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.
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
Bang on the nail!!!!
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.
Charles has indicated that he does not want to be the King.
Prince Charles has a 2:2 History degree from Trinity College, Cambridge (32 Nobel Prizes so far, 30 excluding Literature and Economics, 5 working at Trinity in 2012). Alumni; Newton, Maxwell, Babbage, Rutherford, Bohr, Thompson, Bragg (both), Huxley, Wittgenstein, Russell …(look them up!)
30 Nobel Prizes excluding Literature and Peace, sorry. There are about 660 undergraduates so quite a high strike rate.
Not the shallow end. the gene pool dried up before he arrived. not only that but he is an uncouth slob who insulted his betters by referring to them as headless chickens and the not apologising when he subsequently admitted that they were right when the hundred months was rescheduled to 35 years. We were clearly right to dismiss the hundred months prediction by climate scientists as one by deluded bigots or morons.
NigelS … big deal, even Obama got a Nobel for doing sweet FA.
David Cage:
Please explain what you think your post added to this thread other than the knowledge that you are a sad act.
Richard
Streetcred November 24, 2015 at 1:26 am: NigelS … big deal, even Obama got a Nobel for doing sweet FA.
I discounted the Literature and Peace prizes as you can see. Can you name me any other university college with less than 700 undergraduates and a simlar record?
Nigel S,
The one next door:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John%27s_College,_Cambridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alumni_of_St_John%27s_College,_Cambridge
Rutherford was a Kiwi, just on loan to the motherland.
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).
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?
Vivat Regina!
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
Perhaps Charlie’s been on an OU anti CO2 propaganda course. Plenty of those about, sadly. My sister enrolled on one of their FutureLearn courses recently. It was supposed to be about math, but somehow they’ve managed to bring AGW into it, big time. . Really brainwashing the poor students.
Jay Hope,
I think he channels Jonathan Porritt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Porritt
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.
Ditto. X 1000.
May QE-II live 10,000 years.
g
Yeah, those radical Muslims were pacifists back in the day before the climate changed.
Ever wonder why the Marines Hymn has the words “to the shores of Tripoli”?
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?
Can’t have trade if you don’t leave home. Can’t have trade if pirates steal your goods and enslave your sailors.
http://www.faversham.org/history/wall_plaques_-_people/Michael_Greenwood.aspx
See also Barbary pirate raids on 17th C England.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml
jon, do you have to go so far out of your way to display your ignorance?
Barbary pirates.
The international trade in camels hasn’t been red hot.
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.
Prince Chucky makes me want to upchuck my dinner !!!
me too
Here’s to hoping that Elizabeth outlives here idiot son.
her, not here
Here here, or is it, hear hear! 🙂
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.
Oops….I meant a bright side, not bring side.
… 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
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.
Richard’s earlier comment to which he links above is very informative and clear. I learned a lot and recommend it to everyone who is not up to date on the subject.
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
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.
I add that Porrit is a rich, titled, landowner who is described on wicki and and operates his own blog.
Richard
Thanks Richard – and yes, I note your description of Mr Porritt! Apt, perhaps, is an understatement! 🙁
“… 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.
Why not; it’s at night that we need the electricity.
g
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.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall Prince Charles, heir to the British throne
Is he by gum?
What a difference (lack of) a comma, makes.
Don’t need commas in this texting wirld.
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.
Diesel fueled flying carpets ???
Good point.
Historical novels and history books are a good source of climate (weather) information.
Thank you Janice. Those verses have been on my mind for some time.
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?
Considering Australian politicians perhaps a reasonably (although wrong it this case) intelligent and connected royal would be a better choice.
Personally I don’t favour Australia becoming a republic but I have to admit the spectre of Prince Charles accession to the throne certainly is a compelling argument.
But Charles has some competition in the royal hypocrite stakes, it seems this bloke in Sweden, King Carl XVI Gustaf could give him a run for his money?
Bob, do they still make Castlemaine XXXX?
He is indeed fond of gardening but did you know he maintains that he improves the health of his plants by talking to them? There is no record of him ever receiving a reply.
That record has been expunged!
Why, do you think there’s a cigarette paper’s worth of difference between him and Turnbull?
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.
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.
Travel will cure your ignorance some. Fun too.
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.
I would hazard a guess that “republican” in the UK means someone who wants to get rid of the monarchy and install a republic.
I see I was too late – typing while MCourtney already posted the definitive answer.
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. 😎
In the US, your “Monarchs” can do a maximum of two terms. They rarely try to bypass parliament.
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.”)
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,
A good patriotic statement by you.
John
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
roadcultural motif less traveled and it made all the difference**.** apologies to Robert Frost for paraphrasing his wonderful poem ‘The Road Not Taken’.
John
There is a drought in central Queensland. No one sees Queenslanders starting a war.
Except at State of Origin time.
Let’s see….. what did Lenin call them?….. useful idiots.
In Charles case, useless idiot!
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.
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,
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
Don’t forget Diana confessed to adultery too.
Knutsfordian on November 23, 2015 at 5:05 pm
– – – – – – –
Was it a response to Charles’s dishonorable unfaithfulness?
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
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: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/16/green-tech-and-the-climate-crisis-syndicate/#comment-2073062
Your Ally for Truth in Science,
Janice
Further to that, Harrow, is Ozzie Zehner’s lecture here:
“Solar Panels and Other Fairy Tales”
(youtube)
Germany has already seen the light:
Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and inefficient.
(Bjørn Lomborg here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html )
Lived in Dubai. Hot, humid and more dust than you can believe. Really sucks actually.
Thanks, Janice
My pleasure, Catcrackin’ (just felt like it — heh, had NO idea what your name meant, so I just looked it up and found this: http://catcracking.com/ — GOOD FOR YOU TO PROMOTE THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY! Thanks largely to it — we no longer live in hovels, eking out a living on 5 acres with one poor old horse pulling the plow, a cow, and some chickens. And not — much — else.
Lol — glad I did look that up. My guess was TOTALLY wrong. I thought it meant something along the lines of: “Well, jimmy crack corn, we sure is havin’ a cat crackin’ good time at this here hog callin’ contest.”
#(:))
Hi Janice,
Many thanks for the llnk to Ozzie’s lecture, very illuminating. So it’ll be interesting to see what comes of this mega-project and whether we will ever hear the true outcome
Harrow sceptic
Thanks for this link. Really cool stuff.
They can always use camel dung at night.
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?
Fresh water is a key problem for the Middle East and N. Africa.
…and California, so we are spending billions building a fast train.
How well does Prince Charles know Bernie Sanders?
I think they were separated at birth
lol
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.
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.
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
I never knew ENSO causes wars.
You’re welcome.
He’s been in the junior varsity for too long. Or not long enough.
==============
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.
Read the rest of the quote;
… we never deal with the underlying root cause which regrettably is what we’re doing to our natural environment.
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.
In last week’s Saturday Summary, Bastardi shows that there hasn’t been any drought in Syria in the past 5 years.
http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-november-14-2015
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
Thanks Anthony, I saw that and Bastardi showed that the precipitation for Syria for the last 5 years was normal (average). Facts are your friend.