Skip to content

Prince Charles Still Does Not Get It

February 1, 2014

By Paul Homewood




This will no doubt be the same Prince Charles, who warned us in 2009:




Indeed, he felt so strongly about it that he used the Royal Train to take just himself and a handful of flunkies on a week long tour around Britain, just so that he could preach his message.




And he wonders why nobody treats him seriously.



He talks of

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.”


What “powerful groups” does he have in mind? If he has any evidence of powerful vested interests, big oil funding, or anything else that skewing the debate for their own ends, then perhaps he might care to share it.

In the meantime, he might be a bit more careful that he does not put both his feet in it, when talking about vested interests.

After all, it is the Crown Estate that owns virtually all the seabed out to 12 miles around the costs, and by, virtue of the Energy Act 2004, has the right to licence the generation of renewable energy up to 200 miles.

As the monarch currently receives 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits, there is a huge incentive for our future king to support the massive expansion of offshore wind.



  1. February 1, 2014 6:25 pm

    He who wants to be king of all is the biggest fool of them all. All who think that they need such a king are as big a fool as the king himself. There is no man wise enough to rule another man. Teach? Perhaps. Set an example for? Certainly. Persuade through rational discourse? Always. But to rule as if the other were a mere puppet without will or purpose? NEVER!

  2. nzrobin permalink
    February 1, 2014 6:33 pm

    The Prince gets it. I think he gets too much.

  3. PeterMG permalink
    February 1, 2014 8:10 pm

    There is a sense that the Queen maybe preparing to step aside very soon. Perhaps this fool who would be King is getting in a last dig as once he is king he will have to be a bit more discreet

  4. Joe Public permalink
    February 1, 2014 11:15 pm

    Prince Charles possesses an ability to sway many towards Republicanism.

    At least his father & sons are more logical.

  5. gareth permalink
    February 1, 2014 11:51 pm

    What “powerful groups” does he have in mind?
    ‘BIG OIL’ has played a part-

    ‘My debt to Shell International… and to the University of East Anglia…must also be acknowledged for the setting up of the CRU…IN 1972’

    CLIMATE HISTORY and the MODERN WORLD. [2nd edit. 1995,ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS p.xviii] H.H.Lamb
    (very good book!)


    ‘His revised work on the Central England temperature series was published during this period (Manley 1974) to lengthen his earlier 1953 paper and include data up to 1974. It was this work that brought him recognition worldwide. He was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Science by the University of Durham in 1979. For the twelve years of his retirement, Manley continued to work on his temperature series, returning to concentrate again on Durham in 1978, and was assisted in this task by a personal grant from Shell Oil.’

    Matthew Eglise.A Monthly Temperature Series for Durham from 1784
    Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Piiilosophy ,Department of Geography
    University of Durham November 16

    Ive only just discovered Manley, (but he shines even through this phd)-e.g. page 123.

    ‘But now comes the question that you might take an interest in! How to extend backwards!’

  6. February 2, 2014 8:33 am

    Here are two inconvenient truths:

    1) Large scale economic changes which MAY be needed to address human caused climate changes will NOT occur until the debate IS settled. No, I’m not referring to the debate that the earth is warming, we all know it is. And no, I’m not referring to the belief that industrial activity is a factor in that warming, we all know it is. The debate that is not settled (as shown next) is over just how much the human contribution is a factor, as compared to other possible causes, and whether any substantial and costly changes in how we produce energy would really make a significant difference. That debate is NOT settled, and using false information (as shown next) to claim that it is settled, far from being persuasive, only results in a loss of credibility by those arguing that drastic measures are needed now to avoid a crisis.

    2) Here’s the other, related, “inconvenient truth” – the unethical tactics used to misrepresent that 97% statistic, including numerous citations to published climate scientists who say that their papers were misrepresented in that survey.

    From link below:

    “…investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.”

    “…The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.”

    “…the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.”

    “…The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.”

    “…“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

    “…To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
    Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

    Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

    “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.”

  7. Derek Buxton permalink
    February 2, 2014 11:42 am

    I know of no “climate deniers” does anyone? We have a climate because we have an atmosphere and a prime energy source, the sun. The climate will change over time, usually a long time, what’s to deny about that? I do find it odd that our potential Heir to the Throne should indulge in sloppy thought and speech. I fear for my Country!

  8. A C Osborn permalink
    February 2, 2014 2:52 pm

    Derek Buxton permalink February 2, 2014 11:42 am

    You need to take a look at the IPCC definition of Climate Change, they have actually redefined it to mean only Climate Changes due to the interference of Man.

  9. cornwallwindwatch permalink
    February 3, 2014 7:18 pm

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
    The Duchy of Cornwall is testament to this madness.

  10. permalink
    February 4, 2014 1:06 am

    Just a Query.
    If the Crown owns that much sea bed is it off shore gas wells you are talking about? Oil Companies must be involved somewhere . The 15% from off shore gas fields would be enormous and welcome to the Crown. But are Crown assets owned by the Royal Family as a family or are they the State’s

    • February 4, 2014 10:27 am

      According to their website

      We are governed by an Act of Parliament. The property we manage is owned by the Crown, but is not the private property of HM the Queen. We work supportively with government; in Westminster, in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and at a local level.

      Our property portfolio covers urban and rural areas, around half of the foreshore and almost all of the seabed around the UK. Our net surplus (profit) goes to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation.

      The Estate receives rentals for any power cables laid across the sea floor from offshore wind. They also receive licence payments for the turbines themselves, if they are on their sea bed. What I did not know before, was that this extends up to 200 miles.

  11. Brian H permalink
    February 6, 2014 5:23 am

    Step aside? Nooooo! Hold on, Lizzie, hold on! Or designate William as your heir!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: