Comments on: The Madness of Prince Charles

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:34:30 +0000

Dear blogger,
For the benefit of clarity can you please produce (or re-produce) graphs with the vertical axis clearly labelled. A graph is strictly meaningless unless it is fully labelled. If you take the time to produce (or re-produce) a graph it is presumably to stop us all having to follow links away from your site to the original material. Appreciated.

Alarmists have problems with basic science (like explaining things that fluctuate chaotically) and it would be a shame if more grounded people shot themselves down by such basic an omission as the failure to label a graph.

By: hunter

hunter — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:03:39 +0000

cloneof,
The rules are that AGW true believers and opinion leaders get to call skeptics anything they want, and skeptics are to politely respond.

By: Cloneof

Cloneof — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:03:03 +0000

Greystead:

But didn’t Prince Charles do an ad hominem on us skeptics?

By: Andrew Morrey

Andrew Morrey — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:53:18 +0000

@Greystead

I don’t disagree with Prince Charles on every issue, I can go along with your architecture comment for instance and, as a matter of fact, I’m quite pro the idea of the monarchy in the British constitutional situation at least. However, and with all due respect to your opinion, the strident comments he makes about AGW are not about conservation and not in the best interests of the the monarchy continuing – it’s one thing for politicians to get behind these things, quite another for an unelected head of state. Whatever he believes (and I’ve no doubt at all he is sincere in his beliefs) it’s a very high risk strategy given the real changes society would have to make to satisfy the demands of the warmists. He’s stood up and used his status and position to make statements, we’re entitled to be critical of both the statement and (in my opinion) the misuse of the position without being sent to the Tower.

Compare and contrast to the Queen. No doubt she holds strong views on many subjects but it wise enough to keep them to herself.

It’s a great shame that public figures (of any kind) feel the obligation to pontificate at all on these matters. The whole AGW thing couldn’t have come at a worse time in our history as regards the present obsession with celebrity and attention paid to the (usually completely irrelevant) views of those celebrities.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:08:18 +0000

Hunter,

“Over the last 15 years, the average rate of sea level rise has been 3.1mm per year. An 80% increase != “Fairly Constant”.”

That is, until about 2006:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg

Funny thing about statistics, they tend to HIDE changes in information until they hit you in the face!! Sorry but it’s gonna HURT Bro!!

By: Graham Green

Graham Green — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:00:16 +0000

Newposter’s X = just by looking at the people gagging to fire up their get rich quick carbon casino’s rather than invent new means of generating electricity and making oil.

By: Greystead

Greystead — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:45:37 +0000

Oops. I’ve just looked back at my post and seen all the typos. Sorry. The thoughts still stand.

By: Greystead

Greystead — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:38:22 +0000

Ad hominem attacks against the Prince of Wales are not terribly helpful, nor do they show those who disagree with AGW in a good light. I am very proud to be a supporter of the concept of Constitutional Monarchy while quite happy to disagree with the views of the heir apparent when it it come to climate change. Prince Charles has fallen victim to a number of popularly held views on the environment and alternative (to be blunt bogus) therapies. On the other hand I agree totally with him in his ideas on aspects of modern architecture. Unlike Al Gore, Prince Charles’s views and advocation of environmental issues are not based on personal gain or comparatively recent conversion to “green politics”. Rather they are based on the embodiment of tradion and conservation in its true sense in the personailty of the Crown. In other words an institution that takes the long view (over decades at the least) rather than looking to the next election. So back to the subject. I think that what we see here is another example of a well meaning person totally disregarding the facts and being taken in by the message promulgated by the media and the IPCC. Just like most polictians.

By: Bobby Llewellyn

Bobby Llewellyn — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:46:49 +0000

Poll: What impact do you think human activity is having on climate change?

http://polldaddy.com/p/2437952

By: Andrew Morrey

Andrew Morrey — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:15:12 +0000

Prince Charles single handedly does more for the republican cause in the UK than anyone…

As regards AGW, he is a leading example of someone who holds strong environmentalist views and so pushes the warming agenda without question at every opportunity irrespective of whether he really understands it, or lives the life he recommends for the rest of us, which as regards the latter at least, he plainly does not – see also Al Gore et al. I agree with David Bellamy (a noted English conservationist) when he laments the death of traditional conservation in favour of political campaigning on behalf of AGW, they are rarely complimentary and certainly conservation is suffering in the process.

No wonder the Queen is still hanging on in there and apparently hoping to out live him.