Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
Monckton calls for Charles to go

I was intrigued by the Monckton article published in WUWT that was linked to by JEB in his May 2014 Number of the Month piece.

Monckton

I've seen Monckton criticise Prince Charles before (I think he challenged him to a debate at one time), but in this article he is now calling for Charles to go:

"Charles must go. His future, along with that of the thousand-year monarchy, is in the past. It used to be said there would soon be only five kings in the world: spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds, and England. Scrub that last one."

He actually goes quite a bit further than just asking for Charles to go, adding that the British monarchy should be abolished as well, but I suspect the latter is not entirely serious and is a bit of rhetoric mainly intended for a US audience. If you got rid of the monarchy, then I'm pretty sure hereditary peerages would disappear with them. Monckton is a hereditary peer (he inherited the Viscount title in 2006), and the image he has cultivated since 2006 is all based around the fact that he is a hereditary peer. The novelty factor of somebody being an AGW sceptic who also happens to be a viscount is what provides him with work and lecture tours in countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand. (It's a bit like those British wrestlers who used to work in the USA where the wrestling promoters made them pretend to be British aristocrats).

I'm not in favour of abolishing the monarchy myself, mainly because I think British politics is already too much afflicted with a tendency towards 'grandstanding', and I can see the replacement for a monarchy, a ceremonial-type UK President, as just being a vehicle for some super-grandstander. However I have thought for about ten years that Charles is not politically neutral enough to take up the throne and really ought to stand down.

The fact that Monckton is calling for Charles to go raises an interesting thought. Monckton is strongly tied up with UKIP, and devised the climate policy that appeared in UKIP's 2010 General Election manifesto. It makes me wonder if a call for Prince Charles, 'The Totalitarian Prince', to stand down might appear in UKIP's 2015 General Election manifesto.

Calling for Prince Charles to stand down would be an interesting policy for UKIP to take up. I don't think it would particularly offend existing UKIP supporters, it would attract ongoing media attention, and it would certainly bolster UKIP's anti-establishment image. It would also help to counteract the 'golf club', out-of-date Conservatives image of UKIP pushed by people like Ian Hislop. Also 20% or more of the British public supposedly would like to abolish the monarchy but currently have no representation in Parliament, and some of these people might be inclined to vote for a political party that at least offers them a chance to get rid of the next-in-line to the throne.

Re: Monckton calls for Charles to go

On the subject of Christopher Monckton and UKIP, he also wrote a post that was published on WUWT a couple of weeks ago about his role in shaping UKIP's cimate policy.

link

One thing I noticed about the WUWT article is that Monckton claims that UKIP is the UK's only climate sceptic party. Strictly speaking, I think the BNP are a climate sceptic party as well. To check my memory wasn't playing tricks on me, I thought I'd check what was said in BNP's 2010 General Election manifesto. It was pretty tricky to get hold of this manifesto - it times out when you try to download it from BNP's website, suggesting to me that there is either something embarassing in it or they might be under some legal challenge for a statement made in it. However taking advantage of the various internet archiving arrangements I found a copy on this link: https://archive.org/details/2010bnpmanifesto

The relevant extract is, on pages 25 and 26

"The Global Warming Theory

For several years, the BNP was the only party to express serious doubts over the claims of ‘global warming’.

The deluge of recent revelations over the fraud, deception and distortion used in promoting this theory has undermined public conidence in the concept and has proven the BNP’s original scepticism correct.

Climate has always changed but this process has been both natural and cyclical. In Roman times, vines were grown as far north as Hadrian’s Wall and olives were cultivated elsewhere in England.

Most of the underlying tenets of the global warming theory — including the ‘hockey stick’ graph and global temperature rises — have been shown to be either completely fraudulent or grossly exaggerated.

Those who recall the 1970s scare of 'global cooling' or the ozone hole threat of the 1980s, will know that these manias grip the media and easily-swayed politicians from time to time.

The sinister aspect of the global warming theory is however that for the first time the currently ruling elite seek to financially punish the British public directly through increased taxes to give to the Third World as “compensation” for this hoax; and to de-industrialise Britain through the imposition of impossible environmental targets.

Billions of pounds have already been added to taxpayers’ utility bills — a scandal which last winter saw the death of up to 40,000 elderly due to hypothermia because of the levy on fuel, which has rendered household heating unaffordable.

The end result of the ‘global warming’ theory is that the West will be [de-] industrialised and taxed to provide even more “aid” to the Third World and to build up the industries of China and India in particular.

This will have a disastrous effect on what is left of the British economy and manufacturing industry.

The BNP is the only party to oppose the global warming theory and to argue in favour of a reasonable, calm and rational approach to environmental care."


I think you could argue from the above text that BNP is definitely an AGW sceptic party. The main difference between the two parties is I think that UKIP's position has a greater overall coherence to it than the BNP. Virtually every AGW sceptic I know is also a sceptic of the main purported solution to it, renewable energy, and is sceptical of modern day environmentalism as championed by the Green NGOs. UKIP is probably Britain's least Green-leaning party and is also the party most sceptical of renewable energy. For example in the 2005 General Election manifesto their attitude to renewable energy was covered in the following extracts from Section 8:

"It is hard to see how wind power can ever be viable. Given the capital costs of supply and installation of turbines, windpower is several times more expensive than power from conventional sources, it could never supply more than a fraction of our demand for energy and it is intermittent - no wind, no power. No other renewable sources are showing any signs of making a significant contribution."

"Put an immediate stop to the erection of wind turbines."


By contrast BNP try to portray themselves as being the 'real' Green party, as they are the only party that seeks to reduce the size of Britain's population. They also support a tough implementation of the polluter pays principle and want to throw lots of money at renewable energy research.