Margaret Thatcher, Supporter of Global Warming Theories!
Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 05:22PM 
Now, a bit of information to piss off all sides on this thing, which I post with malicious glee.
On yesterday's flight to Toronto, I read the current issue of The Economist, by far the best news weekly out there. The Brits may not do many things the way they used to, but they have the best Radio News network ( BBC ) the best TV news channel ( BBC World ) and they have my beloved Economist.
There was an article about US Energy Secretary David Chu, which included this delicious bit of information
Lady Thatcher showed her mettle in this regard in 1989, when she became the first politician of stature to raise the alarm about global warming. When her adviser Crispin Tickell pointed out to her that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising and that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas, she got the point instantly and alerted the world in a speech to the United Nations
I was quite unaware of this fact. Will this make our British conservative friends belatedly endorse the GW theory? Or will the ( sometimes lefty ) GW fans now shift to the skeptic side?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (30)
I'd seen this before. But I'm sure that our 'sceptic' friends will continue to insist it is all a communist plot involving the world's scientists, thermometers, much of the animal and plant kingdoms, and now Maggie.
After all the uncooperative facts haven't ever slowed them down before (damn that reality and its liberal bias!)
I also have read this elswhere but I was always led to believe that, as Mrs T was a supporter of Nuclear Energy, the idea that the burning of fossil fuels was harmful suited her agenda. She wanted to see a chain of up to date Nuclear Power stations. Pity that she did not succeed.
Pity nukes aren't further along here, too. The best pure play for CO2 and other emission reduction and energy independence.
The " No Nukes " know-nothings are in some cases the same people who complain about the GW issues now. Yet their campaign against nukes hurt the one industry that over the past 25 years was best positioned to reduce all the emissions.
Peter T,
"I also have read this elswhere but I was always led to believe that, as Mrs T was a supporter of Nuclear Energy, the idea that the burning of fossil fuels was harmful suited her agenda."
To clarify - are you claiming she lied through her teeth? Have you read the speech she made about this?
Frank, No. I have not read her speech but like you indicate that you have seen this before I indicate that, in mmy reading I have seen this before and the reasons given at that time. Surely there can be no argument that she did not support nuclear power?
There has been a theory kicking around for a while that Global Warming is a Thatcher / Regan hare that was set loose to encourage the west to kick its addiction to Arab oil.
I sorta buy into this theory.
Clearly climate change is a faud, but the leftist who use it as a proxy for socialism are to stupid to think it up for themselves. The scientists who use it to gorge on other people's money were doign just as well when they were shrilling for global cooling.
She also supported the Anglo-irish Agreement. She made mistakes, this was one. Doesn't alter her greatness to accept that she got some things wrong. She got more things right!
She's barking mad now anyways!
The Economist isn't quite on the button.
When her adviser Crispin Tickell pointed out to her that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising and that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas, she got the point instantly and alerted the world in a speech to the United Nations
It was the Traitor and enviroloon Tickell himself who wrote that speech, so the picture of the PM hitching her skirts and dashing off the UN having been convinced by his wise words isn't quite there.
It seems more the case that she had some sympathy with the AGW theory but was interested only to use it as a political tool to boost nuclear power at the expense of oil.
Eco-conscious, dedicated to sustainable energy yet pragmatic, that's your average conservative.
AJ, she would still be able to do a better job than the one eye Scottish idiot!
Mrs Thatcher was also attempting to reduce the consumption of coal for political reasons and it was her government which created the idiotic and ruinous 'dash for gas'. I have some time for Mrs Thatcher but I have to say that she got it wrong as often as she got it right.
NRG: "Clearly climate change is a fraud"
Strangely enough, I never thought much about it until I saw the various other frauds being foisted on us. That is the problem. Most people don't look further than what they are told by dim politicos and lazy MSM.
I couldn't make a valid judgement one way or another, all I know is that there is a debate there to be had and we are being denied it via dubious means.
Whenever a cause is backed up with assertions that "the debate is over" and "overwhelming evidence" whilst the proponents are simultaneously trying to silence those who disagree, it lends weight to the argument that, in fact, they are being disingenuous and there must be something in it for them.
As such, I would tend to agree with that assertion.
It was all about closing down the coal industry.
But Thatcher was also a leader in the solution to the ozone hole.
it was another way of trampling the unions.
Political leaders, unfortunately, have so little time to devote to individual items of policy that the choice of advisors is absolutely crucial. The warmists and scaremongers have had the ear of politicians for far too long. In Margaret Thatcher's day, there was little scientific opposition to the warmist 'gospel', so if she had relied almost entirely on advice from the arch-warmist Tickell, then it is no surprise she made speeches supporting the warmist cause. My guess is that were she PM today, she would take advice from both sides, and very likely reject the AGW theory - especially now that there is a huge groundswell against the AGW scam, led by increasing scientific evidence that it is just that.
The grip of the warmists is especially starkly illustrated in the case of the Prince of Wales, who seems to be in thrall to Jonathan Porritt, another arch-warmist, and possibly the most extreme and apocalyptic of all.
MartinW,
"especially now that there is a huge groundswell against the AGW scam, led by increasing scientific evidence that it is just that"
I can't find any of the scientific papers you are referring to. It may help if you give proper citations. Do you recall which journals they are in?
it shows that the defeat of the soviet union came at the hands of two people suffering the early stages of alzheimers
global warming is a ponzi scheme
an old story already covered in 2004 see:-
http://www.perc.org/articles/article506.php
Reply to Frank O'Dwyer:
I have, in the past, provided people with such citations as you ask for, but I have lately come to the conclusion that most of those who ask simply cannot be bothered to make searches themselves, and may have closed minds. Anyone searching the internet can quite easily find sources refuting the speculative science that seems to currently hold sway. It is worthwhile perseverving, and keeping an open mind.
Perhaps I should add that I was at first (ten years ago) persuaded by the climate modelling and the warming scenario, mainly I think because I took the models at face value, assuming they gave a true picture of climate change. As I read moire widely and the validlty of the mathermatical models became properly investigated, it has became clear to me that the warmists projections are largely based on very flawed science. That's all I want to say, and will leave you to your own investigations.
Martinw,
"I have, in the past, provided people with such citations as you ask for"
Great! So it will be no trouble at all for you to point me to exactly where you did so then.
"most of those who ask simply cannot be bothered to make searches themselves"
Not me!! Tell me the names of the Journals you are referring to - you know, the ones that contain the scientific evidence that AGW is a 'scam' - and I'll look them up myself.
"Anyone searching the internet can quite easily find sources refuting the speculative science "
Well, anyone searching the internet can quite easily find sources that claim Israel brought down the WTC, that the queen is actually a lizard, that the earth is 6,000 years old, that the speed of light is a variable, and that HIV doesn't cause AIDs. But these ideas have not yet replaced the more mainstream and dare I say conservative view.
Now, me, I've been looking for scientific evidence against AGW such as you mentioned for several years now but so far I didn't find any. This is the result I would expect if none existed. But you say you've found some, so where is it?
"I was at first (ten years ago) persuaded by the climate modelling and the warming scenario, mainly I think because I took the models at face value, assuming they gave a true picture of climate change."
If you'd read as much of the science as you would have us believe, you'd know the theory isn't based on climate modelling and that warming (which has already been observed) would be expected even in the absence of any model.
Wowee
There's a globalwarminghoax.com website
and
Watts up with that?, another website with an anti GW perspective.
And here's another fine website (with as much scientific credibility as the two Phantom referenced):
http://www.astrology.com/
Frank - perfect.
The Watts Up site won the best Science Blog award in the 2008 weblog awards. In a process that was certainly peer reviewed in some fashion.
You should not be afraid of science!
Phantom - Amigo, I am concerned. Are you really from Brooklyn, or are you just in the market to buy the Brookln Bridge? Best Science Blog 2008 based on a (scientific) Peer review? That award's voting was open to every crackpot on the internet (over 37 thousand voted). It is like a Best Porn Site Award or favorite Burger Place. The guy is a television weatherman.
Incidently, the second summit is overdue. Propose locations so I can start the negotiations.
Phantom,
"The Watts Up site won the best Science Blog award in the 2008 weblog awards. "
And in 1999 Britney Spears won best female solo artist in the MTV music awards.
WTFU is about as credible, except it has less quality control and Britney is probably smarter. You won't find any scientific evidence against AGW there.
I think you must have known that. I guess you're embarassed that Martin didn't come through. Give him time. I'm sure he'll be back with those citations.
Waterfront Ale House, Second Avenue Manhattan location, or
Mugs Ale House just across the river in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, or
Jeremys Ale House, downtown Manhattan
I haven't been to the Waterfront Ale House, which I find shocking. This must be corrected. Let me work on the day, cause there is no better way to celebrate a glorious summer evening than being inside a dark pub.
They have a good beer selection, which varies by the week. That days catch is on the chalkboard. ( or on the web - do not see Bud ( fair warning )
Surprisingly good food too. Big selection of single malt Scotch. And best of all, free, fresh-popped popcorn.
Incidentally Phantom, if you think wattsupwiththat is credible, then just for fun I will use it here to provide evidence that AGW is true:
Here's Steve Goddard, a 'sceptic', writing on WTFU. [Who's Steve Goddard, you may ask? Well, nobody knows who he is. But surely he must be a learned man with many scientific credentials, to make it as a guest poster on the best. science. blog. evar! Right? Anyway he's a denialist who's been caught posting blatant BS just like Watts has, so that's good enough for Watts. And if this on the best blog of 2008 it must be right]
There is a considerable amount of misinformation propagated about the greenhouse effect by people from both sides of the debate. The basic concepts are straightforward, as explained here.
The greenhouse effect is real. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, earth would be a cold place.
[..]
The image below shows GHG absorption by altitude and wavenumber. As you can see, there is a strong absorption band of CO2 at 600/cm. That is what makes CO2 an important greenhouse gas.
So you see, even some denialists get embarrassed when people deny that there is a greenhouse effect (and they do deny that), or that CO2 is an important GHG (which they also deny - ask Troll if you don't believe me).
But here is the best. science. blog. evar! saying otherwise, so those other denialists must be wrong.
But wait, there's more.
An earth with no CO2 would be very cold. The first few tens of PPM produce a strong warming effect, and increases after that are incremental. It is widely agreed that a doubling of CO2 will increase atmospheric temperatures by about 1.2C, before feedbacks.
So he's doing very well, but then he says:
So the debate is not about the greenhouse effect, it is about the feedbacks. [...] If you want to make a knowledgeable argument, learn about the feedbacks. That is where the disagreement lies.
Of course, he's wrong, not least of all because the denialists have been busy for a long denying there is any such thing as the greenhouse effect at all, which is presumably why he felt so embarrassed that he had to chime in and try to shut them up. If you read the comments you can see that he failed - and you will also get a good idea of the typical quality of voter in the 2008 weblog awards.
Anyway I did as he suggested. Here's part of what I found. (I hope you will forgive the reference to a real science journal instead of the best blog of all time). One of the most important feedbacks is the water vapor feedback. Again, this is so solidly established that even the smarter denialists don't bother denying this one. The recent review of the (observational) evidence for it which I've linked says this:
Thus, although there continues to be some uncertainty about its exact magnitude, the water vapor feedback is virtually certain to be strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur. To date, observational records are too short to pin down the exact size of the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, it seems unlikely that the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming would behave differently from that observed in response to shorter-time
scale climate variations. There remain many uncertainties in our simulations of the climate, but evidence for the water vapor feedback—and the large future climate warming it implies—is now strong.
And if you take the trouble to read the paper, which you probably won't, you won't find 'projections' or models or hockey sticks or anything of that sort. You'll find observational evidence. (You'll also find get some strong clues that the denialists have been lying to you about how 'alarmist' the IPCC is). So that is strong evidence for more than 2C of warming on its own, and that is just for doubling CO2 once, and neglects other positive feedbacks.
Now all the denialists need to do is find similar solid evidence for a negative feedback of similar magnitude. But they haven't.
And of course if you really wanted to find out about the feedbacks, the greenhouse effect, or the like, you'd read the IPCC reports or this more readable account, and not wattsupwiththat.