Prince of Wales accuses sceptics of peddling 'pseudo science'

Well. without appearing to be disrespectful, although it is very hard. HRH Prince Charles is completely out of his depth and looking at the facts of the Man Made Climate Change argument via some weird house of fun mirror.

Fact: The Earth's climate changes.
The world's climate is in constant flux. Sometimes places become warmer for a while, while others turn a little cooler. This can be readily observed.

Fact: We don't know why.
There is a body of opinion that says Carbon Dioxide, particularly man made emissions of same is the cause. Others disagree.

Fact: There is no definitive proof that increases in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide have more than a minimal effect, if any, upon the weather.
One medium sized volcanic eruption like Mt Pinatubo, for example, can actually cause a short term cooling over relatively short time periods. Carbon Dioxide alone, by comparison, shows no comparable effect. Airborne particulates demonstrate far more influence upon the weather by many magnitudes than a transparent, colourless trace gas. This too can be readily observed.

Fact: The Vostok ice core data graph, as used by Al Gore in his Movie 'An inconvenient truth' show temperature variations 800 years ahead of changes of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels.
Demonstrating that observed changes in average global temperature are more likely to cause fluctuations in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide rather than the other way about.

Fact: The temperatures cited as the 'warmest on record' have not yet exceeded those recorded in and around 1934.
Modern rises in temperature can be ascribed to highly selective data sets, and errors in siting Temperature measurement equipment. An effect called the 'Urban Heat Island' may also influence the base data sets'. Some people say that 30 years data is sufficient to 'prove' there is a warming trend. Others disagree, citing the 60 year Milankovich cycles.

Fact: The only pseudo-science on display is not being peddled by so-called sceptics or more insultingly 'deniers'.
'Denial' of man made climate change would indicate that an observable proof of the hypothesis is available. No such empirical proof is currently in the public domain.

Fact: The only 'proofs' of the 'Man made climate change' hypothesis come from extrapolations derived from Computer models.
None of said Computer Models have so far demonstrated predictive accuracy. See UK Met Offices consistent failure to accurately predict cooler, rainier summers in the UK during 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is therefore reasonable to deduce that calculations using the same type of model to predict weather a century ahead must therefore be viewed with extreme caution.

Fact: Researchers claiming that there is real 'Man made climate change' have been challenged over their lack of adherence to the classical 'Scientific Method'.
Said researchers have openly expressed frustration with their lack of 'success' at proving said hypothesis rather than actually challenging / amending the original question upon which their hypothesis is based.

Fact: Prince Charles appears to believe what he is told by his advisers.
Regrettably what his advisers tell him appears observably incorrect.

Conclusion: if asking for observable proof of a given hypothesis before accepting it as theory is 'pseudo-scientific', then I am happy to plead guilty of 'peddling' it.

Gentlemen, take away the fool.