This is the full CSpan version. My eyes get moist listening, not because I miss Ms. Thatcher, I had no special fondness for her, but because I miss what we once had in pre-Fox America – a dialogue with intelligent conservatives who took the time to actually think, feel, reason, and deduct. A common set of basic human values, and a respect for fact and science.
Can you imagine a contemporary Republican making glowing mention of Darwin? (first 5 minutes)
It’s 36 minutes. Worth playing in the background, or if you don’t have time, see the Yale video I produced using this footage, and commentary below in another post.
“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
-John Maynard Keynes
When she got better information about anthropogenic climate change, Thatcher drastically altered her conclusions. Go and do likewise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
(Note the backdrop in that photo.)
Doubting that the chief force altering the world’s climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, is only “better” because it is more desirable – not because it is more accurate.
What is notable about the backdrop?
(Nevermind about the backdrop; sorry, I didn’t look closely enough.)
Mmm, citing Christopher Booker as a reliable source, is like citing Christopher Monckton as a world-class climate expert.
I’ll wait until I’ve read the words from Thatcher herself, not what some notoriously unreliable individual has said, and I would advise others to do likewise. It’s not the first time the Denialati have made up quotes.
livinginabox, Booker is very reliable, but I would encourage you to read Thatcher’s words for yourself. Most of the relevant section is available in Amazon’s preview. The relevant section starts on page 449 or 450, and runs through the beginning of page 458. Pages 451, and 454-458 are in the Amazon preview. Search for “HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING.”
Pray tell what new information has become available in the last 20 years?
Could it be the temperature record? Nope temperature continues to rise.
Could be something about Arctic ice? Nope Arctic ice is in decline.
Could it be the increase of glacier? Nope globally most glaciers are in decline.
Could it be new proxy information? Nope current proxy information shows we are warming independent of the thermometers.
Could it be the cooling of the oceans? Nope Ocean temperatures are warming including deep ocean waters.
Could it be the increasing decline in sea levels? Nope Sea level still declining.
Could it be satellite temperature records disagree? Nope drift errors were found in the satellite data and now agrees with surface station trends.?
Could it be the sun’s output has increased? Nope solar forcing is in decline.
Could it be the increase of albedo? Nope summer ice and summertime snowfall is in decline.
Could it be that you know nothing about the topic and you continue to rely on individuals who could only read the weather? Who also receives funding from think tanks(heartland Institute) to run his website? Like Mr. Watts? Bingo!
Pray tell Mr. Burton What better information about anthropogenic climate change and cannot find it in peer-reviewed journals such as nature, science, National Academy of Science etc.?
How come the peer review articles do not support your position?
How is it that almost all publishing climate scientists disagree with your position?
Why would I believe your rantings as opposed to things like facts?
Whoops,
Could it be the decline in sea levels? Nope sea levels are still increasing.
Sorry about that got a little tongue-tied with my voice recognition software.
Re: ACC passenger (Apr 9 20:47):
No problem, passenger. What voice recognition software do you use? It seems to work pretty well.
As for sea levels, they are, indeed, rising in most locations (though declining in some). But they’re rising at miniscule rates, which are no greater now than they were 3/4 century ago, before there was much anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric levels of CO2 (& presumably other GHGs). That fact is plainly visible in all of the best Long Term Trend tide-gauge records. (Sydney is a nice example, with 125 years of data.)
That means anthropogenic GHG emissions have had no discernible effect on the rates of sea level rise.
Since the last 2/3 century of CO2 emissions has caused no detectable increase in the rate of sea level rise, it is safe to predict that the next 2/3 century, likewise, will seel little, if any, increase in the rate of sea level rise.
Two thoughts: the global sea levels will apparently take some time to equilibrate, so melt water from Greenland and Antarctica may not be having much effect yet. And “little, if any” also perhaps depends on a linear rate of melting. We have no assurances there, judging by the current rate of change in global climate. It’s also going to be complicated by the loss of ice mass causing areas near the big ice caps to have falling sea levels (Scotland, Nova Scotia, Norway, Russia, southern South America, New Zealand)
Sadly, we tend to think mostly in days or weeks (lovely weather we’re having), partially in seasons or years (it’s been a lousy summer), slightly in decades (ah..wen ah wus a lad!!) and struggle with centuries or more (not my problem).
Mr Burton, do you realize that Booker, besides being a Climate Change denier, is a creationist, as well as a denier of the link between passive smoking and cancer, and the dangers posed by asbestos?
Reggie, please try not to “spin” everything.
Booker is a climate skeptic (not “denier”). So am I. So are a great many top-notch scientists. Name-calling doesn’t bolster the climate alarmist case.
Booker is also a a believer in Intelligent Design. So am I. It would require an herculean defiance of logic and evidence to believe otherwise, more effort than I can muster, when surrounded by things which could not possibly exist were they not intelligently designed, and when even one’s own self-awareness is proof of a Divine Hand.
Booker is also in agreement with what most scientific evidence says about asbestos. Why don’t you read what Booker says about it, before dismissing it?
That leaves secondhand smoke. It’s an issue which provides a nice test of whether a person has a scientific mind — that is, a willingness to follow & accept evidence, regardless of one’s desires and preconceptions.
Let me begin by saying that I detest smoking.
Smoking is an obnoxious, wasteful habit. Smoking a cigarette or a joint is like wearing a sign that says, “I’m stupid, and I smell bad.”
Smoking causes huge numbers of deaths, from cancers and other diseases, to car accidents, to house fires. It also multiplies the likelihoods of lung diseases which are conventionally blamed on other causes, like black lung disease & brown lung disease.
When I went to my 20th high school reunion, the effects of smoking were very obvious: some of my non-smoking classmates looked little-changed from their high school days, but the smokers looked terrible (and the smokers with suntans looked worst of all).
Secondhand smoke is bad, too. It aggravates many health issues, like emphysema & other pulmonary problems, allergies, and even corneal transplants.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that there’s no statistically significant correlation between secondhand smoke exposure and cancer (or heart disease, for that matter). That’s what the science says, and that’s what someone with a scientific mind will be willing to admit, no matter how much he detests smoking, and no matter how much he wants to be able to “use” claims about secondhand smoke to bolster the case for perhaps-laudable public policy changes.
Christopher Booker has a scientific mind. The question is: do you?
“Let me begin by saying that I detest smoking.”
what climate denialists always say when they are wearing their “shill for tobacco company” hats.
Hey, if all those 13 year old kids want to start smoking – who am I to stop them?
Booker denies evolution Dave. You may also do that, and that’s fine, but to claim that someone has a scientific mind when they are yet to be persuaded by the evidence for evolution through natural selection is, in my opinion, not possible.
To bring up Booker’s denial of evolution is in no way spin, it’s directly relevant regarding his scientific judgment, of which he appears to have very little.
Finally received the book Statecraft from a used bookstore
Hot air and global warming by Margaret Thatcher (Statecraft)
Interesting it almost sounds like a different individual from the Downing Street papers compared to the newer Statecraft. I wonder if influence of old age since; it reads more about paranoia. Here are some quotes
“Since clearly no plan to alter climate should be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide,supra-national Socialism.”
“I was more skeptical of the arguments about global warming, though I considered that they should be taken very seriously. At that time there was, in fact, rather little scientific advice available to the political leadership from those experts who were doubtful of the global warming thesis, though some doubts were being ventilated in the press. By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anticapitalism arguments which the campaigners against global warming were developing….
Since then, there has been to further developments. First, the anticapitalism which always lies under the surface of environmentalism has become much more explicit, reflected most recently in and ugly streak of anti-Americanism.”
“First, is the climate actually warming? This may seem so obvious if one reads most of the press and listens and most politicians that it hardly needs answering. But the facts are in some doubt there seems to be a long term trend of warming, to be sure; but according to some experts, it is such a long term trend that is not relevant to current concerns.”
“Second, is carbon dioxide responsible for whether global warming has occurred? Here too the uncertainties are formidable as noted earlier, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas as well as CFCs, methane, nitrous oxide, aerosols and water vapor -the most abundant greenhouse gas-makes major contributions so exclusive concentrations of CO2 rather in analysis or in policy prescription is bounded to be misleading….”
Her list of Sources are:
The best amount of highly technical material on this matter is reference to the following: Keith Green, a plain English guide to climate change(recent public policy Institute)
Jerry Taylor, global warming: the anatomy of a debate(taken speeches: presented before the John Hopkins University applied physics Lab worries and 16 January 1998)
Richard S Lindzen, global warming: the origin and nature of alleged scientific consensus(Cato review of the business and government, Spring 1992)
Fred Singer, climate change policy.
Author B. Robinson and Nora Robinson ” some like it hot” the American Spectator 2000.
Global cooling ” the cooling world”, Newsweek 28th of April 1975
http://reason.org/news/show/a-plain-english-guide-to-clima
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/global-warming-anatomy-debate
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7mUMhXZRDXcAKBZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1OWRrM2FyBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0FDQlkwM18xMDE-/SIG=1388bau1d/EXP=1366750604/**http%3a//www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf
It’s interesting that she is unable to show any real scientific information or references and is exclusively referencing washed out arguments for even for that time from special interest groups.
So Mr daveburton with this new information are you going to, alter your conclusions? Considering you ignore scientific evidence to the contrary we can assume the answer is no.
Margaret Thatcher, science advice and climate change:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-science-advice-climate-change
Gives context to the speeches and the Booker article, and some good references.
Doesn’t seem like her prediction of the behavior of multinational corporations held up very well.
The downward trend in politics is a reflection of the downward trend in overall economic prosperity which is a reflection of the downward trend in overall net energy. All three trends will continue indefinitely.
On the upswing are governmental control, irrational behavior at all levels of society, and economic “austerity” (for just those bottom 90%, mind you).
Thatcher, in the end, and in combination with Reagan, only accelerated these trends. Pretty words are just words.
Peter, apart from climate change, I do not hold too much respect for “iron lady”, here is why:
The Lady Who Made Greed Look Good
http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/the-lady-who-made-greed-look-good.html
Alex
Peter, check also this shor comment on The Oil Drum for another perspective why Margaret is not a good example of climate politcs (not rhetorics, though!):
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9936#comment-956441
Alex
Down a couple of comments from that one you can read this one, about how Margaret Thatcher saved Britain.
To describe Thatcher as “controversial” just doesn’t quite cut it! As I describe in this post there are reasons why she is despised by many in the UK…with some even partying upon hearing of her demise!
http://daryan.blog.co.uk/2013/04/09/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead-15738685/
Reblogged this on Echos from a Pale Blue Dot and commented:
I have to agree with Peter here, in fact the second line from his blog is what moved me to reblog this one.
Where did my Republicans go? Why did they abandon their values and become the “stupid” party?
It’s very sad… but the video is very informative.
If Maggie Thatcher was concerned about climate change, she can’t have had much confidence in her scientific advisor, Christopher Monckton. Maybe that’s another of his errors, omissions, distortions and/or outright porkies.
ya think?
Well, WAS he “scientific advisor to M. Thatcher”? With no scientific training to speak of? Or just the tea boy?
I’ve long noticed a tendency of deniers to exaggerate their credentials. e.g. claim he’s a prof of climate study at a uni which doesn’t even have a climatology dept.
If a denier drives past a car dealership on his way into work, this apparently instantly makes him an expert on car vehicle emissions. If they were doing a special sale on international import models, he’s now a expert on international finance.
So in that vein I won’t be surprised to learn that Monkton was “meat in the room” at some government meeting under Thatcher when AGW came up and this, in his mind, instantly promoted him to the status of “chief advisor”.
From 1982 – 1986, Monckton was a policy advisor on housing.
Thatcher’s memoirs credit George Guise as scientific advisor.
If Monckton truly made that claim, then that was a baldfaced lie.
Reblogged this on Alternativo21.