world

Prince Charles blasts climate-change skeptics

31 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

“Their suggestion, that hundreds of scientists around the world ... are somehow unconsciously biased, creates the implication that many of us are secretly conspiring to undermine and deliberately destroy the entire market-based capitalist system,” he said.

Ya think?

Not exactly unconsciously, Prince Charles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Exactly, their 'suggestion' seems to be that it is consciously biased.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm a bit afraid to say something negative to a prince, but many need to understand a few things. One is is that this has become way too politicized and there are so many sides to this each with their own and paramount idea. I've spent a lot of money on this. Too much. And I hope others don't follow me. Instead of criticizing those who are skeptical, one (he) should try to find out at what is causing people to be skeptical. I for one am very surprised at those like Gore (who I really once though was the real deal) still eat meat at the capacity that they do. they are just as, if not more guilty as emerging economies are trying to get in on said market literally clearing thousands of miles of fields, thus cutting into the rain forests. Yet we hear little. Vegetable farms are another area where we don't hear anything. And I'm well away at the Prince's appetite for meat.

What is being put out there is not the answer. The Cap and Trade is a very detrimental item for business and what they want to tax isn't going to do a damn thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder if he also blasted the Y2K skeptics.

Anyway, Climate Gate pretty much confirmed the skepticism I've had for years.

Scientific journals getting rid of editors that allow the publication of papers critical of this hoax is bound to give the impression that the majority of scientists support the global warming BS.

And when you realize that implementation of a carbon tax would have made Gore and his friends lots and lots of money. I have trouble believing that so many continue to fall for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Their suggestion, that hundreds of scientists around the world ... are somehow unconsciously biased,

"their" referring to thousands of scientists who call global warming B.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has he been to America this winter? Sure is not warm, and the snow has been crazy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bravo, Charles. You called it dead on. With the greatest single motivating factor behind skeptics' denial of global warming being the unimpeded acquisition of wealth, it's not too hard to figure out which side of the issue to fall on.

Particularly when one considers the boom in cottage industries that would occur if nations made a concerted efforts to take better care of the way we use the environment. There is nothing anti-capitalist about these burgeoning industries in the least. However these are technologies that aren't beholden to the old guard or status quo, and thus are flatly rejected.

Mark my words: As soon as it become clear to skeptics just how profitable it van be cleaning up this mess we've made of the planet, they'll do an about-face that causes whiplash and sing the praises of global warming research from the highest rooftops.

It's sad, really, that human beings can be so completely consumed by unmitigated greed for material wealth that we would tap dance glibly into self-destruction, but there you have it. And Charles is just another public figure to make the cardinal sin of pointing out our never-ending stupidity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mark my words: As soon as it become clear to skeptics just how profitable it van be cleaning up this mess we've made of the planet, they'll do an about-face that causes whiplash and sing the praises of global warming research from the highest rooftops." Don't know who you are directing your post at, but it should already be profitable, however, what the US and other countries want to do is tax their way to cleaning up and give a selected few companies the job of cleaning up and providing replacement products... now, let me ask you, how much meat do you and your family consume? How many PET bottles do you buy in a week? How much washing of clothes, drying, and soap do you use a week? How many showers vice baths do you take? and with that, how much soap, shampoo do you go through? There are skeptics and there are complete unbelievers. I for one am skeptical on how we are to clean it up... I do not like what is proposed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the good prince can show me his PhD and maybe some peer-reviewed work that he has published, then maybe I will listen to him. Otherwise he should probably shut-up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm with Sabi today: I wonder if he also blasted the Y2K skeptics." Yeah, I remember that.. Anyway, Climate Gate pretty much confirmed the skepticism I've had for years." No, climate gate was clearly push under the carpet.

Scientific journals getting rid of editors that allow the publication of papers critical of this hoax is bound to give the impression that the majority of scientists support the global warming BS." Very true, many people were fired and shut up when they spoke in disagreement

And when you realize that implementation of a carbon tax would have made Gore and his friends lots and lots of money. I have trouble believing that so many continue to fall for it." That's the point I don't get. its ok for Al to make money but no one else. Oh, and don't forget, his film was proven to faked

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip,

I direct my post at the same people Prince Charles directs his comments towards: The nonbelievers.

I'm not sure what my personal consumption habits have to do with anything, unless you're suggesting that by consuming meat or taking a shower somehow invalidates my sincere belief that human-influenced global warming is real. If that's the case, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Also, I don't think Charles or I are speaking in any way, shape, or form to how working to reduce carbon emissions should be approached.

You are.

Which is a tad off-topic, to be honest, although a perfectly valid concern.

As for your comments regarding Gore’s film, an inconvenient truth, you’re being more than disingenuous in stating that the film was “proved to be a fake.”

No, it wasn’t.

And I presume you mean to say that the data presented in the documentary was faked, and not the actually documentary itself.

The film bases its stance that global warming is a real phenomenon, likely human-caused, on no less than the following verifiable facts (from Wikipedia):

1) The Keeling curve, measuring CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory.

2) The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs.

3) A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years.

4) Temperature records since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.

5) A 2004 survey, by Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.

6) Gore also presented a 2004 study by Max and Jules Boykoff showing 53% of articles that appeared in major US newspapers over a fourteen year period gave roughly equal attention to scientists who expressed views that global warming was caused by humans as they did to global warming skeptics, creating a false balance.

7) The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. Of the 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie, all of them said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors.

This isn’t data that can be faked. It’s data that resulted from verifiable research. Now, you can argue about the methodology of the data collection, analysis, or interpretation, but to call it “faked” is just the kind of “corrosive effect” Charles was talking about. In other words, your exaggeration, in being untrue, contributes to the obstacles in the way of developing cohesive public policy on the subject.

Now, while I certainly wouldn’t quote Wikipedia for a doctoral thesis, it bears noting that a community-edited encyclopedia like Wiki would most certainly make some mention of this fakery you mention, brought to light by a concerned reader, complete with footnotes that cite evidence.

But it does not.

Why would that be, if the documentary were indeed, as you say, “faked”?

Now, you claim you're a skeptic about how we should clean this mess up, which indirectly suggests that you believe humanity-influenced global warming is real. So what then are your objections to what Charles said?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know any Brits who take this old clown seriously. Why should the rest of us?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain, little in there addresses the 'human-caused' that you say is likely.

And if 19 scientists out of 100 watched a film and said there were few errors, then you could say that 81 did NOT watch the film, which had few (= some) errors in it.

Why do you watch a film? Because you think you are going to enjoy it, I suspect. 100 scientists. Only 19 supporters, who generally agreed with its conclusions.

I think the strongest case can be made for a general rise in CO2 (from the oceans for example) that is added to (not caused by) by recent human activity. From this premise I am happy to make some small personal contribution to keeping my footprint light.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRA: That's quite post and I wish I had time today reply... and yes, you are correct. I should never have had said fake.... I do believe numbers have been fudged and the presentation of them have been found to be misleading.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRA: That's quite post and I wish I had time today reply... and yes, you are correct. I should never have had said fake.... I do believe numbers have been fudged and the presentation of them have been found to be misleading.

But they did use scenes of melting glaciers (if I remember correctly, created by computer graphics) from a fictional movie (without their permission). So the term "fake" is not all that inappropriate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"climate-change skeptics"

Or, global warming skeptics. Yeah, there are a bunch of those in areas with freezing temperatures and heavy snow.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the good prince can show me his PhD and maybe some peer-reviewed work that he has published, then maybe I will listen to him.

We don't tend to listen to those with the PhDs and published peer-reviewed work anyway if it doesn't agree with our personal views. Stepping aside from the global warming issue, I think this is a bigger problem that has spread right across society. We're far more likely to listen to the "pundits" rather than the "scientists", and simply agree with the ones that match our personal/political beliefs.

Prince Charles is a pundit, not a scientist. Most reports are pundits, so are TV and radio hosts, and even some who claim to be scientists are little more than pundits relying on non-peer reviewed or untested work. It all makes it very difficult for we, the general public, to separate the facts from the spin, so we just believe what we want to because it's easier. It's not a good way for things to be.

There is actually very little debate among scientists about both warming and it being induced or increased by human activity. There is, however, far more debate about whether this will have a major, minor or no effect on our future lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nandakandamanda,

"And if 19 scientists out of 100 watched a film and said there were few errors, then you could say that 81 did NOT watch the film, which had few (= some) errors in it.

"Why do you watch a film? Because you think you are going to enjoy it, I suspect. 100 scientists. Only 19 supporters, who generally agreed with its conclusions."

You're taking some interesting liberties with the available information. Few = some? Eighty-one scientists choosing not to watch the film did so because the oppose it? Mighty leaps of logic, I must say.

Okay, how about the 81 who didn't watch the film likely felt it unnecessary to view a layman's film regarding a topic with which they are more than well acquainted?

The film wasn't made for climate scientists. It was made for people like you and me using terms, descriptions, and information that the average non-climate scientist can wrap his or her brain around.

Sabiwabi,

"But they did use scenes of melting glaciers (if I remember correctly, created by computer graphics) from a fictional movie (without their permission). So the term "fake" is not all that inappropriate."

Are you serious?

The glaciers are in fact melting, and the one issue you bring to the table is that Gore didn't have to the forsight to plant dedicated cameras at the ice caps from 100 years in order to create a spiffy, time-lapse sequence of melting glaciers for your entertainment?

This is precicely what Charles is talking about: Foolish, spurious arguments that only appeal to those with but a passing interest in the real science behind the phenomenon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Princ Charles was right to blast skeptics. They have no plan in the event they are wrong.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - admire the fact that you are taking the time to fight the fight, but you are trying to argue science against True Believers. People who claim to know something that is unknowable and unprovable, that is religion not science.

So let them spent their time in the Church of Denial, and enjoy the time they have left. And when the sheiks say they have no more oil to sell them for bling and Benz's, and the insurance companies say "We ain't selling insurance no more", watch them all cry about how the government didn't protect them.

Hope I am wrong. but afraid I am not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“How are these people going to face their grandchildren and admit to them that they failed their future?”

The Prince should ask these to ordinary UK, Commonwealth rate payers of electricity and gas-- face-to-face!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“How are these people going to face their grandchildren and admit to them that they failed their future?”

The Prince should ask this question to ordinary UK, Commonwealth rate payers of electricity and gas-- face-to-face!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, snow in Tokyo Tomorrow. Great day off and surfing. This warming globe stuff is bull in my opinion from all that I read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The glaciers are in fact melting, and the one issue you bring to the table is that Gore didn't have to the forsight to plant dedicated cameras at the ice caps from 100 years in order to create a spiffy, time-lapse sequence of melting glaciers for your entertainment?

Some were discussing about whether Gore's documentary was faked. I simply mentioned that his DOCUMENTARY did use computer graphics-generated scenes that looked very real, taken without permission from a fictional movie. His documentary was passing them of as real, that does not help his credibility.

This is precicely what Charles is talking about: Foolish, spurious arguments that only appeal to those with but a passing interest in the real science behind the phenomenon.

Then why don't you comment on my other point, about journals that got rid of editors who allowed the publication of papers that contradicted the man-made global warming. When you only allow one side to publish, its not a good sign.

As for the melting glaciers, the Arctic one has indeed shrunk somewhat, but the Antarctic one, which is much much larger has increased in size during the past decades. In science, one should not just pick and chose the data that fits your preconceived conclusion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain - Mark my words: As soon as it become clear to skeptics just how profitable it van be cleaning up this mess we've made of the planet, they'll do an about-face that causes whiplash and sing the praises of global warming research from the highest rooftops.

Why isn't it clear NOW. The IPCC has had 20 years to prove their theory and they just can't do it.

It's sad, really, that human beings can be so completely consumed by unmitigated greed for material wealth that we would tap dance glibly into self-destruction, but there you have it. And Charles is just another public figure to make the cardinal sin of pointing out our never-ending stupidity.

Our? Who is ths "our" that you're referring to? Yourself and who else?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Charles, who has been active in promoting environmental issues, was asked to participate in the conference in order to raise public awareness throughout Europe.

“Your presence brings added value and attention to this important issue,” EU President Herman Van Rompuy said.

So Charles wasn't asked to speak because he's an expert on the subject but because he's figurehead and people might chose to read an article about him. Interesting. I'm sure Madonna would have drawn more attention.

All of the IPCC's speculations have been proven wrong and Gore's mock-umentory was proven in a British court to contain 9 major errors. Gore's cartoon can't be shown to British school children without a disclaimer that the Hollyweird movie is only someone's opinion and not fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the problem with global-warming denialists is that they adopt the premise that 'warming' must mean that the weather would get warmer across the whole planet. Therefore, if it's cold somewhere or glaciers are increasing in one part of the world - even if they're melting elsewhere - then global warming can't be happening.

This, of course, is not what global warming is. An increase in the overall average temperature of the planet by even a few tenths of a degree has major effects because the climate works on tipping points (in the same way that water boils suddenly around 100 degrees celsius at sea level). That can mean that in some parts of the world it would actually get colder. Colder or warmer, either way you get more extreme weather, which is bad for us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

britling - I think the problem with global-warming denialists is that they adopt the premise that 'warming' must mean that the weather would get warmer across the whole planet. Therefore, if it's cold somewhere or glaciers are increasing in one part of the world - even if they're melting elsewhere - then global warming can't be happening.

I think you misunderstand the term "global". It refers to the AVERAGE of the land, sea and high altitude temps around the "globe".

The IPCC speculated that the "global" tempurature would increase "globally". Unfortunately for the IPCC and it's supporters, the IPCC speculations have all overshot the actual recorded "global" temps. In other words, the IPCC has been proven wrong. Bringing in spokesmodels like Prince Charles does not change the recorded temps or explain why the IPCC can't explained why they were wrong. If bonny Prince Charley is willing to accept an unproven theory, that's his choice but he's not very convincing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Prince Charles apparently is upset that people aren't buying into the snowjob anymore. How sad that we aren't all gullible saps like he would prefer.

How are these people going to face their grandchildren and admit to them that they failed their future?”

Lets see, the realization that even if we act now, and perform the most extreme cuts in 'greenhouse' gasses, we still won't be able to change whats occuring. In addition, the realization that if we do act as the eco-nuts want us to, that we will completely destroy our economies. Perhaps Charles should get out of the Palace more and actually go and do some work for a change. Spend a few years pulling 40-60 hour work weeks, doing a bit of manual labor, I suspect if he did that, he'd give a hell of a lot less credence to the 'Chicken Littles' of the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the problem with global-warming denialists is that they adopt the premise that 'warming' must mean that the weather would get warmer across the whole planet. Therefore, if it's cold somewhere or glaciers are increasing in one part of the world - even if they're melting elsewhere - then global warming can't be happening.

Guess what, the planet warms up, it cools down. Places change, have been doing so for millions of years. At one time the Sahara wasn't a desert, yet no people caused this. But somehow, mankind is now responsible for the weather. You might as well point to an adulterer and say shes a witch, and thats why crops failed. The global warming hysterics are doing much the same thing. Demanding actual proof, before flushing millions of jobs, and money down a bottomless pit, is not stupid, its responsible. On the other hand, demanding it, is not only irresponsible, its idiotic. And anyone who actually buys into the man-caused climate change argument, really is a gullible fool. Particularly in light of all the revelations that have come out about those who have been pushing this completely unproven and untested hypothesis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some great, classic denialist claims above, which take a long time to unpick because the premises are so fundamentally wrong. No, the fact that the climate changes naturally does not mean that change now must all be natural as well. No, a British judge did not identify 9 actual errors in Gore's film (Most of these alleged errors, picked out by a non-expert judge - who did not dispute the central thesis that warming is man-made - were later refuted, and his instruction was that the film should be accompanied by alternative arguments, not that it should be labelled 'opinion' only). No, the IPCC are not part of a vast climate conspiracy. They make errors, same as everyone else, but fixating on a handful in years of reports running to thousands of pages does no-one any favours.

Here's another way of looking at the issue. Say the 'skeptics' are right. How and why, then, is the climate changing? If man-made emissions have no significant effect, why is the planet seeing rapid warming? What mechanism ensures that those emissions have no effect? We know that the presence of carbon dioxide will lead to warming of an atmosphere, so why wouldn't all that CO2 do anything? How can 'natural cycles' that play out over millennia be responsible for rapid warming now? If you think the planet is not warming, even cooling, how is it that human activity has no effect at all? What is responsible for cancelling everything out, consistently and completely, over time?

In other words, what are the 'skeptical' models of climate change or stability? Denialists are very good at cherry-picking inconsistencies in a vast amount of research supporting man-made climate change, but not very good at providing their own models or explanations. Unfortunately, they will also repeat the same arguments, ad infinitum, rather than modify their views in accordance with evidence. In that sense, their views are not part of science but of a political game.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites