I was once at a dinner at which HRH Prince Charles was the honoured guest, and he talked after dinner about urban design and architecture generally, on which he had strong views. I knew enough about the subject to recognise that there were alternative views that could be well supported, and wondered why HRH had not referred to them.
It struck me then that he might be one of those for whom the opinions came first, with the evidence being used to support the opinion — rather than the opinion’s growing out of a sustained study of the evidence. Of course, he is not alone there. All of us do that from time to time, having gobbets of evidence that we can produce on demand to sustain the opinion we have, whatever it is.
In Prince Charles’s case it might also be possible that no one ever really argues with him, because it might be considered quite rude and disrespectful to do so. I can recall other subjects on which he has spoken where his view seemed to be delivered ex cathedra, as it were — as a given, rather than as a proposition that might be argued with in discussion.
And he has done it again in the last few days, speaking to an audience in London like this: It is baffling, I must say, 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. All of a sudden, and with a barrage of sheer intimidation, we are told by powerful groups of deniers that the scientists are wrong and we must abandon all our faith in so much overwhelming scientific evidence. 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 and do something practical to help.
So far as I can tell, these were classic off-the-cuff remarks, and were not supported by any examples, evidence or data. Indeed, he also told the audience that I have tended to make a habit of sticking my head above the parapet and generally getting it shot off for pointing out what has always been blindingly obvious to me.
I think there’s a real clue in the phrase ‘blindingly obvious to me’. In fact ‘climate change’ can’t be blindingly obvious to anyone, because climate is the long-term average of weather. Whether the global climate is changing in any significant way is not even clear, let alone the extent to which any change is due to human activities of various kinds. What Prince Charles seem to be saying is that if something is obvious to him, then those who disagree with him are powerful intimidators who ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence.
With all due respect to the heir to the throne, this can only be described as rubbish. The only intimidation I have been able to discern, over the last few years, is the description of sceptics as ‘deniers’. The supposed ‘death threats’ to climate scientists turned out to be nothing of the kind. What on earth can he mean by ‘a barrage of sheer intimidation’? Where and when did this barrage occur? At whom was it directed?
And who belongs to these ‘powerful groups of deniers’? To the best of my knowledge, again, those who disagree with the AGW orthodoxy are not organised at all. The closest I get to a group is an occasional lunch with a bunch of retired scientists, medicos and servicemen whose principal link is that they share a common view that the AGW scare has been grossly overdone. Yes, there is the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, and the Heartland Institute in the US, but to describe these as ‘powerful’ is ludicrous. They seem to exist on the smell of an oily rag, unlike Greenpeace and the WWF, which have substantial financial resources and a privileged position in the IPCC business.
Finally, the use of the phrase ‘overwhelming scientific evidence’ says it all. HRH doesn’t really have a clue about the nature of the evidence, which is certainly large, but not at all overwhelming. To almost any question about the earth’s climate the best current answers are uncertain. Has the planet warmed over the last century? Probably. Is this warming unprecedented in human experience? Probably not. Is the warming going on at the moment? Not really. How much of it has been due to human activities like burning fossil fuels, making cement and clearing land? Some, but probably not much. Should we be really worried about what is going to happen in terms of climate? Probably not.
If Prince Charles can show me that there is in fact much more certainty than this, based on good argument and good evidence, I will refrain from assuming that ‘the heedless chicken brigade’ remark applies much more surely to HRH and those who talk like him, than it does to anyone else.
If Prince Charles expressed these ideas as an ordinary citizen they would hardly be reported on: as it is, he could be dismissed as a sincere, well meaning person with half-baked views on climate change which are widely shared or indeed as some sort of nutter. He regularly comes out, on other topics as well, expressing all sorts of notions. The obvious conclusion is that Australia should formally disassociate itself from such a monarchy and become a democracy.
This conclusion does not follow from anything that you have written and quite surprisingly the idea of an Australian republic is not currently as popular as it may have been in the past. The logic of our population mix, decreasing links with UK/Ireland etc make the process inexorable but not in the immediate future.
The personality of the monarch is not important at all on whether we retain our present system of government or become a “republic”. There are many far more important issues at stake here. The republic remains on the left wing bucket list as the best way they have of changing the Constitution to their radical liking. They’ll never do it with fully informed referenda on individual issues.
It’s true about the personality of the monarchy being irrelevant: especially on climate change! Even those who believe in it, may not want such endorsement from such a person as Charles!
I would dispute the ‘never’ in your last sentence and if Peter Costello or Malcolm Turnbull equivalents surface in the future that may change things but the simple facts are there would need to be an agreed-upon framework re President role, voting etc from both major parties before any prospect of a successful referenda and this is not an immediate agenda item, I agree.
If nothing else the Prince makes it obvious why the queen has seemed so reluctant to pass on the crown.
If you mean she’s elderly and is reluctant to die before she’s called, I agree. There is no tradition of abdication in the British monarchy, unlike in Europe.
“The only intimidation I have been able to discern, over the last few years, is the description of sceptics as ‘deniers’.”
Don I thought you might be interested in this
http://theconversation.com/universities-seriously-concerned-by-death-threats-against-climate-scientists-1686
It was precisely that story that I had in mind. Follow-up accounts made it clear that the police had not been told, and that there had not in fact been any death threats at all, but only verbal abuse, and not much of that. I wrote about it at the time, and will try to track my post down.
I can’t instantly find my own piece on it, but it was at about the time of this story in the Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-scientists-claims-of-email-death-threats-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frgcjx-1226345224816#
Yes, agree. Story needs to be treated with caution.
They [AGW skeptics] seem to exist on the smell of an oily rag,… “, well,the smell of oil at least.
Sorry I could not resist. 🙂
I’m an AGW skeptic who is beholden to Big Oil! I am in dire need of them to keep my Camry Altise going.
I knew it was ripe for a quip when I wrote it.
Perhaps he’s been reading too much Michael Mann? I suppose our king-to-be
may consider it lèse-majesté if someone disagrees with his blindly obvious
opinions and his offended ego magnifies such affronts into “a barrage of sheer
intimidation” by “powerful groups of deniers”. If no one can confront his views
on homeopathy, why should they do so over the blindly oblivious climate change?
One wonders what the Prince thinks of vaccinations.
Anyway, I’m not a Hobbesian
and am a republican to my core, but I can change my opinions when the data
suggests I should. Last year you defended Scarlett Johansson against one of my
comments and suggested “Match Point” was a good example of her acting talent.
Alas, it didn’t show up as a classic on any trans-Pacific flight, so I bought
it on iTunes.
You are right – she did a fine job as the floosy (alas, no femme
fatal in that good, but not great, semi-noir film). Also, she recently took a
principled stand on some anti-Semitic nonsense with Oxfam. So, I retract my
slur on her acting and politics. Too bad she wasn’t given a better-scripted
role, though. I thought Emily Moritimer had the more difficult role and gave a
very nuanced and impressive performance. Still, the plot smacked of An American
Tragedy and I remain suspicious of Mr Allen.
Match Point was very silly – Scarlett Johanssen was quite good in it and of course very easy to watch. Woody Allen is a creep. Some of his films are good though – Blue Jasmine was one Midnight in Paris another. These are my opinions with nothing to back them up. Another opinion is that Prince Charles is a bit of a goose.
Hi Margaret, Yeah, I suppose Match Point was on the silly side, and derivative. Blue Jasmine sounds interesting but also derivative in a Tennessee Williams kind of way. Our Ms Blanchett is another of those actors who feel impelled to wear political opinions like designer gowns, so I don’t like patronizing her films – but even in tedious films like Oscar & Lucinda and Elisabeth she does shine. Charles, however, never seems to glow at all. Mr Allen should be given the benefit of the doubt as to his personal life, but I think he is over-rated as a director.
Yes Dave W – Blue Jasmine resembles A streetcar named desire. You are right about Woody Allen deserving the benefit of the doubt re recent allegations about his personal life but there’s no doubt that it’s creepy to marry your step daughter.
Well, they married each other, but yes, creepy.
If I had been born into Title, I would also be inclined to tell the commoners to cut back on their profligate lifestyles. Damn nusiance the commoners are polluting the hunting fields.
Don,
You have often asked where is the evidence of serious consequence
due to climate change? Over the last 12 years, the average debt per farm in Queensland has increased from $700,000 to $2,000,000 (The Drum). That represents an annual increase of a thumping 9%. According to Barnaby Joyce (on QandA) the principal reason for this failure is the “drought”, as he calls it. Apparently he wants to establish a rural “bank” within the Reserve Bank to buy back non-performing farm debt to enable farmers to exit with dignity aka a handout. These are the sorts of changes that one might expect to see with AGW.
Aren’t you confusing climate with weather? The global change in temperature over the last twelve years is nil, or slightly cooling. GCMs are not very good at the regional level, and the capacity of GCMs to predict precipitation is likewise poor.
What is happening in Queensland is complex (there has been a lot of rain in parts, otherwise Lake Eyre would not have filled), and is not obviously caused by AGW.
Don
My responses are as follows.
“Aren’t you confusing climate with weather?” No
“The global change in temperature over the last twelve years
is nil, or slightly cooling.” Incorrect (See link to NASA 5 year temperature average, below)
“GCMs are not very good at the regional level, and the
capacity of GCMs to predict precipitation is likewise poor.” Agree
What is happening in Queensland is complex (there has been a
lot of rain in parts, otherwise Lake Eyre would not have filled), and is not obviously caused by AGW.
1. Agree, climate change is complex.
2. There are no farms to speak of near Lake Eyre
3. Disagree, that drought in QLD is obviously not caused by AGW
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=global+temperature+since+2000&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&imgil=vP4KFTB0mzEcrM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQWMiMc1VEBnn_0Y-GhWSePhs8DhHxytQEJpxy4pmcbudHBu6zr%253B2506%253B877%253B4-DluMFEScyP0M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.giss.nasa.gov%25252Fresearch%25252Fnews%25252F20120119%25252F&source=iu&usg=__Ryq43yj42mOTQ_Wkv9OLcB5UsfE%3D&sa=X&ei=cRXwUqyzAYmriAeRgIHAAg&ved=0CEcQ9QEwBA&biw=1366&bih=643#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=vP4KFTB0mzEcrM%253A%3B4-DluMFEScyP0M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.giss.nasa.gov%252Fresearch%252Fnews%252F20120119%252F616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg%255B1%255D.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.giss.nasa.gov%252Fresearch%252Fnews%252F20120119%252F%3B2506%3B877
David,
I admire your persistence, but have to say that I can’t always respond to your comments. The rain that finds its way to Lake Eyre falls in Queensland and, to a limited degree, in the Northern Territory. It passes right through inland Qld in order to get there.
Oh, and there is a difference between ‘obviously not caused’ and ‘not obviously caused’. I used the second. You disagree with the first — and I probably would, too.
Don
Point taken. 🙂
David,
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has a discussion of drought in the 1968 Yearbook of Australia. I think we can agree that 1968 was before CAGW poisoned
the data well. The tables tell the story, the same I was taught years ago at uni – Australia is a land with frequent droughts. Look at the tables and read, e.g. “Australia’s most severe drought periods since the beginning of European settlement appear to have been those of 1895-1903 and 1958-68.”
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/lookup/1301.0Feature%20Article151988
Where you see proof of CAGW all I see is the same variable and often dry climate as always. The last few years of flooding rains were also somehow contorted into proof of CAGW, but I have read the flood list at the Dickabram Bridge over the Mary and know that even worse floods than the last few years occurred in the late 1800s. Australia is a land of droughts and floods and has been for a very long time. If our climate is changing, as climates seem to do, then unfortunately we have no idea how or why it is changing because the CAGW clique are not interested in understanding or ameliorating any change. As far as I can tell everything must be manipulated to prove global climate change and that it is worse than we thought and that anyone who disagrees is amnion of big oil, coal or whatever.
Those who haven’t seen it might be interested in Lord Monckton’s response: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/monckton-challenge-to-prince-charles/