Wednesday
17Oct2007
the right and global warming
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 05:50PM In one of the threads here on ATW last week when Gore won his special medal, i commented on the fact that Thatcher was one of the first prominent politicians to seriously raise the issue, demand action (by banning CFCs) and plant it firmly in the political radar. I wasnt aware at the time that Conservative Party spokesmen were claiming that 'their demands for rapid, drastic action to cut carbon emissions are in fact Thatcherite'.
Ian Murray at the Adam Smith Institute comments that "This is a shaky claim at best".
In her most recent book, Statecraft (2002), Thatcher devotes ten pages to the subject of "Hot Air and Global Warming." Thatcher is quite clear that she feels things have gone in the wrong direction since she warned, "it is possible . . . we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself." She notes that global warming alarmism today "provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism".In other words, Mrs T concedes there might be a problem, but rejects the economy-destroying solutions of emissions taxes and targets that have entranced so many. "Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment".
Isnt that just common sense?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (76)
Two problems: she doesn't actually establish that it would destroy the economy (the Stern report certainly forgot to mention that), and she offers no solution at all.
It seems that the real problem here is that whenever there is an issue that can't be solved with tax cuts, longer jail sentences, or bombing somebody then the right is out of ideas. Maybe we should pray for cooling.
Margaret Thatcher is probably the only scientifically qualified leader of a major Western country in the last 20 years so unlike most politicians who drone on about global warming (from either side of the debate) she can actually understand the issues.
well said frank.
she would also sound sincere if whe hadnt been a key enabler of the shift in western economies which also "provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism".
Margaret Fuller, a famous early feminist known for being a bit vain intellectually, once said "I accept the universe!" Thomas Carlyle remarked "Egad, she had better!"
I feel the same way with Lady Thatcher recognizing global warming as an issue. Whether she offered an real solutions is questionable. However, I at least give her her proper respect for acknowledging the situation and not pretending it doesn't exist.
"I at least give her her proper respect for acknowledging the situation and not pretending it doesn't exist."
Mahons, she was acknowledging the possibility 20 years ago, long before it became fashionable, that's why her government led the way in ending the widespread use of CFCs.
Ross: Good, then maybe she'll provide the cover for some conservatives to break from the party line and start talking alternative solutions instead of false denials.
Any truth to the rumor that Gore is going to be knighted? (just kidding. just).
"she doesn't actually establish that it would destroy the economy (the Stern report certainly forgot to mention that)"
Though it did forget to mention some $307 trillion in projected worldwide growth (according to the IPCC) ;)
Al Gore's Nobel has been eclipsed as the craziest award of the week, he could have a knighthood and a sainthood and it would still be less crazy than this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487708&in_page_id=1770
>>Al Gore's Nobel has been eclipsed as the craziest award of the week<<
Ross,
I thought you were going to link to this!
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/travelog/2007/10/is_ireland_the_worlds_most_fri.html
First, it was "global cooling." Now, it's "global warming." Weather being weather, I predict that soon it will be "global cooling" again. I reserve the right to say "I told you so" to all the doomesday chicken littles out there who think that it's only fair to raise my taxes to pay for a "solution" for something that doesn't even exist.
Patty -so you think Lady Thatcher is making it up?
Melanie Phillips links to an interesting article.
'Considering what's at stake — either the end of civilization, if you believe extremists, or a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in one of the biggest science news scandals of all time — society must start to hold "warmers" to a far higher standard. Asking the right questions would be a good start'.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1682
She's on a roll with this one too.
'Do you think anyone would receive the Nobel Peace Prize for showing that ‘global warming’ is not a threat? In Europe especially, ‘global warming’ is the chosen trope of the political classes. It is a powerful Barthesian myth, and its aim is to exclude all other constructions of knowledge from debate. Al Gore’s ‘elevation’ is simply part of this process of exclusion, namely the trampling down of any dissent by an increasingly assertive, self-referential, grand narrative in the style of Marxism. This must not be allowed to happen'.
But at the same time, as I wrote here the ice in the Antarctic has increased to a level not seen since 1979. So the warmers must therefore believe one of two propositions: either a) that global climate change only affects half the planet but not the other half; or b) that since the melting of Arctic ice proves the planet is about to fry up, the expansion of Antarctic ice must prove that the planet is about to freeze up. Simultaneously".
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1679
What do you think Frank?
Alison posted:
Isnt that just common sense?
No, it's more like a call to DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that will make any difference.
Guardian Apostate -so you agree with Patty that Lady Thatcher is making it up. Next thing you'll be telling us is that the Falklands belong to Argentina.
Patty posted:
First, it was "global cooling." Now, it's "global warming." Weather being weather, I predict that soon it will be "global cooling" again.
No, we're talking about climate here, not weather. Climate is next century stuff, weather is next few days.
You've posted this before and I've pointed out the difference. Do try to keep up.
Mahons,
Don't you mean the Malvinas?
Alan: Si.
Guardian apostate / Melaine Phillips posted:
Do you think anyone would receive the Nobel Peace Prize for showing that ‘global warming’ is not a threat?
No, because that would be rubbish science and grossly complacent , in the light of current scientific knowledge.
Guardian apostate posted:
But at the same time, as I wrote here the ice in the Antarctic has increased to a level not seen since 1979...
(Sighs). NO IT IS NOT! THE ANTARCTIC HAS WARMED BY UP TO 2.5 DEGREES CELSIUS IN THE PAST 50 YEARS. Ice is being gained in the interior, due to increased precipitation (due to higher temperatures) but this is not sufficient to offset the increasing losses at the coasts.
Enormous Ice shelfs are breaking off and floating away. There was a massive one less than two years ago, and there are real fears that increased melting could cause sea level to rise by several metres this century. The rate of melting is clearly accelerating.
See HERE
Please stop repeating the same old crap. Read some science and / or check your facts first.
Patty,
"First, it was "global cooling." "
No, it wasn't. You are misinformed. Try reading something that isn't right-wing propaganda for a change.
Peter,
GA is correct in so far as SH ice recorded a maximum this year, but only as far as the satellite record goes. To put that in perspective:
These facts really drive home the vast difference between the records set this year in the NH and SH. First, the SH record applies to the satellite era only; before that, SH sea ice was dramatically greater than it is today, so this summer we did not see a record on century-long time scales. Meanwhile, the NH broke the entire-data-span record. Second, the SH maximum applies to area but not extent, while the NH set a record in both. Third, the SH data broke the previous satellite-era record by a miniscule 0.9%, while the NH sea ice area broke the entire-data-span record by a whopping 27%. So although SH sea ice area set a record maximum this year, it’s really not an extraordinary event. The NH record-breaking year, however, is truly extraordinary.
- Tamino
Frank: Patty installed "Fact Block" on her computer and is therefore somewhat limited in her sources.
I dont see it as that Peter. I am opposed to blanket taxes as in some way, any way, capable of doing anything except penalizing the people who travel the *least*.
Ah, Peter,
Please stop repeating the same old crap, read some science and check your facts first please. So the temperature is alleged to have risen 2.5 degrees C in the last 50 years eh? With an average temperature of -15 to -35 degrees C in the summer (much less in the winter of course, -40 to -70 degrees C) just how is this 2.5 degree rise melting the ice?
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml
Some links about the record extent of ice in the Antarctic (the whole bloody place, not just the interior) have a butchers at:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html
and
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm
amonst many, many others.
Cheers,
Captain Fatty
Tamino,
Laughable. In the 70s the climate scientists were predicting another ice age. Then to say that it's only a maximum as far as the satellite record goes so it doesn't mean a thing; all the houha about the North West Passage being open for the first time since records began was taken as clear evidence for global warming (but of course the records being mentioned there only when back to 79 or 78, ie since regular observations by satellites but somehow that point can be ignored by the believers). I wish you would stop reading only left wing propaganda for a change.
Tarra,
Captain Fatty
Is left wing propaganda worse than Right wing propaganda ? Discuss.
Captain Fatty
The fact (which I note you don't deny) is that the ice is melting round the coasts. Warmer seas are something to do with it, as is warmer air.
Although climate is undoubtedly complex, melting ice is not rocket science, except for global warming deniers like you, who seem to think it does not signify a warming climate.
Cheers.
im surprised the right hasnt got round to blaming muslims for global warming.
Alison
You say you are against taxes. Fine. I'm not too keen on them either, but without them I'm not clear how we'll reduce fossil fuel consumption in any meaningful way. And that does not rule out technology from contributing to the solution, because by golly it will have to.
What would your proposals be?
CF,
"In the 70s the climate scientists were predicting another ice age."
That hasn't suddenly become true since Patty said it a few hours ago.
"the records being mentioned there only when back to 79 or 78"
The records being mentioned there go back to 1870.
Daytripper
The right hasn't even got round to accepting that global warming is happening, never mind the causes. They seem to miss those melting ice caps and the ice-free North West Passage, or else they see them as a sign of a stable climate, or even global cooling (LOL).
Peter,
"They seem to miss those melting ice caps"
Well unless it is on Mars, in which case it is taken as proof positive that global warming is happening throughout the solar system, except on earth.
Peter, am I only supposed to read things supporting your point of view? Did you read the article linked to by MP? The second question in the Sun-Sentinel article is pertinent.
2.) How do you know the "vast majority of scientists" agree with your viewpoint?
Despite the confident proclamations of Al Gore, the only place that a climate change science consensus exists is in what Essex and McKitrick call "official science." the collective voice of governments and so-called "science authorities." But this is not real science. Among qualified researchers, there is a debate raging about the causes of the past century's modest warming.
Please read the rest.
While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent
I have to add that I don't refer to this stuff because I'm a 'denier' but because I'm solely interested into finding out all there is to know. Your approach seems to be the argument's over so there's no need to look any further. thankfully others are still keen to question.
That's it I'm off to bed. I've been travelling all day.
Mahons: No, Maggie Thatcher didn't "make it up." But she also wasn't a scientist. She was a wonderful politician. But, unlike Al Gore, that doesn't make her infallible in areas of which she has no expertise.
Peter: Weather = climate. Just cuz Al Gore wants to pretend there is a difference - the weather (call it short term changes) in the long term = climate. It's not some scientific distinction to say "weather" as if it is somehow different and subject to different conditions etc.
to say "weather" should read to say "climate"
Frank: ""In the 70s the climate scientists were predicting another ice age."
That hasn't suddenly become true since Patty said it a few hours ago."
No, it's been a known fact of interest to those of us who haven't been brainwashed by Al Gore. May I recommend google to you. There are articles from the 70's complete with recommendations to stave off the cooling such as covering the North Pole with coffee grounds. There was massive starvation predicted in the 70's as well. And who can forget "The Population BOmb" that very special doomesday book about, well, overpopulation.
Chicken Little! Chicken Little! You've been had, Dude.
Right, left, wibble, wobble. It's easy, just think for your selves. Ask your own questions and draw your own conclusions, regardless of whether someone else feels the need to pigeon hole you.
im surprised the right hasnt got round to blaming muslims for global warming.
What???
I'm surprised the 'left' hasn't got round to blaming pasteurised milk.
Patty: Maggie studied chemistry at a little place called Oxford and actually worked as a serious chemist. Accordingly, is it just a wee bit possible that you are making broad statements without checking your facts?
I'm surprised the left hasn't blamed BushCheneyHalliburton for global warming. Oh, wait, they have, haven't they...Kyoto....oh well. It's always Bush's fault. I have to remember that.
Mahons: Unimpressed and unconvinved with that factoid. Even if she wrote a thesis on weather (oh OK -- climate). The sorry fact is that scientists today are by NO MEANS finsihed with this issue.
Patty,
(Global Cooling)
"There are articles from the 70's "
In magazines. But not in science journals there aren't.
References: [1] [2]
Feel free to come back with some peer reviewed articles to the contrary from the 70s and be sure to let William Connelly know about them.
"There was massive starvation predicted in the 70's as well. And who can forget "The Population BOmb" that very special doomesday book about, well, overpopulation."
And now we have some lunatics predicting that Muslims will take over the world, and that averting global warming will shred the economy. So according to your own argument we can ignore you as well.
Maybe you need to get a better argument.
Patty: Unimpressed with the fact that a woman you just asserted wasn't a scientist actually studied Chemistry at Oxford and worked as a scientist?
I suppose one could be unimpressed when confronted with a glaring error of that magnitude. But unconvinced? Do you mean (1) she studied something else? (2) she studied soemwhere other than Oxford? or (3) she actually didn't work as a scientist.
Frank: "And now we have some lunatics predicting that Muslims will take over the world, and that averting global warming will shred the economy."
Frank -- there are jihadists -- Ahmadinejad -- who state quite clearly their aim and desire is a global caliphate. This is sadly, unbelievably perhaps - da facts.
And if the draconian measures suggested by Al Gore and others -- or skip draconian measures, just follow Kyoto -- this will shred economies. The also is the fact.
So, live in your world of hypothetical fears and ignore reality if you like. Just don't ask me to sign onto it, pony up my sweat equity to fight AGW, and ignore totalitarians who threaten my freedoms.
>>there are jihadists -- Ahmadinejad -- who state quite clearly their aim and desire is a global caliphate. This is sadly, unbelievably perhaps - da facts.<<
Yes, and because he says it you believe it is going to happen.
Just as you believe all those "compelling arguments" that all conflicts in the world involving Muslims are part of one unified campaign, which under closer scrutiny turn out to be merely the childish claim that all the conflicts involve "islamofascism".
Noel: "which under closer scrutiny turn out to be merely the childish claim that all the conflicts involve "islamofascism"."
And according to you, AGW is a proven fact which urgently must be addressed.
This is one of the major differences between the left and the right today. The Democratic Party in the US do not even mention Islamofascism when they debate. (They don't say much about AGW, either )
Is Bush so hated that the left will ignore the global Islamofascism movement just because an admission of its reality de facto admits that he was correct?
And what's the deal with AGW, anyway...the religious zeal, the convenient way discussion avoids China...the way it means more govt. control, more taxes ..
Patty,
"Frank -- there are jihadists"
And there are also thermometers.
You are the one making the argument that if somebody made a 'chicken little' prediction in the 70s and got it wrong then we can safely ignore 'chicken little' predictions now. If so that means we can safely ignore your chicken little predictions. If not then we can safely ignore your argument. Choose.
Peter
Going after corporations as a start re packaging, encouraging better energy efficiency in homes and businesses, none of which needs to be forced imo as it results in cost savongs for many, tackling travel last because it represents the least of the issues. Investing more in research.
Alison,
Here's one approach that doesn't necessarily imply taxes (but probably would imply regulation):
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/04/q3/0812-carbon/backgrounder.pdf
(Disclaimer: this may be a little dated by now, I think it is from 2004).
Guardian Apostate posted:
I have to add that I don't refer to this stuff because I'm a 'denier' but because I'm solely interested into finding out all there is to know.
Really? Well you could have fooled me. I can't recall a single comment by you on this subject on ATW which was not 100% from the denialist perspective.
Like I asked before: are those ice sheets melting or not?
Patty posted:
Peter: Weather = climate. Just cuz Al Gore wants to pretend there is a difference - the weather (call it short term changes) in the long term = climate. It's not some scientific distinction to say "weather" as if it is somehow different and subject to different conditions etc.
No, it's not just your hate-figure Gore who makes this distinction. It's science in general. Read up a little (science, not right-wing blogs) and come back informed.
Thanks Frank - i'll take a look when im not so tired :)