Prince Charles Says That We Should Blindly Accept Whatever Scientists Tell Us

Charles said it was “baffling … 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.”

News from The Associated Press

I accept that snow is a thing of the past, but why do I keep having to shovel it? And I certainly plan to move to Antarctica, as the UK Chief Scientist instructed us.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Prince Charles Says That We Should Blindly Accept Whatever Scientists Tell Us

  1. EW3 says:

    Perfect example of why in-breeding is a bad idea.

  2. Brian H says:

    It would be good if his mother out-lived him.

  3. Martin says:

    Charles certainly doesn’t accept what scientists tell him in a number of issues – perhaps most famously his support for homeopathy as a medical treatment has no scientific basis whatsoever.

    • QV says:

      On the logic of Homeopathy, the less CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer it will get!

      If the media including the BBC were doing their job, they would challenge him on that.

    • Mike Williams says:

      It’s worse he has been actively promoting the NHS funding homeopathic treatments…which may be the worst example of government waste you could come up with.

      I have yet to read a positive comment on his statements on any media outlet. This clown will be the death of the monarchy.

  4. HankH says:

    Yeah, how well did that work for the participants given syphilis without treatment in the Tuskegee experiment or orphans given hepatitis in the Willowbrook experiment? Both were conducted under government grants and with oh so trustworthy scientists.

    Now we have government grant grubbing climatologists (the “Team”) who can’t be bothered to adhere to the foundational methods and ethos of science. Prince Charles is an uninformed dolt.

    • gator69 says:

      Not one person was ‘given’ syphilis during the Tuskegee ‘study’. It was not an ‘experiment’, and was actually called the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.”

      That part of Alabama had the highest rate of syphilis in the world, and it was ravaging the black community. A couple of decades earlier a nearly identical study was done on whites with syphilis, and advances were made. The medical community recognized that not only were blacks at a higher risk, but that the disease attacked them differently, and a historically black community decided to intervene with government help. Individuals who were already at the second stage of infection were part of the study, later joined by some 200 uninflected used as a control group. There was no cure for these infected men when the study began, and only late in the study was it discovered that the new drug penicillin was effective in early stages. The left wrote a narrative to smear southerners once again as extreme racists, and like most Progressive rewrites of history, it stuck. Most people do not know the facts about this study because they have not bothered to read the words of those who actually conducted it, and many (if not most) of those working on this study were also black. Once again a historical period has been twisted, and judged by modern standards, leaving a false impression.

      • HankH says:

        I agree, the word ‘given’ was a bad choice in the case of Tuskegee. Most subjects were enrolled with syphilis. Some contracted it during the study (as did wives and children of the subjects) and even workers but the numbers aren’t clear as to how many.

        ‘Study’ or ‘experiment’… Non-retrospective ‘controlled’ studies are classified as Experimental Studies. Many published papers make reference to the “Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment” as a general reference to the study. I don’t think it a huge mistake to interchange the two words in this case.

        My understanding is the non-syphilis individuals were not added later. The study began with 600 individuals – 399 with syphilis as the experimental group and 201 individuals without syphilis as the control group. The study was initiated in 1932 by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and shut down in 1972 over public outcry of flagrant ethics violations.

        Penicillin was discovered to be an excellent treatment for syphilis as early as 1939. It became a preferred drug by 1945. In 1947, the same USPHS set up clinics around the country to treat syphilis in the general population, yet the subjects in the study were denied treated for at least 25 years after penicillin became widely available to the general public. In my book that’s about as unethical as it becomes at an institutional level.

        The left wrote a narrative to smear southerners once again as extreme racists, and like most Progressive rewrites of history, it stuck.

        I’m not sure I follow. All of the history I know of Tuskegee convicts the USPHS as a Federal governmental agency that put ideology and bias over ethics – scientists who betrayed public trust.

        My main source:

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Hank! I am more than familiar with the ‘official’ story, and that is why I decided to dig further. You must understand this story is much like any other Progressive tale, it starts with half truths and ends with whole lies. When I have time I will try and retrieve the written word of a black nurse who was with the program from the start, I have a paper copy on file somewhere.

          Remember, these are the same radical leftists who declared DDT was killing the planet. It was all about upsetting the applecart, and it is still is, because those same radicals are in power now.

          “Don’t trust anyone over 30.”
          -Jack Weinberg

        • HankH says:

          Howdy Gator! I’ve always known you to shoot straight and my personal experience has taught me there’s the official version then there’s what really happened. Sometimes they are close and other times not so much. I studied the official version in my university years and wasn’t aware until now there is a documented “eye witness” version. I’d like to read it if you should ever dig it up.

          There was a black nurse prominent in the study – Eunice Rivers. She was very close to management. If you’re talking about her, it would be a very interesting read indeed as she would have the insides scoop.

          It is a shame that they outlawed DDT. Another case of leftists going full tilt on coincidental correlation. Say, where have they done that before?….. Oh yeah, global warming.

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Hank! I did my research about a decade ago, after hearing a talk show host claim that the Tuskegee Airmen had been injected with syphilis. The myths about this study have gone off the rails. And yes, I’m almost certain it was Ms Rivers memoirs that I read, among others. The narrative most people have heard is simply not accurate, and the study must also be viewed through the eyes of an ignorant medical community. The world has had numerous leaps in technology and science since those early days of medicine, which seem almost medieval by today’s standards.

          If I can lay my hands on the copy I saved, I would be happy to share it with you.

  5. TheJollyGreenMan says:

    The Dutchy pork sausages from his estate are really delicious, my favourites.

    Good job his sausages are good and tasty and he leaves the pig manure for his speeches

  6. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Don’t blame me: I never voted for him.

  7. Edmonton Al says:

    Prince Charles [PC] may think his initials stand for Politically Correct.
    Several others come to mind; Perpetual Clown; Positively Clueless; among many more………….

  8. catweazle666 says:

    So Charles the Dim thinks scientists are omniscient and infallible, does he?

    Unless they happen to be designing genetically modified crops, presumably?

    One wonders what he would have made of the “scientific” research that led to the Nuremberg Laws.

  9. David, UK says:

    It’s baffling that this guy can even squeeze a tube of toothpaste.

    Oh wait…

  10. I hear he talks to plants.

    He must not be good at it. If he were, he’d hear them say “Give me more CO2”

  11. Jimbo says:

    Oh Charlie Boy, THIS is just one of the reasons why we don’t listen to Climastrologists. And why should I listen to you Charlie?

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Jimbo, my reply to your Jonova comment on this:

      Great point, Jimbo, about [Charles being a big advocate of] homeopathy. Granted that there are those that are able to make a case for homeopathy, but it’s not accepted by the mainstream. In fact, according to the link you give: the Uk’s “new chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, dismissed homeopathy as nonsense [yet} Prince Charles is a long-term advocate of homeopathy [that wants to] force through a register of practitioners of herbal and Chinese medicine.”

      Clearly, in the case of the Headless Chicken Little Charles, the science is a matter of convenience. Why is the supposed science so paramount in the case of agw, but easily dismissed with homeopathy? Why does Charles ignore the scientific objections to homeopathy, but dismiss the clearly credible objections to his climate science? Why does Charles not even give a moments notice to the 17 years of no warming, to the record ice extent or growth at both poles, to the hockey stick’s debunking, and to the falsification of the ipcc’s contention of a causal correlation between CO2 and temperature?

      Yeah, because for Charles it about his feelings or politics, not science. What the Headless Chicken Little Brigade is spouting as unimpeachable is actually little more than propaganda, camouflaged by a veneer of carefully crafted science “science.” Yes, because in their own words, as lead ipcc author Steven Schneider said: “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” How is it credible science when the leaders of the ipcc “brigade” have declared publicly and explicitly that they should make up “scary scenarios” and not be honest about it? Honestly, that’s not credible. Or we have a leftist politician like the US senator Tim Wirth in 1993 saying: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” That was broadcast to all the scientists and politicians and little people like Prince Charles. Honestly, how in the world can we accept their science as in any way credible when it is generally accepted that the proponents of agw should push warming for political reasons, regardless of the science? IT IS NOT CREDIBLE SCIENCE. Period.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Yes, the US senator Tim Wirth did say 1993 that “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”

      Of course we got tons of similar quotes, with top climate “scientists” or people of authority suggesting that the (leftist) politics should override any purported climate science.
      “No matter if the science is all phoney…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” -Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister
      “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.” -David Rockefeller, Club of Rome
      “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” -Richard Benedik, U.N. / U.S. Bureaucrat
      “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
      “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

  12. Jimbo says:

    Here are a few lessons for Charlie. And this is just the Arctic!
    National Geographic – 12 December 2007
    “NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”
    [Dr. Jay Zwally – NASA]
    BBC – 12 December 2007
    Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
    [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
    National Geographic News – 20 June 2008
    North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer
    “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.
    [Dr. David Barber]
    Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
    “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
    [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]

  13. Jimbo says:

    Is Charlie aware that Australia built serveral de-salination plants in anticipation of permanent drought? Then came the Biblical floods and 4 out of 5 de-sal plants have now been mothballed wasting billions. This is just another reason not to listen to the Climastrologists.

    • EW3 says:

      On the plus side they will be there when the next drought comes.
      Wish California would do the same. Even if they have a wet season or two and it ends the current drought another one will come along. Arid climates tend to be, well, arid.

      • Jimbo says:

        Are you for spending other people’s money just in case? That money could have been used on something else. Australia has always been a land of extremes covering various climate zones.

  14. Robertv says:

    Government Says That We Should Blindly Accept Whatever TSA Tell Us.

    The Transportation Security Administration said Friday that all fans boarding trains to the stadium from Secaucus Junction Station, the start of NJ Transit’s 6.8-mile line to the stadium in East Rutherford, must pass through a security checkpoint manned by TSA agents.

    Boycott Mass Sport Events

    • gator69 says:

      I don’t waste time watching sports. I don’t understand why I would want to, and I certainly don’t have the time.

  15. John Greenfraud says:

    I can understand why Charles would like some people to live like royalty, while others are forced into self-inflicted poverty. He wields the word ‘science’ like a club with which to beat serfs back into serfdom. Unlearned and demanding, a perfect candidate for England’s next King. Long live King Prat.

  16. Latitude says:

    strawman…..You have to love it when some prissy isolationist uses the word “we”

  17. R2Dtoo says:

    Long live the Queen!

  18. Justa Joe says:

    When it comes to technology blind trust isn’t required. Technology is demonstrable.

  19. Mike D says:

    I don’t know why we kicked the royals out. They obviously know what’s best for us, and would save us from ourselves.

  20. Another Ian says:

    “Charles is the best reason for a republic that could be provided; Then again over the pond Obama is the best reason to have a Monarchy……Support anarchy perhaps.”

    From comments at


  21. Dave N says:

    An alarmist contradicting themself? Unheard of!

  22. Jacky says:

    Prince Charles’ support for Homeopathy is fully backed by all true and unprejudiced scientists reveals why Homeopathy is a complete truth – Dr. Aditya Sardana

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s