Should Prince Charles be getting involved in the Copenhagen debate?

Vulture

This from the man who uses a helicopter when he want to visit the bottom of his garden. I'm sick and tired of being lectured by a prize hypocrite whose own carbon footprint is considerably larger than his inbred brain.

Stepney

His commitment to staving off Climate Change is so impressive he even chartered a private jet to get him over there.

Dear old Charlie - has there ever been an heir whose general, uninformed barminess has led him to throw around such daft bilge every now and then?

He's a National treasure - don't stop him waffling on - he's a tonic.

Daft as a boxful of drunken monkeys and his ramblings are about as useful.

Jez

why not?

He can't be as sh*t as our politician's are regarding this (fairly important?) subject.

Christopher Bowring

It is not wise of the future monarch to express his views on which is now a highly political debate. But if he insists on doing so, he might show at least a little recognition towards those who genuinely disagree with the science as promoted by climate alarmist.

oldtimer

Perhaps he should have first paid more attention to the views of Professor Bellamy here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/bellamy-one-must-ignore-200-years-of-observations-to-believe-in-agw-pjm-exclusive/

As a keen gardener/farmer, he should have had a better understanding of the beneficial influence of CO2 on plant growth.

Fergus Pickering

Prince Charles has every right to say what he likes. It may be balls, as in this case, but it is his God-given right, as an Englishman, to spout balls freely if he wants to. I expect the plants told him to.

steve

I think you will find that it is his planet as well as theirs.

Wilhelm

There's no fool like an old fool , is there ?

The Laughing Cavalier

Dear old Prince Charles, where would we be without him? A nation needs its national treasures and he is the nation's fruitcake.

denis cooper

The scientific basis for the desired policy decisions is crumbling away, more or less day by day.

All the more important, then, to get a legally binding international treaty in place so that the UK and other countries are "irrevocably" locked into the plan before the theory is finally exploded.

Because, as we now know, only a small minority of British politicians still believe in the supremacy of Parliament, preferring the primacy of EU law, and most importantly those leading the three main politicial parties all put "Pacta sunt servanda" - "Treaties must be obeyed" - above that old-fashioned nonsense about "No Parliament may bind its successors".

So once the appropriate international obligations have been wangled into place, Parliament can warned off passing any legislation which might breach them.

Stuff national parliamentary democracy; it's never worked properly since the widespread introduction of universal suffrage gave ordinary people far too much power, and the international treaty is now the well-tested weapon of choice to neutralise it so that it can be replaced with transnational dictatorship.

Anyway, at least Prince Charles should be safe from fast track extradition to the US, a fate which could conceivably befall some of the "climate scientists" at East Anglia University:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/

who sought and received funding from the US Department of Energy.

In2minds

How about seven years for the UK to become a Republic? I'd like that.

Kojak

Well he's just doing what is second nature to him - meddling.

I look forward to next year when a case is due to be brought to court by the Candy brothers (developers + part-owners) regarding the abandonment of the proposal to redevelop Chelsea Barracks. Prince Charles will be required to to explain in the dock why he became involved and sought to prevent the development by circumvented the Planning process writing to the Arab royals to get them to drop the project and leave the now flattened site empty for a few years.

TrevorsDen

Its always embarrassing when the next monarch the current PM and the leader of the opposition all talk total bollocks.

7 years to save the planet is just nonsense based on pure self interested speculation. A convenience to scare voters into compliance as they shell out their taxes and accept the squalor resulting from incompetent politics.

Simon Stephenson

"I’m of the view that climate change is happening and that the evidence suggests that man’s actions are playing a significant role in this. I’m even in favour of a carbon tax to deal with the problem."

That's all right, Mr Forsyth. Many, many people of great ability have, as their Achilles heel, an inability to stand apart from the groupthink. Their considerations cease to be rational, objective and independent, and become taken over by an all-powerful need for the zeitgeist to prevail. And then, so strong is the need to preserve reputation that the quest for truth and reality takes a very distant second place.

Don't forget, mainstream thinking was once in favour of constructing the Maginot Line.

Nicholas

denis cooper:- "Because, as we now know, only a small minority of British politicians still believe in the supremacy of Parliament, preferring the primacy of EU law"

Slightly off-topic but the parliamentary briefing on the 1689 Bill of Rights (authored by Lucinda Maer and Oonagh Gay I kid you not) offers this bilge:-

"Consequently it is sometimes mistakenly believed that the Bill of Rights cannot be amended. This is not the case. It is a fundamental principle of British constitutional law that no
parliament can bind its successors and that any statute can be repealed; this doctrine was already established by the late 17th century. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK Parliament can enact any law whatsoever on any subject whatsoever, (although there are now considerations of compatibility with European Union law, and it is arguable that the European Communities Act of 1972 is “semi-entrenched”. For as long as the UK remains a member of European Union that Act cannot be repealed.) Furthermore, changes in rules of UK constitutional law can be effected by ordinary legislation, (unlike the situation, for example, in the United States of America, where changes can only be made by a complicated process of constitutional amendment). The statement in the Bill of Rights that it shall remain the law forever cannot, then, be taken
at face value. Lock expresses the view that the sentence was included “to add solemnity and weight”.

How convenient an interpretation. The English Bill of Rights conferring our freedoms may be ignored and overruled in the interests of the socialist cultural revolution but the impositions of an unelected foreign bureaucracy may not be.

Peter From Maidstone

I don't always agree with Prince Charles but I'd far rather listen to him than to any of our present politicians. He has done far, far more for young people and the country in general than any in parliament today. And so has his father.

The Princes Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh scheme do immense good, and help ordinary people do their best, while this government seeks with all its power to bring everyone down to the status of a slave.

I would much, much rather see an increase in the powers of the monarchy than vote for either of the present three main parties. I would much, much rather have voted for the House of Lords in its old form to be the Government of this country than vote for either of the three main parties.

I might still vote Conservative, but I am not convinced it will halt the slide to destruction. It seems like we are in the situation which was described in the Simpsons when the US voted for an alien president.

It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!

Frank Leader

Prince Charles and Gordon Brown fly in separate aircraft to go to the Copenhagen Conference. They really should set an example. Can’t say I blame Prince Charles for not wanting to travel with Gordon Brown. But for the sake of the Planet I think that he should have done so. If, as he says he does Believe that Global Warming is man made.

denis cooper

Well, sometimes it's wiser to go with the stream and avoid this kind of miserable end for persisting with dissent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

"Vavilov repeatedly criticised the non-Mendelian concepts of Trofim Lysenko. As a result, Vavilov was arrested on August 6, 1940 and died of malnutrition in a prison in 1943."

Incidentally I see that the ex-Maoist Barroso has joined the independent Electoral Commission in the attempts to bankrupt UKIP and get it out of way:

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1370-barroso-urges-legal-action-against-ukip

"European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso today urged the head of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajenda Pachouri, to sue UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall for raising questions over Pachouri's financial links to Tata Steel of India.

Tata, the owners of Corus, stand to benefit from the Carbon Credits scheme which has been pushed by the IPCC. It is expected that the closure of the Corus plant on Teeside will bring windfall benefits of almost $1bn by selling the defunct plant's carbon credits.

Mr Nuttall had simply asked "qui bono?" when raising wider questions about the use of British taxpayers money to export British jobs in the steel industry ..."

I take it that statements in the EU Parliament are not privileged in the same way as statements in the UK Parliament - although the latter has also been under attack recently, and most MPs don't seem to care about that any more.

We really are on a slippery slope to dictatorship, and few of our political leaders seem the least bit bothered.

Derek

"In2minds
How about seven years for the UK to become a Republic? I'd like that."

"President Brown"? Well,In2Minds, if you want to see how far down we can go, by all means...

denis cooper

Nicholas

But the Laws judgement on the Metric Martyrs case did cause the government some problems, because he referred to the Bill of Rights as another "constitutional statute", which like the European Communities Act 1972 was only susceptible to express, and not to implied, repeal.

As there have been quite a few cases where subsequent Acts have over-ridden a part of the Bill of Rights not expressly, but only by implication, questions arose about the validity of those later Acts:

http://www.metricmartyrs.co.uk/Campaign/TheParkingTicketCampaign/tabid/82/Default.aspx

However it seems that the lawyers hired by the government at our great expense can always find a way to wriggle round these inconsistencies.

Clearly the 1689 Bill of Rights can be amended, because the 1701 Act of Settlement necessarily did just that by amending the line of succession which it had laid down.

Anna

Does it really matter? Anyone with half a brain cell can see that those junketing around the world creating huge carbon footprints while imposing poisonous mercury lightbulbs on the rest of us cannot be taken seriously.

I like Prince Charles, I think he does an enormous amount of good and all credit to him for that. But we all have our failings; that he chooses to join the ranks of the brainwashed on this particular issue, where he will actually have zero impact, doesn't bother me.

John David Barnett

I am glad that Prince Charles is not a flat-earther.

HRH is in good company, since the three main parties all agree with the urgency of the situation and the need for action on a world wide scale.

Bob

Levers of control? We have no levers of control of the climate or the weather, never have and never will. The planet is a spinning body and one day it will turn over as all spinning bodies do. How will politicians deal with that?

Jeremy

Fergus Pickering:

"Prince Charles has every right to say what he likes. It may be balls, as in this case, but it is his God-given right, as an Englishman, to spout balls freely if he wants to. I expect the plants told him to."

Fergus, if that doesn't get you into the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, then nothing will...^^

Desperate Dan

Royalists will credit him with vast experience in eco/environmental affairs over many years and see him as more qualified to speak at the Conference than most people.
Republicans, who can never accept that they're in the minority, will spit tacks and heap abuse on him.
Plus ca change.

Andy Carpark

Lest we forget, Chazzo's earliest mentors were those two Olympic standard bullshit artists, Armand Hammer and Sir Laurens van der Post ('Only in the sea of silence can we find the fish of peace.') Nobody should therefore be surprised, or disappointed, if Lord Stern is the latest charlatan to lead him by the nose.

Liz Brown

Nope!

Summer

"I’m of the view that climate change is happening and that the evidence suggests that man’s actions are playing a significant role in this."

Are you James. Well after you've started your piece with the equivalent of a Medieval sign of the cross, I can tell you that in my view this shows that your analysis of political events is worthless: you are totally incapbable of weighing up information in a factual and objective way.

Michael Booth

Prince Charles is, according to EU law at any rate, an ordinary citizen like the rest of us and perfectly entitled to say what he thinks. The interesting thing is, even when he is king he will be an EU citizen entitled to vote in EU elections - if that is the case, he should still be entitled to speak about EU politics.

Watt Tyler

The pertinent question is should David Cameron be taking the concerns of the real little people and the core Tory vote more seriously

While a poll has 98% of Express readers (very likely all Tories) who don't beleive in AGW, David Cameron touts to the socialists thusly:
“Faced by a mini-revolt from climate change sceptics within his own party, he said: “A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be.”

Well, the question is mute, because he doesn't give hoot about core tories. He is relying on their fear of Labour, and he thinks that because of that they will take all sorts of abuse.

People, there is a real conservative party that will represent your interests. Its a shame that it seemingly so beneath some of you.

biggestaspidistra

It is true. There are none so green as those who travel by private jet.

EC

Listen you lot. You cannot expect Sheikh Charles to bicycle to work but it would set an example to us all if, every now and again, he was seen out and about on one of his camels.

Verity

Well, Al Gore's in it for the money, as are most of them. He's built his huge "carbon trading" fortune. What a hoot. But not a surprise. He almost managed to create a career out of hanging chads.

Despite ignorant assertions - in other words, the rubbish spouted by the "man made climate change" bandwagon passengers - Charles is motivated by a desire to help, not make money.

That said, he should shut up. The climate was changing for millions of years before we came on the stage to take our bows and will continue to change after mankind has faded out.

Also, what - strangely - never gets mentioned, except by me, is, the climate on Mars basically duplicates the climate on earth.

In other words, puny mankind does not have any effect on something as unimaginably complex and vast as the "climate". It's the sun wot done it.

James, the climate is changing because it just does. Read your history. When the Romans were in Britain, they were growing grapes north of York. Languedoc-on-The-Ouse.

London Calling

Prince Charles cares deeply about the planet and is dedicated in his cause to protect the Rain Forest. Why shouldn’t he take the platform and voice his concerns, its his democratic right Royal or otherwise. We Humans are the dirtiest animals on the planet and its about time we cleaned up our act regardless of the disagreements on climate change. We have a responsibility to speak out and act…

Charles gets my vote…He should speak out whenever and wherever he can…who cares about les miserable critics…:( :)

Michael Booth

Mind you,Copenhagen seems to be going swimmingly, don't you think?

EC

Verity: "Al Gore's in it for the money, as are most of them. He's built his huge "carbon trading" fortune. What a hoot."

So that's why he's known as Owl Gore!

jon ryan

âśAlso, what - strangely - never gets mentioned, except by me, is, the climate on Mars basically duplicates the climate on earth.âť the lissom Verity tells us with her scientist's hat pulled firmly over her ears.

`basically duplicates?â™ I suppose so, apart from a few minor details such as oxygen levels of 0.13%, atmospheric pressure about 1% of that of Earth, CO2 level of 95.32% (doesnâ™t seem to have helped the plants to grow), 0.03% water vapour, and a mean surface temperature of around -63C...apart from that, yes, basically similar.

This is like saying that as humans share 25% of their DNA with daffodils, daffodils `basically duplicate` humans.

My guess is that some of us are more closely related to daffodils than others.

EC

London Calling: "Charles gets my vote…"

If only Sheikh Charles would put himself up for election. However, the erstwhile tampon fancier, granny botherer and Islam enthusiast couldn't care less about your vote.

He does care deeply about re-establishing feudalism as enjoyed by his chums in Saudi. It doesn't matter whether this is achieved via the establishment of a Green Gulag or a Caliphate.

Ian C

For chrissakes, tell us James, how would adding yet another tax to government coffers avert supposed climate change? All it will do is add cost to productive life. And inefficiency to unproductive life - government.

IF and it is a very big IF, APGW is real then we have to be much smarter than 'give more money to government' as a solution.

Anyone checked out the 100 reasons for not believing the AGW consensus, at Conservative Home? An interesting development.

JohnAnt

We'd better make sure Chas doesn't get his own hands on the 'levers of control'.
Mind you, having him in the AGW camp is one modest way to ensure it's discredited in the public view.

melksham red

lets just hope the queen lives for many more years we could well become a republic with charles on the throne.

Augustus

All parties and individuals who put their weight behind the man-made global warming fiasco do so for their own opportunistic benefit. It may simply be an excuse for further taxes, or more state control of consumers, or NGOs seeing a way of strengthening their agendas by showing a 'need' for all kinds of measures. Companies see the potential for new products. They all see an opportunity to gain something, except the man in the street. He will be the one to pay. Pay with his money, privacy, freedom, and every aspect of his quality of life.

If humanity had ceased to exist 300 years ago the climate on Earth would be exactly the same as it is now. Even the most fervent
warmists agree that humans contribute a maximum 3% to atmospheric CO2. Therefore the maximum possible saving that humanity can possibly make is also 3%. Don't be fooled by AGW, because man's influence is minimal, and the sooner the whole deception is put to rest the better. A pity Prince Charles doesn't get it.

Paul B

Its his democratic right to free speech as long as he gives up his right to the Throne, otherwise he should put on his crown once a year, do as he is told & keep stum.

I agree with Verity though, thats he motivated because he cares, he has good intent, but we all know what the road to hell was littered with.

TomTom

Charles is a real Edward VIII figure. He would do well to understand the daily lives of Britons before hedigs the House of Windsor into an even deeper hole than his grand uncle

John Richardson

James Forsyth.

When you say you are in favour of 'a carbon tax to deal with the problem' you reveal you ignorance (I personally do not think you are lying on this occasion).

There are no proposals at Copenhagen to 'deal with a problem'.
None. Zero.

Really you should know this.
Nothing proposed would reduce total carbon emissions.
Not even theoretically. Simple.

Instead they are transferred around the world under license.The Carbon Tax you support is additional.
From the 'first' to the 'second' and 'third' worlds.
Along with the.....
economic activity (wealth, Jamie)
transportation (freedome, to move about and go to different places mate)
and
development (civilisation, James, this means for example the house you live in.Or the street you walk along perhaps.Stuff like that.)
......we had created and come to enjoy, even expect.

Really Jamie (if I may) it's this determined, pristine ignorance and stupidity of yours, obviously honed over the years, that makes folks like myself wonder if there really is a cure for you.
We don't want you to drag us down with you Jamie.
Let's see you suggest, even briefly, if you can, how anything at Copenhagen could be described as 'dealing with a problem'.
Even for those who enjoy beliving the purile CO2 lie. Like you.
Cheers.

Michael Booth

@ Ian C

"Anyone checked out the 100 reasons for not believing the AGW consensus, at Conservative Home? An interesting development".

Just to say, these have been rebuffed by The New Scientist... (not that that means much)

De Rigueur

Lot of good sense being spouted here. Hats especially off to Mr Richardson.

His Highness really keep his regal mouth firmly closed on political issues. His can say what he likes about the environment but he should most definitely not be seen at political rallies such as Copenhagen.

Trouble is he spouts a lot of sense about modern architecture.....

peter

Two points here.

1. I assume you have not read all of the science available, otherwise you would not make such a stupid statement.

2. Prince Charles has no scientific knowledge other than that which his avowed environmemntal agenda wishes to hear. He is a narrow minded bigot, who, unlike his mother, has no breadth of vision or experience and so can bring nothing but the same old mantra to the conference. His regular political posturings deny him his right to the throne. He should shut up and keep his thoughts to himself.

thomas

How wonderful to see the so-called right wing Spectator whipping up republican sentiment. This isn't the first time is it? I humbly suggest the writer of this article should shut up, unless he has decided that our monarchy is less important than the rights or wrongs of the Prince of Wales' latest speech. Except he doesn't, does he?