Australian Politics Forum

Maggie Thatcher starting the AGW religion to destroy the miners union, since then its grown into the biggest lie ever told to humanity.

But even Maggie become aware of the truth, better late than never.

But the damage was done

http://youtu.be/nfwwzGKDU00

Quote:

Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?

Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming - but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy

By Christopher Booker
5:24PM BST 12 Jun 2010

A persistent claim made by believers in man-made global warming – they were at it again last week – is that no politician was more influential in launching the worldwide alarm over climate change than Margaret Thatcher.

David Cameron, so the argument runs, is simply following in her footsteps by committing the Tory party to its present belief in the dangers of global warming, and thus showing himself in this respect, if few others, to be a loyal Thatcherite.

The truth behind this story is much more interesting than is generally realised, not least because it has a fascinating twist. Certainly, Mrs Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN.

In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the cause, Dr John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office. She backed him in the setting up of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on "human-induced climate change".

Hadley then linked up with East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to become custodians of the most prestigious of the world's surface temperature records (alongside another compiled by Dr Hansen). This became the central nexus of influence driving a worldwide scare over global warming; and so it remains to this day – not least thanks to the key role of Houghton (now Sir John) in shaping the first three mammoth reports which established the IPCC's unequalled authority on the subject.

In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.

In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html

Who cares what the King of Swaziland's opinion is for that matter. Opinions don't count. Just evidence.

Margaret Thatcher had a BSc in Chemistry, so she was one of the few politicians at the time who had a fair knowledge on the subject. She had some woeful policy advisors though.

As for the author, the UK's Guardian newspaper launched a prize in 2009 to be "presented to whoever crams as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change". This was called the "Christopher Booker prize" for obvious reasons.

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

You missed the point dude.....???

Yeah she started it, yeah she understood it and yeah she then became the first sceptic......???

Its in her book....??!!

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

You missed the point dude.....???

Yeah she started it, yeah she understood it and yeah she then became the first sceptic......???

Its in her book....??!!

It's very tragic. David Bellamy and Patrick Moore had similar senille lapses.

Ajax, you do take comfort in referring to scientific consensus as religion, don't you? Do you believe that repetition will in some way erode the credibility of the vast majority of the best qualified?

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Maggie Thatcher starting the AGW religion to destroy the miners union, since then its grown into the biggest lie ever told to humanity.
...

Quote:

Of Christopher Booker, SourceWatch says
Quote:

Booker wrote an article, titled "“The world has never seen such freezing heat,” published in the UK’s Telegraph, which purports to be a "shocking exposé of a blunder big enough potentially to bring climate change science to its knees." Yet, according to EcoWorldly, the article falls considerably short of its goal, especially in terms of its scientific integrity.[1] Booker was also a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics organized by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. His presentation was entitled, "Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing."[2]

Booker is frequently derided for his inaccurate and sometimes dishonest reporting. George Monbiot draws attention to Booker's attack on Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame. Mann’s paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Booker attempted to refute it by using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.[3] In December 2009 Booker (along with Richard North (blogger) made allegations of financial impropriety against IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri. These were published in the Sunday Telegraph which subsequently withdrew them after a libel action[4]. In August 2010, the Telegraph apologized to Pachauri after accounting firm KPMG found his business dealings spotless[5].

To highlight the level of inaccuracy and falsehood in skeptical journalism the Guardian launched a prize in 2009 to be "presented to whoever crams as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change". This was called the "Christopher Booker prize" [6] The first nomination was inevitably Christopher Booker for an article about arctic sea ice with six errors in 900 words. [7]

Booker interferes with freedom of bookseller to categorize his work. When Amazon in the UK re-categorizinged Booker's work, he published a lament of that in his Sunday Telegraph blog.[8] He also has gets his publisher to intervene with the online bookseller and agitates for other skeptic publishers to act.[9] Whilst a minor issue, putting literature into categories is the task and the freedom of the bookseller. This is an instance of Booker trying to control the context of his skepticism.

Source watch you say.......???... :P ::) :-[ :-X :-/ :-*

Quote:

SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) is a collaborative online wiki operated by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), an American progressive organization.[2] According to the project's website, it "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interest groups."[3] The site runs on MediaWiki software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceWatch

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Source watch you say.......???... :P ::) :-[ :-X :-/ :-*

Quote:

Ajax, if you're trying to say something, it looks like even you don't know what that might be.

From the same source
Quote:

The stated goals for registered users who are permitted to edit SourceWatch are "accuracy and fairness".[6] Its editorial guidelines stress the importance of maintaining the accuracy of its source citations and admonish its editors to create articles that are "fair, accurate, and documented".[7]

# wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Source watch you say.......???... :P ::) :-[ :-X :-/ :-*

Quote:

Ajax, if you're trying to say something, it looks like even you don't know what that might be.

From the same source[quote]The stated goals for registered users who are permitted to edit SourceWatch are "accuracy and fairness".[6] Its editorial guidelines stress the importance of maintaining the accuracy of its source citations and admonish its editors to create articles that are "fair, accurate, and documented".[7]

[/quote]

So you're saying there is no bias at sourcewatch...??!!

They present everything accurately & fairly.......??!!

I bet you would say the same for John Cook's skeptical science blog as well wouldn't you.

Source watch is about as credible as as Mr. David Rothschild how to survive global warming book.

Sourcewatch funded by..........
http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html

Ajax wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:44am:

# wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Source watch you say.......???... :P ::) :-[ :-X :-/ :-*

Quote:

So you're saying there is no bias at sourcewatch...??!!

They present everything accurately & fairly.......??!!

I bet you would say the same for John Cook's skeptical science blog as well wouldn't you.

Source watch is about as credible as as Mr. David Rothschild how to survive global warming book.

Sourcewatch funded by..........
http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html[/quote]

Quote:

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a non-profit investigative reporting group. Our reporting and analysis focus on exposing corporate spin and government propaganda. We publish PRWatch, SourceWatch, and BanksterUSA.
...
We accept no funding from for-profit corporations or grants from administrative agencies.

That bothers you - why?

When you're being sponsored by the Rockerfellas and the like...???!!!

How can you trust this source....!!!!!

Quote:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
- David Rockefeller

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Did Maggie Thatcher start the AGW religion...???? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378608189 Message started by Ajax on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:43pm