Meet The Sceptics (Those Ones that are Supposed to Have Been Silenced)

If you want proof that the BBC, the supreme mouthpiece of the New Socialist World Order is suppressing the AGW deniers and silencing them in a Inquisition like manner, then look no further than BBC 4's "Meet the Sceptics" where the evil Communist mouthpiece silences the dissidents yet again by giving them an hour long documentary on the forbidden topic. That's pretty impressive for a "countertheory" that has never been able to publish a peer reviewed paper. So forgive me if I don't really buy all this "were silenced" stuff.

I haven't seen it yet, (gonna watch it now. Yikes.) but I'm sure it'll be called "a stitch up" or a "character assassination", the usual stuff.

James Delingpole Makes a Grade A Tit of Himself on Horizon Pt II

As we know in part one, Climate "sceptic" James Delingpole was made to look rather silly on the Horizon documentary about "Science under attack" by the royal society president Paul Nurse. Delingpole has been quite slow to respond on his blog about the affair. It really went belly up a bit for him and I think he has been stumped a bit by how badly it backfired for him* and has put up a few articles criticising Ben Goldacre for calling him a "penis" and attacking him for being an "intellectual coward" by supporting the consensus on AGW. Which I think is out of line against a man who could have been taken to the cleaners by the notoriously litigious poo lady and by exposing the murky underworld of the big medical companies and the AIDS denial in South Africa in the "Bad Science" book. He then attacks the mathematician Simon Singh** for being a bit of a bully for tweeting about our lone crusader:


Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate


Oh bloody boohoo. Delingpole, who ironically is not averse to resorting to a bit of playground abuse (libtards) is trying to set himself up as the victim of some kind of Twitter smear campaign of abuse for his noble stance on climate change. Now let me make it clear, I don't approve if he has received threatening messages, but bloody hell he can't half give it but is incapable of taking it. He has essentially used his blog to promote the idea that climate scientists are colluding in a scam to extort trillions of dollars from a gullible Joe Public. That he somehow has somehow he has seen through the tissue of lies that some of the most qualified climatologists in the world have failed to notice. These are big claims, so you might expect to get a bit of flack for stating it. Sorry James that's how the cookie crumbles mate. As I said he has taken a metaphorical cricket bat around the chops, and as everyone knows when the debate goes tits up resort to straw man arguments. Let's take a look at some of Jameses.


"Yet in the opinion of Singh, the worldwide Climate Change industry is the one area where the robust scepticism and empiricism he professes to believe in just doesn’t apply. Apparently, the job of a journalist is just to accept the word of “the scientists” and take it as read that being as they are “scientists” their word is God and it brooks no questioning or dissent"


This shows James has little understanding of how either to critically appraise scientific research properly and what scepticism is. Possibly it is the result of those with a journalistic background being attracted to holding contrarian views from what they perceive as an aloof "elite" Delingpole appears to believe "scientists" are some monolithic cult who dictatorially decide from on high what is scientifically orthodox and what isn't. The vigorously researched evidence for AGW was simply not obtained in that manner. It is not unreasonable for a qualified scientist to take at face value the "views" of an unqualified layman who doesn't appear to know what science is.


"There’s a “consensus” on global warming. It’s immutable and correct. And anyone who disputes it is a vexatious denier informed by nothing but ignorance and who deserves nothing other than to be hounded and bullied and abused by the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Simon Singh’s Twitter mob, Ben Goldacre’s Twitter mob, and the shrill nest of paid-for trolls who infest the comments below this blog not to present a reasoned case but merely to disrupt and offend."


There is a consensus amongst scientists, a very rigorous one supported by shitloads of evidence to back it up. I shall repeat this again loud and clear.


SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM OR DOGMATIC ORTHODOXY. NOT AT ALL!!!


Thanks for listening!


Well you can split hairs over what you think the motives of the AGW sceptics may be, but I take the philosophy of Johann Hari. All people deserve respect, all ideas don't. Oh and don't accuse your opponents of trying to rubbish the cause; and then do just that in the same paragraph.


"Well I’m sick of it."


Blog about something else then.


"What sickens me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be in favour of speech, claim to believe in empiricism, claim to be sceptics yet refuse to accept room for an honest, open debate on one of the most important political issues of our time."


Nurse had a debate with you my friend. Horizon asked you on to do that and you fucked it up. Want some credibility, stop relying on shitty research.


**"My case is not that I “James Delingpole have taken a long hard look at the science of global warming and discovered through careful sifting of countless peer-reviewed papers that the experts have got it all wrong.”


If you are going to accuse the folks who wrote these papers of some sort of cover up, I suggest you start swatting up a bit. Bloody hell if you want to stick your neck out, do the homework.


"What I am saying, and I say almost every day, is that the evidence is not as robust as the “consensus” scientists claim; that there are many distinguished scientists all round the world who dispute this alleged “consensus”;"


How would you know? You haven't read the bloody evidence. You just bloody admitted it!


"that true science doesn’t advance through “consensus” and never has;"


Well quite possibly. But it's a bloody good sign of an accurate theory. Newtons third law works just as well today as it did in old Isaacs time.


"that there are many vested interests out there determined and able to spend a great deal of money by making out that the case for catastrophic, man-made global warming is much stronger than it is."


Yeah because high petrol prices and and end to cheap flights have always been real vote winners. Anyway if a scientist did discover that AGW wasn't occurring it would be the find of the century. You'd be lauded, showered with cash and grants from the oil companies. There sending the Nobel Prize your way as well. Real life isn't like a Michael Chrichton novel.


"and because they are not issues which require an exclusively scientific knowledge to understand. They just require the basic journalistic skill of being able to read and analyse."


But a sciencey background sort of helps. Anyone can read a scientific paper, but an unqualified journalist can make mistakes with scientific papers. Melanie Philips for instance didn't realise that Cochrane papers were specifically designed to criticise scientific papers, so she jumped to the wrong conclusions over what was said about the quality of Andrew Wakefields detractors findings. That is why I am all for opening science up to the greater public and journalists who have to report scientific stuff to their readers, but often fail to do so very well.


"Yet despite apparently knowing nothing more about me and what I do than he has learned from a heavily politicised BBC documentary, and maybe heard from his mob of Twitter bully chums or read in the Guardian, Singh feels able to decide that Paul Nurse is right on this issue and I’m wrong. Well I don’t call that an evidence-based argument. I call that dishonest, thoughtless and – given the high ethical standards Singh claims to represent – outrageously hypocritical."


Yes, as just because you haven't actually read the peer reviewed papers on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean you can't loftily proclaim that it's all one huge con by the people who wrote them, and have people give you a round of applause for it.


"“If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship, appeals to authority, crude character assassination and establishment cover ups?”


This reasoning is how; inevitably- these kinds of things can self sustain themselves. If they do take you on, they are the scary "establishment" trying to bully the heretics. If they don't take you on, they are trying to hush you up and censor you. The MMR causes autism and Intellegent Design proponents trot this very same argument out, and because it is so superficially plausible on one level, that is why pseudoscience can be so persist ant on the flimsiest of evidence to actually support it. So it is with trepidation that I quote Delingpoles closing words on the whole affair*


"This has been a bruising week for me. But in the long term, I have a strong suspicion, it is going to do far, far more damage to the BBC, to Sir Paul Nurse (and, by extension, to the integrity of the Royal Society) than ever it has done to me."


Pseudoscience, the gift that keeps on giving.

James Delingpole Makes a Grade A Tit of Himself on Horizon (Part I)

It's unbelievable! I go away for a few days (hence why this one follows on a bit later than the actual interview I am posting about) and I get confronted with a feast of fertile blogging fodder that I had no idea was going on as I haven't been on the web at all during the duration, (not always an entirely bad thing to do now and then.) or looked at a newspaper the whole time. Melanie Philips has pissed off almost everyone on Twitter with a bizarre and ill thought out column about the "gay agenda" pushing homosexuality to schoolkids via special awareness topics in their lessons, designed to "destroy the concept of traditional sexuality". Jesus! Two sports pundits given the boot for slagging off a lady ref. A hard line Christian GP who has been appointed to the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs. This is a pretty impressive list of potential topics, but old news is no news, so I have decided to retrospectively comment on the story that has the most personal interest to me of which I have only just found out about this past day as a result of my self imposed news blackout. A story involving a well known climate change skeptic who ended up looking like a complete berk on a BBC documentary. This was one of the most embarrasing interviews ever to grace the box that didn't involve Bill Grundy and any member of the Sex Pistols.

The Horizon documentary titled "Science Under Attack" was presented by the President of the Royal Society; Sir Paul Nurse. In it Nurse was concerned about the discrepancies between what Scientific consensus has to say about - in particular -climate change; GM crops and the nature of the HIV virus, and the general views about these issues in the eyes of the lay public. The programme was good and I genuinely encourage you watch it on I-player (link provided) if you haven't seen it. It focused primarily on climate change, and I was a bit disappointed the other topics took perhaps as much of a backburner as they did as they are all interesting topics in themselves. But as I said climate change is probably the most obvious contemporary scientific topic that creates a controversial divergence between the scientific consensus of climate scientists (around 97 percent agree man made climate change is occurring) and the layperson (half of Americans and a third of Britons think ACC is being deliberately exaggerated) It is unsurprising then that Professor Nurse interviews a climate change denier to find out why this is so, and into this steps James Delingpole, the Daily Telegraphs resident "ACC is bollocks" blogger. The interviews with him in the documentary are stunning, not because Delingpole puts in a good performance, but because; in American parlance - he got his ass handed to him on a plate, a big silver platter even. It is pure car crash stuff. Delingpole is edgy and clearly out of his depth even before the fun starts. Delingpole dismisses "scientific consensus" as unscientific (I presume he makes the mistake of thinking it is just the same as conventional wisdom. Delingpole makes broad sweeping statements throughout the interview but never elaborates, so you can see why we may have to speculate on what he means). Nurse disagrees and says that this amount of consensus over such a long period of time is a healthy sign that the evidence is very strong, and that as scientific superstardom results from demolishing established theories, it must have been pretty robust or it would have been disproved. The killer blow is landed when Nurse proposes a hypothetical scenario to Delingpole and his "consensus is not science" stance. Say he was suffering from cancer and the doctors had come to a unanimous consensually conclusion about his treatment plan, (which happens often) would he reject this treatment for one that hadn't, as happens every once in a blue moon, if that? Delingpole is floored by this. He visibly looks like he wants to stop the interview and hastily tries to change the subject onto the East Anglian e-mails thing. I know some editing goes on with this kind of thing, but my god Delingpole comes off badly on this one. Nurse has stumbled upon what i think is the best way to combat pseudoscience, or conspiracy theories. Point out the bleeding obvious flaws in their logic. People like Delingpole cherry pick data (and ACC involves lots of figures to selectively shove into an article), and quote figures out of context to bolster and inflate the validity of their "stance". They never go for the biggy, disprove the warming effects of carbon dioxide, demolish the whole ACC theory to a chorcoally pile of dust at it's root. They can't. Nurse however is in the position of being able to quietly and calmly attack the major flaws of their arguments without turning it into a slanging match involving the "evil establishment" against the lone Galileo figure in the eyes of a layperson, or looking like a dusty old don being one upped by a polemicist pulling out all the logical fallacies to make his point look one hundred times better than it actually is. It's like calmly explaining to a moon hoaxer who says they had to remove all the stars from the photos, thus why they are not visible; that thinking that not one astronomer or scientist looking at those photos would notice that the stars suddenly being missing was a bit dodgy - is so monumentally fucking stupid that anyone who thinks this shouldn't comment on opening a loaf of bread, let alone expect anyone to take them remotely seriously. The interview also shows (and I am aware of post production editing) to some extent that Delingpole can dish it out on his blog (sometimes in quite a dubious manner) with the largely receptive audience, but is a little squeamish at taking it himself. Hell if as a non-scientist; you want to dismiss 97 percent of respected climate scientists as liars, expect to have to face the harsh questions from a critical point of view. Let us hope we are reclaiming some of the "war against science." Point out the major flaws of the key arguments the pseudoscientists are peddling, and not let them cherry pick on their own terms, and perhaps; perhaps popular perceptions of science will improve. Here's hoping anyway.

Turn in to part II tomorrow where we look at James Delingpoles take on the whole interview.

*POSTSCRIPT. Although the hypothetical question posed by Paul Nurse and Delingpoles response are the point the interview jumped the shark, this doesn't even take into account the lofty claim on his behalf that the entire peer review process has been trashed by the "climategate" affair. How? Again he makes lofty announcements and never backs them up with evidence, or indeed anecdotes. He even admits that it is really a political and not a dispute about scientific research. The admission that he hasn't the time or the scientific know how (Mr. Delingpole has a degree in English) to read peer reviewed research papers on climate change is astounding for a man who spends about 95 percent of his blog "proving" how ACC is made up by communists or whoever. How can he know that the peer review process is irrevocabally damaged by the East anglia broohaha if oh... he hasn't read a fucking peer reviewed paper on the damn subject. Christ in heaven, what was he thinking in this interview? Then he pulls the coup de gracé by saying his job isn't to interpret the data, it is to interpret the interpreted data. Or as it is known in every day terms, "Just having an opinion on stuff". Watch it, it truly has to be seen to be believed.

The "Teach Both Sides" Paradox on Climate Change, Darwinism Et Al, In a Nutshell

Professor Brian Cox off D-Ream highlighted the dual paradox that faces hot scientific potatoes such as climate change or evolution, where the mainstream scientific consensus of experts points extremely heavily in favour of both, but popular layman consensus can be divided and highly contentious, often flying in the face of the experts view. The problem is twofold, firstly in the interests of "balance", media orientated directors or journalists / editors will "promote" the other side either they think that showing both sides of the story is the fair and just thing to do, or plainly out of a spirit of contrarian irreverence to piss off the "establishment". This route is not a solid way to take into account that one of the sides could plainly have got the facts wrong. The second is more controversial. If say climate change proponents point out that the "deniers" don't have a leg to stand on, and have dodgy evidence, and thus have no scientific or factual basis to claim equivalence and equal air time, well they end up looking like they do have something to hide, at least to those laypersons looking at the issues. What are they so afraid about in debating the issues? Unfortunately not seeing the vigorous academic scrutiny and peer review that became the scientific consensus that gets put out. That is why we end up with public scepticism being much higher than those of qualified climate scientists. (75 percent in the UK think AGW is happening. 97% of scientists think the same, and every scientific body of international and national stature.)


This paradox is summed up superbly (but unintentionally) in a blog article by Alex Singleton, a journo from the Telegraph, not a paper to deny airspace to a AGW denier - about an e-mail circulated at Fox News about putting out "both" sides of the AGW debate

"From: Sammon, Bill Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009Subject:

Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data……we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

Ostensibly this e-mail sounds pretty reasonable, and I can see why Alex Singleton may think that this is a good approach to take in regards to climate change. However, and this was Proffessor Cox's point. Although Bills attitude towards the role of journalism may be admirable and well intentioned in regards to something like the scientific consensus of climate change, it doesn't really fit the approach to take on scientific issues that have been researched. I have no problem with them saying that some do criticise and disagree with the consensus on AGW, but they are not saying how much criticism there is, and how is a very small minority, mostly composed of laypeople and has no real standing at all in the harsh world of scientific peer review and evidence based research. That is the point Cox said, this outlook to scientific reporting may seem fair, but it is giving pseudoscience airtime that is totally unwarranted from a research sense.

Singleton then brings up a point that highlights an important gap in the often humanities based background of journalists, and the research work of science:

"wonder if the journalists writing attacks on Fox realise that these sort of advisory emails are frequently sent around the staff of Left-wing establishments, declaring that “ethnic minorities” must henceforth be called “minority ethnics” and that no one may be labeled a “gypsy”. Anyway, do take a look at the email, and you will see the absurdity of the criticism:"

There is an important distinction between this example and the climate change e-mail. The former is about appealing to sensibilities and not hurting peoples feelings. It is a subjective thing, you can't really quantify it or measure it. It is essentially a matter of opinion. The latter is about a subject that is researchable and researched, a tangible scientific phenomena, and is subject to evidence based research, almost all confirming AGW is real. I think some journalists like Singleton are so used to the opinion piece and the polemic, they seem to think that science works like their world. That they all meet up in the "Science Establishment" once a year and create a "bible of science" in their little society. He backs my suspicion up with:

"It sounds to me as if Fox News is making a conscious effort, if I may use their catchphrase, to be fair and balanced. What a pity that the Left, like fanatical fundamentalists, regard global warming as such a sacred doctrine that they cannot permit anyone anywhere to criticise it."

See he sees it as "doctrine" and "left wing". That AGW research consists of nothing much more than a bunch of Guardian readers in the North Pole or whatever. And thus why popular reporting of science is in such a dismal state. I don't want to shut AGW deniers up, or send them to prison. But I don't think they should get away without the public being told that there is almost nothing to their claims. That not all counter claims are as valid when you research them. In practice we all do this anyway, when David Icke said he was the son of God he got laughed at. Why? Because even without the benefit of objecive analysis (though you are welcome to try) we knew that the ratio of he is Jesus, to he's nuts was 0.00001 : 99.9999. Likewise for all Singleton may talk about fairness, does the Torygraph give ample credence to the claims 9/11 was an inside job. Ditto, it's barmy.

No-one is saying AGW deniers should be silenced, but they should be judged by the veracity and accuracy of their claims, which don't stand up too well. That isn't an attack on free speech.

Prince Charles and Hot Air

The Prince of Wales has delivered an interesting speech at Oxford university, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies, of which he is patron. I don't say that the speech is interesting because of the prose and the quality of what was said. It is pretty typical Charlie fayre. Boring, long winded, repetitive and veering on random tangents, almost haphazardly. And very ... VERY long!! (TRANSCRIPT HERE). Although Charles appears to be an advocate of a certain school of postmodernist thought, that decrees "Western Empiricism" (the dreaded hegemony.) is just one (very horrid) paradigm, and an "innate" Eastern Spirituality is another equally valid way at looking at the world. Thus the world is divided into immutable and exclusive blocs of thought, which I just think is slightly patronising, but that's just me. It is ironic therefore, that as this picture below points out, perhaps the one universal constant, that can surpass any intelectual boundry of thought is that Charles is a bit boring.

The speech focuses on [what he sees as] the need to apply the wisdom of "Traditional Spirituality" to combat climate change. The talk isn't a call to arms to follow Islamic practices to combat climate change as some have claimed. But is a discussion on the need to heed "traditions" which emphasised the unity of man and nature , to allow us to live in harmony with our environment - not just relying on the "materialistic rationality" of the contemporary scientific method, which elevated man beyond nature (most biology textbooks would disagree!!) and caused the problem in the first place, by borrowing from ying; to pay yang .... or something.

Now I don't have a problem with such a well known figure highlighting climate change, and indeed the perverse way the third world bears the brunt of it. Good on him for not being put off by the vocal deniers as well. However like many speeches he gives on scientific things like climate change; medicine, and technology -he has to pepper the few sensible points he makes with a lot of rather strange concepts about "soul" and "wisdom of nature." He seems to have this idea that nature has some "essence" or "spirit" that Western thought has forgotton (or hubristicly chooses to ignore.) but our ancestors, and the mystic cultures of the "East" still recognise and nurture. What he fails to grasp is that when he berates science and its "empiricism" for ignoring the "soul", is that science is (by definition) under no obligation to do so. He's making that same mistake about science. That it is just another ideology and belief, and is there to provide an all encompassing world view. It isn't! Science is just a (very effective) means of studying the world. There is no onus in factoring in unfalsifiable things like the soul, that is just a matter of opinion, and that is what Charles should be told before he sounds off.

Here's a few excerpts of what he said;

" Over the years, I have pointed out again and again that our environmental problems cannot be solved simply by applying yet more and more of our brilliant green technology – important though it is. It is no good just fixing the pump and not the well. When I say this, everybody nods sagely, but I get the impression that many are often unwilling to embrace what I am really referring to, perhaps because the missing element sits outside the parameters of the prevailing secular view. It is this “missing element” that I would like to examine today. In short, when we hear talk of an “environmental crisis” or even of a “financial crisis,” I would suggest that this is actually describing the outward consequences of a deep, inner crisis of the soul. It is a crisis in our relationship with – and our perception of – Nature, and it is born of Western culture being dominated for at least two hundred years by a mechanistic and reductionist approach to our scientific understanding of the world around us. So I would like you to consider very seriously today whether a big part of the solution to all of our worldwide “crises” does not lie simply in more and better technology, but in the recovery of the soul to the mainstream of our thinking. Our science and technology cannot do this. Only sacred traditions have the capacity to help this happen."

He tacitly admits it is just an opinion of his here. The speech is loaded with gratuitous self pity that no-one takes his received wisdom at anything more than face value (I'd say he was being generous to himself. I doubt many listen to practically anything he has to say on this matter.) He doesn't seem to understand that no one is obliged to take an unsubstantiated opinion at more than face value, and usually people don't. It's pretty much a rant about how everything would be great if it wasn't for horrid old technology.

"In general, we live within a culture that does not believe very much in the soul anymore – or if it does, won’t admit to it publicly for fear of being thought old fashioned, out of step with “modern imperatives” or “anti-scientific.” The empirical view of the world, which measures it and tests it, has become the only view to believe. A purely mechanistic approach to problems has somehow assumed a position of great authority and this has encouraged the widespread secularisation of society that we see today. This is despite the fact that those men of science who founded institutions like the Royal Society were also men of deep faith. It is also despite the fact that a great many of our scientists today profess a faith in God. I am aware of one recent survey that suggests over seventy per cent of scientists do so. I must say, I find this rather baffling. If this is so, why is it that their sense of the sacred has so little bearing on the way science is employed to exploit the natural world in so many damaging ways? I suppose it must be to do with who pays the fiddler. Over the last two centuries, science has become ever more firmly yoked to the ambitions of commerce. Because there are such big economic benefits from such a union, society has been persuaded that there is nothing wrong here. And so, a great deal of empirical research is now driven by the imperative that its findings must be employed to maximum, financial effect, whatever the impact this may have on the Earth’s long-term capacity to endure. This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in Nature but quantity and motion. This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works and how we fit within the scheme of things. As a result, Nature has been completely objectified – “She” has become an “it” – and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo’s scheme."

The empirical based view of the world he complains about is the only view science can take. BECAUSE IT IS A METHODOLOGY NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM!! Ditto for religious scientists (70% sounds WAY too high, but he doesn't quote the source.). They don't apply the two together, because they are two different things! As for a decline in the belief in souls, and an increase in secularisation with tech / science. That tends to happen. People rely less on supernatural explanations, as things can be explained objectively. Most of the time anyway.

"I hope you can just begin to see my point. The utter dominance of the mechanistic approach of science over everything else, including religion, has “de-souled” the dominant world view, and that includes our perception of Nature. As soul is elbowed out of the picture, our deeper link with the natural world is severed. Our sense of the spiritual relationship between humanity, the Earth and her great diversity of life has become dim. The entire emphasis is all on the mechanical process of increasing growth in the economy, of making every process more “efficient” and achieving as much convenience as possible. None of which could be said to be an ambition of God. And so, unfashionable though it is to suggest it, I am keen to stress here the need to heal this divide within ourselves. How else can we heal the divide between East and West unless we reconcile the East and West within ourselves? Everything in Nature is a paradox and seems to carry within itself the paradox of opposites. Curiously, this maintains the essential balance. Only human beings seem to introduce imbalance. The task is surely to reconnect ourselves with the wisdom found in Nature which is stressed by each of the sacred traditions in their own way."

The only view of "our deeper place in the world" that gets unfashionable is Charles opinion of humans place in it. Look in one of the many good books on popular biology / nature, for a good (and well researched too) narrative on humans role in nature. It's a zillion times more interesting than the iffy new age cobblers, based on nothing but his royal opinions, on offer here.


"Such instruction is hard to square if all you do is found your understanding of the world on empirical terms alone. Four hundred years of relying on trying and testing the facts scientifically has established the view that spirituality and religious faith are outdated expressions of superstitious belief. After all, empiricism has proved how the world fits together and it is nothing to do with a “Supreme Being.” There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God so, therefore, Q.E.D, God does not exist. It is a very reasonable, rational argument, and I presume it can be applied to “thought” too. After all, no brain scanner has ever managed to photograph a thought, nor a piece of love, and it never will. So, Q.E.D., that must mean “thought” and “love” do not exist either!"

Oh Charlie! What shall we do with you! Any study of animal / human behaviour will show evidence for love (or more accurately some kind of altruism / getting ones rocks off combination that we would class as "love" ) Ditto anything written, spoken and published, kind of hints that something we call "thought" exists. Both may be subjective terms, but science can show that the brain / hormones produce an empirically observed sensation, which can then contribute to sensations that can be called these things by the philosophers and poets. etc.. The evidence for God is bit more thin on the ground though.

"The Modernist ideology that has dominated the Western outlook for a century implies that “tradition” is backward looking. What I have tried to explain today is that this is far from true. Tradition is the accumulation of the knowledge and wisdom that we should be offering to the next generation. It is, therefore, visionary – it looks forward.

Tradition is a broad school. A bunch of customs and idioms passed down through the generations. It can be visionary, profound, or complete bollocks. Starting something that becomes a tradition may be an attempt to look forward. But respecting traditions is - by the nature of tradition, "backward looking". Where the hell else are we supposed to get them from?

The entire speech (and there is a ton more of it) is pretty much in the same vein. Berating science for becoming to big for it's boots, and for technology and secularism making us lesser people, whilst materially better off. He also accuses scientists of putting profit before principle, which isn't very nice. Now perhaps our more materialistic world has made us greedier and less in tune with nature (though we seem these days to increasingly value environmental issues and technological innovations to curtail the damage man has inflicted on the planet. I also don't recall that our "spiritual" ancestors had a green party either.). If the cause of some of the damage is by the products of science and technology (and can also be objectively analysed. You can't do that with a spirit, which negates his point about science pursuing that line of action. Hey I didn't write the speech!!), then can we not use the same instruments to assess and negate the damage? Shouldn't Charles have a bit more grace, and explain that it is only his opinion that our "spirits" being out of kilter is the root cause?

For all Charles' self deprecating grumbles about how he is the shunned rebel spouting the unfashionable and unorthodox. I doubt he would have the self awareness to admit that this is all just his opinion on how to tackle these issues, and that he doesn't expect anyone to give him any more intellectual credence with that in mind. I think he would be saddened to learn that a) In a scientific context, his arguments are bunkum, and show he doesn't understand what the scientific method is.. Which is a bit a bummer if you have a lecture that goes on for 30 years about the abuse of the scientific method. b) he just isn't a good speaker, or polemic. I truly am being generous to him with my criticisms. It really is shooting fish in a barrel. Every line in that speech is utter dross. It is hard to argue with Johann Hari, when he says that the only reason any of his stuff gets airtime at all is due to his royal status. Even with all the trappings his role entails him too, that we don't have, he still has trouble with what he says getting airtime! It is testament to the appalling quality of his writing, that someone as high profile as the heir to the throne can write this, without seeing the forest for the trees. I really would stick to opening supermarkets!

"I am slightly alarmed that it is now seventeen years since I came here to the Sheldonian to deliver a lecture for the Centre that tried to do just this. I called it “Islam and the West” and, from what I can tell, it clearly struck a chord, and not just here in the U.K. I am still reminded of what I said, particularly when I travel in the Islamic world – in fact, because it was printed, believe it or not, it is the only speech I have ever made which continues to produce a small return!"