The Prince of Wales waded into the latest climate change row during a visit to Manchester today.
Prince Charles attacked critics who said global warming was not a man-made phenomena.
Follow the Royal visit live here
Debate has raged over data used by top UN scientists to establish the cause of global warming.
During a visit to the Museum of Science and Industry this morning the Prince of Wales told an audience of local dignitaries and business chiefs that there was no disagreement in his mind.
He said: “I have watched with great despair and alarm the glee with which the sceptics have leapt on the recent news stories suggesting that global warming is a myth.
“If it is a myth and the global scientific community is involved in some sort of a conspiracy then why have sea levels around the world risen six inches in the last 100 years.”
His Royal Highness used the speech at the Museum of Science and Industry to highlight his environmental concerns and to launch a new initiative - dubbed Start -- which would be a high-level campaign publicising the latest energy-saving technologies and advice backed by celebrities and high street brands.
The Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall arrived at Manchester from Preston via the Royal Train, which was pulled into the 19th century railway station, part of the museum complex, by a newly-commissioned steam engine, Tornado.
The steam engine, which was built in Darlington only last year, produced plumes of steam which filled the platform as their Highnesses alighted to be met by schoolchildren from Birchfields Primary School in Longsight.
His Royal Highness was shown steam engines used in 19th century cotton mills and was given a demonstration of steam power by exhibitor Stephen Howe, who was dressed in costume as scientific pioneer James Watts.
Follow the Royal visit live here
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (04/02/2010 at 12:32)
I'll be surprised if MEN publish this one.
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (04/02/2010 at 12:40)
Esso Blue. Carlitos is officially a GOD , Blues Town (04/02/2010 at 12:44)
It appears that the earth has recovered before from natural progression of natural polluted atmospheres but the question is, has it had to deal with man made type pollutants.
The earth went from a ball of fire to then fertilize to what it was a hundred years ago or so; it dealt with what we are led to believe was the period of the extinction of the dinosaurs which was pollution related.
Could the earth repair from man made pollutants? has the earth previously been used to dealing with these types of compounds?. Since the ozone layer came into existence has it ever needed to repair itself?.
It seems that the eco system cant cope with the amount of pollution and it appears to building up to a crescendo.
Maybe the earth will have a way of destroying man before man destroys it. Plants could have a biological switch that could release a gas that puts an end to us all, perish the thought. Are the plants the true Gods?. The plants give you the food and the air that you breath.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (04/02/2010 at 12:59)
I think you're right though, the earth will destroy mankind before mankind destroys the earth
I still have my thoughts on whether all the nuclear testing carried out in the 50'2 and 60's or all the bombings during WW1 and WW2 have caused much of the damage, after all there was probably the equivilent of trillions of tons of TNT blown up in the atmosphere
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 13:06)
Have you seen any evidence to support that theory?
Rob Wilson (04/02/2010 at 13:09)
lizard (04/02/2010 at 13:11)
PW, Manchester (04/02/2010 at 13:13)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (04/02/2010 at 13:16)
But to explicitely answer your question, No I haven't seen much evidence because local councils are hell bent on destroying greenbelt, which is exactly the point I was making.
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 13:27)
I absorb oxygen and exhale CO2. That doesn't automatically mean that if the amount of oxygen in the air increased, I would suddenly grow larger or reproduce. That's not to say that what you suggest wouldn't happen, but I thinks it's far too simplistic an assumption to take at face value.
"But to explicitely answer your question, No I haven't seen much evidence because local councils are hell bent on destroying greenbelt, which is exactly the point I was making."
I think that's a bit of a myth. The last stats I saw, 92% of the UK land surface had nothing built on it, 4% had buildings on it and 4% had roads on it. That might be a couple of years out of date, but I doubt it's changed significantly.
Hamish Macbeth, Whitefield (04/02/2010 at 13:29)
www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p8.htm for one. Trying googling CO2 plant growth for more.
I would be interested to hear where His Highness has heard "sea levels around the world risen six inches in the last 100 years". From a personal point of view - one are in Scotland I know cannot have had such a rise without an obvious effect on 100 yr old local housing stock which is built close to the watersedge. In fact there is creeping plant life moving down the shore suggesting a drop.
If your on line your Highness - please let me know - I am most interested.
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 13:45)
That refers to increasing CO2 levels in greenhouses. That makes perfect sense to me, because, if you put plants in a sealed environment, I would expect them to use up the CO2 in the air, just as, if I was in a sealed room, I would begin to use up the Oxygen in the air. On that basis, I would expect that pumping additional CO2 into the greenhouse would help the plants, just as pumping oxygen into the sealed room would help me.
I don't think either of those scenarios translates into the outside world, where neither the CO2 nor the O2 are in danger of dropping to such a level that respiration becomes impossible.
Audenshaw Bob (04/02/2010 at 14:04)
As the fields are left flooded for upto four months at a time this causes methane to build up and then release into the atmosphere - roughly 100 tonnes per annum.
So rather than messing about using less carrier bags tell the Third World to cut down rice production or drain their fileds regularly.
We should also ban rice imports if we are serious about global warming.
Esso Blue. Carlitos is officially a GOD , Blues Town (04/02/2010 at 14:36)
The atmosphere it seems is having problems regulating earths temperature . At the same time it could be argued that people are suffering as a consequence of pollutants in the atmosphere.
It seems that ozone is messed up and damaging radiation is getting through.
Regarding paddy fields and other vegetation that gives this gas off, as well as humans and other animals, it might be a good idea for a population slow down. Condoms for everyone, or a giant world war.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (04/02/2010 at 14:50)
Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to come to the idea that the less vegetation there is, the less oxygen is being reproduced, add to that more people on the planet using it up. We need to start encouraging large fields systems to be forested throughout various parts of the country (or world) such as area's of Chat Moss for example, which at the moment are just producing turf.
Emjay See supporting City is not being able to wake from a dream that keeps getting better and bette (04/02/2010 at 15:00)
Why the fixation on CO2 to the exclusion of methane I don't know.
Maybe politians believe we will give up our dependance on petrol before our preference for meat.
Esso Blue. Carlitos is officially a GOD , Blues Town (04/02/2010 at 15:00)
The Dodo is extinct and we are chopping up the world and ourselves at a fast rate.
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 15:02)
I think that's a perfectly reasonable assumption. The thing that I didn't think was reasonable was the idea that increased CO2 automatically leads to increased plant growth.
Esso Blue. Carlitos is officially a GOD , Blues Town (04/02/2010 at 15:07)
JTC Formerley JimC (04/02/2010 at 15:11)
EVOLUTION.
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (04/02/2010 at 15:26)
Stevedore, Quayside (04/02/2010 at 15:31)
So rather than messing about using less carrier bags tell the Third World to cut down rice production or drain their fileds regularly.
Does it not matter that rice is the stable diet of millions of the worlds poorest people or are we only concerned about our own welfare?
Laura Norder, Didsbury (04/02/2010 at 15:42)
Who is this 'Paddy Fields' person - and isn't it about time he/she was advised on the damaging effect his diet of baked beans and sprouts was having on mankind?
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (04/02/2010 at 15:46)
Black Flag,
The point I was referring to was before life began on earth, volcanoes caused an increase of CO2 and this caused vegetation to flourish. nothing else caused it to happen apart from the abundance of water and a few simple cells.
Audenshaw Bob (04/02/2010 at 15:52)
We are told all the time that the planet is dying, that our children's very future is at stake, human life may die out etc etc. There is that government sponsored advert where a bloke is reading a bedtime story to his daughter and it is about humans being selfish and creating these bad gases and the planet was at risk. The daughter asks' is there a happy ending daddy'. Then it stops and they say it is up to us.
In other words the world will end unless we do something.
If it is that serious then something has to be done about the biggest contributer of methane. The atmospher/ozone doesn't recognise methane from rice and say 'oh, that from poor people so I won't allow it to harm the atmosphere'. Bad gas is bad gas wherever it came from. Whether from a 4x4 or a paddyfield, if it is destroying the planet it is destroying the planet. You can't make excuses or exemption given the supposed gravity of the situation. The world may end, how much graver do you get?
The Third World is overpopulated, causes methane from paddy fields, use tuk-tuks, old buses from the 70's, unclean industrial practices etc.
I have neighbours who buy shedloads of toys for their offspring - all from China which is a major polluter, they eat rice, they have five children and went to an 'eco lodge' in Australia for their holidays. Telling me how green they are and when over their used compost loos etc. I asked about the co2 from their flights but this was conveniently hushed up.
Trouble is, like everything people want good guys and villains. It is OK for carrir bag using 4x4 drivers to be the villain but use some facts and sugges the real culprits and as that is not the cool choice I am slammed down. Deal in facts, not popularity contests.