people are dumb enough to buy what you are shovelling.
    WUWT?

      • Thanks, finally some one brought up the true underlying motivation. And now that the USA ( if allowed by their “boy king”) can be independent, the Arabians in SA are getting heavily involved

      • Nonsense. Assad’s father had exactly the same uprising and put it down in exactly the same manner. Was the 1982 Hama massacre because of oil or gas pipelines? Of course not.

        The reality is that this is a very old sectarian dispute. Asaad’s Alawites are half Xian, and so lived in the gutters of Syrian society for more than a millennium, until put into the army and into power by the French. The Sunnis want to return the Alawites to the gutters (and worse), and not surprisingly Assaad’s Alawites don’t want to go.

  21. Ahhhhh, Prince Charles, hmmmmm

    This man who would be king is a man who would be the best actor for a theatrical production of ‘Peter Pan the Climate Movie’. He could co-star with Naomi Orestes and Giggles the trained chimpanzee.

    John

  22. Prince Charles is referring to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that makes the link between climate change and the civil war/refugee crisis in Syria. So unlike most of the posters here his statement is based on peer-reviewed science. I suggest you take a look at the paper and submit a rebuttal if you feel you can refute their study.

    Here is the abstract and url:
    There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.abstract

    • Climate scientists are now experts on the causes of civil wars and rise of terrorism?

      So if not for drought, Obama wouldn’t be supporting efforts to overthrow those in power? Without drought, ISIS wouldn’t exist?

      How is a population shift from rural areas to big cities responsible for Syria’s tyranny and warring factions?

      Are you really this stupid, Luke? Al Gore tied global warming to declining IQs…are you the poster child?

    • Urban migration is an observable event happening all across the developed world.
      Drought is also observable all across the developed world, notably California.

      In the event that Climate Change could be linked to either event directly it doesn’t explain why those events can be occurring in Syria AND in various locations all over the world but Syria is the one with an ISIS problem.

      I don’t doubt that to a certain extent those factors COULD have influenced the foothold ISIS has in Syria. But I would ask whether having a ton of unstable countries around them, poor border controls, an unpopular government, and a strong Anti-West sentiment might have had just a tiny bit more to do with it.

      They don’t attribute any amount of the conflict to Climate Change, it is simply implicated to some degree. Charles is directly insinuating with this line:

      “…well there are obviously lots of, there are endless problems arising all over the place, therefore we deal with them in a short-term way, we never deal with the underlying root cause which regrettably is what we’re doing to our natural environment.”

      That statement isn’t supported at all by the article you linked. Charles is inferring with a great deal more confidence then the authors of that study that events that may have been influenced by Climate Change may have influenced the war in Syria.

      But that is textbook modern environmentalist. A scientist publishes a fairly benign and inoculus study that “suggests” or “finds cause for” or “possible linkage” and idiots like you turn it into an absolute statement of unassailable truth.

      In short I don’t need to rebut it because the peer reviewed paper you linked doesn’t support the position you put forth.

    • Dear Luke,

      Good for you to try to cite some science, here. I’m afraid you have been duped by the scientists-for-hire who will say anything for money (those behind their getting paid, ultimately, are: the “Sustainability” Industry and Big Wind and Big Solar and other Enviroprofiteers and their lackeys in government). They likely say quite a few reasonable things in that paper. The abstract told me I need not bother to read it, however, for there is a BIG (………………………….) HOLE in their “evidence.”

      To wit:

      … climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts … .

      The proven-failed (e.g., see Climate Models Fail, by Bob Tisdale) code that cranks out hilariously wrong results, time after time after time (at least they are consistent, boys and girls!!), a.k.a. “climate models,” is not evidence of anything except their own lack of skill.

      There is, as of this hour, NO evidence, NONE, that CO2 causes changes in the climate zones of the earth.

      Pick up that paper, hold it up to your eye and peer through that big hole……(o_O)…. look down, waaaaay down, into the depths of the ocean……. look up……. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up, into the troposphere………….. look around………. ALL OVER (right–> right –> right –> 360 deg…)……… for the evidence that should fill that hole…… .

      There is none. Just a bit, empty, hole, with the wind whistling through it…. .

      And maybe, someday, you will open your mind to realize just what that means vis a vis anthropogenic global climate change.

      Hoping for you,

      Janice

      • Janice states “I’m afraid you have been duped by the scientists-for-hire who will say anything for money (those behind their getting paid, ultimately, are: the “Sustainability” Industry and Big Wind and Big Solar and other Enviroprofiteers and their lackeys in government).”
        You have just shown your complete ignorance of government funding of science.

      • Oh, I think not, Luke.

        Rather, you display an idealistic, unrealistic, view of how politics actually works.

        Or, perhaps, you were in a hurry when you read my post and missed the “their lackeys in government” link in the funding chain.

    • Luke says:
      I suggest you take a look at the paper and submit a rebuttal if you feel you can refute their study.

      From their abstract, my responses in bold, and a question to you at the end:

      Before the Syrian uprising that began in 2011, the greater Fertile Crescent experienced the most severe drought in the instrumental record.

      Per references to Bastardi above, the working assumption is falsified from the get go. But let us put this aside for the moment.

      For Syria, a country marked by poor governance and unsustainable agricultural and environmental policies, the drought had a catalytic effect, contributing to political unrest.

      So, the primary factors are poor governance and unsustainable agriculture and environmental policies! RIGHT IN THE FREAKING ABSTRACT HOW DID YOU MISS THAT?

      We show that the recent decrease in Syrian precipitation is a combination of natural variability and a long-term drying trend, and the unusual severity of the observed drought is here shown to be highly unlikely without this trend.

      the drought that doesn’t exist is comprised of….natural variability…. but it is worse because of long term drying trend. Doesn’t say how much worse. In the current state of the climate debate, your side of the debate insists that natural variability is so large that it is swamping the anthropegenic signal. So natural variability is dominant according to your side, and the long term drying trend (again, according to your side) cannot be significant.

      Precipitation changes in Syria are linked to rising mean sea-level pressure in the Eastern Mediterranean, which also shows a long-term trend. There has been also a long-term warming trend in the Eastern Mediterranean, adding to the drawdown of soil moisture. No natural cause is apparent for these trends,

      Well the abstract first started yammering about natural variability which the climate community says is swamping the anthro signal, and in the same breath wants to claim that no natural cause is apparent. The nose on your face isn’t apparent either

      whereas the observed drying and warming are consistent with model studies of the response to increases in greenhouse gases.

      Oh goodness. Would that be modeled responses from which of the (I can’t remember how many) climate models, each and every one of which has completely failed to produce results remotely related to actual observations? THOSE MODELS? THE ONES THAT ARE SO WRONG THEY HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED BY THE EXACT METRICS DEFINED AS FALSIFYING THEM BY THE CLIMATE MODELING COMMUNITY ITSELF?

      Furthermore, model studies show an increasingly drier and hotter future mean climate for the Eastern Mediterranean.

      Oh wow. So now FUTURE climate is causing current instability? ROFLMAO

      Analyses of observations and model simulations indicate that a drought of the severity and duration of the recent Syrian drought, which is implicated in the current conflict, has become more than twice as likely as a consequence of human interference in the climate system.

      <b? Which freaking observations would this be since ALL the observational records FALSIFY the models based on the criteria that the modeling community itself set!
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      OK, and now the question. Apologies for the length of it.

      How is it that this drought appears to have avoided destroying civilization in Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Turkey, which border on Syria from every direction AND appears to NOT drive to war (except in self defence) Yazidis, Kurds, Christians, Imailis and Druze?

      • DavidMHoffer (smile) — I think your BOLDLY STATED, nicely argued, and well-written, riposte above deserves only:

        Applause! #(:))

        Remember, that this kind of thing happens to even the davidmhoffers among us is a great comfort to many a more timid soul, here on WUWT.

      • And, personally, given that the stakes involved are human lives, I think such a tone is completely appropriate.

      • Sounds like you think you can easily rebut their paper. If so, I suggest you send a rebuttal to the editor. Science does not advance in the comments section of a website, it advances in the pages of peer-reviewed journals.

      • Luke November 23, 2015 at 8:20 pm
        Sounds like you think you can easily rebut their paper. If so, I suggest you send a rebuttal to the editor. Science does not advance in the comments section of a website, it advances in the pages of peer-reviewed journals.

        You demanded a rebuttal and you got one.

        You now retreat to the position (having admitted that I easily rebutted the paper) that it doesn’t count unless it is in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the retreat of cowards who have no reasoned argument of their own to present.

        I’ve got news for you Luke, if science advanced only in peer reviewed journals we would have no airplanes to fly in, cars to drive, light bulbs to read by, sound systems to listen to, televisions to watch or blogs to argue with one another on. If you are so bold as to issue a challenge (as you have) then have the temerity to defend your position.

        Have at it Luke. Have a discussion based on your own words, defend your own challenge. If you do not, the only conclusion anyone will draw from our discourse is that you can’t.

        Sincerely, I urge you to engage honestly. Otherwise this is just an echo chamber with the odd rodent scurrying about.

      • Water shortages in Syria, if there are any, have been exacerbated by the new Attaturk Dam in Turkey, which has drained off 30% of the flow of the Euphrates for irrigation projects in Turkey.

        R

      • “ralfellis

        November 24, 2015 at 2:08 am”

        Correct, and this has been happening for decades. A similar situation is likely to occur in countries downstream on the Nile from Ethiopia once their dam project is complete.

      • First off Luke wrong venue for for a “geo-political” paper. Should have been submitted to to a journal of the proper “field of study”. A climate science periodical ain’t it. You should know better.
        There is NO evidence that climate played an issue. None zip. The players in the conflict are acting in their interests based on theology, culture, history, nationalism and good old fashion human ambition and greed. You do know what these words mean don’t you? You know where the proper schools of study are don’t you? History, Political science, Anthropology and theological history just to point you in the correct direction. Proper venue for peer review Luke, proper venue.
        michael

    • “There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria … anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region”.
      =============================
      The rainfall anomaly for the region since 1950, the earliest human CO2 emissions could have been an influence, shows no notable trend but even if it did economically crippling the western democracies is no solution to occasional droughts in failed Middle Eastern states.

    • …the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010.

      Please note the Syrian Civil war started in 2011.
      So why did the drought not cause any disruption until after it ended?
      Indeed, if fears of famine caused by the drought was the problem wouldn’t the workers have focussed on exploiting the new chances for growing food.

      Even if you think you can ascribe any regional weather to anthropogenic global warming (good luck with that) it seems ridiculous to link that weather event to the Syrian Civil War.

      For further reading look up “the Arab Spring”.

    • Luke, the rebuttal to this…”Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results…” is both simple and impossible to dispute. Impossible to dispute because it is a climate model prediction and has not happened, and simple to dispute as there is no observation of increase in droughts in the area. If your theory has no observational evidence, it is not even a theory. To further extrapolate this to the cause of civil strife in the area is to ignore ALL the political realities on the ground.

      • David, you conveniently ignored the first part of the statement “Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure”. The authors did not say the drought was the only factor that lead to the civil strife, just a contributing factor.

      • Luke,
        You haven’t answered my question from upthread. I reproduce it here now for your convenience:

        How is it that this drought appears to have avoided destroying civilization in Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Turkey, which border on Syria from every direction AND appears to NOT drive to war (except in self defence) Yazidis, Kurds, Christians, Imailis and Druze?

    • Read the whole thing, and saw no causal connection between the climate and the war.

      So much for the peer reviewed science. They made no scientific connection at all.

    • A record paltry £19.1M profit ($28.8M) from offshore wind alone, I would love to know how much on land from the property of the rest of the minor Royal family. Now his Dad may well claim to hate the eyesore of the eco crucifixes littering this green and pleasant land as any sane and rational person would, but i’m also sure he appreciates the fruit that it bears.

      “Sustained growth for the UK’s world-leading offshore wind industry

      With the UK remaining the most attractive place to invest globally in offshore wind, The Crown Estate’s offshore wind portfolio has continued to be a key driver of our commercial success. Generating income by leasing the seabed to developers, the business continues to take an active approach to management and unlocking value by capitalising on our strategic overview to identify common challenges facing industry, bringing the sector together to share knowledge, best practice and reduce costs. Key highlights included:

      The business’s operational offshore wind portfolio generated £19.1 million, up from £15.6 million last year, with portfolio value increasing by 18% to £590 million.
      Offshore wind currently meets over 4 per cent of the UK’s electricity demand. It is on course to meet around 10 per cent of UK’s electricity demand, and bring costs down below £100 per MWh, by 2020.
      A total of 4.6 GW of operational offshore wind, with 813 MW of new offshore wind farm capacity last year accounting for more than half of all new installations across Europe.”

      http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news-and-media/news/2015/another-record-breaking-year-with-285-million-return-for-public-finances/

      Overall revenue and property value is increasing massively when you also factor in carbon capture (CCS) and tidal/wave on top of it.

      http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy-and-infrastructure/energy-and-infrastructure-business-at-a-glance/

  23. This senile before his time wally has a fortune tied up in windmills. That is all that is on his mind; if you can call that ball of shit a mind.

  24. I am beginning to understand why his eyes are so close together, to accommodate the size of hjs brain. Too much inbreeding within the royalty class.

  25. Was looking for the Kingston Trio quote that said that Bonnie Prince Charlie actually posed for the “What me Worry Kid ie. Alfred E. Newman”:

    Couldn’t find the quote on YouTube etc., but this is the best I could do…

    • Indeed. (Michael Jankowski at 4:47pm)

      Charles to TV reporter: (giggle) “Funnily enough” {giggle, snort, … cover face with hand, smother giggling… gg……}, I say, “funnily enough,” {superstraightface} all those people who died of thirst or at sea trying to escape war and poverty {stifle smile still playing at lips}….. (ahem)…. (AHEM)… did a lot to ensure that my windmill investments will continue to make money for me. I mean, I say, you know that those people all died because we haven’t yet built enough of them — windmills, I mean. They continued to build those damned little coal fires and…. human CO2 {choking back a laugh at the delightful irony} — killed them. {Distinct shift in mood….. eyes harden…….. lip curls slightly….} Pity. {nothing but cold contempt as camera pans away to reporter}

      *******************************

      Wow, indeed. Truly psychopathic (personality) and frontal lobe-deficient:

      That is:

      1) no conscience to correct his happy emotion over making money off a tragedy (given, that he believes, and I have a feeling he may…, CO2 really did cause the drought); and
      2) no frontal lobe “brakes” to at LEAST not say such a blatantly crass thing.

  26. Isn’t a desert just an area that has experienced a long series of droughts? How is this climate *change*?

    • When there is a Climate Conference coming up and Charlie boy (he has never grown up) is a keynote speaker.

  27. I’m not a Republican (in the anti-monarch sense of the word not American political party) but I’d very, very quickly become one if this twit became King. A big part of the reason I support or don’t actively want to leave behind our monarch as a Canadian is because of the difficulties associated with opening our constitution versus her activities. Given that she is entirely benign and stays out of political affairs as a rule but opening our constitution would open the door to a wide range of Quebec separatist demands I opt to support the Queen.

    Given Charles becoming King I’d take my chances with Quebec separatists.

    • A monarchy with an almost symbolic head of state normally seems to be a very stable form of government. The ambition of presidents, their grasping for ever greater executive authority, often leads to the downfall of democracies. Having said that, you sure miss that voting thing when the monarch is an idiot.

  28. Well if that is the case that climate change is the cause of problem then western powers have no justification to remove assad because it is western powers that caused the problem its not assads fault.

  29. Anthropogenic Water Shortage

    From..http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/syria-too-much-rain-but-too-little-water

    Ninety per cent of Syria’s water is used to irrigate farmlands and, according to one agricultural expert, it remains highly wasteful. “Irrigation systems here are only 38 per cent efficient, which means we throw away 62 per cent of all of our national water supplies before it even reaches the crops,” he said. “We have irrigation channels built on soluble rock – which is the worst thing you can do – and the engineers told them it was bad idea, but they did it.”

  30. Jihadists have inflicted heinous wars and acts of terror against their own people and the infidel since the 7th century…. This is NOT a recent phenomenon.

    For Prince Charles to attribute recent ISIS atrocities on Climate Change, in light of 1,400 years of historic Jihadist mayhem shows he has no understanding of history and seriously lacks common sense, reason and logic.

      • Marcus– Don’t call Leftists “liberals”. They are anything BUT liberal.

        Call them: Statists, Leftists, Socialists, Communists, Totalitarians, Progressives, nut jobs, loonies, crazy and insane, but never use the term “liberal” when describing Leftists as their ideologies are the antithesis of Liberalism.

        Yes, Leftists do not like reality, which is why they created Politically Correctness, to obfuscate their insanity and prohibit open debate on their insane ideologies.

  31. “…..lacks common sense, reason and logic.” He will have plenty of company at Cop21. So much so, I think Charlie can consider himself as a Climate Scientist

      • I believe it stems from the vernacular “rocket scientist”. There are no “rocket scientists” either. There are a wide variety of disciplines that are required to adventures in space. But on the street this term came to mean someone clever. “It’s not rocket science” is a saying that came about in the ’80’s. The climate scam hijacked the idea so that fine arts students, journalists, and other activist could call themselves “climate scientists” to suggest that one should not argue with them. It is a travesty of science. Furthermore it is “A disgrace to the profession”.

      • karabar:

        You say;

        There are no “rocket scientists” either.

        Not so. There have been rocket scientists for more than 2,000 years.

        Rocket scientists conduct the science which provides new knowledge that can be engineered into rocket technology.

        It is thought that Archytas, 428 to 347 B.C., was the first rocket scientist. He developed the principle of ‘action and reaction’ that he demonstrated by constructing his “bird” that was the first reported device to use rocket propulsion. Steam or compressed air was the propellant.

        Chinese rocket scientists used fireworks to provide rocket propulsion that they attached to arrows for increased range. In 1232 these ‘fire arrows’ were used to repel Mongol invaders at the battle of Kai-keng.

        William Congreve was in charge of British military rocket companies. Among his many developments of rockets, he invented launching rockets from ships. The phrase “by the rocket’s red glare,” coined by Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812, referred to Congreve rockets launched from British ships.

        Konstantin E. Tsiolkovski, 1857 to 1935, is often said to be the father of modern rocketry, cosmonautics and human spaceflight.. He was a Russian immigrant from Poland. His rocket equation, based on Newton’s second law of motion, relates rocket engine exhaust velocity to the change in velocity of the vehicle itself. That equation is pure science and is among the rocket science he published in “Research into Interplanetary Space by Means of Rocket Power” that was published in 1903, the same year the Wright brothers achieved powered and controlled airplane flight. Tsiolkovski
        advocated liquid propellant rocket engines, orbital space stations, solar energy, and colonization of the Solar System.

        In the West, Robert H. Goddard, 1882 to 1945, is often called the “father of modern rocketry”. He built and flew the world’s first liquid propellant rocket on March 16,
        1926. His work was less theoretical and more practical than that of Tsiolkovski.

        In reality, Hermann Oberth, 1894 to 1989, was the most influential of the rocket scientists in the early twentieth century, and if there was a “father of modern rocketry” then it was probably him. Originally a Romanian he became a naturalized German citizen. His dissertation for the University of Heidelberg was rejected for being too speculative, but became the basis for his book Die Rakete zu den Planetanraumen (By Rocket to Space) that explained the mathematics of spaceflight and proposed practical rocket designs and space stations. That book was used as the basis of German rocket science which enabled the technologies of the V1 and V2 weapons.

        300 trainloads of V2 rockets and parts were captured and shipped to the United States
        along with the majority of the principal German rocket designers when WW2 ended in Europe. Most of the designers had decided to surrender to American – in preference to Russian – troops. The V2 became the basis of the intercontinental ballistic missile development programs of both Russia and America which led directly to their manned space programs.

        Two names are important here when considering the American capture of V2 technology.

        Wernher von Braun, 1912 to 1977, was one of the German rocket designers who went to America where he became a US citizen. An engineer who made use of rocket science, he was an important contributor to pre-war Germany’s rocket program, to the German V2 development, and was a leading advocate of America’s space program. He worked on the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, led the development team that launched Explorer 1, and was the chief architect and engineer of the Saturn V Moon rocket.

        Fred Singer is most known here as being a leading – perhaps the greatest – opponent of the global warming scare. He was one of the American scientists who went to Germany and obtained the 300 trainloads of V2 rockets and parts America took to America at the end of WW2. A physical scientist, Fred worked to discover how rockets could be used to obtain scientific information; for example, he worked with Van Allen to discover the Radiation Belts. He was in charge of the project that created the first orbital weather satellites.

        Fred Singer is a rocket scientist who would rightly be offended if anybody tried to claim he is not.

        Richard

      • If I were in conversation with Mr. Fred Singer, or even if I had his email address, I should like to pose the following question:
        In the vernacular, “rocket science” is very intellectually demanding, and a “rocket scientist” is intelligent to the point of genius.
        Is there such a profession as “rocket scientist”, meaning one single professional group that is acquainted with all there is to know about launching a vehicle into space, or does it require a variety of professions, such as aeronautical engineers, jet propulsion engineers, astrophysicists, atmospheric physicists, and so on? Is there degree granting university which offers a programme so extensive and complex that graduates acquire every single one of the skills required for such a profession, and does this said institution offer a degree called “Bachelor of rocket science” or some such thing?
        In context, Mr. Singer, are the skills, knowledge and abilities necessary to adequately the analyse Earth’s weather systems and their characteristics over millennia of geologic time (and therefore requiring a myriad of disciplines) similar in fact to the myriad of disciplines required to adequately operate a successful space programme?

      • karabar:

        Being any type of scientists does not require a practitioner to have expertise in every part of the discipline; for example, not every chemist is familiar with all details of photochemistry.

        I assure you that in conversations Fred Singer has said to me that he is a rocket scientist. And – knowing his history – I certainly agree that he is.

        I am not willing to give his email address to an anonymous internet pop-up.

        Richard

  32. The war in Syria has nothing to do with climate change. The British oligarchs, led by men lacking morality such as this old princeling, have caused terrible death and suffering through their collaboration with the Saudis in funding isis and the wahabist jihadi terrorists. Typical British empire move, funding the jihadis to spread terror

  33. You know I seem to recall the start of the unrest throughout the poorer parts of the world, was the sudden increase in the cost of food.
    Brought on by the ill-conceived food to fuel mandates.
    Was this not the “cause” of the “Arab Spring”?
    Starving unemployed people might cause some resentment.

    As for Climate Change being a contributing factor, OK.
    What evidence of a change in Syrians Climate does the Prince have?
    Maybe eating meat causes this conflict to escalate?
    Or allowing skimpily clad females to frolic on Malaysian beaches causes volcanic eruptions.
    Or is it allowing inbreed hereditary clans to concentrate stolen wealth that causes these conflicts?

  34. Eric,

    OFF Topic specifically, but relevant to you and generally related to scapegoating.
    read briefly,

    Mimetic triangulation as per Rene Girard, recently deceased.

    This is at play here. Both the need to mimic desire wrt to green behavior, and the human need to triangulate on a person and group. aka scapegoating.

  35. First the judges are quoting Obama….now the Prince is quoting the Pentagon
    What’s going on over there?…..scared to quote your own people or something?…still tied to our hind teat?

    …anything to divert attention away from the Arab Spring?

  36. “It’s only in the last few years that the Pentagon have actually started to pay attention to this”

    Quite strange that interest coincides with a Democrat POTUS massively cutting the DoD’s budget (again), you think those in the five sided puzzle palace might be after an increase in funds by siding with policy makers in the same way NASA has?

    I can never decide if Prince Charles is a useful idiot, or just plain idiot.

    • Just ask yourself this, DDP: Would I want Prince Charles on my side?

      There’s your answer.

      ********************************************

      And, thankfully, he’s not! You are stuck with him, you “sustainability” hustlers!

      Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

      (singing happily now, as I sit typing merrily): (hmm, hm, hm, hm, hm)
      Soprano: Heeeeee’s the…. gift!
      Chorus: He’s the GIFT!
      S: That keeps on gi -hih -ving! Oh, yes the gift!
      Ch: The GIFT!
      S: That keeps on gi-VIIIIIIIIING! And we’d really hate to lose him
      Ch: Yes!
      S: We’d really HATE to lose him
      Tutti: For, he says so many very lovely thiiiiiiiiiiiiiings!
      S: Soooohhh! Keeeep it — UP! Dear Prince Chah-ruhls, keep it UP and take bow …..
      ’cause you do more for truth in science than your comrades will allow!
      {music stops}
      Male chorus member imitating HRH (speaking): “Funnily enough,” I LIKE that tune!

      {with music, now}

      Tutti: Keep — it — up — and — take — a — booooowwwww!

      Male chorus member bowing, and bowing, and bowing…. {curtain falls}

    • Just ask yourself this, D D P: Would I want Prince Charles on my side?

      There’s your answer.

      ********************************************

      And, thankfully, he’s not! You are stuck with him, you “Su$tainability” hu$tlers!

      Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

      (singing happily now, as I sit typing merrily): (hmm, hm, hm, hm, hm)
      Soprano: Heeeeee’s the…. gift!
      Chorus: He’s the GIFT!
      S: That keeps on gi -hih -ving! Oh, yes the gift!
      Ch: The GIFT!
      S: That keeps on gi-VIIIIIIIIING! And we’d really h@te to lose him
      Ch: Yes!
      S: We’d really H@TE to lose him
      Tutti: For, he says so many very lovely thiiiiiiiiiiiiiings!
      S: Soooohhh! Keeeep it — UP! Dear Prince Chah-ruhls, keep it UP and take bow …..
      ’cause you do more for truth in science than your comr@des will allow!
      {music stops}
      Male chorus member imitating HRH (speaking): “Funnily enough,” I LIKE that tune!

      {with music, now}

      Tutti: Keep — it — up — and — take — a — booooowwwww!

      Male chorus member bowing, and bowing, and bowing…. {curtain falls}

      ****
      Second try at posting with all the potentially “bad” words altered… hope this works!

  37. The Prince of Wales, who is 60 today, is planning a symbolic change when he becomes King by taking the title Defender of Faith to reflect Britain’s multicultural society
    The move would mean the monarch, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, would no longer be known as Defender of the Faith for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII.
    The Prince caused controversy within the Anglican church when he floated the idea several years ago of becoming Defender of the Faiths in an attempt to embrace the other religions in Britain.
    In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html

    Follow the Islamic way to save the world,’ Prince Charles urges environmentalists
    Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic ‘spiritual principles’ in order to protect the environment.
    In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man’s destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions – but particularly those of Islam.
    He said the current ‘division’ between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment – which goes against the grain of ‘sacred traditions’.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

    The Man who Invented |Global Warming
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069775/the-man-who-invented-global-warming/

    “The market system is not functional,” insisted the chairman, Sir Crispin Tickell, incidentally, one of Prince Charles’ most trusted advisers
    http://www.africaclimatesolution.org/news.php?id=6370

    Contrary to the statement in first line, this is much more than a symbolic change. I.E. to change from defender of “the” faith, to defender of faith.
    Presumably Charles will most vehemently defend the CAGW /Scientism/Green faith of which he is a prime advocate

  38. It is not climate change that caused “Arab Spring”; it is “climate change
    politics” which gave us bio fuels and made corn & grain more expensive which led to uprising in the Arab world.

  39. Such a simplistic interpretation of Syria’s troubles indicates that Prince Charles has poorly informed advisors.

    These two papers reviewed here indicate that a complex interplay of politics, overgrazing and mismanagement had much more to do with Syria’s woes than did a natural period of drought from 2006-2011.
    http://climateandsecurity.org/2014/03/26/review-two-new-studies-on-syria-drought-climate-change-natural-resource-management-and-the-uprising/

  40. Water might bee the cause of Syrian war. Turkey has made some dams to store Eufrats water.

    The Swedish king would like to bring some peace to Syria- a few bathtubs of clean water-he never used the water.

  41. This is my letter to the editor, which will be printed in the Daily Telegraph today (so the editor said)……

    .

    Re: Prince Charles and the Syria War

    Dear Ed,

    Prince Charles says that Global Warming was a cause for the Syria war. Sorry, but this rumour is so untrue it has to be stopped now.

    Firstly, there has been no Global Warming for 18 years, and the present Syria dispute started in 2011. A steady world temperature cannot be blamed for something in 2011.

    Secondly, Assad’s father had exactly the same uprising with the same people back in 1982, and put it down in the same ruthless manner – the Hama massacre. Was that uprising caused by Global Warming? Really?

    Thirdly, this is actually a sectarian dispute that goes back 1,300 years. Why do you think the Syriac Christians have backed Assad all this time? Assad’s Alawites were no better than serfs and lived in the gutters of Syrian society for more than a thousand years, until put into power by the French in the early 20th century. The Sunnis have always resented that rise to power and wish to put the Alawites back in the gutters once more.

    This is the true reason for the Syrian civil-war, not a non-existent Global Warming. But how can Western leaders resolve this desperate situation, if they do not know what the problem is? Indeed, were their previous inept actions and inactions responsible for the situation in the first place?

    Ralph

  42. Charles is the worst nightmare of any royal family. He’s not mental enough to get locked away (like Ferdinand I of Austria or King Talal of Jordan), but he’s both feeble-minded and mad enough to do lots of damage to the monarchy.

  43. Global hysteria facilitated by the U.N., an unelected bunch of bureaucrats, (salaries tax free), an organisation which has long since outlived its usefulness. It should stick to issues such as infectious disease, vector born illness etc. and leave all else to the diplomats. Prince Charles is nothing more than a useful idiot, (Lenin).

  44. Newsflash folks:
    Climate change also caused the Persian Gulf War of the 1990’s.
    Step back just 18,000 years and there was no Persian Gulf.
    So – had the climate not changed via global warming and sea level rise – then no war.
    Well – maybe a war, but no gulf. So no gulf war.
    Speaking of gulfs – has anyone noticed the growing gulf between bullshit AGW memes and the reality of shit that is actually occurring all around us on planet earth.
    Here’s a BBC timeline on events in Syria, from the days before imbeciles decided that all problems could be blamed on the emergence of the world from the LIA.
    I previously thought that war, famine and pestilence were thought to be linked to periods of cold.
    This shit is simply embarrassing. Or at least it would be to a man who had not taken leave of his senses.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995

  45. I am a supporter of the monarchy (I am English), but truly I fear the succession of this foolish man. His absurd (and deeply reactionary) environmental views are only part of the problem.

    One of the titles that he will inherit is Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith), which refers to the monarch’s role as head of the Church of England. Charles has in the past suggested that this should be changed to Defender of the Faiths (I’m sure you can guess which other faith he has particularly in mind).

    Apart from the folly of pandering to the permanently offended, this shows that he has no understanding of the role he has to fill – none – despite having had decades to grasp it. His position in the Church of England is real – not some empty multiculti posturing.

  46. Who knows, maybe Charles will imitate one of his distant ancestors, Henry V. Henry V, or so Shakespeare tells us, set aside the follies of his youth when he became the king. Okay, Charles isn’t exactly a youth. As to Syria, I had the impression that there was a civil war going on that had nothing to do with terrorism, although Assad was accused of using certain methods which might be regarded as a form of terrorism. Then along came IS, ISIS, or whatever it’s called. They had nothing to do with the civil war but just wanted to impose their version of Islam on every body else. Is that anywhere near correct?

  47. OK so what Prince Charles said was ridiculous, but didn’t Barack Obama, Hilliary Clinton and Bernie Sanders say exactly the same thing? Prince Charles may be viewed as Forrest Gump, but Obama, Clinton and Sanders, what is their excuse?

  48. “Apart from the folly of pandering to the permanently offended, this shows that he has no understanding of the role he has to fill – none – despite having had decades to grasp it. His position in the Church of England is real – not some empty multiculti posturing”
    The monarch is required to maintain the posture and appearance of being ‘above the fray’. Unfortunately for Charles and even more unfortunately for his subjects Charles seems unable to do that, so we have the recurring spectacle of a man who merely parrots the politically correct banalities he’s learned from his friends and the circle of people with whom he associates.

    • British royals have had inbreeding problems for centuries (e.g., madness of King George III from the Hanover’s extreme inbreeding). Charles’ marriage to Di and Prince William’s to Kate bring needed diversity to their line. Just in time, because Charles’ behavior suggests the line line was played out.

  49. Charles is a true military genius; first he defeated the incursion of modern architecture in the UK and now he wants too take on climate change to stop the war in Syria. Amazing, truly amazing!!!!!! He has met the root cause and found out it’s ussssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss…..

  50. The next wave of European immigration to the U.S. will likely come from total collapse of leadership and policy direction there and yet another wave of voting with their feet. Call it Paradise Lost Part 3 or 4.

  51. Climate seems always to be responsible for catastrophes, but then it must also be responsible for all the normal conditions, but that story is never told.
    If you die at 60 it must be climate, if you die at 100 it is luck or other things. Strange how this climate works, it can only make things worse, never better.
    If that idea was developed in the litlle iceage (and worked as predicted) we could still be in the litlle iceage. What a terrible thaught.

  52. Could it possibly be water mismanagement? Turkey has dammed up the rivers, no-one has built reservoirs, water abstraction is rife. What do these have to do with climate change ??

  53. Worse drought years in Syria are the result of stronger or longer negative North Atlantic Oscillation episodes, that’s the wrong sign for increased greenhouse gases.

  54. The Eastern Mediterranean, Anatolia, Levant and Middle East have been severely affected by human-caused local climate change through deforestation over the centuries and not from any cause of modern fossil fuel use. Climate-alarmists should acknowledge that deforestation has been and is the greater threat to this planet and its biodiversity rather than focussing on fossil fuel use.

    Syria

    Syria was at one time an immense granary and largely a wooded area. According to historians, the region situated between the Euphrates and the Orontes was covered by a network of canals which connected the waters of these two rivers. But for a very long period the country was torn by the rivalries between the Sumerians, Chaldeans, Assyrians and Persians from the east, and the Greeks and Romans from the west. It was in Syria that orient and occident met, but met in fight and quarrel; it was the scene of wars in which Ummayads, Abbasids and Crusaders took a hand. The country finally passed under the sway of the Ottoman Empire in 1516, when Sultan Solim put an end to the rule of the Mamluks. The unsettled state had as one result the stripping of the tree cover – the natural protection once provided for the land; it prevented permanent cultivation, encouraged nomadism and drove people to seek refuge in remote mountain forests. Especially under Turkish rule, forests were looked upon as an inexhaustible supply of timber and fuelwood. The greatest damage was inflicted upon them by the construction of the Baghdad and Hedjaz railways, both of which were still operated with wood for fuel during the first world war.

    Final touches of forest destruction stemmed from the ravages of the second world war, during which pine forests were mutilated for the tobacco-curing industry and forest fires were set going as a protest against the foreign regime. Thus, until quite recently, the Jebel Balas and Jebel Abdul Aziz were covered with forests whose relics are still to be seen as single pistacias. The terribly eroded region west of the Latakia forest and south of Wadi Qandil is another tragic example of loss of soil fertility in less than two or three decades.

    Altogether, as in any other country of the Near East, the destruction of vegetation by man and animal has left its mark everywhere in Syria, from the remains of old Roman wine and olive presses in the Duma steppe to the heavy landslides on the barren hills around Latakia. This deterioration of the physical environment has already led to a marked drop in food production, resulting in even greater demand for forest land and thus establishing a vicious circle from which there seems to be little escape, unless land use is properly planned and good forestry carried out.
    (and-)
    Conclusion

    After all the evidence that has been considered, there is not the slightest doubt that the Near East once had many more forests than it has today. History provides this evidence. In most cases the progressive, and sometimes the complete, destruction of these forests has been the work of man. The often heard argument that .their dwindling has been caused by change of climate has some scientific basis, but at least within recorded history it may be categorically said that this is not so. The progressive destruction of the protective forest cover was done by man to his own impoverishment and has been the main cause of desiccation spreading over the lands of the Near East.
    http://www.fao.org/docrep/e3200e/e3200e03.htm

  55. I don’t think Charles is material for the throne or for empirical science, yet he sees them both as his destiny. Sad

Comments are closed.