Thursday
Feb102011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More Chuck
Feb 10, 2011 Climate: HSI The Express covers Prince Charles' speech to the European Parliament yesterday. Yours truly is quoted as follows:
Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, which seeks to debunk climate change science, said: “It isn’t sceptics who have eroded public opinion – climate scientists have destroyed their own credibility by hyping global warming and cheating the scientific process. More hype from Prince Charles will merely turn people off further.”
Hmm. I specifically say that The Hockey Stick Illusion doesn't disprove the global warming hypothesis. It's a pity they didn't check this with me.
Reader Comments (22)
Whilst I can understand the offense on being taken out of context by The Express, the sight of Chuckles in the amiable company of van Rompuy, the man who seeks to destroy him and those who sails with him, fills me with bile.
Your Grace, Yes, I too can see your point, but it's not as if the HSI supports or corroborates climate change science. At least the Express sought a contrarian view, and your quote is a good one. Considering how journalists can treat some individuals and subjects, you probably got off lightly.
"The Hockey Stick Illusion, which seeks to debunk climate change science"
Not totally accurate but not too bad either (if you compare it with inaccuracies that you see every day in the press). If they'd said "to debunk some flaky climate change science", it would have been spot on.
The AM quote is great.
Prince Charles? Up-chuck!
3 Wheels on my Chuck Wagon and I'm just rolling along.
[Snip venting]
Sorry if that's a bit strong, but we all know it's true...
Something happened to my posting on the Steig thread last night so with apologies I'll repost here. And if I have time I will try to send the "answer to the Gang of 18" letter to the Prince if I can. Though I thoroughly deplore his climate science stance, I do have sympathies with him in most other ways. (But I won't start on homeopathy again here. Am reading Ben Goldacre so I know both sides hehe.) Here's my post then:
Bishop, thank you for that beautifully simple explanation [re RyanO on Steig].
Lapogus, thank you for that link to the brilliant Dr Noor van Andel at Jo Nova. It brings me another step further towards grasping Miskolczi. I'm sure M's correct as well as brilliant himself, with the degree of fit he has with the RealData, but the theory and maths does my head in so I cannot - yet - refute his refuters :)
Fernbeagle, your genius is showing, very well done. Hope your Steig gets posted here, WUWT, whatever.
Wow, what exalted company I find myself in tonight. Thank you all, your RealHighnesses (curtseys, well, I cannot tug forelock!) Who'd be anything but a climate sceptic these days.
We sceptics need Prince Charles - he is a god send in this debate - for every time he utters a word on Global Warming people turn more sceptical.
Prince Charles on London. An important message for the future....
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
[Quoting venting]
Wasn't there a thread recently discussing those wishing violence upon others in discussing climate change? Well it seems to be alive and well and represented on the Bishop Hill website. Lots of lovely name-calling too.
[BH adds. Gone now]
[Snip - quoting venting]
It is the case, is it not, that the Windsors stand to do very well indeed from off-shore wind power:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall--owns-seabed.html
For that sort of money, even I'd probably change my tune. Or has the DM got it wrong?
** If I may say so, Fenbeagle, those are super cartoons.
I understand that when Prince Charles goes skiing in Switzerland, he has his valet drive his Aston Martin there while he himself flies. This is so that, if he wants to drive while he's there, he can do so. Afterwards, his valet drives it back again.
He also enthusiastically endorses organic farming. The yields from organic farming are at least 20% lower than from conventional farming using modern fertilisers and pesticides. Prince Charles is thus in favour of scarcer, more expensive food.
This man then lectures others about their failure to respect the environment or to consider others' future.
Link re organic yields
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2017094.stm
Link re fuel economy of an Aston Martin Vantage
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/5547/prince-charles-goes-ultra-bourgeois-converts-aston-martin-to-run-on-white-wine
Charles' car does 11.8 miles to the gallon.
ksssh ksh
chuck back in his basket !
or he gets no royal dotations this year.
Getting regular updates about the thoughts and deeds of HRH Chucky while I am temporarily residing in London makes me realise just how divorced from reality he is and how little us former colonials at t'other ends of the world get to see an accurate and rounded picture of him. He has proved over the years that he has a very faint grasp of science, ethics and morality but is a very smart operator when it comes to furnishing nests for himself and his family members. His 'Duchy Originals' business is a very smart piece of marketing of his heritage, but the quality of the products frequently do not match the image.
His notion of a reasonable 'carbon footprint', which is a ridiculous concept in itself, proves that he has no concept of the straightened circumstances the majority of his subjects are forced to tolerate.
You do have to wonder about someone who gets a right royal (oh - I must get over myself) rakeoff from any offshore wind farms, as they are on territory owned by the Crown.
Another one approved yesterday I see - in the Humber estuary. Don't you just love contributing to these useless eyesores via Renewable Obligation Certificates..??
David, wash your mouth out =)
It's pure coincidence that His Royal Tufu-Jihadist'ness is almost uniquely placed to coin in the filthy eco-lucre if climate catastrophism wins the argument.
Coincidence of the most pure and innocent kind.
Am I alone in thinking that Charles is at risk of bringing the Royal Family into disrepute and is further illustrating his unsuitability to replace his mother as our monarch. He has always sought to be controversial but really this goes too far.
As for Ugo Bardi, Stefano Caserini, Guido Barone and the other Italian academics who have criticized your work it would be interesting if you were to ask them if they have actually read the book. I think I know the answer. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Late to this but agree with lapogus and Martin A that this is far from a disaster.
First, very good, snappy quote from Andrew Montford, complementing Benny Peiser's longer critique of Charles very nicely. Very significant, surely, that these were the two voices the Express felt were needed for balance, in addition to the Prince's. I know it's not the Guardian but for me that's major.
With that as context, I'm inclined to give them a free pass too on "author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, which seeks to debunk climate change science". What should have happened with THSI and with the original critique of the Hockey Stick by McIntyre and McKitrick is that climate science should have distanced itself at once from such bad method and shoddy data. But climate science as popularly known (with the glowing exception of Judy Curry, who says she only really understood when she read the book) refused to do this. So I think it's perfectly fair to say, now, that the book "seeks to debunk climate change science". That's their decision, not yours, in other words. And what a stupid decision.
Chuckles puts his mouth where his money is. Very soon after Climategate broke he hurried to UEA to give Jones & his merry team his fulsome support.
It seems likely that he put a word in for Napier to get a CBE. No doubt Jones's gong will be in the pipeline.
With all due respect, it's hard to see that he's 'damaging his reputation' as Peiser suggests because, like the 'Climate Scientists', he has no reputation capable of being damaged.
And in fairness, truth (and Science) were early victims in this war. Whilst the public at large are getting increasingly sceptical (and certainly bored!) about cAGW, the political 'elite' (including Chuckles, the Archbishop of Canterbury and many others that should have the sense to keep clear) is almost monolithically supportive of this scam.
No doubt eventually the truth will out but I still think that this is many years away and that the damage done by the ecoloons will be incalculable.
I've just been listening to Feedback on BBC Radio 4. A listener objected to a mention of Duchy Originals Shortbread on The Archers. "Blatant product placement", she said. "Lighthearted banter", said a spokesperson, "But it won't happen again."