A Royal perspective on Climate Change

Climate Change advocates and sceptics have been clashing harshly over recent weeks. This might be because of the current Copenhagen Summit, but in all fairness, this row has been coming to a head for some time now and it is because the issue is not just about science and weather patterns but about politics.

Many libertarians out there, like Boaty & D, are unhappy with the cosy consensus that threatens and bullies anyone who dares to disagree with the paradigm they have forced upon societies across the world, particularly Western countries who are singled out as the source of blame and responsibility.

A couple of decades ago, the left asked us to feel very ashamed of our colonial pasts and our tainted or tacit alignment with Apartheid South Africa. Post colonial guilt is out of fashion, along with unmodish concerns about Nuclear weapons. Climate change is in, and you'll notice that the obsessives are all on the left while conservatives and libertarians dare to ask questions.

Mr Boatang wrote a brilliant article on this subject recently; not because other people have been talking about it a lot, but because he is genuinely fascinated by the debate and he has his own thoughts on the subject.

As much as it galls me to admit it, but Old Holborn had a good piece on climate change recently, and it is to his blog and the original source at 'wattsupwiththat.com' that I must give credit for this graph.

Left wing intellectuals love climate change, because after all these years of trying to baffle and wow people with odd, needlessly complex and utterly useless political philosophy (Derrida, Foucault, Lacan etc) they can now baffle you with science. The science of climate change; which essentially means one thing and one thing only. They are right, if you disagree you are wrong, and almost certainly a right wing reactionary nut who needs re-housing in the quieter confines of a mental institution.

But look at the graph, and you'll see that A) it is quite simple, and B) it shows the climate change obsessives as being hilariously wrong, and not just wrong, but arrogantly, blindly and pathetically wrong. I say arrogantly, because these people assume that regardless of timescales, if humans consume and build and grow, this must be bad. Instead we must smash businesses, stop people doing things and tax the crap out of everyone.

That'll learn us, and there's always the European Union to ensure that what national governments don't do or daren't do, it will do on everyone else's behalf.

Ever wondered why the left wing block is always so dominant in the EU Parliament? It is because that is where the real power and future of deranged socialism lies. Not in national parliaments or the ivory towers of post 1960s left wing politicised universities.

This graph confirms something I have wondered for some time, but have now been able to put into context thanks to this debate. The clothing worn by Monarchs down the ages.

The early medieval period was warm, and one source of evidence for this lies in what famous people wore. One of the few sources of this, for obvious reasons, are pictures of our Kings and Queens.

Look at this picture of King Henry II, 1154 - 1189

He is, effectively, wearing a thin TopMan sweater and a sort of blanket. Bear in mind he probably didn't have central heating or loft insulation, and one can see that even the most pampered and privileged people felt no need to wear clothing that kept out the cold.

He did not wear thick clothing, because he did not need to with or without mod cons, because as the evidence suggests, it was warm.

I have trawled for pictures of subsequent medieval Kings and the evidence is the same. Thin clothing for a warm climate.

How let's have a look at pictures of King Henry VIII and Elizabeth the I in the Tudor period (you might want to refer to the graph again).

and

Look at that. Two words spring to mind: Bloody Baltic.

It was bloody Baltic in those times, to the extent that the Monarchs of those times wore about a thousand different layers. It's a wonder they didn't suffocate under all that wool, leather, fur and velvet.

Average global temperatures only mean something if measured over very long periods of time. In reality, 500 years is not actually a very good sample length of time when you consider the age of the planet. Yet even in this time span, we can see that the Earth was much warmer than it is now hundreds of years ago, and that human influence could not possibly have been a factor then.

So how can we prove or know for sure that it is a factor now? Particularly given the current downward trajectory of global temperatures?

The left wing climate change obsessives are great at changing the rules and framework of this debate, by looking at different aspects to 'climate change' in order to get away from the now defunct concept of 'global warming'.

But as with any other left wing trend, it is based on smoke, mirrors, fashion, a desire to control through fear and confusion and high brow terminology and philosophy and it is based on the overarching desire to crush the individual and strengthen a neo-Marxist world view.

A world where we live very similar lives, where no-one is much richer or better off than anyone else, where individual enterprise is humbled or extinguished, where taxation is high and the state omnipresent. Where 'the people' is a concept defined entirely in their terms, not anyone else's and where everyone is told what to think, do, say or eat.

This is why the Guardian goes ballistic whenever anyone questions climate change. This is why our politicians are queasy and gutless on the subject. This is why the subject is inherently political.

They want your freedom, not your carbon footprint.