JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Prince Charles says headless chickens should have more blind trust in science

“Baffled”

Switch off your brain, Prince Charles has said you are a headless chicken if you do not accept what political committees tell you to think.

PRINCE Charles has called people who deny human-made climate change a “headless chicken brigade” who are ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence.

Thus Chicken Little yells “headless chickens”, and climate sensitivity must be 3.3C. Right?

The heir to the throne, a dedicated environmentalist, accused “powerful groups of deniers” of mounting “a barrage of sheer intimidation” against opponents.

So one of the richest men in the world, future ruler of nations, feels bullied by unfunded volunteers? Such bravery from our next Head of State. (I’m not Monarchist or Republican, but if Charles keeps talking, that could change.)

This is the same old argument: authorities want us to believe authority, while stupid punters ask for data instead.

Using all the inductive reasoning he could muster, Charles admits he cannot figure out why everyone does not accept the pronouncements of people who hide declines, data, emails and methods:

Charles said it was “baffling … that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science”.

We can only assume this eloquence and insight is a product of the best education the British Isles establishment could offer. That’s not just one, but two forms of namecalling, you headless chicken deniers. How could you possibly disagree?

 

Photo: Wikimedia Image Dan Marsh.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (164 votes cast)
Prince Charles says headless chickens should have more blind trust in science, 9.2 out of 10 based on 164 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p7jv8wz

304 comments to Prince Charles says headless chickens should have more blind trust in science

  • #
    Vic G Gallus

    You would think that since he studied some science (does archaeology count?) that he would know that the difference between pontificating and science is second guessing.

    261

    • #
      Sonny

      “Headless chickens”?

      A headless chicken a creature who will still run around frantically for a while after its head has
      been lopped off. It will only fall once every last morsel of blood has been drained from its body.

      This description is far more accurate to describe the hysterical alarmist scientists who despite having the head chopped off their CAGW theory by the razor sharp sword of observational evidence combined with logic, still continue to run amock.

      The only difference is even though they are walking dead they don’t lose blood but rather suck it from everyone else.

      531

      • #
        Mortis

        Excellent analogy

        150

      • #
        Jimbo

        Yet he ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence against his beloved homeopathy.
        http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hes-at-it-again-prince-charles-accused-of-lobbying-health-secretary-over-homeopathy-8723145.html

        He says we should listen to the climate experts. I wonder if that is such a good idea.

        __________________
        National Geographic – 12 December 2007
        “NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”
        [Dr. Jay Zwally - NASA]
        __________________
        BBC – 12 December 2007
        Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
        [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
        __________________
        National Geographic News – 20 June 2008
        North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer
        “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.
        [Dr. David Barber]
        __________________
        Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
        “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
        [Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
        __________________

        Prince Charles Eco Hypocrite
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhpNJAKq7dE
        http://youtu.be/zhpNJAKq7dE

        290

        • #

          Great point, Jimbo, about the homeopathy. Granted that there are those that are able to make a case for homeopathy, but it’s not accepted by the mainstream. In fact, according to the link you give: the Uk’s “new chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, dismissed homeopathy as nonsense [yet} Prince Charles is a long-term advocate of homeopathy [that wants to] force through a register of practitioners of herbal and Chinese medicine.”

          Clearly, in the case of the Headless Chicken Little Charles, the science is a matter of convenience. Why is the supposed science so paramount in the case of agw, but easily dismissed with homeopathy? Why does Charles ignore the scientific objections to homeopathy, but dismiss the clearly credible objections to his climate science? Why does Charles not even give a moments notice to the 17 years of no warming, to the record ice extent or growth at both poles, to the hockey stick’s debunking, and to the falsification of the ipcc’s contention of a causal correlation between CO2 and temperature?

          Yeah, because for Charles it about his feelings or politics, not science. What the Headless Chicken Little Brigade is spouting as unimpeachable is actually little more than propaganda, camouflaged by a veneer of carefully crafted science “science.” Yes, because in their own words, as lead ipcc author Steven Schneider said: “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” How is it credible science when the leaders of the ipcc “brigade” have declared publicly and explicitly that they should make up “scary scenarios” and not be honest about it? Honestly, that’s not credible. Or we have a leftist politician like the US senator Tim Wirth in 1973 saying: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” That was broadcast to all the scientists and politicians and little people like Prince Charles. Honestly, how in the world can we accept their science as in any way credible when it is generally accepted that the proponents of agw should push warming for political reasons, regardless of the science? IT IS NOT CREDIBLE SCIENCE. Period.

          200

        • #

          A significant correction to my post above. The US senator Tim Wirth said in 1993 (not 1973!) that “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”

          Of course we got tons of similar quotes, with top climate “scientists” or people of authority suggesting that the (leftist) politics should override any purported climate science.
          “No matter if the science is all phoney…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” -Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister
          “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.” -David Rockefeller, Club of Rome
          “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” -Richard Benedik, U.N. / U.S. Bureaucrat
          “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Enironmental Studies, UCSB
          “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

          170

        • #
          mullumhillbilly

          Perhaps the effect of toxic gullibility can be cured by a small additional dose of gullibility. “Charlie, it’s no problem. Just exhale and all will be will. The homeopathic principle will ensure that the infinitisimally small extra amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere is a powerful cure for Gaia’s fever. Remember to breathe. Om. “

          70

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          British royalty have a long history of support for homeopathy:

          http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/rlhh.htm

          Morrell’s site has a wealth of information on the history of homeopathy, plus other curious material.

          00

    • #
      Jon

      How can he as a possible future king take a narrow position in politics?

      He should have said that we live in a democracy and that everybody is entitled to his own opinion.

      Me think with that kind of behavior in politics he can never be a proper king for all the British people and should step aside in stead of embarrassing the British monarchy and most of the British people.

      101

  • #
    Star Craving Engineer

    Could he really believe that? This guy has access to the best science advisers that money can buy. Has nobody ever whispered to him, “Did you know, the CO2 follows the temperature?” (your epiphane Jo IIRC), nor shown him a series of paleotemperature graphs at timescales ranging from hundred through hundreds of millions of years (my epiphany).

    We’re in an ice age, due or overdue for the next glaciation. How could he not know that, I knew it before I got to 6th grade.

    411

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Put it this way. David Bellamy, a long time acquaintance of the D of E, was recently invited to attend a briefing at Buck House. Shortly before the function was due, Bellamy was disinvited, apparently through Chuck’s office. Someone is controlling our future King’s access to information that might make him think. No wonder folk are pushing for the Monarchy to skip a generation.

      610

      • #
        cohenite

        This is really relevant. This guy will succeed to the throne. His arrogance and let’s face it, condescension, will undo all the good Madge has done and Dianna’s 2 sons have contributed to.disappear in grey goo due to nano-technology.

        Charles is also a disciple of Ehrlich and Malthus.

        He is an opponent of consumerism which places him in the same league as Gore for hypocrisy, and he thinks Islam has the answer to the world’s environmental problems.

        This guy is a serious idiot with, as usual, wealth and cache to influence the fellow weak-minded people who subscribe to AGW and Ludditism essentially.

        And he will be King.

        400

      • #
        James (Aus.)

        Kevin, the guy is lazy.

        Charles has “advisors”, and therein lies the problem. It’s much less effort to listen to a long line of eco-nutters than to sit down and start some serious research; with science it’s the willingness to start looking for evidence (papers) which doesn’t support your favourite hypothesis but Charles just doesn’t bother. Too hard, too disturbing.

        His disgraceful appearance at the Univ. of Essex after Climate-gate was serious sidling up to his sleazy advisors.

        The same goes for religious faith; his spiritual advisors (and there have been a notable trail of weirdos) fill in the vacuum so readily apparent.

        This latest insult to the sort of people whom he may need one day is rank stupidity; when the tomatoes start flying he’ll come over all surprised. And who will give a toss..

        160

      • #
        Carbon500

        Perhaps Prince Charles needs to have an audience with Lord Monckton?

        71

        • #
          Hans Jelbring

          A very good idea since he might be inclined to listen to another
          aristocrat who happens to be talented and understands what is included in science and requested by scientists.

          00

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Unfortunately Charlieboy was not blessed with too much grey matter and has a compulsive need to interfere in matters in which he has no knowledge, just opinions. The situation is so bad that letters of his to various ministers have had to be classified ‘secret, do not disclose for xx years.”

      http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CHQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2Fprince-charles%2F9612471%2FSeven-year-battle-to-win-disclosure-of-Prince-of-Wales-letters-to-Government-ministers.html&ei=0LrsUvCEBvLe7AaBi4HYBQ&usg=AFQjCNFJvBLxBezQ6C4V0cJz0C_i6jJgKg

      Not surprisingly, a large percentage of the UK’s population want the crown to skip a generation, so when the Queen dies, the future King would be William. Maybe, I do not know enough people, but I know of no one who disagrees with that concept.

      Then there is the notorious tampon affair, the talking to plants, the grasping employer and landlord (Duchy of Cornwall) etc. It is difficult to hold the heir apparent in any sort of esteem and sadly almost every time he opens his mouth to opine on something, he swells the ranks of the anti-monarchists.

      I am a great believer in a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has only one power and that is to dissolve parliament – I understand this can sometimes be a touchy subject in Australia. Also, the monarchy is a terrific boost to the UK through tourism.

      If Charles would stick to his role of being a kindly old duffer and keep his unsought opinions to himself, he would be hugely more popular.

      460

      • #
        Joe V.

        constitutional monarchy where the monarch has only one power and that is to dissolve parliament –

        Where would Democracy be without Ctrl-Alt-Delete on its constitutional keyboard ?

        60

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        Unfortunately Charlieboy was not blessed with too much grey matter

        Exactly. The “best education the British Isles establishment could offer” is no match for the inferior genetic product of serial inbreeding.

        180

      • #
        Hans Jelbring

        You say: “I am a great believer in a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has only one power and that is to dissolve parliament”
        Sweden is a constitutional monarchy where our king (or Queen) cannot dissolve the parliament. He is not allowed to express political opinions or preferences. Still, he is expressing his opinionins about CAGW which is similar to what prince Charles is claiming.

        It is probably beneficial for Swedish citizens to let this situation prevail for a number of reasons despite that his opinions will be misused as “appeal to authority” by warmers and other special interest groups.

        00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Reed Coray

    Australia has Tim Flannery. The US had Al Gore. It’s nice to hear from England’s entry in the my-idiot-can-beat-your-idiot race. I wonder what the odds are on each contestant?

    800

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    PRINCE Charles has called people who deny human-made climate change a “headless chicken brigade” who are ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence.

    Well I’m safe, I do believe in human-made climate change, Expanding cities, changing land use and other similar human activity all change climate at the local level.

    Then there’s data manipulation to get the right results, take your pick on which one creates the more headless chickens.I know which one I prefer.

    480

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Well if anyone is justified to make comments on beheading it’s Charles, going by the family history…

    280

    • #
      Turtle of WA

      You’re not suggesting that the future Charles III should go the same way as the first of his name, are you?

      130

    • #
      Turtle of WA

      Charles I believed in the divine right of kings – the notion that the king is chosen by god to rule with absolute Authority. It’s similar to the Divine right of Alarmists, whereby the representatives of absolute scientific Authority are chosen by Gaia.

      220

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Actually, Charles is from an entirely different royal family.

      But I was amused by your segway. :)

      20

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        I watched the “White Queen” and read up on the “War of the Roses”. All I can say is that I do not see how anyone can claim it was a “different” family! They are more intertwined than a Gordian knot!

        00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The guy claims to be related to Vlad the Impaler… AND he regularly visits Transylvania.

      He makes jokes redundant.

      70

  • #

    25% of his future “subjects” now live in fuel poverty. Youth unemployment is rife. Because of sky high energy costs, manufacturing is moving abroad. The list goes on but all the result of inbreeding can talk about is saving the planet.

    Pointman

    710

  • #

    Try googling Crown estate wind farms site:uk or just Duchy Cornwall wind farms site:uk

    Charles should put a sock in it, stick to growing cattle and rhubarb.
    Now they are planning to cover mid-Wales with turbines. I helped build a few in that area. 3m high vertical shaft, 12/24v. One of the options if customers were 10+ poles away from a supply. Difficult to keep them turning in the winter though. The better exposed to constant wind, the more likely to ice up.
    I close by quoting the comment shouted by some of my neighbours when he got off the train at Builth Road:
    “You’re not Prince of Wales – p!$$ off back to England”.

    380

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      “You’re not Prince of Wales – p!$$ off back to England”
      … but then the sheep-botherers have been saying that since the 13th Century :)

      120

    • #
      MurrayA

      “Charles should put a sock in it, stick to growing cattle and rhubarb.”
      I’m not sure which is more smelly: the air from a cow, or that from Charles’ mouth? As for growing rhubarb, presumably he grows it to eat: rhubarb in, rhubarb out!

      30

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Don’t expect too much from someone who once declared that his greatest longing in life is to become an in-service tampon. Chuck has a lot of financial skin in the game. Chuck and his Mom stand to lose big time when the subsidies fall away from renewable energy.

    380

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    What a nitwit. No wonder his mom won’t let him play king.

    I suppose he has never heard of Helicobacter pylori and the Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall. To name one instance.

    230

    • #
      • #

        #8 “The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly,”
        Just add some blind faith and the problem is solved!

        40

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        #1 “Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion” was immediately given the cold shoulder by virtually everybody and was in the headlines for only a few days.

        At the time, we joked at work about “the latest from the Melvin Dummar Institute of Technology.”

        20

      • #
        Peter C

        Climate Change Theory has not yet made it into the top 10. However there is room at spot number two, since the Expanding Universe theory (Big Bang) Is in some trouble at the present time.

        Red shift may not be a manifestation of the Doppler Effect after all. Maybe it is caused by gravitational slowing of light or some other effect.

        Watch this space!

        10

        • #
          Sonny

          Peter c, good point but old news.
          Big Bang is just another hilariously failed theory that has always been pure conjecture and as you point out is based on an observational misunderstanding. It’s adoption into “settled science” can be explained by its usefulness in rejecting creationism.

          In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded into something.

          Wht a joke.

          20

        • #
          Hans Jelbring

          At least the existence of a “friction” slowing down the frequence of photons (but not the speed) has not been disproved.
          There can exist a physical friction mechanism which would produce an effect identical to the Doppler red shift but not to the Doppler blue shift.

          00

  • #
    Andrew

    Unfortunately he’s (at least in part) a product of the Australian education system. Which does explain a few things.

    Did he happen to comment on people who DO believe that the historical temp record coupled with known properties of CO2 imply a likely causal relationship – far smaller than the climate sensitivity previously claimed by scientifically untrained environmental campaigners? Or who have no problem with claimed climate sensitivity but consider most of the “abatement” activity misguided, counterproductive and in many cases actually net CONTRIBUTORS to emissions? (For example, taxing to death the Australian processing of Australian alumina, ensuring it is now shipped to China for processing using Australian coal in a non-Kyoto country.) His dad, for example, identified windfarms as “absolutely useless.” Is that view OK, provided he didn’t express an actual view on climate sensitivity? Indeed, HRH himself described them as a “horrendous blot on the landscape.”

    Did he disclose a conflict of interest in that his family makes millions from leasing land to windmills, notwithstanding that he considers them enviro-criminals?

    80

  • #
    Jaymez

    In March 2009 Prince Charles told 200 business leaders in Rio de Janeiro that the world has “less than 100 months” to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.

    This is the same guy who promotes the efficacy of homoeopathy even though Britain’s National Health Scheme confirm it has no scientific basis:

    “There have been several reviews of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said there is no evidence that homoeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.”

    This is the same guy who told his then lover Camilla in 1991 in a tapped phone call “I want to be reincarnated as a tampon and live inside your trousers forever”

    I’m not sure anyone takes Prince Charles seriously and the Queen is just hoping she can hang on long enough to see him drop off the perch because she knows the Monarchy will end if it is in his hands.

    220

    • #
      Bones

      Jaymez,people always say you are not supposed to outlive your children,so the Queen will be starting a new trend.As for the tampon thing,have the royal family not been brought up to date on personal hygiene.
      The royal family may be waking up to the fact that the a;se is dropping out of the carbon market and renewable investment and are trying to talk it up to cut their losses.

      90

  • #
    JLC

    He’s a nitwit.

    160

  • #

    Long live the Queen.

    362

    • #
      David

      At least for a couple of weeks after Charles goes to meet his Anglican Maker.

      I’m an unashamed Constitutional Monarchist and sincerely trust that William is the next Sovereign.

      142

      • #
        The Griss

        The republican movement will get a huge boost if Charlie is the next king.

        Maybe we should elect S-H-Y as GG.

        90

        • #
          Dave

          The Griss,

          But won’t this make Malcolm (I want to be President) Turnbull face the biggest conundrum of his life?

          40

      • #
        The Griss

        “sincerely trust that William is the next Sovereign”

        Yep, The only thing can save the monarchy is for Charlie to be bypassed.

        The Queen, is cool by me, but Charles as king (note the lower case).. I will turn radically for a republic.

        130

      • #
        Peter C

        Sadly I have to agree,

        And to think that he was partly educated here in Australia at Geelong Grammar (Timbertop).

        Oh the shame!

        50

    • #
      Sean

      down with the monarchy

      32

  • #
    RoHa

    Bother! I’ve been ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence. Could you show me where it is, please, so that I can stop ignoring it?

    350

  • #

    “I’m not Monarchist or Republican, but if Charles keeps talking, that could change.” What Charles’s ravings show is, it doesn’t matter. He’s no worse than elected politicians. See Hobbes’ “Leviathan” (1660).

    100

    • #
      Greebo

      He’s no worse than elected politicians

      While I take your point, I have to disagree here. He is much worse, on the simple principle that he is unelected. Means we can’t get rid of him, short of becoming a Republic, and we all know how that can go, or how it could have gone.

      Like David above, I am also an unashamed Monarchist. Charles may have made a good king, if he had ascended when he was young. He wouldn’t have had time to wander in the bottom of the garden with the fairies.

      Seems his views haven’t changed.

      It’s a pity the Crown gave up so much of it’s power. Charles is a great candidate for the Tower, in my view, but, sadly, that doesn’t happen anymore.

      30

  • #
    Skitz

    Always thought he was a complete Bozo ! This just confirms emphatically what I believed.

    160

  • #
    Ian H

    Prince Charles: An excellent argument for republicanism.

    122

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Sadly, you’re right. It is impossible to argue that Prince Charles is not good for the republicanism cause.

      102

  • #

    Consider that he’d never get near his job if it weren’t for nepotism.

    I’ll be writing to his mum; a person to whom I, without hesitation, swore allegiance in the past. Something I did with humility and pride. Proud to be able to serve.

    I remind Prince Charles that the motto on his badge says “Ich Dien”, not “Bedien Dich”.

    150

  • #
    gnome

    The man is a grat hero. Already he has more medals than Idi Amin, and when, with skill and determination, he crosses the final hurdle and takes over the role to which god has foreordained him, he will get another one for being the “Defender of the Faith”

    Why shouldn’t he practice on CAGW before he gets to take over the other official state religion?

    80

  • #
    The Griss

    Waiting, waiting…. for the Charlie cheer squad to arrive !

    Where’s the WC ?

    72

  • #
    handjive

    Can you fight Global Warming more effectively from First Class?

    Quote bonnie Prince Charles, heir to the throne, a dedicated environmentalist; “powerful groups of deniers” of mounting “a barrage of sheer intimidation” against opponents.

    Nope. It appears not.

    90

  • #
    The Griss

    Ok,

    Who’s dopiest

    Charlie or SHY ?

    70

    • #
      Bones

      If shy is sarah hanson young then this is no contest,its our aussie oxygen thief and by a large margin.Charlie was born into the job,our waste of space is running Australia backwards to make herself feel warm and fuzzy.We just have no idea what is good for us.Do you think she knows that the boat people she wastes so much energy on have absolutely no respect for women.The womens rights movement should have gagged her already,before they all become like Juliar in the middle east.

      130

      • #

        Poor Sarah Hyphen.

        She makes Pixie Ann Wheatley look like Madame Curie.

        At yesterday’s star chamber in The Senate, she kept calling LtGen Angus Campbell ….. lootenant, a full 8 ranks lower than his Crown and Sword/Baton. (three star equivalent)

        On top of that, she thought Sea Patrol was actual footage.

        Tony.

        240

        • #
          The Griss

          Here is a question to gauge the intelligence of the green brigade.. particularly Mattb

          “If Sarah Hanson–Young were in your state…….

          would you vote “Greens” in the senate ?”

          ——————–

          I dare you to answer !!!

          70

        • #
          Reed Coray

          I live in the state of California in the good old US of A. I haven’t seen either of our female Senators (Diane [F]einstein, Barbara Box-of-Rocks Boxer) for a while. Would someone please check to see if Sarah Hyphen is either of these “female Einsteins” in disguise?

          50

          • #
            Bones

            The two senators you’re looking for Reed,are probably swooning somewhere around hilary,keeping their nose in [the trough]for future employment.The mind boggles at the mental state of someone who would willingly impersonate our oxygen thief.

            20

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Good comments on Chuckles at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549658/Prince-Charles-hits-climate-change-deniers-labelling-headless-chicken-brigade.html.

    Here’s a good comment:

    Every time he opens his mouth I can feel my head getting a little rounder

    160

    • #
      Leigh

      There’s over 1200 hundred comments and the couple of dozen I did read all seem to smack him around those Mickey mouse ears.
      I did like this one as did a few others.
      ” There is no scientific proof that man’s activity is changing the climate. Politicians are using lies to create green taxes which are causing misery for the poor and pensioners, whose energy bills are exploding to pay for useless wind farms that earn a fortune for landowners such as him. A future King should not be entering into political debate. He also uses a helicopter and drives a 1970′s Aston Martin, the most ungreen forms of transport on the planet. What appalling hypocrysie.”

      20

  • #
    Soarer

    With all the travelling (with entourage), farming, heating of large houses he is responsible for, he probably has a ‘carbon footprint’ bigger than the country he Princes.

    So, at best, he’s a hypocrite.

    40

  • #
    scaper...

    Well, mummy is down to her last million pounds so Chuck is milking a bit of cream from the gravy train.

    Talk about cash for comment!

    80

  • #
  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    This ‘headless chicken’ will see you, Chukka, and raise you 5.
    Charles: Oh. God. I’ll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!
    Camilla: (laughing) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?
    (Both laugh)
    Camilla: Oh, You’re going to come back as a pair of knickers.
    Charles: Or, God forbid a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)
    Camilla: You are a complete idiot (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.
    Charles: My luck to be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on forever swirling round on the top, never going down.
    ………………..
    Not everyone can set the definition of wanting to be in the right place at the wrong time.

    110

    • #
      mike

      You know, I always pretty much suspected that English hot-babes liked “dirty talk”, and all–you know, how they just have that look, and everything.

      But is the conversation Geoff quotes really the sort of thing that “turns the trick” with the Brit-ladies? I mean, like, Geoff quotes a style of highly-intellectualized verbal-smut that just wouldn’t work with American girls. I mean, like, the lovely-ladies of America frankly just don’t have the patience for geek-ball distractions, like re-incarnation , getting in the way of the “graphic, good stuff”.

      Can anyone clue me in on what the real “skinny” on this deal is?

      41

  • #
    Nathan

    When he split with Diana, she was out campaigning against land mines, he was getting his picture taken with the spice girls.
    Told me what I needed to know.
    May Liz outlast him and pass the throne to one of the boys.

    160

  • #
    Roger

    Homeopathy is strongly believed in and promoted by Charles despite scientific evidence that it has no provable benefit. In a wholly contrarian way he believes in ‘global warming’ because he believes the scientific consensus says it is real and it is man made.

    That is a conundrum for Charles as he needs to gain some self-knowledge that he is selective about what science he wants to believe, and that his belief system is no more than a personal belief rather than one based on empirical science evidence .

    On the other hand belief in homeopathy is akin to belief in AGW as neither are based on empirical evidence. Charles is exceptionally well-meaning and throws himself behind causes he believes in, he has made a genuine difference to countless thousands of people’s lives and deserves huge respect for that. That hasn’t stopped him being an outspoken fool on many occasions and whilst his comments on sceptics are disgraceful they are primarily just plain foolish.

    111

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      I’m going to go into bat for homeopathy. Not for the reasons that you might think. A lot of people go to the doctor for a whinge and a placebo. Just as long as they head to a real doctor if they suspect that it might be serious, then homeopathy takes a bit of the load off the real health system.

      50

      • #
        Roger

        A number of studies have now shown that placebos can have as much effect as medication – it’s quite astounding what the human body can do to repair itself when it believes.

        Homeopathy is very likely, in my view, to be an extension of that placebo effect.

        50

        • #
          Manfred

          Fine as far as it goes – but let’s not make spurious claims that anything else is happening – then of course the ‘down-side’ is that placebo disclosure deprives the placebo of its magic becuase the patient knows what it really is.
          Placebo is, as we all know, the comparative gold standard, preferrably served up in a randomised and double blinded format.

          20

  • #
    Bill Irvine

    The National Anthem will be sung with even more feeling with regard to the present Queen.
    Especially the bit about wishing that she is “long to reign over us.” She must be cringing.

    190

  • #
    Ted Ledner

    Grew up in the UK and born at the same time as him. He has always been there to remind me that half of the people I talk to have IQs less than 100.
    God Bless Him he has helped so much through the years.
    Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall and proof that money prestige and position can’t buy intellect.

    180

  • #
    King Geo

    I don’t think any of Elizabeth’s II’s children are all that bright academically and there is no better example of that than Charles. And you will never change his view on AGW – even if he is frozen solid as the reigning King in Buckingham Palace in the 2020′s as the LIA takes hold.

    90

  • #
    Another Ian

    I remember many years ago when there was “My Word”. The theme of that session was “Charlie is my darling”

    The exception was made in the case of Lady Diana Spencer, where it was “My darling is a charlie”

    60

  • #
    Robber

    I don’t want him as my king. This inane interference is why monarchies get overthrown.

    120

  • #
    Angry

    prince charles….[snip]

    What are his scientific qualifications again???

    50

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    It takes one (headless chicken) to know one.

    The man’s a FOOL.

    80

  • #
    Magoo

    Perhaps Charlie can show us all this ‘overwhelming scientific evidence’, I’ve yet to see it.

    This guy will be the end of the monarchy, I wonder what the Queen thinks of his embarrassing attempts to imitate his ex wife & to be hip with the younger generations. Between him and his ex wife they will have destroyed hundreds of years of royal history and heritage when the monarchy comes to an end – it will end on his watch and it will be his fault.

    70

  • #

    As I understand it, Commonwealth countries whose monarch succeeds to the UK throne, now have a say about succession.

    Why not skip a generation? Skip Charles and go for the next in line.

    I am a monarchist but let’s face it almost nobody wants Charles as the next monarch.

    130

    • #
      Andrew

      Let’s not open that can of worms – by the time the Queen dies, Charles will be 92. Put up with him for a few years while Will does his internship for the senile old dad, and hope he doesn’t do much harm.

      If we tamper with succession, the next ALP govt will be able to appoint someone. Who would they pick? Craig Thomson? Gillard? Another Senior Labor Figure’s inlaws? Ludwig Snr?

      30

  • #
    MadJak

    I have yet to meet or converse with someone who supports the monarchy who doesn’t readily admit that if Numbnuts up there becomes king that they would seriously consider republicanism.

    Is there any monarchist here who would be prepared to say that they would still not be a republican if old numbnuts up there became king?

    He’s like a kiss of death for the monarchy, and for team catastrafaria.

    100

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have yet to meet or converse with someone who supports the monarchy who doesn’t readily admit that if Numbnuts up there becomes king that they would seriously consider republicanism.

      Well let me change that all for you. I support constitutional monarchy, as it currently stands, for one reason, and one reason only. No legislation in the UK (and by proxy in the Commonwealth), passes into law, with out the Royal Assent. That is the only power the monarch has – to withhold, or defer that final stamp of approval.

      The Monarch cannot make laws, nor direct the business of Parliament, other than by questioning Government Ministers and expressing an opinion.. The opinion of the monarch can be ignored, and I suspect, in Charles’ case, it often would be. But the Royal Opinion, in the case of the current Queen, is openly sought, as an experienced and unbiased source of experience. That is the purpose of the Privy Council, which which all of these discussions tend to ignore.

      The Monarch has no executive powers, and the Government can only pass legislation if the majority of Members of the House of Commons agrees, by democratic vote, and it does not contain any provisions that would cause the Queen to withhold her assent.

      Compare that to the use (or abuse) of power, by Executive Order, that can be wielded by the United States President, be they Democrat or Republican.

      120

      • #
        MadJak

        Hi Rereke,

        Thanks for that, and yes I do understand. But you must feel at least a bit unqueasy about having ol’ numbnuts as our Monarch? How about Camilla being Queen?

        I mean, at least look at one of his siblings or skip a generation. The guy is simply a write off.

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yes, I do feel queasy about Charles becoming King. But not because of his weird ideas (Britain has had mad Kings in the past, and got over them), but because of his lack of charisma.

          The Queen takes after her Mother, in being close to the people. She is not above jumping into one of the Balmoral Land Rovers, and driving down to the village, to do her own personal shopping. The Royal Protection Squad may not like it, but the general population love it.

          Her attitude stems from the fact that, as a small child, she was simply the eldest niece of the then King, and was allowed to play with other children on the various Royal Estates and adjoining villages. She also actively served alongside other female volunteers, during the Second World War, which gave her a good understanding of what people went through, on a daily basis. This is why her advice is sought by the Privy Council. She is often more in tune with public sentiment than her Ministers.

          Charles on the other hand is much less comfortable when conversing with normal people. In that way, he takes after his father, who, I suspect has had much more influence over his upbringing than his mother. So he, like his father, has formed a relatively small circle of friends, who have similar interests and pursuits.

          This lack of worldly experience will not serve him well, in dealing with the seasoned politicians of the Privy Council. And that is where the crunch will come, if it does.

          Charles will need to keep his more loonier ideas to himself, since he cannot direct the business of Parliament. He also lacks any rapport with normal Brits, so will not be comfortable in questioning Ministers on their behalf. At that point, I think he will abdicate in favour of William, who has had the advantage of a mother who made sure he knew which way was up (a useful skill for a helicopter pilot, I might add).

          Come what may, I cannot see Britain moving away from a Constitutional Monarchy in the near future. There is too much tourist revenue riding on it.

          60

          • #
            jorgekafkazar

            “Britain has had mad Kings in the past, and got over them”

            We Yanks had one of those for a while. Fired the bugger. No more mad Kings for us.

            Oh. Wait…

            40

      • #
        Ian H

        I agree with you Rereke.

        What scares me about the monarchy vs republican debate is that whenever this comes up the news media goes all silly and talks exclusively about trivial rubbish. There is very little serious discussion about the nature of the proposed replacement system. Republicans just blithely assume that an elected president is simply a king you choose so no big deal. Yes big deal! An elected president is a politician!

        The theoretical powers that the monarch has are dangerous and should never be used. We essentially take those powers, put them in a locked box, and give them to a nice little old rich lady living on the far side of the planet to bury in the basement of her castle. It is a bizarre system but it seems to work. Republicans want to take that sealed box of dangerous powers out of the basement of the castle, unlock it, and hand it over to a politician.

        Now maybe there is a better arrangement – a safer place to store those dangerous powers. But that isn’t the debate we end up having whenever the republican question comes up. Instead of discussing how safe the locked box would be and whether anyone would be tempted to open it, we always end up talking about trivial paparazzi rubbish; accents, national pride and tampons.

        80

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          The Republican movement in Australia has refused to discuss the reserve powers for 30 years or more.

          If the PM of the day suddenly puts on a cocked hat and talks of invading the south island of NZ, the Governor General can dismiss him.

          If the Governor General of the day suddenly puts on a cocked hat and talks of invading the south island of NZ, the Queen can dismiss him.

          If the Monarch of the day suddenly decides to invade the south island of NZ then they take an “extended rest” at Balmoral or somewhere equally remote and a Regent is appointed.

          Give the PM the power to appoint a party hack as GG and sack him if he says “Boo”, then Australia will be in dire straights. Where else do all those rugby players come from? (Apart from Samoa, Fiji, etc.)

          30

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Spot on about the MSM and trivial rubbish, on 6th November 1999 60% of Australians voted no to a massively flawed and doomed to be unpopular bi partisan model, if there was ever proof that the powers to be hold the average Australian’s IQ far less than theirs then that was it.
          Even republic supporters I knew voted no just because they knew what they would lose and felt insulted as well, as the old saying goes

          “If it aint broke don’t fix it” well for some it’s “If it aint broke screw with it until it is”

          60

      • #
        Hans Jelbring

        Interesting viewpoints and thanks for the information.

        00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        A spirited defense. But what if your Monarch IS the problem? A King Charles may be as bad as a King Obama. Deciding to nullify laws he does not agree with.

        00

  • #
    Manfred

    Posted previously, but more relevant here:

    If they’re wheeling the President of the WWF, Charles Mountbatten out to prattle the pause cause, they just have to be profoundly concerned that things are not going so well.

    MSM peddling Charles-isms in the form of headless chickens is very dicey; dynamite and glass houses spring to mind. I’d have thought that this was almost guaranteed to help the skeptical cause. It simply doesn’t pay to draw to much attention to any association with Charles-King-in-everlasting-waiting.

    In any case, isn’t he an advocate for CO2 enrichment? He’s known to wander about talking to his plants, and believes that this activity enhances plant growth. For that we shoudl salute him. Babble on Charles. You might even be able to claim legitimacy to 1 ppm.

    50

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    The overwhelming weight of evidence is that climate has been changing this past century and in the centuries and millenia prior. What is at issue is whether the climate change of the past century or half century is slightly, partly, largely or overwhelmingly man made.

    The evidence of the poor performances of the mechanism hypothseses embodied in what must be considered the state of the art models vs the experimental data of the thermometer record establishes that there is no basis at all to assert that the science is settled or any of the other empty headed tosh that HRH Charlie and all the other AGW spruikers peddle in that vein.

    If you want to see a bunch of headless chickens performing watch Lewandowsky, Mann, Hansen, Al Gore and co and now HRH Charlie. I wonder what HM QE II thinks? I would be far more interested in listening to her on the matter.

    70

  • #
    JCR

    Charles is a prime eample of why the Brits set up a constitutional monarchy. It allows the pretence of political and social stability, without having a total wally actually getting his hands on the levers of power.

    80

  • #
    Susan Fraser

    That’s the death knell then, when HRH feels that the nice simple to understand story of man made global warming is threatened and gets upset and shouty about it.

    Is there an echo in the room? In: ‘Tell us we’re all doomed, MPs beg climate scientists’ Andrew Orlowski reports that MPs like a simple story too “I like the idea science tells us something, and we have to agree,” said John Robertson

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/31/tell_us_were_all_doomed_mps_beg_climate_scientists/

    110

  • #

    The best education available was given to the man who tumbled out of the right womb and it made no difference. When (and I hope he doesn’t) he ascends to the throne he will be known as Charles the Halfwit.

    He fully ‘believes’ in the science of AGW.

    You’ll find he completely disagrees with the science on Homeopathy

    Selective stuff from a privileged grabber.

    100

  • #
    Gee Aye

    thank goodness Jo is a republican

    119

  • #
    Gee Aye

    and I should say, she was many years ago.

    117

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Gee Aye

      thank goodness Jo is a republican…and I should say, she was many years ago.

      So Joanne Nova is a republican and always has been?

      So how do you know this Gee Aye?

      And why the Thank goodness bit Gee Aye?

      Yet Jo says above:

      I’m not Monarchist or Republican

      What are you trying to say Gee Aye????

      Your comment Gee Aye, is rude and reeks of stupidity.

      181

    • #
      Andrew McRae

       
      I used to be a republican.
      I still am a republican, but I used to be one too.

      (thanks Mitch.)

      20

  • #
    ROM

    From a commenter on Judith Curry’s Climate etc

    We’ve got this Royal turkey clucking about a “headless chicken brigade”?

    90

  • #
    Annie

    I am a monarchist but fall out with HRH completely on these prattish statements he’s made. I think the institution of the monarchy can cope with him as he will not have the power to do a lot. He should concentrate on good works and encouraging the people in their everyday lives. He does actually do a lot of good and can be very interesting and entertaining to watch or listen to. However, on the matter of AGW he is right off the planet!

    70

    • #
      MadJak

      Annie,

      I am interested in your view son Camilla. Seriously, why not give the role to someone else? This guy wreaks of being a pampered moron.

      40

  • #
    A C Osborn

    As a Brit I am ashamed of this moronic display.
    But what do you expect from someone who wants to come back after death as a Tampon?

    151

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    Charlie must be one of the longest standing unemployed in the land. Where’s the harm in him attempting to be relevant. He can be charming but who takes him seriously anyway ? At least Charlie is indiscreet enough to let us know what he thinks.
    Whereas William and Ma’am seem to know rather better than that. A trait Charlie gets from his father perhaps, although at least Phillip seems to get the message when told he’s put his foot in it Charlie’s rather charming naïveté is there for all to see.

    70

  • #
    Franny by Coal light

    In some ways it must be easier fulfilling a role of being ‘Mother to the Nation’ as many people, however fondly but perhaps misguidely , see her Maj.
    Whereas Charles, seems to have struggled with parenthood along with everything else.
    How his Mum must despair sometimes and not just at him, although he is the one who must eventually bear her mantle.

    70

  • #
    mwhite

    This from the guy who ignores the science behind Homeopathy

    30

  • #
    Joe V.

    A case of ‘takes one to one know one’ perhaps, but only pronounced by those who might see themselves rather as the head of the chickens.
    .
    How can a headless chicken know, whereas what can a chickenless head do ?
    .
    Those headless chickens who presume to know are perhaps the worst..
    .

    20

  • #
    David

    I respectfully suggest that, if the heir to the throne really does talk to his plants, then perhaps he should listen to what they have to say about all this political effort trying to REDUCE carbon dioxide emissions..!

    60

    • #
      Joe V.

      Isn’t that the thing though? The plants don’t answer back, not like those pesky, questioning & ungrateful subjects he’ll have to reign over one day.
      The plants OTOH probably don’t mind so much being reigned on.

      50

    • #
      The Griss

      I wonder if he realises that when he talks to his plants, he is greatly increasing the CO2 level in their vicinity, and that this is probably what they are responding to if they seem happy.
      Its not your talking they like, bozo, its your out breathing CO2 levels of around 4000ppm !!

      00

  • #
  • #
    john

    In the 1700′s the King raised the ire of the New England region not only with a tax on tea, but Pine trees as well.

    http://www.nelma.org/lagniappe/kings-broad-arrow-and-ewp/

    excerpt:

    The tax on tea was not the only issue that raised anger among American colonists in the 1700’s. Eastern White Pine played an equally key role in events that led to the Revolutionary War and American Independence from England…

    …Acting as dominion over the forests of “New England”, the King assumed ownership of the best of the Eastern White Pine trees and appointed a legion of Surveyors of Pines and Timber to survey the forestland “within 10 miles ofbroadarrow any navigable waterway” and mark all suitable trees with “The King’s Broad Arrow”, a series of three hatchet slashes. This was the symbol commonly used to signify ownership of property or goods by the Crown, in this case to be owned and used solely by the Royal Navy. Any tree of a diameter of twenty-four inches and greater at twelve inches from the ground, with “a yard of height for each inch of diameter at the butt” was blazed with the broad arrow. Violation by the colonists of this rule would be assessed a fine of £100. Persons appointed to the position of Surveyor-General of His Majesty’s Woods were responsible for selecting, marking and recording trees as well as policing and enforcing the unlicensed cutting of protected trees.

    Use of the broad arrow mark commenced in earnest in 1691 when the revised Massachusetts Bay Charter included in its last paragraph a “Mast Preservation Clause” stating (original language):

    “And lastly for the better provideing and furnishing of Masts for Our Royall Navy Wee doe hereby reserve to Vs Our Heires and Successors all Trees of the Diameter of Twenty Four Inches and upwards of Twelve Inches from the ground growing vpon any soyle or Tract of Land within Our said Province or Territory not heretofore granted to any private persons And Wee doe restrains and forbid all persons whatsoever from felling cutting or destroying any such Trees without the Royall Lycence of Vs Our Heires and Successors first had and obteyned vpon penalty of Forfeiting One Hundred Pounds sterling vnto Ous Our Heires and Successors for every such Tree soe felled cult or destroyed without such Lycence had and obteyned in that behalfe any thing in.”

    ———

    Charles should be advised that the locals will not take too kindly to “The King’s Carbon” either.

    70

  • #
    Tim

    Perhaps he could comment on a REAL global issue:

    ‘The top richest 85 people in the world (on paper anyway) have more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion or 50% of the entire world’s population.’

    Maybe not.

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And if he did would it matter? The problem is not the top 85 richest people but the inability of the rest to compete adequately. Worrying about the rich won’t help. Worry about how we can help those poor.

      60

      • #
        MadJak

        Roy,

        Your point is valid for those who have made their fortune, however, for those born into money like Charles, they get a much easier ride to prosperity on account of the fact they don’t just grow up with the silver spoon in the mouth, they get the whole cutlery set.

        60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          MadJak,

          True. But forgive me for asking, so what? The problem is still the same. Those who have not aren’t being held down by the likes of Prince Charles with all his money. They’re still being held down by their inability to compete better. And that remains true in spite of how all the Prince Charles of the world got their wealth or what they do with it. I’ll wager that whatever His Highness is worth, it’s invested or spent, both of which are opportunities for anyone else looking for that opportunity.

          It seems to escape many complainers that the successful, no matter how they became successful, lift everyone up. They don’t hold them down, at least not by virtue of having wealth. There may be other ways and we need to fight those. But the wealth someone has isn’t a problem.

          60

      • #
        John Brookes

        Don’t be a [snip] Roy. The poor are poor because of the same system that makes the rich rich. Trying to help the poor without worrying about the rich is just plain nuts.


        [one of the many words that will put a message into auto-moderation. I suggest you refrain from using them.] ED

        02

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          OK, John. You can, at least potentially, redeem yourself from this ridiculous comment by telling me what you would do to help those poor competitors.

          Explain your plan in enough detail that I can understand it and then we’ll have a basis for debate. Otherwise the moderator might as well have left your remark in the bit-bucket to be hauled out with tomorrow’s trash.

          I have a plan that will solve the problem to the fullest extent that it can ever be solved. Do you have a plan or are you just interested in putting down those who can and do think for themselves?

          Put up or shut up. I’m tired of your one liner put downs.

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            And John never takes up the challenge. He will be known by the substance of his contributions just like everyone else.

            20

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          No, the poor are not poor because of the same system. The poor are poor for a variety of reasons, and there has yet been devised a system that HAS no poor. But there has been systems that have been devised that have no Rich. At least on paper.

          And those are the poorest nations.

          10

  • #
    Chuck L

    With no disrespect toward Brits, the man has the IQ of a turnip.

    70

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    We have to suffer the embarrassment of Barrack “I see dead people” Obama, I guess the UK has to suffer the embarrassment of Prince Chucky Cheese. We get rid of ours in 3 years. They are stuck with him until he dies.

    41

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      We get rid of ours in 3 years.

      I hope we do not replace him with Hillary. I’m not sure if that would be a jump from the frying pan into the fire or a jump out of the fire back into the frying pan. But either way it would be no improvement.

      Pray for Republicans to get their act together. The mere fact of Obama’s failure won’t be enough to turn the tide. People will know what they’re voting against but they need something compelling to vote for. Default replacements aren’t a good idea. Can we give them a leader with a strong vision who understands how government can so easily hurt, even destroy people and give us a direction back out of our trouble? It won’t happen automatically.

      30

      • #
        John Brookes

        Imagine getting a quality Republican candidate. What a joke.

        01

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Agreed. It is still very early, but I saw a poll that said Romney was the top GOP nominee still. That tells me the republicans have not learned a thing.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          …a poll that said Romney was the top GOP nominee still.

          If that remains the case, Republicans will eventually be wiped off the political map.

          But whatever the case turns out to be, John Brookes wouldn’t know the difference if it walked up and kissed him.

          10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am half expecting to hear that, upon leaving office, the current President of the United States will find that he has a previously undiscovered birth certificate that proves he is a member of the British Royal family, and therefore needs to be listed in Burkes Peerage.

      I think it is called a reverse takeover?

      50

      • #
        Bones

        RW,if obuma found out he was a pom that would be priceless,cause he hates them.I can think of no better way to see him off than the CIA forging him some British papers and a fake past

        30

  • #
  • #
    RoyFOMR

    And he was saying this to kids!!
    Tantamount to abuse.

    20

  • #
    PeterD

    He doesn’t seem to have quite mastered the Windsor Knot, either.

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The photo shows a Half-Windsor knot, and not a full Windsor.

      The Full-Windsor knot is only worn on formal occasions, during daylight hours.

      Consequently, it would never be worn with a coloured pin-stripe shirt.

      20

      • #
        ROM

        I think I am getting overwhelmed with information. :-)

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Good, that was my intent – protocol is terribly important in certain social circles ;-)

          10

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Shortest comment by ROM ever.

          If you’re overwhelmed by that succinct tie tip you must not be feeling 100% today. Hope the heatwave hasn’t taken its toll. If you find you’re getting hot under the collar you could try loosening your full Windsor, just a pro tip there. :-D

          10

  • #
    Grant24

    Is there a Royal Purveyor of bongs?

    50

  • #
    graphicconception

    We can only assume this eloquence and insight is a product of the best education the British Isles establishment could offer.

    Point of information (from wiki): “He spent two terms in 1966 at the Timbertop campus of Geelong Grammar School in Victoria, Australia.”

    So it is not all our fault!

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The “eloquence” and “insight” are more likely to be the result of his magnificent isolation from having to deal with the real world every day and not his education. I understand that he lives off the income from some hereditary business interest and must manage that or his income disappears (is that correct?). But it doesn’t seem to be enough to keep him in reality, even a tenuous one.

      I do not envy him. He has no job to do, at least until his mother dies. And apparently then he’ll be more of a figurehead than anything else. And he has a lifetime in which to do it. He cannot be his own man as the rest of us can. He’s trapped in a world he shows every sign of not liking, even hating. So he takes up a cause because it makes him feel useful, not because he understands it. I don’t think I could stand that kind of life.

      And I know someone will disagree with me. I only ask the courtesy of a reply to say why instead of a red thumb.

      30

      • #

        I can’t say that I have any sympathy or understanding for someone who was born royal yet lacks being in touch with reality. The royals do military service, etc. They have every opportunity to develop “causes” and to interact with the outside world. Yes, Charles has been waiting a long time. If he really does not want to be a royal, there are ways out (tricky, but possible.) Charles behaves in much the same way as anyone who inherited a huge amount of money or that earned billions and then suddenly felt guilty about their “winning the lottery” versus other people in the world. Hollywood people, who chose their occupations and can leave at any time, behave virtually the same way as Charles. We have Brad Pitt building “eco-homes” that rotted in 3 years, Jenny Garth speaking out against vaccines, etc. It seems to be a way of “atoning” for winning. It is interesting that businessmen like Soros and Nanny Bloomberg never seem to suffer from this. Bill Gates is the notable exception. So no, I don’t feel like I should Charles any slack because of his situation.

        30

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Sheri,

          I could agree with you if Charles had been a volunteer in his royal lifestyle. But he wasn’t. He was born into something without his consent and without even a way to opt out once he knew what he was in for. He was put into an arranged marriage for the sole purpose of producing an heir to the throne. And we all know how well that went. And we all know that what I just said is the way it went. He cannot be himself as the rest of us can and it seems obvious to me that he doesn’t like it. It’s been all duty to his royalty and the crown and I think he hates it.

          Could he have done better? I don’t know. But the pressure on him must have been very heavy. We all do as well as we can with what we have for intellectual and emotional resources at the time. But times change and the recent royal wedding to a commoner is a good sign that the all duty lifestyle is changing. So possibly his sons will do better.

          Hollywood types are all volunteers. No one made them go into the business. They work and struggle to get there. If they find out after the fact that they don’t like it they have the option to get out. They follow the herd for the sake of staying viable stars once they get there and the consequences of that belong on their heads whether they like it or not. Like you, I have no sympathy for them.

          20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … he lives off the income from some hereditary business interest …

        The Royal Family, like all of their forebears, are land owners. They get their income, from allowing other people to lease that land to run their own businesses. Traditionally that was restricted to agriculture or horticulture, but now, in Prince Charles’s case, it also extends to Wind farming. Like any business, the Royal Family will go where the biggest profits can be made.

        30

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Actually I do not disagree with you. I too think it is sad that the “Royals” are essentially prohibited from leading normal lives. But then they do have a choice. I believe King Edward VIII decided to chose another avenue. I am not sure of his standing in the UK, but that took a lot of guts to do.

        Charles on the other hand, is too cowardly to go that route, and too simple minded to realize he is a caricature of self indulgence. In short, he revels in his ignorance and loves being stupid.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Phil,

          I almost mentioned Edward VIII but then I decided to leave him out of what I said. I don’t know enough about that event to analyze it but it takes a great deal of conviction to jump from almost perfect security into a completely unknown future. I don’t see Prince Charles having that kind of conviction.

          You have him pegged quite well.

          00

  • #
    mike

    This looks like the end-game:

    The “Headless-Chicken Brigade” Deniers vs. the “Chicken-Little, Tampon-Wannabe Brigade” Egg-Heads.

    Should be fun!

    30

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    Poor Chucky. It’s not his fault that he doesn’t have the intelligence to get it right.

    30

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Which climate summit that got snowed out was it that Charlie preached at?
    Regardless, someone else came up with the perfect description of the occasion:
    “Prince Charles lectured us all on the need to reduce the amount of ‘stuff’ we have, before having his pilot fly him in his private plane back to his palace.

    70

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    “Prince Charles: climate change deniers are ‘headless chickens’”

    There’s actually one highly visible climate skeptic who exactly fits this description. Let’s fire him.

    28

    • #
      Cookster

      Which skeptics are government funded? How can “we” fire him ? And sorry but who exactly are you talking about?

      80

      • #
        The Griss

        Its only the climate catastrophists that are massively government funded.

        Sacking them would help pay for a lot of infrastructure such as roads, hospitals etc.

        10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    His Highness looks a little confused in that picture. I wonder if he’s mixed us up with politicians, monarchs and such, the group that does run around all too often like headless chickens.

    I remember my grandfather wringing some chicken’s necks for my mother and they were quite a comedy act, running around running into everything. That memory reminds me of exactly the group Prince Charles wants us to follow, always running into those stubborn little facts that won’t get out of their way. Oh the irony of it all! ;-)

    Now may I please have my day back from this nonsense? ;-)

    30

    • #
      gnome

      Heavily photoshopped- he looks quite normal in that one. They have given him a chin, and cropped his ears. OTOH- his 60th (or was it 65th) birthday official photograph, with all his medals on, showed him as he really looks.

      It keeps reminding me of Sergeant Ash on operation good guys- “you’ve got to be firm with the elderly”.

      10

  • #
    Cookster

    Despite Climategate and the 16+ year pause, Charles comments just remind us there is still a long way to go. He’ll be formulating opinions from his advisors. His advisors are no doubt still captured by the alarmists who still dominate government funded Universities. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – fix the science and you solve the political problems – including Prince Charles. The current downturn in Solar activity might last 30 years. It’s only a matter of time before science – and the likes of Prince Charles – is forced back to reality.

    Question is, what damage will have been done to science and our economies in the meantime?

    60

    • #
      PeterS

      That is true. In fact the AGW alarmist propaganda is as strong if not stronger than ever, thanks to much of the media. It would take a mini ice age to put a decent dent in the global warming hysteria. Imagine what would happen if the world started to warm again, even only by an insignificant amount. The AGW crowd would go ballistic, and we all can forget all about trying to put a stop to the hoax. I put all of the blame where it really belongs – the scientists themselves, not the politicians. Apart from a few scientists who are openly critical and skeptical about the AGW story, the vast majority are still either silent or supportive of the scam, typically for financial reasons but can also be as a result of their pure ignorance of the situation when they sit in their ivory towers pretending to known everything when in fact they know very little. The AGW hoax can be killed off in a week or so. All it takes is for the vast majority of scientists all over the world to oppose in unison the AGW hoax both openly and vigorously. The ball is in their court, no one else.

      50

      • #

        They never will, if they do, they will be admitting that they committed fraud earlier.

        What needs to be done is elect a president who puts a stop to government funding for climate science research. And put an end to carbon tax, and quit the IPCC.

        No more.

        30

        • #
          PeterS

          We should never rely on governments to do the right thing. They rarely do and even when they do it’s quickly undone by another “elected” leader. No, the right course of action is to have a united front by the people who should know better and are supposed to be closer to the truth. Politicians are never about the truth; they are about power and control. What we have now in progress is the decay in the integrity, honesty and credibility of scientists. No need to rely on politicians who already have proven to have zero integrity, zero honesty and zero credibility. If we can’t get it from the scientists then the game is over and we have lost.

          30

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      I suspect Charles has one advisor whose sole task is to make sure HRH never sits at a computer without someone looking over his shoulder. Odds are, Charles doesn’t even know the password to log on.

      20

    • #
      Hans Jelbring

      “fix the science and you (MIGHT) solve the political problems”

      The problem is that misuse of science is what corrupt politicians
      and corrupt scientists are using to serve their special interests.
      The public has no chance to discriminate between what is science and
      what is pseudo science when the latter is supported by high ranking
      authorities (such as kings, Queens, Nature, presidents etc)

      The public believes in science (because of what they have seen and experienced)
      and that´s why science has been high jacked by special interest (read IPCC etc)
      The public constitutes the majority and in a democracy it matters how they vote.
      It is a power game going on and a weak point in our democrasies has been exposed
      clearly. A sad point point is that the conning has a global dimension nowadays.

      00

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Charles is the best reason for a republic that could be provided; Then again over the pond Obama is the best reason to have a Monarchy……Support anarchy perhaps.”

    From comments at

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/1/the-headless-chickens.html#comments

    30

    • #
      PeterS

      The republican versus monarchy debate is a total waste of time. It makes no difference at all to how a country is run by the incumbent government. To waste billions of dollars to become a republic makes no sense at all, especially at times like today where the financial situation is very skittish. We might as well stack up a few billions dollars in notes and burn it. At least we would have a great party. If by some miracle we have a huge surplus (probably never) perhaps then we can spend the money and effort to become a republic.

      00

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    jonova

    Over on WUWT someone reprinted this comment of yours.

    “I’m not monarchist or Republican but if Charles keeps talking that could change.”

    Gotta love it.

    Eugene WR Gallun

    10

  • #

    The reason that the British Monarchy survived the tribulations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the Monarch’s impartiality. Queen Elizabeth II has maintained this, even with some of the most appalling despots. This is why she has been maintained as head of the Commonwealth. The Queen’s Grandfather managed to get on with the first Labour Prime Minister, Ramsey McDonald. In so doing, George V may have moderated his views, for the good of the country.
    Could a Prime Minster with the views of Tony Abbott have confidence in a Monarch who has clearly voiced the opinion that they are a “denier” and in the pay of vested interests? Will the British people turn on a Monarchy so wayward in its opinions? Will the Church of England survive with a Head who follows the false religion of climate change.

    10

  • #
    pat

    someone posted this London Mayor piece from last year, which is also highly amusing:

    June 2013: UK Telegraph: Boris Johnson: The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end
    Homeowners lumbered with useless swimming pools know precisely who they should blame
    For more than 20 years now, we have been told that this country was going to get hotter and hotter and hotter, and that global warming was going to change our climate in a fundamental way. Do you remember that? We were told that Britain was going to have short, wet winters and long, roasting summers. It was going to be like 1976 all over again, with streakers at Lord’s and your Mr Whippy melting before you could even lick it, and Hyde Park scorched into a mini Kalahari.
    They said we were never going to have snow again, and that we should prepare for southern England to turn gradually into a Mediterranean world. There were going to be olive groves in the Weald of Kent, and the whole place was going to be so generally broiling in summer that no one would be able to move between noon and 4pm, after which people would come out to play boules and sip pastis, to the whine of a mandolin, in the dusty square that had once been a village green.
    That’s what they said: the BBC, and all the respectable meteorologists – and I reckon there were tens of thousands of people who took these prophecies entirely seriously. Omigod, they said to themselves, we are all going to fry. The only answer was to build a source of permanent refreshment – and so they did. They saved up, and they remortgaged, and they got in the diggers. They moved huge cuboids of earth and used them to create curious berms at the bottom of the garden, and then they lined these trenches with tiles (jolly expensive) or with a kind of blue plastic sheeting (virtually indistinguishable and much cheaper) and then they filled these holes with thousands of gallons of water that circulated endlessly by an unintelligible process known only to the people who had installed it but who seemed unfortunately to have gone bust.
    They fought gallantly but in vain against the green slime, and to understand the balance of chemicals that the pool required; and they watched baffled as it oscillated – now choking with vegetation, now a glorified sheep dip of eye-stinging acid. Year after year they summoned up their courage, choked back their nausea and fished out the dead mice and the pallid corpses of worms bleached white by the chlorine. They sieved for leaves; they flipped out bugs with their hands; and all the while they were comforted with the thought that it was a sound investment…

    I hope I don’t need to tell you that we have not experienced a Mediterranean climate – not since they started to tell us to expect it. On the contrary, we have had some pretty long and miserable winters – including the last one, in which I saw snow settle in London on four separate occasions – and our summer is at risk of becoming a bit of a farce…
    Think of all those honest hard-working folk who have sunk their resources into a pool, only to find they use it only a couple of times a summer, and even then the wind-chill is so bad that the swimmers get goosebumps as soon as they emerge. I am generally against the compensation culture, but in my mind’s eye I see a class action: aggrieved English pool-owners against the global warming prophets and the erroneous meteorologists who have, frankly, been taking the piscine.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10138096/The-weather-prophets-should-be-chucked-in-the-deep-end.html

    30

    • #
      Carbon500

      Oh come on Pat – surely Boris just made it all up, fodder to fill some column space for the newspaper?
      I like his outlook on man-made global warming though – nice to see this from a prominent politician.

      00

  • #
    pat

    31 Jan: Military Times: Exclusive: General says more Marines could be based throughout Africa
    Lt. Gen. Steven Hummer, deputy to the commander for military operations in U.S. Africa Command: “As we look at the future of the environment around the world, and the fiscal challenges impeding the number of ships we would like to have, there’s a balancing act we have to achieve between MAGTFs aboard ships and MAGTFs ashore, where they can respond to indications and warnings.”…
    http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140131/NEWS/301310017/

    reminder of how the CAGW mind game is played:

    July 2013: LiveScience: U.S. Military Prepares for Global Unrest Amid Climate Fears (Op-Ed)
    ***Marlene Cimons of Climate Nexus
    In 2007, CNA, a Pentagon-funded think tank that conducts in-depth research and analysis, released a report from a panel of retired senior military officers and national security experts who predicted that extreme weather events prompted by climate shifts could disrupt the U.S. way of life and cause already weak governments to fall, particularly in many Asian, African and Middle Eastern nations where marginal living standards already exist…
    Some researchers have suggested that framing climate change as a threat to national security and public health, rather than to the environment, might make the issue more relevant and meaningful to many conservative Americans and others who tend to deny or dismiss it. But, surprisingly, recent research published in Climatic Change by Teresa Myers of George Mason University and her colleagues indicated that such seems to make those individuals angry.
    The researchers weren’t sure why this approach elicited an angry response, but they wonder whether the climate-change deniers resented an attempt to connect national security — an issue they care about — with climate change, an issue they tend to dismiss. Or, they may have been upset with the researchers for presenting claims about global warming and national security they did not think were authentic or credible.
    Instead, perhaps the doubters should read the words of retired U.S. Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, chairman of CNA’s military advisory board and the U.S. Army’s former chief of staff. He seems to believe that enough scientific evidence of climate change’s impact exists to be sobering — and that it deserves the U.S. government’s attention.
    “We seem to be standing by —and, frankly, asking — for perfectness in science,”‘ Sullivan wrote in the 2007 CNA report. “People are saying they want to be convinced, perfectly. They want to know the climate-science projections with 100 percent certainty. Well, we know a great deal, and even with that, there is still uncertainty. But the trend line is very clear. We never have 100 percent certainty. We never have it. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield. That’s something we know. You have to act with incomplete information. You have to act based on the trend line. You have to act on your intuition sometimes.”
    http://www.livescience.com/38167-national-security-impact-of-warming-climate.html

    ***hard to resist checking on the writer Marlene Cimons:

    LinkedIn: Marlene Cimons
    writer National Science Foundation
    Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Government Administration industry
    September 2009 – Present (4 years 6 months) …
    adjunct professor University of Maryland
    January 2002 – Present (12 years 2 months
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/marlene-cimons/6/796/16a

    00

  • #

    Here I can detect only one headless chicken who has blind faith in “science”. Prince Charles is that one and Chicken Little as well.

    “Charles is the best reason for a republic… Obama is the best reason to have a Monarchy” – Another Ian
    February 2, 2014 at 6:31 am

    Very well put!

    20

  • #
    ColdinOz

    While I do have respect for royalty, when a goose makes reference to headless chickens I just find it too much.

    31

  • #
    adrian smits

    I have only two questions. How many more years have to pass with no more warming or even some cooling before the co2 warming theory upon which all this discussion is predicated is discounted back into a hypothesis ? Also has anyone explained why the temperature from 70 or 80 years ago been adjusted downward by .3 or .4 degrees Celsius when compared to the raw data?

    21

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      1. If the 2011 -2020 decade is cooler than the previous one it might be considered, as that has not happened for at least 6 decades. Even then you would need to check for ocean warming, crosphere melting, what the sun is doing and unnatural cycles. Because real scientists look at all of the evidence and not just the tiny section (about 5%)of where the energy is going, isolated and out of context.

      Adjustments have been explained often. It is common in science to adjust for new measuring tools and methods, time of day adjustments, new information(some countries have only just started releasing data), different area sizes etc. I understand your confusion as this is what real science does regularly and you obviously lack that background. Even the satellites of Spencer’s have had regular adjustments due to drift and other issues.

      14

      • #
        mikemUK

        Utter tosh.

        It is not common in science (or, maybe even ‘real science’) to adjust previously published and established ‘raw’ temperature data to create a different story, without explicit explanation.

        Perhaps you should read Steve Goddard’s “Realclimate” blog to see how US official agencies’ previously published figures are being tampered with, even today.

        21

      • #
        The Griss

        “as that has not happened for at least 6 decades”

        There are more than enough “adjustments” to HadCrut and GISS to make sure that is the case..

        And even if there really was a small amount of warming, what the heck do you expect to happen when you have a series of much stronger than normal solar peaks.

        Unfortunately, the period of strong solar maximums is over and we are heading into a cooling period. Hopefully not too deep.

        11

  • #
  • #
    Sean

    Charles is a buffoon and an imbecile.

    The biggest mistake we made was in not following the French in chopping of the heads of our monarchy. We can rectify this by seizing all of their ill gotten their assets (stolen from the people) and deposing them.

    12

  • #
    Terry R

    I you have a problem understading what possessed Prince Charles to make such a ludicrous and offensive public statement-
    go to the Urban Dictionary and type in Projectionism :-

    Projectionism projecting is when someone puts their own issues on someone else, i.e. it is when a person attributes his/her own thoughts/feelings/behaviors to/on to another person, and a/or a group of ppl, and an/or an organization.

    This is an ad hominem attack on a persons character; it is a tactic used in, typically, internet argument conversations by trolls who have no real criticisms to make. Used most often at a certain point in the conversation when they know that they have lost the argument, & perhaps they started without a real argument in the first place, the troll uses projectionism to defend themselves.
    Tho, it is possible, & certainly not unheard of, for a troll to use projectionism against someone before that someone has a chance to say …ANYTHING… to the troll, as trolls are known to attack anyone unprovoked. Regardless of the details of how the troll and their victim(s) begin the conversation, in using this particular troll-tactic, a troll never backs up their comments or accusations with facts, only unfounded criticisms, and often outright lies; which is at the heart of an ad hominem personal attack.

    40

  • #
    Charlie

    The Duke of Edinburgh was an officer in the RN during WW2 and reached the rank of Commander.The D of E top of his class at Dartmouth and was a high performing officer The D of E has always been a large supporter of engineering and design( there is D of E award for engineering/design). In fact the D of E is down to earth and tends to surround himself with practical people. The D of E is quite tough mentally and physically and I think Charles feels he is in his Father’s shadow. In fact Charles is opposite to his Father and almost deliberately travels in a different direction. The Queen and the D of E who lived through WW2 and rationing are quite frugal wheres Charles is not. Part of the problem is that Charles has tried to carve out a role which is very different to his Father and attracts sycophants who support his views.

    30

  • #
    Neville

    Charles should love this nonsense and exaggeration.
    It seems that the Gobbels idiot is alive and well in Germany. If you’re going to tell a big BS lie then why not exaggerate it by a factor of 1100.

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/31/major-german-daily-die-welt-wildly-exaggerates-western-antarctic-ice-shelf-melt-by-1100-times/

    Western Antarctic warming is not unusual or unprecedented at all. It has happened before during the earlier Holocene and within the last 300 years.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Of course Charlie’s daddy hates wind farms.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2809919/posts

    00

  • #
    john robertson

    “Blind trust in science and technology”
    Tells you all you need to know.
    The self styled “leaders of the world” may have this mental defect, the rest of humanity picks and chooses the parts of science and technology they use.
    Blind faith in the science, sheesh what a Marroon.
    Funny how all the nut-jobs all have “the science”, while the rest of us have to make do with the scientific method.
    Blind faith in technology?? He must have an electric car, technology the rest of us discarded in 1880.
    This poor prince is the reason our Queen, prays every day, “Dear Lord, one more day, to keep that moron from the throne”.

    20

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    In one ‘fowl’ swoop the bumbling prince has done more to justify the the cause of the sceptics of man made climate change than anyone could have hoped for. His reference to deniers as ‘headless chickens’ is both rude and arrogant, and confirms his position as the head of the British Establishment. Keep up the good work Charly boy!
    Geoff W

    50

  • #
    Albert

    The ABC science spokesperson said sea level will rise by 100 metres by the end of the century.
    Tim Flannery from the Climate Commission announced we may never see rain to fill our dams and any rain that falls may not reach the ground. His prediction was followed by huge floods
    Recently the British Met Office has been dead wrong with forecasts

    So Prince Charles, who are the headless chickens ??

    50

  • #
    scaper...

    Chucky and his gaggle of geese are the deniers of climate variability.

    The fools believe that the climate is static when the evidence of the past clearly shows no such thing.

    Indeed, they are the ones running around exclaiming that we are going to cook and drown.

    Can anyone here define the date when civilisation commenced the decline?

    30

  • #
    handjive

    This story might have more credibility than bonnie Prince Charles & his Whacky Global Warming brigade:

    Underwater Pyramid Found Near Portugal

    The pyramid was found in an area of the mid-Atlantic that has been underwater for about 20,000 years.
    Considering this is around the time of the last ice age where glaciation was melting from its peak 2000 years prior, whatever civilization, human or not, that was around before the ice age, could be responsible for building the pyramid.
    Either the NOAA hasn’t yet come across it, they are hiding what they have found, or the pyramid doesn’t exist.
    The last theory does not seem to be likely given the authenticity of the find.

    To further support the idea that this pyramid could have been built by different civilizations, archeologists from the Portuguese Association of Archaeological Research have recently discovered evidence on Pico island that suggests their belief that humans existed in the Azores region before the arrival of the Portuguese thousands of years ago.
    As of today, there is still no explanation for who created the rock art found on the islands.

    10

  • #
    scaper...

    I don’t really care much about being a monarchy or republic but one question I always put to republicans.

    “If Australia became a republic, why would Qld or WA not secede from the so called republic?” I see no reason to remain part of Australia as quite frankly, both here and WA could do much better without the financial/ideological drag of the rust belt states and the mendicant pubic patch island.

    20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      I could easily see WA doing that but Qld?, how would they survive without funding from the other states?

      21

      • #
        gnome

        I hear Queeensland is going to dredge some seafloor in an attempt to get the Abbott Point coal loader to be as big as Newcastle.

        At present (and projected) Newcastle in the rust belt loads more coal than all other coal loaders in Australia combined. Most of Queensland’s loaders are even smaller than the rust belt’s Port Kembla loader.

        Coal is one big part of the economic picture in Qld, but the Commonwealth subsidised roadworks is the other main part. When you cross from Qld into NSW at Mungindi, you go from 12 hour a day, seven days a week roadworks (imagine how that contributes to small-town wealth when it is interstate money doing it) to signs warning “Flood Damaged Pavement”. If Campbell doesn’t get another flood soon, with its injection of interstate recovery money, his economy will go down the gurgler, and he will get the blame. Queenslanders, not known for their insight, will start saying it was better when Anna was the overlord.

        (Did anyone see the character on Hamilton Island on TV after the recent stormy weather? The only message he wanted to get across was that he would like some governnment assistance. At least some of them know where the cream on their cake comes from.)

        You never know when WA is going to secede though. Eventually they must get sick of repaying the interest on all the past support they had,

        12

    • #

      I reckon that WA, NT and QLD could form a productive nation. NT just has to declare itself a sovereign State, allowing a confederation of sovereign States, casting Canberra adrift.

      It would be a mistake to repeat the error of Federation, establishing a “federal” government and giving it powers to legislate on certain matters. Far better to establish “contracts for common services” which are defined and funded by the sovereign States.

      10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Unfortunately the present government seems Hell bent on diddling with the Constitution.
        Such thoughts can only lead to….already mentioned by Warren Mundine, separate aboriginal nations.
        I often find that events in Australia are a deja vue. All this talk of splitting the family up into little nation states has been well and truly hashed over in Canada over the past three decades. Believe me, it can only lead to tears.

        30

        • #
          scaper...

          So, we maintain the status quo?

          Federation is not broken, just a bit off colour with a bad case of novisionitis.

          Submissions close soon for the proposed development of Northern Australia.

          What about further development of the assets in place to remove the rust?

          Not very clever.

          00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    Can’t you hear Phillip, his no nonsense father exclaiming “Charles, such a nice boy, pity he’s not very bright”.

    30

  • #
    Campbell

    Perhaps Prince Charles thought he was talking to his plants, but either way such remarks don’t fit well with his status

    30

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Charles said it was “baffling … that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science”. [bold added. S.Mc.]

    I think that right there is the problem. Prince Charles probably does accept all that science tells us. Some of us have learned better. Sceptics have noted things the hype with Bird Flu, SARS and Swine Flu. We have also seen dumb study after dumb study and wondered why the scientists involved receive funding for such rubbish. With the Global Warming scare, the dumb studies have increased exponentially – way past the hundreds.

    I have many books in my shelves relating to the scientists of old. They were nothing like the snake-oil salesmen and their similarly clueless minions (like Prince Charles) that are in our collective face today.

    Charlie has reason to be annoyed. He comforted the Climategate gang by telling them that it would all blow over. It hasn’t.

    30

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      He comforted the Climategate gang by telling them that it would all blow over. It hasn’t.

      What does a person use to always getting their way do when people do not listen?

      00

  • #
    gbees

    Charles has given a free kick to the republic cause here. I’ve never been a fan of changing the constitution unless it is an improvement. just wanting a republic has never been a good reason for me to vote for a republic. but since his Royal Highness continues to make a complete ass of himself I’ll give serious consideration now to ridding us of this fool.

    20

  • #
    gbees

    Charles once stated he’d like to come back as a virus and wipe out humanity. I think he has already achieved virus status ….

    20

  • #
    Heeby jeebies

    Switch off your brain, Prince Charles has said you are a headless chicken if you do not accept what political committees tell you to think.

    Actually its what every major scientific organisation in the world, virtually all of the scientists and what the vast majority of the peer reviewed science is telling us.

    It has nothing to do with political commitees except when trumped up ones, like the one in britain, brings in fake balance by giving equal weight to the non scientific position because they want to politisise and give the impression of a debate when no real scientific debate exists. They do this due to the vast power and money of the fossil fuel lobby that want to frack the beegeesus out of the country for their own personal gain.

    211

    • #
      farmerbraun

      Another” politisising commitee ” of one. So it goes. Love the name.
      Equal weight is such a ‘fake balance’ isn’t it?
      Heh!

      10

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        Not at all. Like he said the overwhelmming scientific evidence, not political at all. Fake balance is when a hand picked political committee gives equal balance to non scientific opinion against scientific evidence.

        110

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          So you are talking about Phrenology, right?

          That was another settled science, if my memory serves me right. One of dozens of fraudulent science, dead-ends, and monetary scams.

          Don’t they teach you kids about the history of science, anymore?

          40

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Yes, and as the temperature gets further and further from their models, the more confident they become. Yeah, right.

      Also noted the ridiculous Big-Oil reference. No tobacco? Anyway, show us this oil money and we’ll match it with Big-Green money, with serious additional zeroes on the end.

      20

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        Actually when you scientifically take into account natural factors and cycles, the models are pretty much spot on. That does not take into account the other places extra energy can go such as the warming oceans and cryosphere.

        Fossil fuels is a 2 trillion dollar industry with 1.2trillion in additional subsidies. That is where the money is.

        110

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Well they would be, wouldn’t they.

          Models are not truth, and never will be. The whole point of models is to try to duplicate reality so you can learn about all of the real world factors that might have a bearing on what is happening now, and what has happened in the past.

          They are pretty good at predicting what is happening now (’cause that is the way they are set up), but they ain’t so good at back-casting history, so they also are unreliable when forecasting what will happen in the future, they can only barely cope with what might happen in the future.

          Notice the bolded words. I have yet to hear a climate politician scientist make a definitive time-bound prediction, about verifiable future events, that has proven to be correct.

          The models can’t even get the seasonal weather forecast right.

          10

        • #
          The Griss

          “the models are pretty much spot on”

          roflmao ! you brain-washed ninny !

          No, they are not anywhere near spot on.

          They are wildly inaccurate, with all but one or 2 of them predicting manically higher than reality

          40

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          Heeby jeebies said:

          Actually when you scientifically take into account natural factors and cycles, the models are pretty much spot on.

          Really, so a null 15-17 years is spot on? So are you telling me that with the global warming alarm, they predicted a 15-17 year lull? This lull is really a glorious illustration of their climatic prophetic capabilities?


          That does not take into account the other places extra energy can go such as the warming oceans and cryosphere.

          So the “spot on” is hidden in the cycles and the worse-than-we-thought is in hidden in the oceans and cryosphere. Of course!! It’s so bleeding obvious when it’s explained. Thank you.

          Fossil fuels is a 2 trillion dollar industry with 1.2trillion in additional subsidies. That is where the money is.

          We all know there’s oil money in oil. We also know there’s tobacco money in tobacco and insurance money in insurance. There are lots of kinds of money in all sorts of places. You are supposed to show how it is funding us ‘deniers’. One needs to know so one can properly declare it to the taxman. Do that, then we can draw a comparison.

          11

    • #
      The Griss

      I give you a thumbs up for your courage in writing such a moronic post.

      20

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        Feel free to provide a list of scientific organisations, globally, that do not accept the science behind AGW.

        011

        • #
          The Griss

          And another thumbs for your continuance. ….

          nah.. .. polly want a cracker ?

          10

        • #
          Carbon500

          ‘Heeby Jeebies’: given that since 1998 the concentration of CO2 has risen from 364ppm to the current 400ppm (a change approaching 10%), and also given that several data graphs (eg GISS) show a stalling of the computer projected rise during this time, why do you believe that mankind faces a catastrophe?
          The Central England Temperature Record goes back to 1659. At no time has the temperature in this record risen above 11 degrees Centigrade. There’s a cluster of readings between ten and eleven degrees in the mid-1990s to mid 2000, but such temperatures are not unprecedented, even going back to the 1700s.
          Never mind who says what – start looking at some real world data. There’s plenty of it out there.

          40

        • #
          Heywood

          “Feel free to provide a list of scientific organisations, globally, that do not accept the science behind AGW.”

          Feel free to research the term argumentum ad populum, and then explain where in the scientific method is science done by vote. Perhaps you can also have a look at how many of the ‘scientific’ organisations that support AGW also fully endorsed global cooling in the eighties. You might be surprised.

          Even better, before posting another moronic sheep like comment, why don’t YOU start by giving us your interpretation of OUR position on AGW. You do know exactly what our position is don’t you?

          10

          • #
            MaxL

            Spot on Heywood!

            I do hope he gets back with an answer to your question.
            It’s been my experience that warmists know nothing about “the science” that they argue so vehemently for, and they know even less about the argument that they so vehemently oppose.

            10

    • #
      Mark D.

      Actually its what every major scientific organisation in the world, virtually all of the scientists ……

      Sorry I missed that poll. Do you have a reference?

      00

  • #
    Angry

    A “headless chicken” would still have more intelligence then charlie the cretin………

    10

  • #
    Peter Colthorpe

    Prince Charles is on the wrong side of the science and while I am sure his experience as a Royal Naval officer may be cited by the warmists try this link to some real professional at sea

    https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-01/now-hear-revisit-next-security-frontier

    10

    • #
      llew Jones

      Good summary of the evidence-less position of the alarmist climate scientists.

      That is a vital aspect of their failure however the alarmist sect is not only lacking in observational evidence but also lacks a scientific theory for CAGW. The science is quite clear that CO2 cannot produce the “tipping point” that alarmists delight to use as a propaganda tool.

      The earliest theory tells us that the logarithmic relationship between increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and rising temperature guarantees that CO2 alone can have no more than an insignificant effect on temperature.

      That early theory therefore based its projected significant rising temperature, due to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, on the postulate of the multiplying effect of significant increases in water vapour (a fair dinkum GHG) caused by the otherwise insignificant heating effect of that extra CO2. Importantly Arrhenius omitted the effect of clouds and other important factors like convection that essentially are still missing from the “settled science” of contemporary alarmist climate scientists.

      That inadequate theory, if one likes to check, goes back to Svante Arrhenius who started thinking about these things in 1896. He also got some clues from the earlier researchers Fourier and Tyndall

      As noted in the article above we don’t even know if that feedback associated with clouds is in fact positively or negatively operative in Earth’s complex non linear climate system.

      Charles is a consummate fool but are the alarmist climate scientists and their lay followers any less stupid than the generally incredibly stupid Charles?

      10

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Please feel free to supply a list of scientific organisations that do not accept AGW and your peer reviewed surveys of climate scientists and published papers. I can provide the list and 3 of each of the others.

      You are deluded if you think he is on the wrong side of the science.

      113

      • #
        mike

        Wow! That’s one hard hitting comment there Heeby jeebies! You seem to be the “go-to” guy in “scientific consensus” studies, guy. So would you mind if I hit you up for a couple of factoids in your area of renowned expertise?

        -What percentage of hired-gun scientists, in the employ of “Merchants of Doubt”, tobacco companies broke ranks with their colleagues and declared that tobacco was obviously a health hazard?

        -During Lysenko’s prime, what percentage of Soviet scientists publicly denounced his views as unscientific clap-trap, even if those views were good for the “cause” and the “team”.

        -Upton Sinclair supposedly opined: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”–what could he have possibly meant by that?

        -What percentage of “climate scientists” not only “accept AGW”, but also “accept” that anthropogenic CO2 is such a big, scare-booger threat to humanity that we must continue sending hordes of academic swill-suckers to one party-time, carbon-piggie, eco-confab blow-out (at rip-off, taxpayer expense, of course)after another until the end of time–conferences that could easily be video-conferenced with vast savings in GHG-insults to Gaia?

        -What percentage of “climate scientists”, whose gravy-trains depend, directly or indirectly, on CAGW, alarmist agit-prop, are so moved by their chicken-little convictions, that they have actually adopted the carbon-austere life-style, themselves, they advocate for others?

        -And a little out of your bailiwick, HJ, but might you also know what percentage of the hive’s Philosopher-King shot-callers, I mean the guys at the very top pulling the strings, embrace the CAGW hustle with such fervor and urgency that they actually LEAD FROM THE FRONT!–PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH, IN OTHER WORDS!–in the “carbon-reduction” department, thus providing a trend-setting, inspiring PERSONAL EXAMPLE of the low-carbon lifestyle to the fashion-conscious, imitate-their-betters-prone peonage?

        -And, finally, I have a little theory, HJ, namely, that while the peasants generally tend to give great deference to “science”, the spectacle of in-your-face, carbon-swine hypocrisy on the part of their betters and their betters’ allied, useful-tool, sell-out, flunky, “climate scientist” enablers makes them suspicious of the whole CAGW deal and to balk at boarding the figurative, flim-flam “cattle-cars” that will take them to the brave-new-world helotry, the hive has planned for them. Can your vast erudition, HJ, and research in “scientific consensus” studies shed any light on my little, “pet” theory?

        91

      • #
        StewGreen

        Please 1. supply a list that held a democratic vote of their members. You’ll find it’s very short.
        2. Go and look up the fallacy of the argument of authority, doesn’t matter if every authority in the would advocates something, it’s the VALIDATED science that counts.
        3. understand that actual Climate Institutions expressing dissent, is like a village church saying it wants to give up funding from the main church organization

        30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Hmm. The military cannot afford the luxury of bull-shit in what it tells the troops – wouldn’t want them making operational decisions based on the wrong information – somebody might get hurt.

        So I give this article more credence than I would normally.

        The comments from the lower ranks in response are interesting. Perhaps the contents of the comments reflect the reason why a full Admiral, and a Rear-Admiral (both very senior ranks), felt the need to, “Tell it like it is”.

        Interesting reference Peter, thank you.

        20

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        So you guys can’t answer my questions? The fact is the science is strong and is unchallenged. There is no alternative theory that explains observations that match the science of AGW perfectly.

        Regardless of country, type of government, whether it supports AGW or not, it’s support within the scientific establishment stays the same due to the strength of the science. So your gravy train rich scientist jibe makes no logical sense. BOM, CSIRO AND Academy of science have not changed their tune because of an anti science govt slashing and burning AGW funding.

        try some logic and common sense. It does not fit, there is nothing in it for a politician and govt to support AGW. The libs got media support and funding from corporations to not support it. The opposite is the case, telling the populace all is good gets you money and in power. Logic and common sense.

        112

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          1. The fact is the science is strong and is unchallenged. [Fail - Lindzen] (I only need one example to disprove your theory that it is “unchallenged” – that is science)

          2. There is no alternative theory that explains observations. [Fail - Self defining criteria] (You are not very good at this game, are you)

          3. … it’s support … stays the same due to the strength of the science … [Fail - you do not address the fact, that scientists are paid to do this stuff] (the rest of the paragraph is a non sequitur)

          4. … there is nothing in it for a politician and govt to support AGW. [Fail - you do not address "soapbox politics", nor the opportunity for increased taxation, nor the tenure of public servants ... nor ... the list goes on] (You really do need to have some serious practice before spouting off at this site – people can only laugh at you so much)

          5. The libs got media support and funding from corporations to not support it. [Still open - but you will need to provide proof of your assertion that the libs got funding for that purpose, and not just a general tax-deductible donation] (Running out of steam, I see – need to work on your stamina)

          6. … telling the populace all is good gets you money and in power. [Total fail - People never give money to politicians just because they like them]. (I mean, how naive is that? People and corporations mostly make political donations, because they stand to make a profit down the track, by influencing the wording of tenders, or having special provisions put into legislation, and stuff).

          7. Logic and common sense. [Fail again.] The problems with common sense, is that it ain’t that common, and it always tries to reduce every problem to its lowest common denominator – which is why it is called “common”, geddit?

          We have no problem with you trolling around here, if it keeps you off drugs, or whatever, but you really do need to lift your game. Your current efforts are pathetic.

          80

        • #
          mike

          Hey Heeby!

          I didn’t answer your question (actually you didn’t pose a question, but rather made a request) and you didn’t answer mine! Even-steven! Samey-Samey! And, oh by the way, Heeby, ol’ buddy, you answer my questions and you’ll find the answer to your “question”–honest, just try it!

          Undoubtedly, buried deep in the hive’s make-a-greenwashed-buck/make-an-eco-gulag, big-plans for us useless-eater, expendable, hoi-polloi coolie-trash is a teen-tiny nugget of AGW “science” on which most everyone, even those you would regard as “deniers” agree. But, c’mon, Heeby, cut the crap! You’re not floggin’ just AGW, but rather CAGW with C=”CATASTROPHIC!!!!”, as in we’ve gotta have carbon taxes and wind-turbine subsidies and carbon-exchanges and a complete top-down, authoritarian take-over and make-over of our society–let’s make that the world!–by greenshirt, hive-commissars and their trough-hugging, sell-out “climate-science” gofer-stooges, like right now!, if we are to save the kids and the polar bears and the penguin-chicks and if we are to rescue Gaia from the nervous-breakdown induced depression-funk she’s in, at the moment, and everything!!!! Right, guy? Huh?

          You say, “…telling the populace all is good is what gets you money and in power. Logic and common sense.” Hmmm…is that so, Heeby, my most excellent good friend? And here I always thought the hive pursued its “concentrated-at-the-top” wealth and power-and-control intrigues through false-flags, disinformation, scare-mongering, divide-and-conquer-racial/gender/ethnic-divisiveness, lies, damned lies, and infamous fibs, bait-and-switch-duplicities, and chicken-little-flim-flam with post-revolution consolidation of hive-power through mass-culls, mass-incarcerations, massive-internal-repressive-police-forces, hive-terror, and massive programs of brainwashing, especially aimed at the youth of the hive-afflicted society.

          And sure, the most doltish of the enviro-flake “bitter-enders”, cling to their CAGW pseudo-religion despite “anti-science govt slashing and burning AGW funding”. And that’s because that’s all those clueless, doofus parasites know to do–the smart hive-niks, on the other hand, were those who got into the carbon-panic gravy-train on the ground-floor, made their big-bucks early, took their winnings off the table at the top of the hyped scare, and have, long since, moved on to the hive’s next-big-thing!, rip-off con. That’s why all those irretrievably compromised and discredited institutions, with the intials you so lovingly roll off your tongue, haven’t “changed their tune”. But you knew that already, right, Heeby?

          Tell you what, Heeby, look up, “Great Leap Forward”, “Cambodian Killing Fields”, “Holodomor”, “Tambov Rebellion”, and “Purge Trials”. Then get back with me with your next round of good-comrade bullshit. O. K., guy?

          51

        • #
          observa

          There is no alternative theory that explains observations that match the science of AGW perfectly.

          What are you talking about? Science has proven the world has been hotter and colder and in my neck of the woods (Adelaide) there are Gunmmint signs at Hallett Cove telling you how before the sea level rose, aboriginals could walk across Gulf St Vincent to Edithburgh and south of Kangaroo Island, when you’ll need to swim or take the ferry nowadays. What was that caused by? Aboriginal cooking fires and burn-offs to hunt game?

          Australia has only had a reasonable Stevenson Screen rollout for around 100 years so what’s your point with this new kid on the block theory? Particularly as there has been no statistically significant (ie measurable) warming globally for around 17 years, despite rising CO2 in the atmosphere. What was that dribble about the perfect science of AGW theory?

          10

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          #1 – The science is not strong. It has not even gotten out of the paddock yet. The null hypothesis remains in effect.

          #2 – The alternate hypothesis IS the current hypothesis, and is the null hypothesis

          #3 – The support is not as strong as you would think, as evidence by the over 31,000 scientists who question it. http://www.petitionproject.org/

          #4 – Science 101. It is not done by consensus or by appeal to authority. Try taking a basic course in the subject.

          10

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Please feel free to list the scientific organizations that have researched the AGW supposition. I can save you the trouble and supply you with the list if you are lazy.

        10

  • #
    Stacey

    Charles Windsor reckons all climate change deniers are headless chickens?
    Also posted at Bishop Hill
    I suppose I should bow down to someone who would wish to be a Tampax:-

    Charles: Oh. God. I’ll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!
    Camilla: (laughing) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?
    (Both laugh)
    Camilla: Oh, You’re going to come back as a pair of knickers.
    Charles: Or, God forbid a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)
    Camilla: You are a complete idiot (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.
    Charles: My luck to be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on forever swirling round on the top, never going down.

    Oh Well that’s the future King, what a romantic?

    10

  • #
    Messenger

    The National Trust got carried away in 2010 about what our gardens might look like in a few years under the relentless onslaught of global warming. Wry smiles now from those who thought it was inevitable and planted oranges in Northumberland.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1260244/National-Trust-UK-garden-images-effect-global-warming.html

    .

    10

  • #
    Graham Richards

    It would appear that he has given in to temptation and is now smoking the herbs he grows. [with the assistance of CO2]

    Definitely not head of state material.

    On the other hand when Britain succumbs to the EU who would want to be king of some minor EU
    province, or as the EUSSR would have it, a territory with a section number.

    10

  • #
    Steve

    The good thing is that over here in the U.K. his intelligence is rated about as high as our cricket teams performance !!!
    No one cares about him – end of story

    40

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      No, not “end of story”. People who would deride Charles 23/7 will happily quote him, the rest of the time.

      The problem is that a royal head of state shouldn’t be pontificating about these matters. Obviously, Charles isn’t head of state as yet, but I can’t see him reining in his rhetoric when he is actually reigning. Bear in mind that the Queen is head of state in Australia, Canada and New Zealand and quite a few other places, as well as in the UK, and so would Charles be. I may be a hypocrite, for supporting Charles, decades ago, when he had strong views about architecture and for opposing him now, but his current crusade affects, or wants to affect, the entire world economy. Art-lover though I am, I can’t pretend that the external appearance of the London National Gallery is likely to be a life-or-death matter for anyone today (never mind in 2100). Despite being a genuine lover of the countryside, Charles doesn’t seem to have considered what the addition of zillions of pylons and bird-choppers and cables will do to it.

      10

  • #
    Fenbeagleblog

    The prince wins by a head. Nag Nag Nag…..Fen Beagle cartoon 2014….

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/2014/

    30

  • #
    Ruairi

    A limerick for you Jo.

    Like a chicken who loses its head,
    The Prince staggers on in great dread,
    Of those climate deniers,
    And cold hearted liars,
    Who claim Global Warming is dead.

    10

  • #
    StewGreen

    PROJECTION again from alarmists
    This time from whoever wrote Charles words for him

    .. Johanna, 230 comments in a few hours .. Wow thoses skeptis are a fringe group .. Have you seen how quiet alarmists sites are these days ?

    10

  • #
    StewGreen

    Wow and mote comments on your Facebook
    Marks is spot on .. Charlie Science is something that has been validated otherwise it DOGMA that should be challenged

    10

  • #
    J Martin

    Prince Charles is just, brainwashed, the same as many of us have been in the past. He will mke some sort of recovery from the afliction and get back to what he used to do, putting architects in their plce and helping the young unemployed get training and jobs. I feel sorry for the bloke. Nothing the fortcoming minimum won’t cure.

    20

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    @ gbees # 97

    Your comment about Charles ‘wanting to be reincarnated as a virus’ inspired me to look for details. I was surprised to be directed by Google to many sources that all claim it was his father, the Duke of Edinburgh who said that.

    11

  • #
    MACK1

    Charles is a fry-baby.

    10

  • #
    James Long Gon

    Unfortunately in these times half-witted royals have no natural predators. In The Middle Ages the problem would have resolved itself through natural selection.

    30

  • #
    Seth

    Switch off your brain, Prince Charles has said you are a headless chicken if you do not accept what political committees tell you to think.

    Not just political committees.

    Also every scientific organization of at least national standing.

    02

    • #
      bullocky

      -
      ‘Also every scientific organization of at least national standing.’
      -
      In fairness to Prince Charles, Seth, you should have tried to include homeopathic organizations as well.

      00

      • #
        Seth

        He’s certainly no great advocate of the scientific position.

        Nevertheless, there a no scientific organisations and nearly no scholarly papers that refute that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic, so I think “if you do not accept what political committees tell you to think” is poor science communication because it is misleading.

        03

        • #
          Heywood

          “there a no scientific organisations and nearly no scholarly papers that refute that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic”

          So? Does a head count of scientific organisations prove anything? A vast majority of the same organisations ans scientific papers agreed that we were entering an ice age 30-40 odd years ago.

          Also, do you know how these organisations came to their conclusions supporting AGW?
          Was it a ballot of members?
          Just the executive?
          A committee?
          The president?

          Was it for scientific, political or financial reasons?
          Was it the fear of leftard activists camping on their doorstep?
          A feel good vibe perhaps?

          When you say that the “current warming is mostly anthropogenic”, exactly what do you mean by “mostly”.
          If it isn’t completely anthropogenic, then what other natural factors are contributing?
          What is the ratio of anthropogenic to natural causation?
          What scientific paper empirically proves CO2 causation of the current warming period?

          So many questions. Settled science? Pffffft.

          30

        • #
          bullocky

          Seth:
          ‘Nevertheless, there a no scientific organisations and nearly no scholarly papers that refute that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic’

          Not much of an argument until we get some more warming. Without it, these organizations are looking a bit sheepish.

          01

        • #
          gbees

          “nearly no scholarly papers that refute that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic”

          that’s a lie … but I digress ….. you are trying to pull the reverse null hypothesis on us. Your kind blame human CO2 emissions for runaway catastrophic global warming. so you need to provide the evidence to support your claims. There is no, repeat no empirical scientific evidence which supports your hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing runaway catastrophic global warming. If you have said evidence please provide paper name, authors, journal name, date, location of data and mathematical algorithms use so that this can be scientifically verified. thanks in anticipation.

          30

        • #
          Mark D.

          He’s certainly no great advocate of the scientific position.

          Nuff said.

          Ignore the rich, useless, adulterer. He’s half the man his mother is.

          10

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Nevertheless, the null hypothesis refutes the AGW position. Period. And until that is disproven, it nullifies any suppositions on AGW.

          That is basic science. Chucky and you should take a course in it.

          00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Nevertheless, there a no scientific organisations and nearly no scholarly papers that refute that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic

          Even if I bought into this line, the first thing I would ask is “exactly how much warming has there been to blame on humans?”

          Go ahead Seth, tell me and include your work.

          00

    • #
      Leo Morgan

      @ Seth
      Your quote “every scientific organization of at least national standing” from Julie Brigham-Grette in Eos (link not displaying 3 Feb 2014), via Wikipedia, is ambiguous.
      I hope you’ll forgive me clarifying.
      The specific clarifications are firstly, ‘the nation’ referred to in your source is America, and secondly, ‘its not that the organisations support CAGW, it’s just that they do not have an organisational policy rejecting CAGW’.
      Your primary source Wikipedia, itself lists a number of scientific organisations that don’t take a stand on the issue. Them ‘not rejecting it’ is a very different thing from ‘Every organisation supports the claim.’
      Leaving out those clarifications makes it look as if Ms Brigham-Grette is making the false and grandiose claim that every scientific body of national stature in every nation in the world supports the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That makes her look ignorant or intentionally dishonest, and with respect, when you repeat her claims without those clarifications, it does the same to you.
      As a separate issue, it’s important to note that what these organisations are quoted as ‘not denying’ is ‘human-induced effects on climate change’. Congratulations. Jo believes that humans have an effect on climate, I believe that, Anthony Watts believes that, Steve McIntyre believes that, Richard Lindzen believes that. Those organisations and you are in good company. Soi-disant environmentalists who think that’s the issue under dispute are profoundly ignorant.
      Perhaps we can find more common ground.
      Surely we can reject half-truths on either side. We can denounce and repudiate sophistry.
      We can reject the extremists on either side. I reject the (very few) people who claim there is no greenhouse effect. (Not because I understand their arguments and see where they’re wrong, but because I’ve never seen any of them able to sensibly discuss the reasons why people do accept the Greenhouse effect.)
      Likewise I hope you can reject the claims of the nuts among the alarmed. The first book on AGW I read proposed that the Antarctic Ice Cap would flood the world by (was it 2005?) because it would slide off the gigantic ocean beneath the ice cap. (Yes, there are lakes. No there is not an on-land Antarctic Ocean.)
      The second pro-AGW book I read was even less rational.
      I’m sceptical that climate sensitivity is as high as was claimed by Gore et al. Specifically those who forecast an ice-free Arctic by 2010, (later revised to 2013), or those who forecast 50 to 200 million climate refugees by 2010. In its most recent report the IPCC has come to share that scepticism. It has now lowered the bound within which Climate Sensitivity is expected to lie.
      I’m sceptical of those who claim any warming at all must be bad. Middle school geology taught me about the ‘Global Climactic Optimums’ of the past, where the temperature was much warmer than today. Notice the wording of the name. I see thriving tropical rainforests vs. frozen tundra, and judge the former preferable.
      I see the Mafia enriched by ‘Climate Action’. I see ‘Climate Action’s’ expensive energy policies freezing hundreds to death from fuel poverty. I see it’s increases in energy and food costs causing millions to be impoverished. I see hundreds of millions of people starved to food riots. And I judge this deplorable.
      Perhaps we can find some common ground there.
      I’m sceptical of the claims that weather will become more extreme in a warmer world. The Carnot cycle indicates that available energy expressed as cyclones etc. depends on temperature differences (between poles and equator) not the total energy in the system. While the system is not merely as simple as that, I keep my eyes open for evidence to support the ‘more extreme’ claims and I have yet to find it. Indeed the IPCC now seems to have abandoned that idea.
      I see the political and financial and partisan incentives to search only for adverse and exacerbating influences on climate by CO2. But this will distort the picture. Few things have effects in only one direction. Admittedly the science will often include both positive and negative effects; the distortion I speak of is a slight, though sustained unidirectional bias.
      Science reporting is a very different thing. Forgive me going slightly off-topic to document some of the specific abuses in that area. I went from my local newspaper’s ‘Climate Change’ reporting to the peer reviewed papers it’s report were supposedly based upon, and found it misreported by omitting every ‘on the other hand’ in a set of fifty reports I checked. Only one of the reports was accurate, in that it was accurately reported the WWF Press release it was based upon. But that WWF report dishonestly omitted the ‘on the other hand’ information of the peer reviewed science. John Cook’s blog ‘Skeptical Science’ is an advocacy based blog, not a fair discussion. I’m not referring to his changing his article after people had commented on it, and then berating them for not having read the article. That’s embarrassing, but human error happens. I’m thinking of efforts like his claims about Richard Lindzen having abandoned his ‘iris’ theory. This is an intentional half-truth. Lindzen has substituted one theory with a more complex version of the same thing, as Cook could not help but have known. Likewise his response to the claim that a warming world would release more farmland from under ice and tundra than would be made unavailable is disingenuous at best. he argues ‘the soil is not very fertile’ or words to that effect. MOST soil is not very fertile, we make it so by nitrogen enrichment, crop rotation, fertilisers, contour ploughing, and more. There is much more that could be said about this argument, but whatever his reasons, his article tries to close debate not to consider alternatives. Here ends my digression.
      I’m sceptical that taking aggressive ‘climate action’ is worth the cost. Shutting down every wheel might be an effective final solution to overpopulation, but will not magically abolish climate extremes. I read somewhere that every decade sees five years ordinary weather, three years of drought and two of flood (or was that vice versa?) Regardless, if we spend our money on carbon dioxide we will still have droughts and floods. If we instead spend our money on coping with droughts and floods, we will deal with the whole decade as if it were a clement climate, carbon dioxide or not. It’s a better use of money, and it doesn’t contradict the point made by any of the organisations you allude to. And need it be said that I’m appalled by and opposed to that ‘solution’?
      Can we find any common ground in all this?

      50

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    There once was a prince named Charlie
    The years had made old and gnarly
    One day he awoke
    Found he was a joke
    And his rants turned snide and snarly

    Eugene WR Gallun

    50

  • #
    bullocky

    -
    Clive Hamilton…………’anti-vaccinators’
    -
    Stephan Lewandowsky……….’conspiracy ideation’
    -
    Prince Charles…………’headless chickens’
    -
    -
    The value of an Australian education is not to be underestimated!

    20

  • #
    Sunray

    I have always found Prince Charles to be underwhelming as a leader, unlike his brother and sons. It would have been nice for the script writer/journalist to point out some of the “facts” founded on lies and “adjusted” “facts”.

    30

  • #
    tom0mason

    Who in their right mind cares what this Royal idiot thinks.
    He has plenty of reasons(investments)to want us to believe.

    40

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    HRH might not be the brightest bunny in the hutch, but he’s put himself in the way of a learning experience:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10617863/Prince-Charles-shocked-by-tragedy-of-flood-failures.html

    From his reported comments, his prejudices have been severely challenged by seeing the facts and meeting those afflicted by Green ideology face-to-face. His handlers will have a lot to do to mend the ecoloon Glamour rent asunder by the reality.

    10

  • #
    Visiting Physicist

    We should have “blind trust in (correct) science” maybe – science that is backed by empirical evidence, and which works the same way on other planets …

    Suppose we had a planet the size of Earth out where Uranus is, nearly 30 times further from the Sun than Earth is. But we give it a 350Km high troposphere like that on Uranus made up of 85% hydrogen, 13% helium and a ceiling of 2% methane confined to the uppermost limits of the atmosphere, absorbing nearly all the solar radiation and maintaining the very cold radiating temperature of about 60K. So what would the temperature of the surface of that planet be without any internal energy generation, or any water vapour or carbon dioxide, or any solar radiation reaching that surface?

    Well, look up the temperature at the base of the actual Uranus troposphere and decide whether the surface of our imaginary planet would be hotter or colder than Earth’s surface. Why is it so?

    00