And THIS is the man (sic!) that would be king?

Gie's a breck!

Sycophancy rules U.K.!

Please explain how the Prince Charles's comment "Every passing year has seen further evidence emerge of the damage we are doing to this poor old planet" can be derived from the following sequence of average annual global temperatures (from the CRU) ?

1998 0.526
1999 0.302
2000 0.277
2001 0.406
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.422

Is he basing his comments of anecdotal evidence of Arctic warming, a delayed European winter and droughts in eastern Australia? If he cannot see the natural explanations for these events then he knows nothing about climate and weather.

Rename him, The Prince of "Myth global Warming". "Mind pollution" makes the Global Warming frenzy.

I loved the claim that "In the UK, 92 per cent had heard of climate change, with 57 per cent rating it as "very serious" and 36 per cent as "fairly serious", close to the global average."

I live in the Philippines. Been here 20 years. I live on the beach. If you claim that the sea level is rising I can tell, from my own eyes, that there is no evidence of it.

But my favorite chestnut in this article is the wacky claim cited above that 93% of the world's population rates global warming as very serious or fairly serious. This claim is somewhere between delusional fantasy and a bold face lie. More likely the later. I've traveled and worked all through Asia, China, Thailand, Vietnam and other countries as well. I'm willing to wager a large sum of money that the overwhelming majority of people in these countries have never even heard of global warming or, if they have heard, haven't a clue what it means. And don't even bring up Africa.

Come on! This whole "debate" is just another example of fashionable, elitist, Westen, navel gazing. . Narcissism, pure and simple. The "evidence" for future global warming is based almost entirely on, ahem, computer "models". Garbage in, garbage out.

I haven't the slightest doubt that if you went to the average Chinese citizen and told him/her that they would have to accept a lower standard of living to "combat" global warming they'd look at you like you've lost your minnd.

And they'd be right, you have.

There is no such thing as human-induced 'climate change'.

I say again; There is no such thing as human-induced 'climate change'.

At most there is a fair claim to be made for some temporary and localised degrading of the air quality (relative to the likes of acid rain, airbourne pollutants, etc.) - agreed - and this should be corrected immediately ..... let's not wait another generation.

But as far as humans having any, I reapeat - any, ability to induce, even over time, a significant 'climatic change' on a planetary basis - I only wish we could become that powerful.

For political reasons (because the 19th and 20th century 'communist' gambit failed) the irrational leftward-tending crowd have sought refuge in the vehicle of 'climate change' as their next free ticket into power.

It is to be regretted that too many of my fellow earthlings have fallen for this tripe - but, as is said, you can send someone to school, but you can't make them think.

The 'scientists' are actually politicians and they are simply wrong on this subject.

Now, let's move on to more important things - lets start to cull the ranks of academia of these phony scientists and professors before our next generation is so befuddled that they'll think its night time when all that wrong is they have their head stuck up their ....!

One final point. The article is also deficient and politically incorrect because it fails to assert that 'climate change', like everything else these days, is George Bush's fault .... but I'm sure that was just an editorial oversight in this instance.

Ho-hum!!! We're back to this again.. Change the record, people!!!

An 'intellectual heavyweight' like Charlie Big Lugs, should get ball rolling with regard to forcing the US to tow the Global Warming line!!

Charlie gets more desperate each year, as his auld mither hings on to the throne. He'll jump on any band wagon that he thinks has a statesman-like appeal!!

Surely the masses can see through this Royalty nonsense.

Hail the future Republic of Scotland!!

Prince Chuck has spoke - clearly that settles the scientific debate :-)

Add this to Ross Finnie's guarantee that anybody who thinks Al Gore's film isn't an evenly balanced assessment "comes from Mars" it is clear that the great & good are of one (limited) mind.

How inconvenient that the facts don't support them.

But if Climate Change is happening it doesn't mean we need wind turbines everywhere with 2,000 tonnes of concrete for every turbine base! Not to mention the endless concreting over of our green hills and countryside, all polluted with tarmac roads for infrastructure. How much CO2 does that produce?

Charles looks every bit the village drunk and sounds like the village idiot. Like the "war" on cancer, the "war" on poverty, the "war" on illiteracy, the "war" on terrorism...this "war" on climate change sounds like it is derived from the same source of a-scientific superstitious drivel that put witches, cats, the weather, locusts, etc., on trial because mankind has been inconvenienced.

Mt St. Helen irritates the be-jesus out of me...let's declare war on that dastardly volcano before it can strike again. And while our Stealth bombers are sneaking up on the volcano with bunker-busting nukes, we can set the Peelers to looking for who made off with 20% of OUR sunshine...and, of course, lets have a brand new tax on people to fight this war to the finish..."war to the knife, knife to the hilt..." Curse you Climate!! We will be avenged!!

Has no one seen the T.V. news about the VERY LARGE piece of ice in the north that broke away - and the Polar Bears that are now becoming an endangered species due to the fact that ice is not forming for them to go on, to hunt for their food!!! We won't have to worry about the outcome of Global Warming, but our descendants will...

sounds like most of the respondents to this item this morning are like the folks who voted GWB into office- rednecks!!!! What a virus to afflict Mother Earth. We will get the planet we deserve.

"Sir David Manning, the British ambassador to Washington, said he believed that the prince's speech would have an impact in the US."
What utter tripe! Thank God there's enough people with sense in this country to see what all this garbage is about- absolutely nothing- just something that a loser like Al Gore needs to hang his hat on, to keep his ridiculous face in the forefront of the Liberal media and Chuck, of course, needs something to make him seem important, which, of course, he is not.

Sylvia - Ice has floated south since time immemorial, otherwise the Titanic would have been ok. Polar bears are not endangered by global warming, or anything else - in fact there are more of them than there used to be.

These claims merely represent the highest journalistic standard of your & our media - they are not in any way truthful.

the word war is used because USA need regularly war and heroes.
That's why there are ' ' around the word.

Neil, Sylvia didn't speak of iceberg but the eternal ice on the north pole.

2004-2005 14% less = 720 000 Km² = surface of Texas (Quickscat ; a Nasa satellite)
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-107

Might I recommend "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjørn Lomborg, a book with which many intelligent Scotsman readers are undoubtedly familiar, and which is seemingly ignored by the "talking heads" out there. As complex issues often are, eh?

It is a blessing that world decisions on an international level are not based on the kind of rhetoric used in these responses to this news story. I have rarely heard such a load of ignorant claptrap from people who would not know the truth even when its staring them in the face. Apparently it is "inconvenient" for many people who just cannot let go of their political or materialistic leanings no matter what. Also too, most likely some of these irrational responses are triggered by anti-monarchy feelings.

There seems to be more than the normal amount of denialist nonsense of this thread. I think the prize must go to Conan: perhaps if you say there’s no such thing as AGW another twenty times it will really make it true. Note that there is little evidence or reason in Conon’s denials.

At least Sylvia #10and dct #11&17 provided some sense.

#15 Tof - I think Sylvia was referring to the 25 square mile Ayles ice shelf that broke off from Ellesmere Island, 500 miles from the North Pole in summer 2005. It contained ice that was 3000 to 4500 years old, showing that the break-up hasn’t happened before in at least that period of time.

AS for Neil’s #14 falsehoods about polar bears, this is from the Wall Street Journal, 14th Dec 2005:
“Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf.”
“In addition to documenting polar-bear deaths, the Minerals Management Service researchers, Chuck Monnett, Jeffrey Gleason and Lisa Rotterman, also found a striking shift in the bears' habits. From 1979 to 1991, 87% of the bears spotted were found mostly on sea ice. From 1992 to 2004, the percentage dropped to 33%. Most of the remaining bears have been found either in the ocean or on beaches, congregating around carcasses of whales butchered by hunters. In the past, polar bears were rarely seen at such kill sites, because they spent their time hunting their favorite meal -- seals -- on sea ice.”

“Researchers from the USGS, the University of Wyoming and the Canadian Wildlife Service found that the population of polar bears in Canada's western Hudson Bay -- near the southernmost habitat for the bears in the world -- fell to 935 in 2004 from 1,194 in 1987, a 22% drop.”

"For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die,&quo

Such a pity Charlie is locked in on the popularist rhetoric, misses such a leadership opportunity ...

It would make more sense for us all to start from a point of agreement. The climate has been changing for 4.6Bn years, hard to argue that..... in more recent times it has been characterised thus http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

So why isn't the debate about what we might do about that ....... 'nothing' say the naysayers 'it isn't happening', looks like a good option if you have plenty of fresh water, and don't live near the beach. For the rest of us.... we might want to do something a little different, the naysayers can stay silent... after all we just agreed they have nothing to do....

Two new books by physicists and others are coming out that refute the notion that the climate changes are man made. The gist of the article was that in the last million years, ice core sampling & etc., has shown 600 instances of warming such as we see today and that experiments in reaction chambers show the tremendous affect that UV light and cosmic radiation has on climate, particularly with regard to cloud formation...I wish I had bookmarked the preview so that I could bookmark it and post it...One of the books also notes that most of the warming in this particular cycle took place prior to man's contributions--and...as I've read elsewhere and not found a refutation for... only around 3% of planetary CO2 emissions are man-created.

I hope Chucky and Bride of Chucky don't have any more luck scaring the Americans that Al Bore and his eco-trash had in scaring Brits.

#20 Prinzowhales

What I find most telling in your post Prinzowhales is that you apparently give credence to a couple of books that you haven't read and whose authors you cannot remember, simply because the story they apparently tell fits in with what you want to believe. Against that you try to ridicule the huge amount of evidence by thousands of scientists from around the world - because the story they tell is one that you don't want to hear, because to believe it might cause some inconvenience to your way of life.
You show not the slightest sign of having tried to understand climate science, and resort to puerile nick-naming instead. Incidentally, the percentage emissions that are man-made is largely irrelevant: the important fact is that human emissions have increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by nearly 40% since 1750. There may be a lot to learn about such subjects as the effect of UV and cosmic radiation on climate, but but we have already learnt an enormous amount about the effect of CO2 on climate and it provides a coherent explanation of recent climate change: but you bury your head in the sand about that because you don't like what it tells you.

Whatever opinion you hold on this matter, I find it
sickening that the future monarch of this nation, should go pleading to gruesome witless bush for leadership.
How dare he, not in our name. Bush can't offer leadership he is a puppet of the greedy selfish hypocritical neo cons, who has not a clue how to lead.
Let us stand alone if need be, and show the way if it needs to be shown, we have before and we can again.
America has no intention of leading on this issue.