Guess she wasn’t listening to “Lord” Monckton very closely. I’ve been looking for this clip for a while. It shows what the value is of a political leader with a science background. (Thatcher was trained as a chemist)
Worth listening in its entirety, but key passage begins at about 5:40.
Apologize for poor sound synch/quality, if I can fix it I will.
I see. You’ve missed the “Nullius in verba” memo.
Uh oh! Dead language alert.
Vos operor non sanus callidus ut usura vegrandis secui lingua. Vos perceptum universitas lingua
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..
lol.
What is it with deniers like omnologos that makes them think a couple of learned latin phrases makes them sound intelligent? Interesting that he is defending Monkton, another well known for chucking a bit of Latin about.
While your phrase is that bit of nonsense that typographers used to use hundreds of years ago to show off their typefaces, Omno was suggesting that Peter was appealing to authority. I simply told him that its usually best to actually know Latin if he’s going to use it to sound knowledgable.
oh i didnt know hat he was saying..thanks..yeah i chucked that bit up as its the only one i know…as i say i think monkton was being paid by koch bros..
http://translate.google.com/#la|en|Vos%20operor%20non%20sanus%20callidus%20ut%20usura%20vegrandis%20secui%20lingua.%20Vos%20perceptum%20universitas%20lingua
Mate, google translator is ok for most languages, but not Latin. Nice try though.
@Mike, sadly the link I tried to post got broke. Google translate says that “Vos operor non sanus callidus ut usura vegrandis secui lingua. Vos perceptum universitas lingua” is “You do not sound clever when using the language of small parts. You learn a world language.”
Maybe that doesn’t make sense to you, but it does to me.
No, the link works but the translation isn’t quite accurate, unless of course my Latin is a bit rusty.
OK, so what’s your translation, and does google’s differ materially? I agree that machine translation has a long way to go, but it’s not entirely useless.
lord monkton was on the payroll of koch industries..amd maggie t . i cant stand that woman..her and her party wrecked the UK and started this privatisation scam..
Yes, Thatcher was perfectly aware of the problem of climate change. Her speech to the UN in 1989 came four years after she had destroyed the coal industry in Britain. North Sea gas then filled th energy gap and the resulting drop in GHG emissions went a long way toward Britain’s reduction targets the meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments.
It is interesting to note that one of her closest allies was Nigel Lawson, the founder of the GWPF. He was the architect of the demise of the coal industry and also of the privatisation of all the utilities in Britain, most notably the gas industry.
Today Lawson is doing his level best to disrupt action on climate change while Margaret Thatcher is quietly losing her marbles.
Yes…tony benn said the amount of revenue that came in from north sea oil was spent on 4 million unemployed..
Lady Thatcher was primarily influenced to make this speech by then UN Ambassaor(?) Sir Crispen Tickell. It is to him that we should be grateful but, whilst not wanting to detract from the importance of the speech, many have questioned whether Thatcher really believed what she was saying; or was just saying it because she knew it would play well with her domestic audience.
Either way – whether politically expedient or visionary – it is a great shame that Lord Nigel Lawson of Flabby has repudiated the facts of science in favour of the real short-term political expediency of climate change denial.
Peter: Non Illegitimus Carborundum!
ok a quote from pulp fiction now: ENGLISH ..Muthaf*cka DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Quite a performance. The only time she looked at her notes was when she was directly quoting passages, so she must have known her material very well. For that reason, I suspect she was speaking from the heart, not just for political expediency, but it may be that she had been coached by an expert in rhetoric: someone like Monckton, perhaps? No, on second thought, I can’t imagine Monckton coaching anyone to tell the truth.
Did she ever resile from the position presented in this speech?
Like most things in politics, this is more complicated than it might seem. From Daniel Yergin’s recent book, “The Quest”:
Two years earlier she had been locked in a battle to the death with the left-wing coal miners’ union, which had sought to cut off the delivery of coal, thus disrupting the nation’s electricity supply and shutting down the country. That struggle was one of the defining moments in her 12 years as prime minister, and her victory broke the stalemate in industrial relations that had been driving Britain into chronic paralysis and economic decline. Replacing coal in electric generation with less-carbon-intensive natural gas from the North Sea would ensure that the coal miners’ union would never again be strong enough to put a hammer lock on the nation’s energy supply and bring its economy to a standstill. On September 27, 1988, Thatcher delivered an address to the Royal Society in Fishmongers’ Hall in London in which climate change figured large. Thatcher had assumed that her speech, sounding the tocsin about climate change, would generate much attention. In practical terms, she had counted on that interest to ensure the presence of a bevy of television cameras, so that their bright lights could provide the illumination she needed to read her speech amid the pervasive gloom of the Fishmongers’ Hall. But, to her disappointment, there was little media interest and, to her horror, no television cameras—not a single one. In fact, it was so dark that she was unable to read her speech at all—until, finally, a candelabra was passed up the table.
Very illuminating, Steve! (Sorry – could not resist!). Seriously though, this is a very interesting facet to the story (of which I was previously unaware).
i’ve played with the google translator..you start with english, then translate into obscure language then translate that translation into another one and so on till you translate that back into english..the idea is to see if it still carries some of the original….or not