" .. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves .. "
“ .. Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it .. ”
In my article "The Prince of Wales and his Headless Chickens" I commented on reports that he branded climate change deniers the "headless chicken brigade" (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-prince-of-wales-and-his-headless.html).
Prince Charles is quoted as offering the following pearls of wisdom to his audience:
1) " .. It is 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 .. "
2) " .. with a barrage of sheer intimidation, we are told by powerful groups of deniers that the scientists are wrong .. "
3) " .. we are told ... we must abandon all our faith in so much overwhelming scientific evidence .. "
4) " .. we have spent the best part of the past century enthusiastically testing the world to utter destruction .. ".
5) " .. So, thank goodness for our young entrepreneurs here, who have the far-sightedness and confidence in what they know is happening to ignore the headless chicken brigade .. ".
On 22nd November 2015 meteorologist Anthony Watts posted an article focussing on Prince Charles's more recent ludicrous claim that " .. there’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough was a drought .. we never deal with the underlying root cause which regrettably is what we’re doing to our natural environment .. ". That claim followed his " .. some of us were saying 20 something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change .. " (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-charles-climate-change-to-blame-for-terrorism/news-story/409c6a0191b9dcbd028d07a1d697928f).
The UN's annual CACC party kicked off this morning in Paris with speeches from leading delegates at the 21st "Conference of the Parties" (COP21). The organisers couldn't have chosen a more appropriate individual than the UK's heir to the throne to present the keynote speech to this fossil-fuelled gathering of propagandists - scaremongers who are using the unfounded CACC hypothesis to pursue agendas far removed from taking over Nature's job of controlling the different global climates.
Here are some extracts from those few minutes of Prince Charles's scaremongering opinions on CACC, with footnotes for anyone who might be misled by his "pearls of wisdom".
" .. Rarely in human history have so many people around the world placed their trust in so few .. ".
Winston Churchill must not have simply turned but spun in his grave at this one. Taking into consideration that there has been virtually no increase in the mean global temperature during this century (following less than 1 degree C during the previous 150 years, James Delingpole put it more realistically when saying "On The Eve Of Paris Climate Talks: World Just Doesn’t Care About Global Warming Any More" (http://www.thegwpf.com/on-the-eve-of-paris-climate-talks-world-just-doesnt-care-about-global-warming-any-more/).
" .. Your deliberations over the next two weeks will decide the fate not only of those alive today, but also of generations yet unborn .. ".
Generations yet unborn will look back on this CACC scaremongering as one of the greatest con-tricks ever swallowed by the gullible.
" .. I can only urge you to think of your grandchildren, as I think of mine, and of those billions of people without a voice; those for whom hope is the rarest of sensations; those for whom a secure life is a distant .. "
This really does try to tear at the heartstrings, attempting to soften up the wider global audience to the subsequent two weeks of scaremongering nonsense.
" .. Most of all, I urge you to consider the needs of the youngest generation, because none of us has the right to assume that 'for our today they should give up their tomorrow' .. ".
The objective here is to try to stir up feelings of guilt over imagined selfish disregard for the well-being of those who depend upon our protection.
" .. On an increasingly crowded planet, humanity faces many threats – but none is greater than climate change .. ".
Now we see the creation of a link between the reality of population growth and the myth of human-caused climate catastrophe.
" .. (Climate change) magnifies every hazard and tension of our existence. It threatens our ability to feed ourselves; to remain healthy and safe from extreme weather; to manage the natural resources that support our economies, and to avert the humanitarian disaster of mass migration and increasing conflict .. ".
Once again there is that propagandist ploy of subtly linking the myth of CACC to real current events. At this point we start being subjected to lavish doses of scaremongering over imagined consequences of what will shortly be blamed on our use of fossil fuels.
" .. In damaging our climate we become the architects of our own destruction. While the planet can survive the scorching of the earth and the rising of the waters, the human race cannot .. ".
Here the finger of blame is pointed at us humans because of our use of fossil fuel and the imaginary spectre is raised of the death of future generations by fire and water.
" .. The absurd thing is that WE KNOW exactly what needs to be done. WE KNOW we cannot adapt sufficiently to go on as we are, nor can we build ourselves a new atmosphere. To avoid catastrophe we must restrict climate change to less than 2 degrees, which requires a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions. This can be done. WE KNOW that we cannot go on as we are .. ".
At this point an attempt is made to persuade the gullible that they have the solution within their grasp, by stopping using fossil fuels.
Of course this doesn't apply to the privileged few, who can continue using fossil fuels as they see fit, e.g. to:
- travel the globe spreading the CACC gospel,
-do whatever else they must do in order to save the world from impending disaster,
- pursue their own individual agendas.
Only their "subjects" and other lesser mortals must make the necessary sacrifices in order to save the human population from extinction.
This is where the real con begins - the pretence that there is full understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates and that we can control them, e.g. simply by replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy, conserving forests and other such "sustainable" activities.
Only the likes of politicians, environmental activists and investors in renewable energy schemes claim that WE KNOW these things. Even honest scientists who support the CACC hypothesis acknowledge their significant uncertainty about the impact of our use of fossil fuels on global climates.
" .. This can be done. We have the knowledge, the tools and the money – only 1.7% per cent of global annual consumption would be required to put us on the right low carbon path for 2030. We lack only the will and the framework to use them wisely, consistently and at the required global scale. Governments collectively spend more than a trillion dollars every year on subsidies to energy, agriculture and fisheries. Just imagine what could be done if those vast sums supported sustainable energy, farming and fishing rather than fossil fuels, deforestation and over-exploitation of the seas. It is a premium we need to pay for our collective, long-term insurance policy.
We are always hearing nowadays that all our action must be based on good science. We have that science. Why then, when it comes to climate change is it apparently no longer applicable? .. We have also seen how fast innovation and investment can drive low carbon energy technologies .. ".
Now the "subjects" and lesser mortals, rich and poor alike, are expected to believe that they only have to pay a small "insurance" premium for replacing proven, readily available, reliable, reasonable-cost sources of energy that fuel economic growth with unreliable and ridiculously expensive alternatives such as wind and solar.
" .. we are learning how to develop circular economies, in which everything we previously regarded as waste becomes the feedstock for future growth .. ".
This is one thing in the speech that makes some sense, but it has virtually nothing to do with the CACC hypothesis.
" .. I pray that, in pursuing national interests, you will not lose sight of the international necessity. Back in 2009 just before COP15 in Copenhagen I remember trying to point out that the best scientific projection gave us less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risked the tipping point of catastrophic climate change beyond which there is no recovery. Have we really reached such a collective inertia that ignores so clear a warning? 80 - 80 of those 100 months have now passed .. we must act now! .. ".
Now the prophet, having been advised by his scaremongering "crystal ball"-gazing computer modellers, warns of that "catastrophic climate tipping point" bogeyman around round the corner, ready to pounce in less than 2 years time.
" .. Already we are being overtaken by other events and crises that can be seen as greater and more immediate threats, but in reality many are already (and will increasingly be) related to rapidly growing effects of climate change .. ".
Maybe here the "prophet" was thinking about the current problems in Syria, which he seems to believe were caused by drought arising from our use of fossil fuels rather than human brutality.
" .. The whole of Nature cries out at our treatment of her. If the planet were a patient, we would have treated her long ago .. You, Ladies and Gentlemen, have the power to put her on life support, and you must surely start the emergency procedures without further procrastination .. ".
The gullible to whom this speech is addressed should bear in mind the words of biophysicist Dr. James Lovelock, the High Prophet of Gaia. He claimed ahead of the UN's COP15 caper in Copenhagen that " .. Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable .. ". Subsequently he reverted from environmental propagandist to scientist with " .. I made a mistake .. The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing, .. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened .. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world .. (The temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that .. " (http://www.thegwpf.com/james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change/).
Perhaps Prince Charles was simply parroting Dr. Lovelock when " .. saying 20 something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change .. ". After all, " .. Charles was greatly influenced by James Lovelock .. " (http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/Vol93_Charles_sustainable.htm).
No matter how hard they try, the thousands of CACC scaremongers who have travelled comfortably from all over the world to the COP21 party in Paris (thanks to those wonderful fossil fuels) cannot change the facts.
" .. Today, after far too long an interval, you are all here to set us on the road to a far saner future if, at last, the moment has arrived to take those long-awaited steps towards rescuing our planet and our fellow man from impending catastrophe. Let us pursue that vital goal in the spirit of enlightenment and humane collaboration .. ".
Here we have the call-to-arms of the faithful to join the crusade against the millions of us who persist in driving economic growth and improving our living conditions by using fossil fuels. Why should we be permitted to do such a thing while at the same time polluting our only atmosphere with that essential, life-supporting substance Carbon Dioxide, without which life as we know it would not exist?
In response to Eric Warrall's article "Prince Charles: Climate Change is to blame for War in Syria":
- Pat Swords commented " .. It may sound strange from an Irshman, but GOD SAVE THE QUEEN and keep her hale and hearty for a good few years to come .. " (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/23/prince-charles-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-war-in-syria/#comment-2078164).
- Janice Moore responded with " .. It may sound even more strange coming from an American, but, “God, save the queen,” and may the next cry we hear after, “… the Queen is dead,” be, “… long live King William!”.
- Peter Miller added " .. Indeed “God Save the Queen” is a hugely important concept in Britain today, for few Brits want to say “God Save the King”, unless it skips a generation down to Prince William.
Shame on you WUWT, it is one thing to attack the intellectually dishonest, like most of the current generation of ‘climate scientists’; it is totally another to attack the intellectually challenged .. " (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/23/prince-charles-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-war-in-syria/#comment-2078198).
It's hard to argue with those sentiments!