Prince Charles: climate change deniers are ‘headless chickens’

Posted: January 31, 2014 by tallbloke in alarmism, humour, Philosophy

HRH Prince Charles voices strong opinions regarding those who reject the hypothesis that human influence on the Earth’s climate is likely to lead to catastrophic change. Speaking at a prizegiving for young sustainability entrepreneurs he had the following to say, as reported by the Telegraph:

le_prince_charles“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 this evening, 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.”

“As you may possibly have noticed from time to time, 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.

“Perhaps it has been too uncomfortable for those with vested interests to acknowledge, but we have spent the best part of the past century enthusiastically testing the world to utter destruction; not looking closely enough at the long-term impact our actions will have.”

  1. So the chuckle brother accepts the science of genetic modification does he? Why does he believe in homeopathy? Why does he talk to trees? What science qualifications does he have?

  2. Fanakapan says:

    To get things into context, we all ought to remember that at one time the fellow expressed a desire to become a tampon. So it may be as well to not attach too much significance to today’s comments 🙂

  3. oldbrew says:

    ‘so much overwhelming scientific evidence’

    Such as?

  4. tallbloke says:

    ‘Headless chickens’?
    This description fits the alarmists better than the sceptics.

    If the cap (or crown) fits…

    “powerful groups of deniers”

  5. colliemum says:

    Headless chickens, is it?
    Well, this here headless chick thinks that was a very interesting insight into the Prince’s subconscious thoughts. Seemingly, he wishes he still had the power of that king who bore his name first, and chop off the heads of those who ‘deny’ …

  6. geran says:

    good thing that here in US, we get to elect our idiots….

  7. Clive Best says:

    I believe Prince Charles believes in homeopathy as well.

    I wonder how sustainable it is to have 15 servants.

  8. Jaime Jessop says:

    One is ever so slightly confused. One finds the description of “headless chickens” slightly at odds with “powerful groups of deniers” seemingly capable of overturning “overwhelming scientific evidence” with “a barrage of sheer intimidation” to claim that catastrophic man-made climate change is a myth! One is inclined to lean rather more towards another metaphor to describe climate change scepticism; that of the cat among the pigeons – alas the pigeons are most surely the alarmists, including oneself HRH Charlie!

  9. Roger,
    send to your prince a copy of our “forbidden book”.


  10. Roger Andrews says:

    Colliemum: As I recollect Charles the First was a choppee, not a chopper 😉

  11. Andrew says:

    Coffee bean enemas to cure cancer. Daily Mail article: too dangerous to be King.

    Yet (he) feeds liquid antibiotics to the farms resident badgers.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Nicola: If only direct comms were possible. The nearest a sceptical thinker got to HRH Charles was when his father invited David Bellamy to the palace.

  13. R J Salvador says:

    The prince is clearly confused by the random chicken scratches of the Met Office. The wyatt-currie stadium wave is beating up north america. It will make its way across the Atlantic and reach Europe just in time for a solar minimum. I hope the boilers in Buckingham palace are upgraded by then or cold will be the behind that sits upon the throne.

  14. ntesdorf says:

    If I was looking for a headless chicken, I simply could not go past Prince Charles. His statements on a variety of topics over the years have been outstandingly ignorant or naive.

  15. p.g.sharrow says:

    Small wonder his mum won’t give him the keys to the family business. pg

  16. Roger,
    you should not present yourself as a “climate skeptic” or a “climate change denier”. I do agree with your prince that those people are ‘headless chickens’.

    You need to present yourself a “climate change” scientist and present him our book as the place where your prince may understand better how climate changes and why.

  17. Bryan says:

    Prince Charles doesn’t believe in medical science.

    He hugs trees.

    He’s not very good at sums.

    Ideal candidate for leadership of the Green Party.

    It’s a pity that his title forbids this otherwise natural position.

    Lets abolish the monarchy to set Charles free.

  18. Zeke says:

    On the other hand you can get your forecasts from Nigel Farage, UKIP:

    (This originally had an intro by the newscaster.)

  19. tchannon says:

    NS, these individuals are carefully kept in a sanitised space complete with armed policed.

    He will also wear a professional mask, would not notice.

    Cronies, selected advisors, managers. And he has been right royally screwed by crap advice, his own bad judgement.

    He is also snout in trough, not much is clear, The Crown notionally owns the seabed… offshore prayer wheels?
    All gets very complicated especially when there is a lack of actual clarity.

    Try here

    Offshore wind energy

    As managers of the seabed out to the 12 nm limit, we play a major role in the development of the offshore wind energy industry in the UK.

    This is why the US constitution specifically prevents royalist behaviour, keeps the State out of people’s lives. This is what the war was about, milking, then the constitution is intended to stop that getting a toe hold.

    Therein lies some of the Democrat / Republican, States vs. Federal disputes.

  20. Sparks says:

    Surly he doesn’t mean people who are sceptical of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’.

  21. suricat says:

    p.g.sharrow says: January 31, 2014 at 11:58 pm

    To be fair. His Mum can’t “give him the keys to the family business” unless she ‘defaults’ on her ‘solemn promise’, Honi soit qui mal y pense (dishonour is equivalent to bad thinking [my interpretation]). With the rest of the family Moto; ‘Dieu et mon droight’ implies that the ‘Ruling Monarch’ interprets events and instigates remedial actions by ‘the most expedient method’ (after understanding the ‘most expedient method’, ‘mon droight’ implies the ‘right hand’ [sword hand] which implements that ‘remedy’).

    As for our current Prince Charles. His ‘Motto’ is ‘ich deign’ (I serve [of Germanic origin]), so I can’t place ‘blame’ where a Monarch follows the view of a Parliament! Can you?

    The ‘source’ of this ‘debacle’ lays squarely within the realm of ‘democratic activity’, but democracy can’t come to a decision if the ‘science’ doesn’t do so.

    Any idea when this will happen?

    Best regards, Ray.

  22. Gnome says:

    Practicing for when he officially becomes the defender of the faith.

  23. Lawrence A P Wilson says:

    I say, by joves – this is rarly ralry jolly top notch news – His Rarl ‘Ighness speaking out on behalf of the alarmist crowd- they must be so absolutely thrilled to have the clown prince of royal dingbats and crackpots so elegantly exposing their deeply intellectual climate science prowess. Mummy will be delighted – hang on to those keys Maam (with apologies for rather poor Aussie style upper crust aristocrat accent).

  24. Sparks says:

    The term ‘climate change’ is becoming a political and scientific cop-out. Two birds one stone!

  25. p.g.sharrow says:

    The one thing I”m not skeptical of, is changing of the climate. It does change! Over my 67 years it has changed. Dry,cold, hot, wet, wonderful and awful. California can be paradise or hell, desert or swamp. Often in the same year. Throw in an occasional Typhoon or earthquake just for fun.
    It is the causes that interest me. I am skeptical of settled science based on crappy information, faked experiments and lame theories touted as proven science.
    CAGW is rapidly losing its’ support and the Ecoloons need their next cause. Like the climate, they change every 30 years. They need to be branded a religious cult and ejected from government. pg

  26. w.w.wygart says:

    “All of a sudden, and with a barrage of sheer intimidation…” Huh? Which “…barrage of sheer intimidation.” is the good prince talking about?? What is it really? Delingpole making fun of him and calling him names? Something, someone, who? what?

    This ” barrage of sheer intimidation” is just another paranoid culture myth, a psychological phantasm conjured up out of some dystopian realm of the catastrophist subconscious to satisfy a need to feel opposed by something malevolent.

    Chuck, we’re just your neighbors who disagree with your assessment of the environment. Well, maybe not YOUR neighbors.


  27. tallbloke says:

    Andrew Neil is a good sport, he follows my twitter feed. He gave DECC minister Ed Davey a tough time last year.

  28. Steve C says:

    Aha, it’s chickens at ten paces, is it?

    Sorry, Chicken Little, this is science.
    Your Argument from Authority doesn’t work here. You need evidence.

    Oh, and while you may “accept what science tells us about everything”, some of us have the ability to assess purported scientific evidence ourselves. Too much of the evidence says that politics contaminates and corrupts science wherever the two make contact, and that’s not just in climate pseudoscience. Next chicken, please.

  29. ren says:

    He’s right, the weather is actually changing. Only in what direction? Certainly in Sochi not lack the snow and frost.

  30. Brian H says:

    Pray for his mother to outlive him (and Prince Philip).

  31. ansel61 says:

    I don’t care about any financial arguments concerning whether or not the royals earn money for the country. In a meritocratic society it is absurd that members of any one family should be “born to rule”. The quicker we jettison this clown and the rest of the royal leeches the better.

  32. PeterF says:

    The headless chickens reminds me of Prince Philipp’s once expressed desire to treat the surplus people on the globe the same way as they did on their farm, where all excess animals were culled. Seems to run in the family.

    from :

    Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.

  33. AlecM says:

    It takes one ()headless chicken) to know one……

  34. I am amazed that none of the comments have twigged what sparked this pronouncement by our Future King.

    A while ago a Hockey Stick fell from a lofty place and narrowly struck Chicken Little on the head, which promptly swelled up to the size of a Ruffled Grouse egg. So she ran off to tell Henny Penny the sky is falling. Bye and bye the whole lot of heady chickens went off to tell the Future King.

    The rest of the chickens stayed home because they knew the sky was not falling and sooner or later the whole lot of over-excited chickens would calm down and return home instead of lobbying Future Kings and other really important fowl.

  35. jonnie 26 says:

    “All of a sudden, and with a barrage of sheer intimidation, we are told by powerful groups of deniers”
    what powerful grouge are these then????

  36. A C Osborn says:

    Only slightly off topic, did anyone see Question Time on Thursday night?
    Every panel member chorused “Climate Change” and the 2 women quoted the “It is the greatest single danger to mankind” meme in strident tones. 3 of the 5 blamed the current weather, flooding and weather “extremes” on Climate Change and the others barely challenged them.
    Prince Charles makes me ashamed to be British, along with 99 percent of the Government as they come across as completely brainwashed, that is assuming they actually have brains of course.

  37. oldbrew says:

    Royals are not supposed to make public statements of a political nature so HRH is treading on thin ice here 😉

  38. tchannon says:

    [NEWS] Bishop Hill was invited onto radio last night to discuss his battyship but he writes he was facing someone from Reading University.

    Some lovely comments at BH.

    “The Telegraph has not allowed comments on the Prince Charles sounding off, but the Mail has. I wonder if HRH reads the Mail.” — didn’t know that

    “The Prince might be in a dilemma if it’s ever proved that talking to plants works because of the carbon dioxide exhaled?!” — has been, follow by
    “I would have thought that he’s going to get quite an earful from his plants when he gets home.

    I imagine they were quite looking forward to high CO2 levels. Perhaps they’ll refuse to speak to him….?”

    BH article and link to audio recording

  39. Bob Weber says:

    Charles and Gore are playing games to protect their agenda (21), and flipping around on us the intimidation they’ve dished out for decades, along with Obama, towards anyone who challenges their idiotic mad groupthink. They are the real chickens – too afraid to sit down with those who disagree with them. They want “the debate” to be over because they can’t hold their own with any correct facts or forecasts. But, I preach to the choir here…

  40. Berényi Péter says:

    Hilarious. Turns out this clown does not even have a legitimate claim to the throne. That belongs to Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun, son of an Australian republican forklift driver.

    Get rid of him ASAP as it was done to Edward VIII, pro-nazi Emperor of India, King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth.

  41. Ian Middleton says:

    I’m struggling with this bit. ” young sustainability entrepreneurs “. They will cease by entrepreneurs as soon as they stick their grubby little hands out for more of our taxpayers money in the form of government grants. They will all fail. No sustainabilty project has ever survived without my tax dollars. Hardly what I would call entreprenerial stuff.

  42. Zeke says:

    Ian Middleton says:
    February 1, 2014 at 9:34 pm “I’m struggling with this bit. ” young sustainability entrepreneurs “. They will cease by entrepreneurs as soon as they stick their grubby little hands out for more of our taxpayers money in the form of government grants. They will all fail. No sustainabilty project has ever survived without my tax dollars. Hardly what I would call entrepreneurial stuff.”

    That is a brilliant point.

    Students and citizens are meant to be flattered and complimented by being chosen by their betters to participate in and contribute to the Sustainability Paradigm.

    I believe the World Empire(“UN”) activists try to cast little contests and competitions as equivalent to democracy, because it allows participation by the lower class.

    But science cannot advance when the questions are controlled by an expert class, and when the questions and the process are rigged to find answers that fit the paradigm.

  43. Bob Weber says:

    “Sustainable development” really means “what the market will bear”, not what the communistic warmists say it means. They want a rigged market with no options or free people.

  44. tallbloke says:

    Peter B: The guy in oz is well aware, but prefers his life down under anyway. Our house of Hanover are nouveau riche in comparison. 🙂

  45. 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 make 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.”

  46. Zeke says:

    Oh alright, I watched Peter Berenyi’s documentary on the lineage of the Royalty. Hilarious scene when the “true king of England” was asked how he voted in the Australian 1999 referendum to become a Republic, rather than a Constitutional Monarchy. Really nice conclusion, and I loved the end credits.

  47. timspence10 says:

    “headless chickens”

    Didn’t the royal family use swan’s necks as a ‘”toilet utensil”.in the middle ages?

  48. ren says:

    Tallbloke do not understand why more rain clouds can not be combined with the the severity of ionizing radiation. I do not see any other reason.

  49. Graeme No.3 says:

    “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.

    If the Royal Charlie actually thought about it, that statement would suggest (very strongly) that there was something obviously wrong with “climate science”.

    It would also suggest, to less royal minds, that on his rural estates the Royal Charlie has never become acquainted with bullshit.

  50. Berényi Péter says:

    There is no such thing as “science tells us”. It is real world experimental evidence that may tell us something. Science can only tell us how to make nature confess. In silico experimentation would never do that, millions of lines of computer code is just that, words upon words and nothing else.

    I started to read: “Triboluminescence. Triboluminescence is the light emitted when crystals are crushed.”

    I said, “And there, have you got science? No! You have only told what a word means in terms of other words. You haven’t told anything about nature — what crystals produce light when you crush them, why they produce light. Did you see any student go home and try it? He can’t.

    “But if, instead, you were to write, ‘When you take a lump of sugar and crush it with a pair of pliers in the dark, you can see a bluish flash. Some other crystals do that too. Nobody knows why. The phenomenon is called “triboluminescence.”‘ Then someone will go home and try it. Then there’s an experience of nature.”

    Richard Feynman, in: Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman on Brazilian science textbooks

  51. J Martin says:

    Prince Charles, poor chap. You’ve just got to feel sorry for him to have been taken in by the co2 is catastrophic religion so completely. He’ll recover from the afliction one day and then get back to criticising architecture and other such stuff.

  52. Andy Hurley says:

    One of the most Iconic buildings in London is “the Gherkin” a really nice piece of architecture , good looking and so refined….. Described by Charles “chicken little” Windsor er Sachs Coburg Goch …too lazy to Google it,as a “”monstrous carbuncle””.. good shout Charlie ! This guy really knows how many beans make 5 ,,,, around about 4 and a half, he really should just take the money and keep his mouth shut. Empty vessels make the most sound , my teacher always used to say.

    [Reply] I think the family name is Co-Saxe-Golgotha. – tb

  53. […] HRH Prince Charles intemperate remarks about ‘headless chickens’ reported at the talkshop last week, Lord Monckton has written him an open letter, reproduced […]

  54. […] HRH Prince Charles intemperate remarks about ‘headless chickens’ reported at the talkshop last week, Lord Monckton has written him an open letter, reproduced […]