Wednesday
Feb092011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill His rude highness
Feb 9, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Prince Charles has decided to step into the climate fray. This is excellent, because if there's one person you don't want on your side in a debate it's the heir to the throne. His speech was rather predictable stuff, demonstrating a shaky grasp of, well, pretty much everything. This, however, took my interest:
I have to say, this process has not exactly been helped by the corrosive effect on public opinion of those climate change sceptics who deny the vast body of scientific evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that global warming has been exacerbated by human industrialized activity.
We "deny" scientific evidence do we? Is that not an interesting turn of phrase for HRH to adopt?
Does he owe us an apology?
Reader Comments (102)
Chucky. You talk to your plants. Have you ever wondered why they grow better when you talk to them? It's because you are breathing CO2 onto them.
I think the magnetic poles have flipped;i.e., alarmists have now become the deniers.
Long live the Queen!
The Sultan of Wales expresses his views on science!! LOL
According to some histories, the last emperor of China ended up a gardener. I wonder if Chucky is preparing for the same fate?
I wonder if he has taken the "Rose Pruning" course given by the Sunday Times. Very good, I am told. Leave the second bud and all that, you know.
I think you all being very hard on poor Charles; he has had some excellent feedback from the flower beds , the tulips could not have been more in agreement with him. And according to him their never wrong .
More eloquent than i could ever be.
Ladies and gentlemen a classic,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
"Long live the Queen!"
OK. And then what?
"Long live King Charles"?
I think sporting occasions involving England may lack a certain atmosphere if, heaven forbid, he outlives his mother. I'm a confirmed republican (albeit not the US sort), but this dimwit enables me to sing our national anthem with genuine passion.
I guess I could make some snarky remarks about how the Irish got rid of the British Upper Class for good reason, but then I would have to explain Cowen, wouldn't I?
Or perhaps how the Americans got rid of their Upper Class, but then I would have to explain Bush, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.
You know, come to think of it, a king who talks to plants doesn't sound all that bad.
`GWUFNN` Tee hee!
That`s the captcha i had to enter,honest!
Acronyms anyone?The `u` and `f`` are tempting
.I think it`s`the theme of the alarmists over the last 12 months.
The shrill cries of `Global waarming!!` followed by a high pitched, almost silent
`ufnn` as scepticism swiftly plants it`s knee in the catastrophists plums.
I know.....picture or it didn`t happen.
I thought it was funny. I`ll take my bruises.
Again...with charles,dammit he talks to his plants,wanted us to live in thatched cottages and expressed a wish to be a tampon.
Thank you for your opinion your highness.
I kinda like the Prince of Wales. He's done lots of good for many young people with his Princes Trust, and he reminds me of Phil Jones and the Andrex puppy.
His grasp of Science maybe muddled, his organisational skills somewhat chaotic but his intentions are lovely. And those ears are so soft and cuddly.
Highness, get a grip on reality, however much your inner warmth coincides with the messages conveyed by today's coterie of Climate Scientists don't unquestionably accept their pontifications while naively ignoring their overwhelming dishonesty!
My reality and that of many and increasing others is simple. They've lost my trust as honest brokers. Over and over again I've experienced their spite, their scampering from public debate, their inability to answer simply posed scientific questions.
I have lost faith with the messengers and you are asking me to believe the message. AFAIK, I have no blue-blood in me but I'm not a moron. You're our next sovereign. You wannabe the captain in a ship of fools? You're a good bloke at heart, that I believe, but you need to exercise greater introspection.
Banjo, I could never figure out which one is Charles. Perhaps it is because he doesn't visit he doesn't visit this former colonial outpost often enough. Our loss, I suppose....
RayG
Dry,very dry;)
"Defender of Faith".
Nuff.
Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith
Two A Levels in History and French but despite only gaining grades of B and C he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge where he read anthropology, archaeology, and history. He graduated with a 2:2 Bachelor of Arts. So he is well set up to lecture us on Science!
His father must be so proud!
I'm no royalist (if they had any dignity, they would abdicate en mass) but I've always quite liked the old fool but he is batty. Anyway, OT but only just slightly, I was just listening to an article on the BBC World Service, where some organic farming lobby chap was demanding subsidies. He claimed that organic farming is more efficient (he didn't say precisely than what - tricky these mountebanks!). The interviewer quite rightly asked "If it's more efficient, why does it need to be subsidised?" His reply: "It's more efficient, but it needs more people."! Imbecile! Liar! Fraud!
@ Feb 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM | Fran Codwire: Maybe this should stand as a stark warning to why children should have a balanced input through their education.
I regard myself as somewhat of a skeptic. Someone who looks a bit swively-eyed at a proposal or hypothesis and plays devil's advocate. A little bit anti-establishment I guess, but in the main a polite and law-abiding bloke. Some of this is family traits, no doubt. But I think I owe a lot to the teachers of my day who did not quash my desire to drill down and find any inadequate logic. Curiosity was encouraged. Inquisitivity was rewarded with mentoring. The game, the joy, was learning. Hopefully, with guidance, learning the truth. Or at the very least being able to logically and forthrightly debate the issues. This is something which seems to me (a self-proclaimed skeptic) anathema to modern-day climate science. Long live the blogosphere! It is the new paradigm of free debate which the 'consensus crew' don't yet grasp.
So, hear hear Fran. Total agreement regards giving children a balanced input. I would add to your insightful comment that after balanced input, a child should be educated to develop and expound the views which they adopt, with enough humility of approach to be able to admit that their view is apt to correction if contrary evidence is shown. Again, this modus operandi stands in complete contrast to contemporary CACW proponents (and associated royalty/celebs/gravy-train addicts).
PC Personal Computer
PC Politically Correct
PC Prince Charles
PC Principal Component
PC Photo Conductive
PC Printed Circuit
PC Post Cibum (medical, after meals)
PC Parish Council
PC Parti Communiste (Communist Party)
PC Peace Corps
PC Percent
PC Photo Conductive
PC Police Constable
PC Pony Club
PC Post Card
PC Press Club
PC Prison Commission
PC Privileged Character
PC Privy Council
PC Program Counter
PC Progressive Conservative
PC Princess Camilla
One could write a story with a chapter on each of these.
I think HRH's "100 months to save the planet" is now in the 70s. Perhaps the end-of-days function is not linear, but one would think that Britain should be noticeably warmer by now.
@Geoff Sherrington
That's a pretty post-coital list!
"Long live the Queen!"
She's doing her best...
@ Geoff Sherrington
one more... PC (or PQ) Papier Cul (French)
(Translation - bogroll)
"the odd Aston Martin or two"
I shall sit up and take notice only when he (and Monbiot) buy a G-Wiz...
Posted in a later thread, but equally relevant:
Somebody needs to grab the lunatic Prince of Wales by what's left of his hair, bang his head a few times against a solid object, then subject him to a few of Joe Bastardi's videos. I doubt if anything will sink in, though, the royal idiot's a complete moron.
Sorry if that's a bit strong, but we all know it's true...
"Somebody needs to grab the lunatic Prince of Wales by what's left of his hair, bang his head a few times against a solid object, then subject him to a few of Joe Bastardi's videos. I doubt if anything will sink in, though, the royal idiot's a complete moron.
Sorry if that's a bit strong, but we all know it's true..."
Feb 10, 2011 at 10:30 AM | Natsman
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.
"Maybe your Clown Prince might like to have a look at this; 31000 scientists including 9000 PhDs reject Global Warming."
Feb 9, 2011 at 7:20 PM | RETEPHSLAW
Well if anyone wanted a good example of the utter failure of this website to be genuinely sceptical, then this is it. It's been 16 hours and 70 comments since this was posted, and not one commenter since has spoken up to condemn it.
Peter is referring to the Oregon Petition - the most discredited and worthless single petition in human history. And every single commenter since has not seen fit in any way to challenge Peter's comment, or point out the lack of value, and actual misleading nature, of the Oregon Petition.
This site can make no claims at all to being sceptical.
"the most discredited and worthless single petition in human history"
Nice to see you've not lost your sense of proportion, Zed.
James P
If you can point me to any petition in human history which has been more discredited, and exposed as having less worth, I'd be surprised.
Sorry if this offends any of our UK friends. I have to say that when watching all the hype etc which seems to constantly swirl about the royal family that they appear to me to be the world's best paid carnival act. Or perhaps circus act. The prince's opinions about science are to be accorded as much weight as those held by Lindsey Lohan, Charlie Sheen, Elizabeth Hurley or Hugh Grant.
Human history is a long time, Zed, and I doubt that even you know all of it, even if we limit it to the recorded bits.
A bit less hyperbole might help your case, although unless you're claiming that every one of the petitioners was bogus, it still presents a problem for the AGW faithful
Here's someone who's thought about it:
Patrick Moore (no, not that one)
ZDB: "the most discredited and worthless single petition in human history."
We've told you a million billion times, Zed.. don't exaggerate!
:o)
Out of 31,000 names there were bound to be quite a few that were made up. For example, I enlisted as a supporter of the 10:10 campaign, to see what they were up to, and gave my name as Seoto Isgude (Geddit?). They still send me emails, the last saying that Fran is taking time off to have a baby. I hope she is using re-usable nappies, the throw away ones are a major landfill issue.
@ stan "(...) . The prince's opinions about science are to be accorded as much weight as those held by Lindsey Lohan, Charlie Sheen, Elizabeth Hurley or Hugh Grant."
Less disrespect please.
Do you have any valid reason for denigrating the opinions on science of these esteemed actors and actresses? No, I thought not.
Indeed, Lindsey Lohan probably knows quite a lot about chemistry, well chemical stimulants at least.
ZDB,
Except for the phony names AGW believers used to sign the petition, it is at least as credible as any petition open to general science workers that is regularly offered up from the left.
But hey, if you couldn't misrepresent reality what would you have left to talk about?
Hunter
If you genuinely belive that, then you don't know the first thing about the Oregon Petition. It's an utterly derelict piece of work. Do you actually think it has some value?
Just goes to show that heredity is a poor predictor of ability.
Prince Charles is a classic example that academic achievement is not a measure of intelligence.
[venting]
[venting]
Do you want to challenge the credentials of these people as well ZDB? Back to your D.M. club with your rubbish!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/truthaboutclimatechangeopenletter.pdf
Gees Zed, 31,000 scientist with over 9,000 PHDs sign a petiton stating CAGW needs to drop the C and understand the benefits of CO2. And you find this worthless because a few names (very few) were duplicated or overlapped. are you saying they are all forged, or the scientist did not know what they were signing, or that scientist spout opinions all the time without any research? You are making assertions with no evidence.
Deadhead's claim to fame elsewhere is spouting that "95% of 'climate scientists' agree with CAGW", the actual figure in total, of course, being nearer 75 individuals, and even the integrity of some of those is dubious. So he has a very long way to go to wade through the list of 31,000-odd who disgree, and find fault. No contest, I think.
Feb 11, 2011 at 10:38 AM | Natsman
Wrong as ever Chris, and indulging in some lovely name-calling I see, how perfectly charming. Firstly, the figure is not 95%, it's 97%. Secondly, I take it you've never read Anderegg (2010) on the subject. That 75 figure is one that just floats round crank messageboards as a way to try and attack the overwhelming scientific consensus. Without of course producing any papers which give a different figure for the percentage amongst climate scientists. Do you have a paper like that Chris? I thought not.
Pete H - do you think the petition you're linking to is the Oregon Petition? If so, you're wrong. If not, then you're trying to cover for the weaknesses of that petition by changing the subject.
David - if you think the only weaknesses of the Oregon Petition are a few duplicated/overlapped names, then you don't know very much about it.
Don't feed the troll.
Jack Cowper
Making legitimate points and trolling are very different things. This is meant to be a sceptical site - applying scpeticism to it should be welcomed.
When I see that phrase used about me around here, it's normally a backhanded compliment after a valid point made.
The constant name calling you used before being told to stop or you would be banned - tells me all I need to know about you.
Jack Cowper.
What an absolutely ridiculous comment.