This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
In general I am extremely opposed to the idea that celebrity utterances are worth more than informed comment from educated experts.
I am definitely not happy with the Ed Begleys, Sting, Ted Danson etc. spouting off as if they actually know something we don't. Oh, I forgot that Goldsmith bloke, who doesn't seem to have done as well under the Ant 'n Dec Brokeback Mountain coalition as he might have expected under a clear FPTP win as the Liberals were able to provide an even worse alternative in the shape of Huhne (sorry did I spell his name wrong or is his name really the German for chicken?) and whose educational qualifications for his stance on the environment appear to be as good as mine to be a consultant brain surgeon.
However, in the case of Charles, like it or not, we may expect he will be monarch one day and in the tradition of Royalty we may then expect he will say nothing of consequence on anything.
The Queen must find it a trial to watch a succession of idiots offered up as PMs who then do untold damage to "her" country but must not only maintain silence as to her real views on the matter but must also present all manner of objectionable policies as if they were her own in the Queen's speech.
I should also say that while I disapprove of some of what Charles says and does, I absolutely agree with him in other areas such as on architecture, that is, when he castigates some new achitectural Tracey Emin style travesty, I totally agree. I only wish he would speak out about frozen head sculptured in blood, unmade beds and the like. Isn't it about time Saachi was hauled away fro a mental examination along with the entire RA? Ditto Booker Prize etc.
So with Charles, I guess we have to take the rough with the smooth. In any event, most people can recognise when he is talking stuff and nonsense but our real problem has been the fact that we have discovered the same trait among supposedly reputable scientists whose defects are then whitewashed over.
Our problem isn't really with the Charleses, Dansons and Begglys, it with the previously trustworthy like scientists who should have cut the ground from under these crackpot theories long ago but are actively engaged in making them up as they go.
"I should also say that while I disapprove of some of what Charles says and does, I absolutely agree with him in other areas such as on architecture, that is, when he castigates some new achitectural Tracey Emin style travesty, I totally agree. I only wish he would speak out about frozen head sculptured in blood, unmade beds and the like."
I wish Charles would speak out against the ultimate example of "monstrous carbuncles" (his term for out-of-place modern day architecture), namely wind farms. The rumours are that he hates them but he keeps his mouth shut under the advice of his Green courtiers.
The Royal family have been pretty enthusiastic about renewable energy since the 1970s. Prince Philip had some solar panels installed on a roof in the 70s and these were probably the first roof-mounted solar panels in the UK. They also make use of ground heat pumps and water turbines at some of their properties, but I've never heard of them adopting wind turbines.
Charles would be the perfect person to front an anti-windfarm campaign but due to his strong ties with the Greenies it isn't going to happen.