Friday, 16 July 2010


I read yesterday that the expert Prince Charles has given a talk labelling climate change sceptics who doubt man made global warming as indulging in "pseudo science".
That is a bit rich for a "real" scientist like him who talks to his plants and believes in the much discredited homeopathy as a treatment, following the principle that the lower the dose of remedy the more powerful it becomes.
I did not realise he had a scientific training. I thought he took Art and History at the university, entrance to which was made easier to accommodate his lack of knowledge /intelligence.
I would have thought his opinions on such weighty matters as paintings or the wars his ancestors fought in and sometimes caused more appropriate.

I did have a scientific training in medicine preceeded by A levels (proper ones then) in Physics, Chemistry and Biology so I thought I would give my take on the matter, considering myself, possibly conceitedly more competent to interpret the data.

1 The earth has become warmer since the "little Ice Age" in the middle ages. Previous to that it was warmer than now with farming in Greenland and grapes growing by Hadrian's Wall.

2 Sea levels do seem to be rising. However this rise is more marked in the Sout East than elswhere such as the North West of Scotland, where it appears to be falling. In fact much of the difference is because of the land tilting and nothing to do with sea level rises.

3 CO2 levels are rising but it is not proven that this is a cause of warming temperatures. Also our contribution to global CO2 levels is 2% so any measuers we take will have a negligable effect especially when China and India are increasing their CO2 output.

4 There are more icebergs forming off Greenland as the warmer temperatures increase sea evaporation in the tropics and snowfall at the poles and the Earth has a self regulating mechanism.

These are the basic facts of the science. The fact that bees are declining is because of a mite and nothing to do with rising temperatures.

The greatest danger to humanity is oil shortage as without oil the present world population can not be sustained. Oil is harder to get as is shown by the BP accident in the Gulf of Mexico.
With our rapidly growing population and increasing oil shortages starvation beckons in Britain, a far greater danger than a few inches of sea level rise.

The reason this agenda is being pushed is the huge amounts of money being made by the carbon trading scam. This fraud does not reduce the CO2 at all but the traders in these pieces of paper make £millions and we already pay for this in taxes on electricity and dearer British goods.
It just enables it to be produced at a subsidised rate in places such as China while our industries are penalised. It produces just as much CO2 to produce a car or television in China as it does here. It's just produced in a different place.

The irony of all this is that those who promote this "science" are usually those with the biggest carbon footprint, Al Gore and His Royal Highness. Private planes fly them round the world to discourage people from flying while their houses and cars consume massive amounts of energy.

Yes conservation of all things is good, landscape, raw materials and fuel but trading pieces of paper round the world will do nothing but ruin our country.
Together with the other things the State does that seems the intent.

I would suggest His Royal Highness sticks to his overpriced organic biscuits. That way he will harm nothing but the pockets of those foolish enough to buy them.
So Charlie less hypocrisy please


Rob Roy said...

The bald fact here is that the single greatest contribution we can make towards saving the environment is STOP HAVING SO MANY BLOODY CHILDREN! Have one less child than you planned to and in a single swipe you have cancelled out your on personal carbon footprint as this non-existent child doesn't buy stuff, drive stuff, take foreign holidays, watch stuff, eat stuff, reproduce itself, or do any harm at all to the planet.If you are a couple have 2 less children than you planned and you and your partner can live guilt-free for the rest of your lives. In fact, given your huge contribution to counter environmental damage you should be getting subsidised for not having children by those who continue to pump out litters of them. Like farmers get subsidised for not growing anything in the EU!

Or maybe the CO2 is getting to my head and clouding my cognitive abilities..?

Anonymous said...

Rob Roy Said:

the single greatest contribution we can make towards saving the environment is STOP HAVING SO MANY BLOODY CHILDREN!

I say:
absolutely correct!

As for Charles's article itself it contains some good points, but he also makes some fundamental errors (at least in my humble opinion he does) which I hope to be allowed to comment on tomorrow. Because Global warming or no Global worming I'm off to the pub now!

Chris Hill

Lanky Patriot said...

I agree with Rob Roy. I have two girls (adult women now) but desparately wanted a "little lad".
I curtailed my desire to have more children to leave more room and resources for my girls and the rest of society.
I did not deprive myself of my wished for boy to have the vacant space taken by fast breeding foreigners who have no affinity to my land.


It is not English people who need to have fewer children.This hanoverian is not related to the real English monarchy and can not claim descent from our royal line.