Kiribati is a Pacific nation of 33 islands with fantastic jewels such as this:

The above are known in the aquarium hobby as Christmas tree worms and are one of my favorite species to keep.

The president of Kiribati, President Anote Tong seems to recognize that his nation has the greatest economic potential as a tourist destination and led the cause to set aside much of his nation’s territorial waters as discussed in this interview.

I can appreciate President Anote Tong’s environmental sentiments.  As discussed on this blog numerous times and as mentioned on the About page, I believe in conservation.

President Anote Tong gets the Blockhead designation though for some of the last comments he made in the above interview.  After the usual amount of alarmism over sea level rise, Tong states:

It is important not to forget we are talking about the fate of a people here. We’re not talking about polar bears. I think the polar bears are precious and I do not wish to see them disappear. But nor would I want to see our people disappear.

The polar bears are not threatened, their numbers are increasing and they lived through warmer times in the past.  Invoking the image of the polar bear and tying that to the people of Kiribati is insincere and simply to illicit emotion.  Attribution of sea level rise to CO2 has become boring.

The seas will rise and the seas will fall as they always have regardless the CO2 content of the atmosphere.  I suspect Tong knows this and is simply panhandling for a donation while recognizing his nation produces nothing the world wants other than a pristine dive destination.

Prince Charles is a blockhead, as we’ve discussed before.

One set of rules for the United Kingdom, one set of rules for him.  Here is a nice pic of Charles:

Look out U.K.!  I know what he plans to do with that thing.  You’re not gonna like it.

Why is Charles so adamant that action must be taken on global warming now, and that specifically offshore windmills should be the solution for the U.K.?

Well, who would have guessed, Charles owns the coasts and he is going to tax the peasants (that’s YOU U.K.) to the tune of $70 million a year to implement the solution he wants. 

How generous of the royals to allow the commoners the usage of the coasts on which to construct windmills, subsidized by the peasantry, so everyone can pay ten times the cost for their electricity while funneling the royalties to the royals.

Seriously, U.K., why do you put up with such foolishness?

How funny, the Queen wants you to pay her heating bill while her son wants to bill you for the project that will allow you to overpay for electricity while lining his well tailored pockets.

Is there any question why Charles is so green?

I’ve decided to start cataloging prominent people who say undelicate or under-educated things about carbon dioxide while impirically or otherwise emphatically insisting they are correct.

Congratulations, Simon Singh, you are the first to make the list although you most certainly will not be the last (Prince Charles is about to join you).

Simon Singh is an otherwise intelligent guy who was maligned and put up his own money to defend science and his reputation.  Hats off to you, sir.

But then while being interviewed regarding the matter, you go and say:

Part of the problem is that if anybody has a gut reaction about an issue, they can go online and have it backed up. That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change is real and dangerous, the other view is that it’s not real and not dangerous. That doesn’t reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous.

So, tell me what is the difference between your claim regarding global warming above and your fight against being able to describe the chiropracters for what they are?

Surely 98% of chiropractors would agree they are useful and practice a respected medical discipline.  And where do you get 98%, generally people say 97% of climatologists agree, which is unsupportable, but you’ve inflated this number to 98, why?

You’re a blockhead, I’ve saved the article linked above, and I’ll write to you when this all blows over for an explanation.