Just 96 months to save world, says (Prince) Charles

[Newsjock]

Source: The Independent

Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned in a grandstand speech which set out his concerns for the future of the planet.

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the "age of convenience" was over.

... Last night the Prince said: "But for all its achievements, our consumerist society comes at an enormous cost to the Earth and we must face up to the fact that the Earth cannot afford to support it. Just as our banking sector is struggling with its debts – and paradoxically also facing calls for a return to so-called 'old-fashioned', traditional banking – so Nature's life-support systems are failing to cope with the debts we have built up there too.

"If we don't face up to this, then Nature, the biggest bank of all, could go bust. And no amount of quantitative easing will revive it."

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/just-96-months-to-save-world-says-charles-1738049.html

[bertman]

1. Okay, Prince Charles, let's see you walk the walk. If he has really reduced his carbon

footprint by 30% that's a good start. The part about paying fewer taxes sounds like bidness as usual, unfortunately.

Thank goodness that someone with a bully pulpit is raising the alarm.

[47of74]

3. That's where I am about this

Is he going to give up his staff, his big-ass palaces, his crown, his luxury vehicles, etc etc?

I'm not holding my breath either.

[cap]

151. it's not just that... the Royal Family is a major land owner in the UK,

and in the US: Louisiana and Kentucky

[Grinchie]

11. Prince Charles has been a proponent of Organic Farming for a few years now.

I read an article by him a few years ago and I was amazed that he had such a holistic view of agriculture that parallels my own.

I wouldn't say he holds any Bully pulpit though. He has sort of extricated himself from the Monarchy after his failed marriage with Diana and his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles.

Nonetheless, he has been a lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to acknowledging the unsustainable methods of Agriculture currently in place.

[TankLV]

43. "Organic" farming has NO PROVEN BENEFITS over "standard" (chemical) farming.AND STANDARD farming has

while "STANDARD" farming has no proven "DETRIMENTAL" EFFECTS either. In fact, if it weren't for our modern farming methods, much of the world would be STARVING due to the PROVEN increase in OUTPUT due to current farming methods.

Conclusion: "Organic" farming is all hype.

[formercia]

53. I used to think the same.

Organic veggies taste better and store longer.

[JeanGrey]

93. Yeah but you only get say one tomato out of ten, after the

big, ugly tomato worms eat the rest.

[formercia]

94. I have very little problem with insects.

The solution is to create an environment friendly to predatory insects and knowing which insects are friendlies. For example, yesterday I spotted a sharp-shouldered stink bug on my pole beans. Although related to Squash bugs, it is a voracious predator that feeds on the eggs and larvae of Colorado Potato Beetles and other stink bugs. Rarely do I see any Potato Beetle larvae. The adults show up as usual to lay their eggs, but that's as far as it goes. I have not seen a squash bug in years.
I supply several families with great tomatoes. Very few get eaten. In hot, dry weather, the birds will peck at a few for a drink, but I allow for that too. Always plant a few for ourselves, some for friends and neighbors and some for the critters.

[kestrel91316]

113. You obviously have never gardened, would be my guess.

I gardened organically for nearly 15 years, and never lost a single tomato or plant to hornworms, and only SAW them one year. Hornworms don't eat tomatoes anyway, they eat the stems and leaves, doofus. I lost a lot more tomatoes to pilferage and sun damage than I ever did to bugs. Same for the rest of my garden.

[bitchkitty]

117. You can easily pick them off.

Bugs are a part of nature - there are non-toxic ways to control them.

[Nihil]

55. Wrong (with or without CAPS and "quotes").

> "STANDARD" farming has no proven "DETRIMENTAL" EFFECTS

Enjoy your algal blooms, your undrinkable over-nitrated water
and your antibiotic-resistant diseases. You deserve them.

:eyes:

[comtec]

60. Wait for it......

:popcorn:

[Gormy Cuss]

61. Actually, study after study has shown otherwise.

It's better for the soil, better for the water supply, and ultimately produces comparable yields once good soil tilth has been restored and managed. There are plenty of reports online of controlled studies on yield. There are some crops that don't do as well or don't produce as consistently but many others like tomatoes and soybeans do.

"Standard" farming in the U.S. is heavily reliant on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to bully the ecosystem into conforming to higher yield demands. Soil depletion and polluted water systems are two of the detrimental side effects. That's saying nothing about the possible impact on workers exposed to same day in and day out for years.

That's not to say that organic farming is the only way. If our "standard" farming were more similar to pre-Depression era conventional farming techniques when manure and cover crops were the backbone of the fertilization program and modern IPM were used for insect controls we'd still have high yields with less negative impact on the land and water.

[dickthegrouch]

72. Except the food tastes far better

When I go to the UK the everyday cheese in mother's fridge tastes better than anything I can buy around here, at any price.
The vegetables taste better.
The meat has flavor.
I feel healthier after a mere two days of mum's cooking. (and that means that several annoying symptoms vanish, only to return after 2 days of store-bought crap in California).
And, no, my mum is not a better cook than me.

[Javaman]

73. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Wow, you are so incredibly naive.

Do you even know what carbon footprint is?

How do you think agra-corps grow their crops? with pixie dust?

natural gas provides the fertilizer and oil provides the fuel to run the equipment and the chems.

man, your ignorance of the topic is blinding.

Shall we even get into mono-crops? Or it's massive effects on the soil? or just how about its erosion?

If you want links, I can give you a million, because it appears you are willfully lazy in your pursuit of knowledge on the topic.

And it appears, again your lazy research surfaces once again, you haven't read anything in regards to crop yeilds of organics.

If you wish to be educated, I can point you in the right direction, but it appears as if you are set in your ways and wish to continue to injest copious amounts of chemicals.

[ProudDad]

86. Other than poisoning workers and "consumers"...

and soon ending due to the end of cheap oil...

"standard" farming -- better known as chemico-petroleum based "farming" -- is HUGELY detrimental to the health of the Earth and the humans who sit upon the Earth.

Why don't you turn off faux-news and learn something useful...?

[dixiegrrrrl]

92. not according to several studies

this being the latest one reported:
According to a new study by scientists at Rhode Island Hospital, millions of Americans could be at risk of serious and even fatal diseases because of chemicals used to fertilizer and to preserve food. Scientists have found a strong link between increasing levels of nitrates and nitrites in our food supply and increasing death rates from Alzheimer's, diabetes mellitus and Parkinson's disease.

The research, just published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, investigated trends in death rates due to diseases associated with advancing age. They found convincing parallels between age adjusted rises in mortality from certain illnesses -- Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes -- and the steadily increasing human exposure to nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines through processed and preserved foods as well as fertilizers.
http://www.naturalnews.com/026566_disease_nitrates_diabetes.html

added:
or this one
Premature Births May be Linked to Seasonal Levels of Pesticides and Nitrates in Surface Water
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x893931

[KakistocracyHater]

95. not for asthmatics, how about Agent Orange or Monsanto's

products? Oil-based plant food/fertilizer IS very good for high yields, but its effects are 'wearing off' somewhat.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/304
...."Archived Nov 5 2003
China: Falling grain output raises concern
by staff writer

With national grain production down for the fifth consecutive year, China is quickly digesting its grain reserves, which could result in a shortage by 2005, experts warn.

This year has been marked by the rare occurrence of a drop in the yields of all three major crops - wheat, rice and corn - with total national grain output expected to fall below 450 million tons."...

[boppers]

96. "NO PROVEN BENEFITS"?

Pardon me, but it sounds like you're somebody with NO PROVEN EXPERIENCE in organic farming.

As far as whether or not much of this world is starving, you also don't seem to be aware of that problem, either.

Enjoy your flavorless production farm goods, though.

[Ignis]

97. Links, please. (nt)

[NashVegas]

106. It's Brutal To Say, But If More Of the World Had Starved, The Earth Wouldn't Be So Over-taxed, Now

Big elephant in the room no one wants to hear about.

[Hannah Bell]

122. It's brutal to say, but if the world's production were distributed more equally,

no one would have to starve & the demographic transition to lower childbearing would have happened in the third world already.

[Deja Q]

133. I'm not so sure it's as simple as that...

Of course, Occam's razor prevailing, maybe it is as simple as that too...


BTW: Occam is not a doctor who performs abortions, vasectomies, or fallopian tube tying...

[Hannah Bell]

142. yes, it's simple as that.

[Deja Q]

132. Who will volunteer to starve themselves?

[kestrel91316]

112. Kindly explain the oceans' "dead zones", then. We know damned well what

causes THEM: excessive fertilizer runoff from conventionally farmed fields, usually corn fields.

Organic farming got China's population up to a billion. Organic was THE ONLY OPTION until less than a hundred years ago. China thrived on it for 5000 years.

Try telling farmworkers poisoned by chemicals on the job that conventional farming is harmless.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[NickB79]

119. Standard farming relies entirely on conspicous consumption of fossil fuels

Ya know, the same fossil fuels that are currently driving global warming. I'd say initiating a new planet-wide mass extinction would qualify as a detrimental effect, wouldn't you?

[bertman]

76. Bully pulpit: a position of authority or public visibility from which one may express his views;

a public office of sufficiently high rank that it provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter.

Whether he's as well-loved by the public as he was before his marriage to Diana is not relevant. He is still an individual of high standing in international affairs. He is extremely wealthy and has the ear of many individuals who are "captains" of commerce, industry, and government. Simply by virtue of his "place" in society he gets the attention that others of lesser social stature would not. That he uses that position and expresses his beliefs publicly constitutes the use of the bully pulpit

:hi:

[Javaman]

74. Read this, it will change your mind about him, it did for me.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature3/index.html

Prince Charles: Not your typical radical

Prince Charles's great experiment is proving a success on ancestral lands turned testing grounds for his ideas about sustainable agriculture, architecture, and community.

Prince Charles gave no warning that he was about to abandon his usual restraint. He simply began slicing the air with his hands as his voice rose in frustration: "I had witnessed this appalling horror of the 1960s, when everything was thrown away, denigrated, abandoned. I watched as woods were cut down, hedges uprooted, wonderful old buildings knocked down. I minded dreadfully.

"My whole aim was to repair the damage, to heal the wounds, as it were, of the countryside." Calmer now, his voice falling to its usual hoarse whisper, he settled back in the silk armchair, smoothing his flawless blue suit. Meanwhile, the uniformed footman at Clarence House, the prince's London mansion, went about his business, sliding in and out of the drawing room.

One day Prince Charles, now 57, will be crowned king (his mother is already 80). Judging from the way he has handled his inheritance so far—more than 135,000 acres of mostly rural land known as the Duchy of Cornwall—the country may be in for some surprises. He has used this private little kingdom as a place to test solutions to the problems of modernity, for the prince believes, fervently, that life in both town and country has gone awry.

[Karenina]

103. The Prince's Rainforest Project. GOOO CHARLES!!!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/05/prince-charles-and-the-frog-watch-the-hilarious-video-here-115875-21335123/

The Prince is a bright and thoughtful guy. I LOVE his rants on architecture as he approaches the subject from the standpoint of the needs of communities and their people. The video posted above is an example of how he uses his "bully pulpit." :rofl:

[Deja Q]

130. Other pro-green whiners, since their purported angst, haven't shown drops in their own stats either.

I am so sick of people making an issue then doing sod all about it... their hypocrisy does dilute their claims, even if the claims are real.

[Psephos]

2. what a carbon-billowing hypocrite

don't get me started on his taste in women, either ;)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RebelOne]

67. Ditto. n/t

[acsmith]

5. princes diana?

.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RebelOne]

68. Your remarks about women are nauseating. n/t

[Psephos]

7. Charles thought of Diana as a duty, not a choice

In his eyes, she had a long list of flaws:

1. Pretty smile
2. Beautiful eyes
3. High cheekbones
4. Innate sense of style
5. Passionate and saucy personality
6. Young
7. Energetic and liked to have fun
8. Graceful comport

;)

[provis99]

9. one flaw you forgot:

9. they weren't closely related.

[jhrobbins]

16. I loved Diana from afar, but even by her own admission, she was a handful

at times. I think her fits were fairly well known - throwing herself down the stairs at Windsor, for example. She was gorgeous, but she had a few flaws-you just couldn't see them.

[No Elephants]

20. Wasn't that stairs bit after Camilla showed up on horseback and Charles immediately rode off with

her as soon as she did? While Diana was pregnant with their first child, and no doubt hoping against hope that this would end Charles's obsessive devotion to Camilla?

I am not even sure that it was proven whether she threw herself down the stairs, or whether that was accidental. British tabloids are merciless and not necessarily accurate. (BTW, I don't think it was at Windsor, either.)

He was in love with Camilla throughout his marriage to Diana and made no secret of it, torturing Diana. And his comments to Diana about her eating and her weight, plus her desperation to try to win him back from Camilla, drove her to bulemia. Couldn't even be bothered to go to the hospital the first time his then young son ended up there, leaving Diana to cope alone.

He wooed a 19 year old nanny who was desperately in love with him, as perhaps only a 19 year old can be, broke her heart right before the wedding day and tortured her throughout the marriage with his coldness and insults, while yearning to be Camilla's frickin' tampon. I would have turned into a handful, too.

[raccoon]

58. Was she "desperately in love with him?" We really don't know. Remember, for years

the media led us to believe this was a fairy tale marriage.

I think she was in love with the idea of being the Princess of Wales.

She ran in the same circles as Prince Charles. He had dated her older sister. She HAD to have known what she was getting into. If she didn't, she just wasn't paying attention.

[jhrobbins]

104. Don't get me wrong - I was bat shit crazy about Diana; I was just sayin....

[raccoon]

56. Unfortunately, in these times, image (looks) is what matters. Diana was young and beautiful.

Charles is neither, and hasn't been for a long time.

Thanks for pointing out that Goddess Diana was less than perfect.

[closeupready]

71. Of course she was imperfect.

It's just that in her case, she was less imperfect than any of her in-laws are or will ever be.

[dipsydoodle]

18. You missed out plain fucking daft

The rear airbags in an S Class Mercedes only deploy when the main seat belt is done up. The airbags would've saved her.

So - I guess all she's got to show for that night is a Mercedes steering wheel as a halo.

[No Elephants]

19. Diana was the family's choice. The virgin issue. He had dated her sister. He was in love with

Camilla when he married Diana and throughout his marriage to Diana. IIRC, on the day of his wedding to Diana, he wore the cuff links Camilla had given him as a wedding present.

[Psephos]

83. didn't know that about the cuff links

but it speaks volumes

seriously, I can't imagine marrying someone I didn't love...guaranteed to bring misery to all involved, sooner or later

[treestar]

63. Why be so stuck on personal issues?

Geez, if he's on our side on something, then he's right. There's no point in blaming him for being born into that family.

[Javaman]

75. Read my post #74. It will change your mind. nt

[ProudDad]

87. Useless response...

What about his ideas?

Your post was a useless waste of electrons!

[Psephos]

102. The unintended irony here is sublime ;) n/t

[proteus_lives]

10. " 96 months to save world"

Really Flash Charles? Ah-Ha!

[Grinchie]

12. Go ahead and laugh.. He's not the only one saying this.

Something is coming that people need to be prepared for. There is nothing in place that can stop civilization from falling into another dark age. Considering the continual dumbing down of America and the world for the last decade, people are less equipped now, than they were 10 years ago for any major disruption.

Would it hurt you to think about what would happen if he were right?

Are you prepared?

[dipsydoodle]

14. You seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness here

so I'll join you.

The subject of the OP has been changed in most cases to personal attacks on Prince Charles for some mysterious reason.
Whatever his shortcomings his heart is in the right place on this subject and as you said he's not alone in being a prophet of doom if we don't all change our ways.

[No Elephants]

22. His heart may be in the right place, but he does not seem very willing to

follow his own advice.

From the OP:

"Despite his attack on the materialism of the modern age, the Prince has been criticised for his own indulgences, including dozens of staff to run his homes and hundreds of thousands of pounds spent travelling around the world. While his private estates on the Duchy of Cornwall generate record profits his tax bill was lower than the year before."

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. It's great to tell others to cease consumerism when the fortune to which you are heir has already been amassed by plundering most of the world and you yourself show no signs of slowing down on your own consumerism. Organic farming on one of his many estates? Big whoop.

It would be as if he were pronouncing on how to be a good husband to a 19 year old. If I cut my consumerism, I'd probably have to cut down on eating.

And, his hypocrisy aside, it's not as though he said anything that others have not been saying for at least 60 years or made any practical suggestions.

And those are my guesses as to the reasons this thread pokes Charles more than anything else. There was no there there in his pronouncements, at least not as far as the article tells us. Maybe the 96 month deadline will cause sheeple rise up against their economy expanding governments and big business, but I doubt it.

[dipsydoodle]

24. His staffing just makes him a mini corporation in effect.

I think he's good value as are most of the rest of the Royal Family. Dunno what he costs us per capita. I do know that last year the Queen cost us 67p / one US dollar each so I guess he costs us less.

[Hannah Bell]

123. SOBs like the prince won't be happy until we're all back on his plantations.

In rags. He's a first-class hypocrite & fascist.


I can't believe how gullible people are. The prince is on "our" side.

Sure he is.

[Nihil]

139. You want to talk about SOBs? "first-class hypocrites" & "fascists"?

Kick out every single one of your politicians - your "Congressmen",
your "Senators" and your "President" - and all of their whores
(oops, "lobbyists & staff").

Kick out your mayors, your state government, your union leaders,
your churchmen who believe more in money than in people.

Kick out your NSA, FBI, CIA and the other acronymic secret police
who only serve to keep you in the dark and helpless.

Kick out your CEOs, your traders, your bankers, your Venture Capitalists
who have convinced you that their worth is far higher than your own.

Kick out your newspaper editors, your TV owners, your mass media
manipulators who have taken away any remnant of true independence
that has remained after 230-odd years, leaving you to bleat ineffectually
in your "Free Speech Zones" and write emails that are treated as spam
by your "representatives".


After that, the people who are LEFT will be the level of Prince Charles
(if you're lucky ... but I wouldn't even put money on that as history
is very much against you doing the right thing until you have exhausted
every other option).


> I can't believe how gullible people are.

I can: I've seen you elect your last four presidents.

And even after that, I see the electorate drawing the blade over their
own wrists whilst following the media line and blaming someone else.

Yeah, whinge at someone who speaks the truth and ignore that message
because you think that you have got something in common with the people
who rose up against his distant ancestors. One day you will wake up.
I hope.

[Hannah Bell]

143. i'd be quite happy to get rid of all our politicians, including the hypocrite al gore.

that others are also hypocrites, fascists & sob's doesn't make prince c. less of one.

[Nihil]

147. Well at least we agree on one thing then!

> i'd be quite happy to get rid of all our politicians
:-)

> that others are also hypocrites, fascists & sob's doesn't
> make prince c. less of one.

My previous post was trying to introduce you to the concept of scale.

Once you eliminate the scum listed earlier then (and only then) will
you need to consider the merely imperfect - the ones who try harder
than most but who still have failings that allow you to call them
a "hypocrite" from your position of proven superiority on the internet.

You might as well have the last word as I've obviously failed to
awaken you from the "OHMIGOD TEH PRINCE IS EVIIILLLL!" mindset that
so many of you over there love to kneejerk with in order to allow you
to sit comfortably back in your denial, fingers stuck in your ears
and singing "La, la, la" ... shooting the messenger is just so much
more fun than joining the real world and facing up to your OWN
responsibilities ...

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

149. the fallacy in your line of ad hom is: 1) you have no idea of who i am or how i live

except that i have a computer; you don't know *what* my "responsibilities" are, or whether i'm facing up to them; 2) i'm not a member of the ruling class directing the commanding heights of the economy & profiting from same.

"concept of scale" is precisely what i'm trying to acquaint you with. you laud the rich hobby farmer & denigrate the schumcks going to work every day & trying to survive inside the system designed by the prince charles of the world.

[Abq_Sarah]

81. People tend to snicker at prophets of doom

Since they are very rarely, if ever, correct.

[intheflow]

84. Prophets of doom are rarely correct?

That would include everyone from Rachel Carson on down who have been warning about environmental disasters including chemical contaminents in food/soil/water and global climate change? How about all of us prophets of doom who marched in the streets before Bush's pre-emptive stike on Iraq to say it was an ill-conceived aggressive act against a country that had not attacked us? Then there were those prophets of doom who, back in the 1990's, said NAFTA would suck for American workers and welfore "reform" would only serve to impoverish the least among us more severely.

Oh yeah, the prophets of doom are almost always wrong. :eyes:

[jhrobbins]

15. I'm not sure how you prepare for something like that. Suggestions?

[bertman]

79. Same way we youngsters were taught to prepare for nuclear attack during the 50's:

Go to a sheltered area. Put your head between your legs. Kiss your ass goodbye.

Or, if that option doesn't appeal to you, you could try dramatically reducing your own carbon footprint. Support local, organic agriculture. Become knowledgeable about ways to live lightly on the planet. Be an example for others to follow in how you affect your local ecosystem.

Move away from the coastline. Become proficient with firearms and stock up on ammo. Make friends with others who share your values and whom you trust.

Become more active in progressive politics and try to stem the tide of global climate change through political as well as personal action.

Try to educate others about the dangers of global climate change, especially the Chinese President, Indian President, and American President. Try to convince people like Rush Limbaugh that the world is round and more than 6000 years old, then go from there.

Even if that doesn't help it should keep you busy for a while, jh.

[jhrobbins]

105. OK, yeah-that's what I'm talking about-a reasonable plan-I'll get right on it

[proteus_lives]

25. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

The title of the OP reminded me of an old movie. So he's doomsaying. Big deal, people have been doing that for centuries. And if I'm wrong, I'll buy you a pop.

[ProudDad]

88. Actually

He's too optimistic...

The Dark Side of Climate Change: It's Already Too Late, Cap and Trade Is a Scam, and Only the Few Will Survive
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/141081

But there's a bright side...
http://www.postcarbon.org/look_bright_side

[dana_b]

111. scary articles

but thanks for posting them. I'm going to look for "Vanishing".

[truthisfreedom]

13. Interesting.

[napoleon_in_rags]

17. Its a painful statement.

So why is this guy saying this? I have two modes of existence: In one, I look at the world, I do the math, and I see just a huge crash is coming, spanning many decades. Then in the other mode, I laugh at myself for thinking I, a low income working stiff would be the one worrying about that while the people in power seem pretty relaxed and confident. The second mode is where I live, because its more relaxing. But things like this throw me into the first mode. And I HATE the first mode. Hell, I would rather be a conspiracy theorist, just for the comfortable sense that SOMEBODY is in charge.

So what do I do? Its comfy to assume that super-Obama-man or Prince Charles with his Illuminated NWO buddies are whatever are just up have some plan they will execute while the little guy (me) watches TV, but statements like this make me think that's not going to happen. They give me the distinct impression that NOBODY is really in charge here, the system is moving on its own, mindlessly following its own trajectory. We can't stop corporate consumption because people don't control corporations, corporations control us. Human beings are just little vectors of self-interest, predictably pursuing their own needs, bound by that into corporate structures that also predictably, as law requires follow the short term self interest... All these structures like dumb mice that ALWAYS go for the appearance of cheese, even when its obviously a trap, and nobody can fight them.

So what do you do with these statements coming from high up people? What do you do when the Captain calls out "we are headed for an iceberg, somebody somewhere better do something!" and then stands there helplessly gazing at his navel, causing the crew to listen for a moment before they distractedly go back to talking about Michael Jackson?

[destes]

41. well said, Nappy

Yours is the most astute, honest and accurate testimony to the present human condition seen in these parts for a while.

The very fact that this thread could degenerate into a Charles/Diana gossip fest is prime proof of your plaint.

[napoleon_in_rags]

98. Thank you! nt

[Deja Q]

131. And at the same time, you called him a diaper.

http://www.rebeccarose.info/about_british_and_american_slang.htm

[ProudDad]

89. Priceless!!!

:rofl:

So what do you do with these statements coming from high up people? What do you do when the Captain calls out "we are headed for an iceberg, somebody somewhere better do something!" and then stands there helplessly gazing at his navel, causing the crew to listen for a moment before they distractedly go back to talking about Michael Jackson?

Couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks! :hi:

[NashVegas]

107. I'm Sure Some People DO Have a Plan

It just doesn't include the rest of us.

Take the Bushes and that Paraguay land purchase for $400, Alex.

[No Elephants]

21. Says the heir of the world's biggest consuming family and quite the consumer himself.

[Nihil]

57. Not one of your best posts Elephants ...

... but given the wonderful denialist attitude shown upthread
(ignore the message and blather some bullshit about the messenger)
it's not too surprising today.

(FYI, the only correct part of your post was "the heir" but I'm
sure that you aren't going to worry about that.)

[Hannah Bell]

124. The poster's quite correct, & gave evidence in another post. The more wealth you have, the

more you consume, & folks like PC consume more than the peons can imagine.

Start with private planes.

And they have no plans to reduce their own consumption - just yours.

[Nihil]

137. Wrong (not that I expect you'll get it as you're wrong too).

The quote I objected to was
>> "the heir of the world's biggest consuming family and quite
>> the consumer himself."

That is simply bollocks spoken by a well-meaning but ignorant
person from several thousand miles away who makes the (invalid)
assumption that because the Prince has more money than he himself
has, the Prince must obviously be a parasite (like most of Wall Street,
everyone in Congress, Senate & White House and most other Americans
of that income range).

In your case, you are wrong with both
> folks like PC consume more than the peons can imagine.
and
> And they have no plans to reduce their own consumption - just yours.

He has not only "plans" to reduce his own consumption, he has done so
right from the start - leading by example - and has broadened that
change across the primary members of the royal family. (Note that at
no point will I defend the dipshit hangers-on - I am talking about
Charles, his parents, his siblings and his children.)

Neither of you has a clue about that guy but hey, at least this
thread proves that you're not alone in your ignorance.

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

145. you're quite right, that entire class of people are mostly parasites.

the "environmentalism" of the upper class consists of hobbyism, worrying about the lower orders overrunning the planet, & brainwashing the masses into believing *they're* the problem, when the problem is the economic structure created by elites, run by elites, for the benefit of elites - & in which elites consume more of everything.

i'll be quite happy to consume less - when charles shares out his private planes, cars, ancestral manses, private lands, investments in africa, bank of england holdings, & goes to live on the dole.

fuck the horse-faced hypocrite.

[tinrobot]

134. The messenger is not the message

If you don't want to listen to him, go talk to James Hansen or some any other prominent climate scientist.

It may be 96 months or 196 months, but the bottom line is that the planet is changing quickly and we're not changing.

[Lenomsky]

23. Don't shoot the messenger.

2 years or 20 years the fact remains we have finite resources and consumerism is destroying the planet.

[earth mom]

26. I'm glad Prince Charles is saying it. Is Obama saying it? HELL NO.

When Prince Charles speaks people do listen whether they like him or not.

Mother Earth needs all the help she can get and I don't give a damn who is saying it as long as it is being heard by the masses.

Pay attention people!

96 months = 8 years.

Time that will pass by in a nanosecond!

The time for action is now!

RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you listening President Obama & Congress?!!!!!!!!!

[romeomd25]

28. The theory of man made global warming is now nothing more than propoganda

NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934.
Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 " and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades.
This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend. Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland"s ice sheet indicate that,
just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.

Newsweek said climate holocaust "deniers" had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the "consensus"
it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 BILLION that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990
from governments, foundations and corporations (including Exxon,Big Banks,GE)

[earth mom]

29. Take your denial and shove it. It doesn't belong here on DU. Your ignorance is disgusting.

:puke:

[RebelOne]

69. There are a couple of posters here who live under bridges. n/t

[No Elephants]

30. Even Gingrich finally admitted that man contributes to, and accelerates, global warming.

13 posts since 2008 and this is one of them?

LOL. Enjoy DU, romeomd 25.

[shadowknows69]

35. My thought has always been

WHO CARES WHAT CAUSED IT? We fix it or we die. Period. Seems like a good enough motivator for me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. You need to learn the difference between the US and the world

The hottest year for the world (ie 'globe', as in 'global warming') remains 1998.

NASA made an error in how it corrected for the urban heat island effect in its U.S. land surface temperature data for the years 2000-2006. The effect of the correction was to lower the U.S. land surface temperature for 2000-2006 by an average of 0.15 °C. Changes to earlier years were insignificant.

Some journalists and commentators have claimed the correction made 1934 the warmest year in the United States instead of 1998. However, in a paper about U.S. temperatures published by NASA scientists in 2001, 1934 was reported to be 0.01 °C warmer than 1998 (in the United States only). In that paper, NASA noted the top rank of 1934, but explained that the difference was so small that the two years were statistically indistinguishable. After making the correction, NASA found the relative ranking of 1934 and 1998 remained unchanged. The difference between 1934 and 1998 is now indicated to be 0.02 °C, which remains statistically indistinguishable.

Even if the temperature rankings of individual years had changed, it would not have changed our understanding of U.S. climate trends, as it is the average of several consecutive years that defines climate. The figure illustrates this point. The five-year U.S. temperature averages around 1934 (1932-1936) and 1998 (1996-2000) show that the more recent period was warmer. Moreover, the most recent five-year period (2002-2006) was the warmest on record in the United States even after NASA applied its downward correction to years since 2000. It is clear that the United States—like the Earth—has undergone a warming trend over the past century irrespective of the relative rankings of individual years.

http://www.pewclimate.org/analysis/nasa_us_temp

400,000 years ago, humans did not even exist. So it's pretty irrelevant to say "it was hotter then". We need a climate in which modern humans, and the societies we have, can survive.

Why are you claiming 'alarmists' are getting huge funding from governments, foundations and corporations? There's a clear motive for the deniers to get paid - the corporations (eg Exxon - they pay deniers, not those who think there is man-made change) want to carry on 'Business As Usual', because it's their business, and profit is all that matters to them. Governments would rather there wasn't a climate problem - it just gives them more problems. But they see the science, and realise (now that Bush has gone) that something has to be done.

Why on earth do you think people are being paid to make things look worse than they are? It doesn't benefit anyone. Your claim makes no sense.

[Turborama]

46. Thanks for saving me and probably many others the time, muriel

Good points well made, there were so many holes that it was difficult to know where to start.

However, from my experience in the video forum with him/her, there won't be a reply.

[TommyO]

39. Your inner Rush Limbaugh is showing

[mnhtnbb]

40. NASA and temperatures? What a joke. Just ask the astronauts

riding Challenger into oblivion.

NASA management was too political (read that anxious to please Ronnie)to pay attention to the engineers
who designed the O rings raising concerns about the freezing environment on the launch pad and the effect
it could have on those O rings.

Just keep denying the facts. SOP for Repubs. Try another message board, why don't you?

[Javaman]

78. So, is that a pizza with everthing? nt

[kenfrequed]

82. twenty seven degrees warmer?

Globally?

Really?

And where did you discover this little gem?

I think a basic understanding of scientific principles regarding water vaporization should be adequate to task to point out the problems of that number. Please do a little research before you spam post 'Global Warming denier/Flat Earth Society' nonsense.

[kestrel91316]

114. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[NashVegas]

108. Charles Doesn't Have to Face Election

[Nihil]

140. Very observant. Well done. Have a cookie.

Now point out where he's wrong.

[romeomd25]

27. expert reviewer for U.N

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

A new study using methods endorsed by the Al Gore crowd concludes that there is no "consensus" among scientists that man is contributing to global warming. Also can 31,000 scientists be wrong?

* over 2/3rds of the signatories had advanced degrees,
* 2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists
* 5,017 were scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences

Hardly a bunch of "flat earth" types as the global warming mass hysteria crowd likes to call anyone that dares to challenge their scientifically weak viewpoint that man is destroying the planet by causing global warming.

So the next time you hear the media throw out the terms "consensus view" or "scientific consensus" regarding man-made global warming (or CO2 causing global warming) you'll know they either haven't done their homework or they've drank the Al Gore Kool-Aid and don't want to report the truth.

Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

[No Elephants]

31. LOL.

[Divine Discontent]

32. Do you like pizza? I bet you LOVE a certain brand...

[ima_sinnic]

36. oh, all right, continue mindlessly consuming, raping the planet, exhausting all resources

there is no need to conserve, since global climate change is "natural" and there's "nothing we can do about it." No need to sacrifice anything, no need to give up SUVs or to replace your lightbulbs or try to achieve less processing, packaging, and long-distance transport of food. It's all good, 'cause it's "all natural" and has nothing, AB-SO-LUTE-LY NOTHING, to do with any endeavor of humans whatsoever! So enjoy your resource-wasting lifestyle, and for god's sake, don't change anything about it!!!!1!!11!!!








:sarcasm: (did I need to add this?)

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. You're making up figures from thin air, so to speak

Man has increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% since the start of the industrial revolution.

Every year, we emit 7.2 billion tonnes of carbon as carbon dioxide. The atmosphere contains 760 billion tonnes. As the EIA said, in 2008, "an estimated 4.1 billion metric tons are added to the atmosphere annually" - that's net, after any absorption that plants and oceans are capable of. Every year, CO2 in the atmosphere increases by 0.5%, due to human emissions. So clearly, your '0.0117%' and '0.0047%' figures are complete fantasy. The CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere from humans is acknowledged by everyone who has looked at the evidence.

This is nothing to do with smog or carbon monoxide. That is a complete red herring that you are trying to introduce.

[TankLV]

44. "the Al Gore crowd". Riiiiight. That's all we need to know about you buddy...

go back to FUX news...you're missing the latest "Obama's A Failure" updates...

Oh - and you can STOP pulling numbers out of your ASS...

NO credible "scientists" - and only a HANDFULL at most - a FEW that I doubt would reach ONE HUNDRED, who have absolutely NO CREDENTIALS and only work for right wing "think tanks" spew such NONSENSE.

Nice try - FAIL!!!

[mgc1961]

52. Important portion of that statement

"...facts that point to a natural variation in...recent global warming." It does not say humans are not the cause. Those scientists are arguing over how and when, not if.

Emissions are growing with the human population while the earth's atmosphere and natural stabilizers (oceans and plant life) are either fixed or being reduced (deforestation). That adds up to catastrophe.

[Swagman]

33. Prince Charles has been on about this all his life. If he can use his influence it's

a plus.

[pjt7]

34. When Prince Charles calls out Monsanto

you know he'll be on the right side of the argument.

[TankLV]

42. This coming from the POSTER BOY FOR LEGACY WEALTH & PRIVILEGE!

While the MESSAGE is spot on, the MESSENGER is suspect at best, disingenuous at worst hence - what's THEIR (he's just a front man) REAL agenda...

[treestar]

62. I don't know. It's not his fault he was born to whom he was born to

If he says something helpful about this, and has influence, why not take it? He was born into it, so he is not required to be an asshole just because of that.

[madrchsod]

45. the earth will go about it`s cycle of warming and cooling...

the only thing humans can do now is delay it. the earth will purge itself of the billions of people that infect it and the human species will survive. we have survived the last go around we will survive the next.

sorry charlie...the problem is`t capitalism or consumerism. there`s to many people on the earth.

[ProudDad]

90. Thought you might enjoy this link...

The Dark Side of Climate Change: It's Already Too Late, Cap and Trade Is a Scam, and Only the Few Will Survive

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/141081

[TatonkaJames]

47. I sort of believe it but as for the planet, Carlin has it right, above them all

Watch along if you like - http://sandboxtests.blogspot.com/2008/06/save-planet-kill-yourself.html


You got people like this around you? Country is full of them now! People walking around all day long, every minute of the day — worried about EVERYTHING! Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil. Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens; worried about radon gas; worried about asbestos. Worried about saving endangered species.

Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature! It's arrogant meddling! It's what got us into trouble in the first place! Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with Nature! Over 90 percent.. over... way over 90 percent of all the species that have ever lived — EVER LIVED — on this planet are gone. Whissshht! They are extinct!

We didn't kill them all.

They just... disappeared! That's what Nature does! They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day, and I mean regardless of our behavior. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today, will be gone tomorrow! Let them go... gracefully! Leave Nature alone! Haven't we done enough?

"We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."

[Nihil]

54. Has anyone got any Raid?

We seem to have an infestation over here ...

[RedCloud]

48. So how did the money magically vanish?

Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared from the face of the Earth? That no one is hoarding wealth somewhere?

I believe Captain Jean Luc Picard could find the money simply by following its trails.

It seems like what we are being exposed to now instead of fears of communism or disease, it is no money. So fork over your money peasants to help the down trodden rich by giving more money in times of no money!

[Turborama]

49. Wrong thread?

:shrug:

[dipsydoodle]

50. Well at least

something on here has made me laugh today. WTF indeed. :rofl:

[ohio2007]

51. 96 months is a nice cushion

people won't remember his prediction when the appointed hour arrives

[midnight armadillo]

100. Hydrogen sulfide kills quickly

A growing fear is that with a high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and a low-oxygen ocean will prompt dead-sea anaerobic bacteria to belch out a huge amount of hydrogen sulfide, killing everything on land. Including humanity.

[kestrel91316]

115. Lovely. Given my microbiology background, that sort of very plausible

scenario scares hell out of me.

[foo_bar]

128. since you're a vet (iirc), check this out:

In 2005 it was shown that mice can be put into a state of suspended animation-like hypothermia by applying a low dosage of hydrogen sulfide (81 ppm H2S) in the air. The breathing rate of the animals sank from 120 to 10 breaths per minute and their temperature fell from 37 °C to just 2 °C above ambient temperature (in effect, they had become cold-blooded). The mice survived this procedure for 6 hours and afterwards showed no negative health consequences.<15> In 2006 it was shown that the blood pressure of mice treated in this fashion with hydrogen sulfide did not significantly decrease.<16>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide

Hardly reassuring but still fascinating. Anyway, I imagine we have more pressing catastrophes than extinction by H2S, since we possess limited means of compensating technologically, and there's always the prospect of ozone (H2S+O3->SO2+H2O) so Los Angeles should be okay.

[NickB79]

120. The Canfield Ocean effect

Just like the Permian mass extinction that took out 90% of all life on this planet.

Scorching heat, no wind at all (not enough temp. differential between regions to drive winds), and the oceans belching lethal gases.

:puke:

[Nihil]

59. I know it's old-fashioned to address the content of the article but even so ...

... if there is anyone on this forum who disagrees with his statement

> The price of capitalism and consumerism is just too high

... I suspect you are in the wrong place.

(There again, it might just be that the words are too long for you? :shrug:)

[Psephos]

110. lol every kite needs a string

thanks ;)

[Captain Hilts]

64. Way to go, Chuck!

[dysfunctional press]

66. well...i'm glad that someone was able to come up with an exact number...

unfortunately, if it's true, we're ALL fucked, because there's NO WAY that people are going to change all their behaviours in 8 short years.

interesting times ahead?

[Romulox]

70. Why are high profile environmentalists so frequently massive hypocrites?

Charles, like Al Gore before him, has a lot of ideas on what we should sacrifice for the environment. The good news is that if we all take his advice, Charles won't have to give up a thing!

He almost comes off like a false flag saboteur here... :shrug:

[ProudDad]

91. ...

http://www.postcarbon.org/look_bright_side
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/141081


Portrait of a Romulox...

[Hannah Bell]

125. cap & trade *is* a scam, & trying to paint criticism of it as "right-wing"

doesn't change the facts.

[NashVegas]

109. Because CNN, BBC, ABC, NYTimes, et al Don't Go to Press Conferences Held In Front Of Hermits' Caves

Just sayin'

[jakeXT]

77. I wonder if his father will help him

In 1988 Prince Philip made this creepy remark: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” And in 1991 the famous environmentalist Jacques Cousteau said, “This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”

http://au.christiantoday.com/article/those-friendly-radical-greens-are-at-it-again/6447.htm

[Nihil]

80. Your choice of source for that link is telling ...

There is no need for right-wing fundamentalist shit like that around here ...
or the people that post it ...

:puke:

[Hannah Bell]

126. but the prince *did* say it. & when he says "reduce consumption" he only means the peons.

and when he says "reduce population," he means the peons too.

[Nihil]

136. Half right.

The prince (i.e., Prince Philip, his father) *did* say it.
Jacques Cousteau also *did* say it.
Both are correct - there are too many people on this planet
and the excess isn't the likes of an environmentalist (prince or no)
but the locust-like wilfully ignorant "consumers" on every continent.

Damn right he means "the peons" but only as a subset of "the excess".

[Hannah Bell]

144. oh, because the prince styles himself "an environmentalist," he's not "excess"?

even though he & his fascist, parasitical family consumes more resources than 99% of the world's population will ever see, & have lived off the sweat & blood of the poor & the pilfered resources of 7 continents for generations?

prince charles & those like him are the locusts. and yes, they're fucking hypocritical fascist genociders.

oh, yes, you're right, it's dad who wanted to come back as a killer virus to exterminate the peons, his son wants to come back as a tampon so he can live inside his mistress's vagina, i forgot.

[Nihil]

146. No, he doesn't "style himself" an environmentalist - he is one ...

... and a damn sight better one than you and all of your random ranting
will ever be.

> he & his fascist, parasitical family
...
> have lived off the sweat & blood of the poor
...
> they're fucking hypocritical fascist genociders.

Sounds like it's time for your meds dear ...
:eyes:

> <have lived off> the pilfered resources of 7 continents for generations

Newsflash for you Hannah: that is *EXACTLY* what you are doing even now
whilst frothing at the mouth & screaming about "consuming resources"
... on the internet ...

If you can't see that then you are a piss-poor excuse for an educated
human (never mind an environmentalist).

[Hannah Bell]

148. i'm using a computer (like you), therefore i'm a

worse "environmentalist" than prince charles?

who made himself a little hobby farm on his plunder-acquired land so he could fly around the world wagging his finger?

there's a difference between the rulers & the ruled that you don't seem to grasp. lord spare me from liberal "environmentalists".

[Nihil]

150. Reading comprehension FAIL

He's a better environmentalist than you because he is acting in
the right way every day and encouraging others to do likewise.

Nothing to do with the fact that both of us are using computers. :eyes:
Reading comprehension FAIL.

> who made himself a little hobby farm on his plunder-acquired land

Try researching the history of England some time.
(Clue: Find out where "Cornwall" is in relation to "England" and you
will understand my contempt at someone claiming it is "plunder-acquired".)
Reading comprehension FAIL.


> so he could fly around the world wagging his finger?

If you'd bother to read the OP article (or even the second paragraph of
the post itself), you'd see that this "wagging his finger" was in London:
>> The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and
>> environmentalists at St James's Palace last night
Reading comprehension FAIL


>> > <have lived off> the pilfered resources of 7 continents for generations
>>
>> Newsflash for you Hannah: that is *EXACTLY* what you are doing even now
>> whilst frothing at the mouth & screaming about "consuming resources"

You are also "living off the pilfered resources of 7 continents for
generations". The difference is that you are not putting anything like
as much back as he is - you are just continuing your "traditions" of
consuming whilst ranting at someone with a true sense of social
responsibility.

Reading comprehension FAIL

FWIW, I apologise for the ad-hom comments about "time for your meds"
but I was just tired of the pointlessly hyperbolic phrases you used.
Have fun with the last word on this sub-thread too as you are simply
repeating your "anti-Illuminati" rant rather than addressing the facts.
:hi:

[ProudDad]

85. Mother Nature Bats Last (n/t)

[Wednesdays]

99. K&R

:kick:

[OldEuropean]

101. Carbon

A million points of light ascending to the sky
Monuments in darkness standing watch until the sun will rise
Screaming to an emptiness of how we deified ourselves
With our hands over eyes, claiming all of creation.
What inspires in us this madness
That our existence should be defined
By a light that can't be seen by anyone?
What inspires in us this madness
That our existence should be defined
By a light that we can't see?

A million points of light ascending to the sky
Monuments in darkness standing watch until the sun will rise
I can't see this all as progress
How did we come this far when we see ourselves as deities,
Claim nature for ourselves?
By our actions we betray the instincts in our race
By our blindness and stupidity
We kill everything, we kill everything.

Can someone see our self destruction?
Are we reminding ourselves that our existence is so delicate
That without this light we are no more?
That without this light we've made we are no more.

A million points of light ascending to the sky
Monuments in darkness standing watch until the sun will rise
We torch the earth until it bleeds, rain ashes from the sky
Just to make a light that no one can see
We cut the earth until it bleeds, rain ashes from the sky
Just to make a light that no one can see.
Just to make a light. Just to make a light
We kill everything
By our blindness and stupidity
We kill everything.

In a thousand years what will be our legacy?
A million lights that no one could see?

A million points of light.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2q6gQkYkaQ

[politicat]

121. Glad to see another VNV fan...

[Liberal_in_LA]

116. He says from his fancy dancy life - multiple residences, fancy cars and such

[Lagomorph]

118. Start here.

http://gizmodo.com/5055160/24-hour-air-traffic-around-the-world-blows-minds-eyeballs

[Hannah Bell]

127. and the prince flies by *private* plane.

[tinrobot]

135. So does every other world leader

The British government won't let him fly commercial for security reasons, so what's your point?

Stop focusing on the messenger and focus on his message.

[Hannah Bell]

141. my point is the prince, & those like him, use more resources than most people will ever see in their

lives.

[Deja Q]

129. With so much of it breaking down, requiring premature product replacements, I agree.

Oh, will he live by his word or is he another "Do as I say and not as I do" type? I looooove those sorts...

[Zavulon]

138. Blah, blah, blah. I've lost count of how many such warnings we've received.

"Only ten years to save the planet" - I first heard that in the eighties and several times since. Now it's "96 months?" That's right up there with Elizabeth May's "This tax increase may be the only way to save the planet."

Yes, something should be done - but I wish these people would take their dire predictions and shove them up their asses. To quote John Cleese in Monty Python's "Holy Grail:" "You're not fooling anyone, you know." No matter what you predict, you're not going to get me to say "Holy crap! Don't just stand there, RAISE MY TAXES!"

Edit, typo