Young Activists Are Hungry for Red Meat Conservatism

FILE - In a Feb. 10, 1975 file photo, Margaret Thatcher, leading conservative who won the first ballot for leadership which resulted in Edward Heaths resignation, speaks in London. Thatchers former spokesman, Tim Bell, said that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died Monday morning, April 8, 2013, of a …
Associated Press

If you want to cheer yourself up about the future of conservatism listen to my latest podcast with 16-year-old Soutiam Goodarzi.

Remember her name because one day she’s going to be Britain’s greatest prime minister since Margaret Thatcher.

Soutiam was raised beneath the veil in Iran and spent her early childhood as a devout Muslim. Then she moved to England, discovered Margaret Thatcher, read the Quran more closely and realised she didn’t at all like what it said about women. I met her at the Conservative conference in Birmingham and she’s the kind of daughter any father would be proud of: brave, articulate, direct, super-bright — and refreshingly free of all that Third Wave feminist ideology to which so many girls are prone.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Margaret Thatcher Would Have Backed Trump on Climate

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher delivers a press conference in Beverly Hill, on February 07, 1991. (Photo credit should read HAL GARB/AFP/Getty Images)
HAL GARB/AFP/Getty

The Daily Mail has published a rubbish piece by Michael Howard, former leader of Britain’s Conservative party, attacking Donald Trump, claiming that man-made global warming is real and that Margaret Thatcher was a true believer.

The piece is headlined “30 years ago, Mrs Thatcher warned of man-made global warming. I fear this blazing summer is proving her right.”

It’s drivel – worthy, if one could be bothered, of a complaint on grounds of accuracy to the press regulator IPSO.

I’ll detail its faults in a moment. The fact that so rigorous and robust a newspaper should publish such dross is worrying indeed.

Though some loathe its mix of prurience and sanctimony, the Mail is one of the last truly great British newspapers. Its journalists do real journalism. It is tightly edited. It is a bastion of conservative values and it speaks for Middle England, as it showed when – against its proprietor’s wishes – it stood up for Brexit. Also, for years it has stood out as one of the few media strongholds of climate scepticism. Often it has published pieces by Christopher Booker – and in its Sunday edition by David Rose – and also by me on occasion exposing the flaws in the climate consensus.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Rees-Mogg Proves He’s Ready to Lead

LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty

If there’s one politician Donald Trump absolutely has to meet on his trip to the UK this summer, it’s Conservative backbench MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Though the two men are oceans apart in terms of style and personality – the Jacob being the quintessential English gentleman; the Donald not – what they both possess in spades is the most extraordinary, winning frankness. They would, I’m sure get on like a house on fire. Indeed, with a fair wind, they would make the greatest U.S. president/UK prime minister double act since the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

That’s because they tell it like it is. In common with Thatcher and Reagan, they are not afraid that speaking their mind might get them into trouble. They genuinely believe that what they have to say is right and true. So why would they need to hide their views behind a wall of obfuscation or virtue-signalling cant, like all the beta politicians do?

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

CNN Just Got Hit by a Massive Truth Bomb–The Facts of Life Are Conservative

zucker
TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty

“Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now.”

And there you have it, a CNN producer, caught on camera, frankly admitting that “fake news” isn’t some regrettable accident of the 24-hour news cycle.

“Fake news” is CNN’s entire business model. (The business model of quite a few other liberal MSM outlets too, if the tantalizing hints being dropped by James O’Keefe are to be believed…)

As a fellow human being I feel sorry for the poor guy caught on camera by Project Veritas admitting this stuff — because he’s probably going to lose his job.

But as a fellow journalist I feel about as much sympathy for him as I do for all those idiot jihadists who go out to fight in Raqqa and Mosul, lured by the cool videos of the beards, black flags, and AKs with the wailing soundtrack. Did they seriously imagine when they joined ISIS/CNN that it was all just going to be about the glamour and the hot chicks and the purity of the noble cause?

And I’m really not being high minded here. It just seems to me that one of the most basic, entry-level precepts that any serious news organization ought to be observe – and that CNN most patently never has observed, or not for a very, very long time – is this:

Facts are sacred. The truth always makes the best story. You do not make shit up.

Not only ought this stuff to be obvious, but it ought to come instinctively. Isn’t the whole attraction of joining an unglamorous, overworked, underpaid trade like journalism that you want to discover the truth about the world: all the stuff that they would rather you didn’t know?

That’s certainly been my own experience in the last few years covering the climate change/enviro-lunacy beat. I’ve never much enjoyed all the flak I’ve got from the left-wing media; still less have I liked being rejected by so many friends. But the thing that has kept me going through the hard times is that I know I’m doing good and making a real difference: there are some devious bastards out there doing terrible stuff and I’m exposing their knavery and holding them to account.

For any self-respecting journalist, I’d call that “job done.”

Sometimes I get asked by people on the other side of the argument: “What if you’re wrong?”

Here’s the first thing I’ll do if I’m wrong about climate change. I’ll write a big piece explaining why I’m wrong. Then I’ll find someone who is prepared to pay me for writing the opposite of what I do now.

This isn’t because I’m a moral paragon. It’s because I’m lazy and because I prefer the easier life: writing journalism where you have to keep making up your “facts” is much, much harder than doing what I do now, which is basically, copying out true facts and then adding a few nice adjectives and thinking up a snarky final sentence.

That said, I would have to concede that this is much easier to do if you’re politically on the right rather than on the left.

Margaret Thatcher once said “The facts of life are conservative.” And as in so many things, she was absolutely spot on. This, as you can imagine, makes life very, very difficult for people in the overcrowded left-wing media. (It’s overcrowded because so many journalists think they’re left wing).

Every day, they wake up to a world where: Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East with the best human rights record; socialism is failing everywhere it is being tried from Venezuela to North Korea; the worst, most fascistic acts of violence and intolerance are being committed by left-wing people calling themselves “anti-fascists”; Islam is not a “religion of peace”; Trump is doing a great job as president — way, way better than his predecessor Obama; man-made climate change is the biggest scam in the history of science, politics, or economics…

And somehow they’ve got to construct stories demonstrating the opposite because it’s what their dumb-assed audiences want to hear.

How, if you’re running a left-wing media organization, do you reconcile this yawning gulf between the facts on the ground and your preferred political narrative?

Simple: you remake the world so that black is white and white is black; you create your own facts.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Remember, Mrs May, You’re Prime Minister Not Tess of the D’Urbervilles

There are those – like me – who think that discussions should be used to enhance the Special Relationship and to help fast-track the bilateral trade deals President Trump is so keen to arrange with Britain.

And then there are those, such as this columnist in the Guardian, who appear to believe that Theresa May should spend the time discussing her vagina.

Not literally her vagina, perhaps. But you know what I mean. What this Guardian hack and Channel 4 news and the usual feminazi suspects and rent-a-gob female MPs generally are arguing for is that Theresa May should waste official business time parading her “gender” and trying to score points off the Donald by showing how heartily she disapproves of his alleged misogyny and sexism and locker-room banter.

For a nasty moment earlier this week it looked like Theresa May was actually going to accede to this ludicrous interpretation of her priorities, which seemed to demand that she should consider herself a woman first and the British Prime Minister only second.

Asked in an interview about President Trump’s “misogynistic and racist remarks,” May replied: “I’ve been clear about those areas where I feel some of the comments he has made were unacceptable. The whole point about [a special relationship] is that we can sit down and be very frank with each other about what we think.”

This was over-interpreted by the Mail to produce the headline: “Cut out your sexist insults, Mr President: Theresa May prepared to use first summit to tackle Trump’s abuse of women… as 2 million march in protest.”

Since then, though, May has given every indication that she intends to take a more mature and sensible approach to the encounter.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Hinkley Point C: Theresa May Has Just Failed Her First Big Test

Apparently not.

As bad decisions go Theresa May’s go-ahead for the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor is right up there with the disastrous PFI deals made in the Tony Blair era. And for the same reasons: where was the cost-benefit analysis, where is the sense of fiscal responsibility, where is the respect or consideration for the taxpayers who’ve been saddled with the bill?

On almost any measure, the Hinkley Point C project is a truly spectacular waste of taxpayers’ money.

The EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) technology for which Britain is paying the French company EDF massively over the odds is already out of date. There are better, more modern alternatives – such as the APR1400 from South Korea – which could be brought on line more quickly and more cheaply.

The electricity it will eventually produce will be the most expensive in the world. Under a deal made by the ludicrous former Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey – described as one of the “worst in history” – Britain will be obliged to pay £100 per megawatt hour (in today’s terms – but it’s index-linked, so will be £125 by the 2025 start date) almost three times above the current market rate, for a period of 35 years.

Most of this is pure subsidy: the National Audit Office has calculated that it will add £30 billion to electricity bills over that period – or a total of £1,000 per household.

According to Paul Homewood that’s an underestimate. He believes the project may end up costing Britain a total of £84 billion at current prices – half of which will be in subsidies.

But perhaps the most worrying part is what it tells us about the character of Theresa May and Britain’s future prospects under her administration.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Scotland: Brainwashing Little SJW Nazis Since 1986

If you’ve got 17 minutes to spare I urge you to watch thisvideo (currently being circulated on Twitter).

And if you haven’t got 17 minutes to spare, then make some spare. It will infuriate, enlighten, delight and terrify you all at the same time.

It’s an interview given by the great English cricketer Ian Botham to a bunch of Scottish schoolkids in 1986 for a BBC TV programme called Open To Question.

Here they are, teenage kids, with a rare opportunity to ask a genuine sporting legend any question they want.

But all they want to do is harangue him earnestly about his male chauvinist attitudes to domestic chores and his apparently unhealthy love of “blood” sports like shooting and deer-stalking and his support of Margaret Thatcher.

An Eighties-permed missy opens the batting by asking:

“You only do the clean jobs when bringing up a baby. Changing the nappy – why not?”

Then comes the next question:

“If it’s only you that doesn’t change nappies why do you classify this as women’s work?”

Then the next:

“Is your wife satisfied with your attitude to child-rearing or do you think she resents your apparent immersion in your own sport?”

and, later:

“Do you not think it would be so much better if Mrs Thatcher would put some of the money she uses in defence into research and therefore help us out before she destroys the world?”

The assault never stops. It’s like Children of the Corn meets the Korean War. The questioning has the relentlessness and doctrinaire zeal of Red Army soldiers swarming across the Imjin River.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’

Transferring money from the poor.

Barf!

Barf!

Last night I was rude to a Minister of the Crown. His name’s Greg Barker, he’s the Minister for Climate Change, and – or so he tried to allege in a flabby speech to the Conservative Future (formerly Young Conservatives) in the Commons last night – he’s actually a Conservative MP not a Liberal Democrat or a Green or a Communist one.

So I asked him what it was that first drew him to the Conservative party. Was it because he’d always nurtured a burning desire to drive up inflation? Or to increase fuel bills? Or to transfer money from the poor to the pockets of rich landowners like Earl Spencer and Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt? Or to destroy the British economy? Or to despoil the British countryside?

Whichever one it was, I suggested, he must be feeling so proud because thanks to the efforts of Greg Barker and “conservatives” like him, every single one of those objectives is now being quite spectacularly achieved.

You’ll gather I don’t think much of Greg Barker. I’m sure the feeling’s mutual. The difference is, I’m not part of an administration which plans to spend £18 billion of your money every year till 2050 “decarbonising” the British economy; I’m not the one who’s planning to cover the British countryside with 10,000 more wind turbines at a cost – again borne by the taxpayer – of £100 billion (plus another £40 billion to connect them to the grid), none of which will replace a single conventional power station; I’m not the one who is driving the British economy towards economic suicide by imposing on it a unilateral carbon reduction policy (the only country in the world to enact such extreme measures) which will affect not one jot the climate of the planet (our contribution to anthropogenic CO2 being about 1.7 per cent of the world total, diminishing each year as China’s industrial machine grows ever larger); I’m not the one who’s deaf to all argument about the absurdity of these measures. Whereas Greg Barker is.

To give you an idea of the intellectual calibre of the man who is helping decide our energy future (Greg is the man, incidentally, who pushed the Tories towards their “Vote Blue Go Green” stupidfest; he accompanied Dave on that silly huskies-and-melting-glaciers Greenland photoshoot) here are some of the points he made in his speech.

1. The Conservatives’ green policies belong to a fine tradition. After all, it was Margaret Thatcher back in the 80s who set the ball rolling on global climate change policy.

2. As an example of just how helpful and effective and Conservative-friendly green policies can be just look at booming California, which has the highest growth rate in the US.

The first point, though true, only tells half the story. It neglects to mention that Thatcher did so not because she had studied science at Oxford and therefore understood these things but because she had been nobbled by arch-Warmist Sir Crispin Tickell – and said things she subsequently bitterly regretted.

The second point is a bit like going on stage and saying Pol Pot was a cuddly, lovable fellow who never hurt a flea; or that Gordon Brown was a Titan among Prime Ministers; or that Polly Toynbee doesn’t have a lovely house in Tuscany. California has been RUINED by its environmental policies. Surely everyone knows that? Its coffers are empty. Unemployment is rising. And while its economy isn’t the worst-performing in the US, its growth rate is comfortably eclipsed by those of lower-tax states such as Alaska, Nevada, Wyoming,Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Louisiana and Arizona.

So why does a government minister feel able to stand on a platform and cite such blatant untruths to support his policies? Is it because doesn’t do any research? Is it because he is very poorly advised? Is it because he is exceptionally thick?

Well, no, I fear the real answer is even more depressing than any of the above. The reason that the Minister for Climate Change is able to stand on a platform and sell his climate narrative to Conservative Future without recourse to any meaningful, evidence-based data or coherent intellectual argument is this: reality is of no relevance to the Cameron government’s climate change policy. Our political class – of which Barker unfortunately is one – have made up their minds what they’re going to do and they’re not about to allow a few awkward facts to get in the way of their devastating plan to make the world a better place (even if it means destroying it in the process).

I need hardly say that Barker didn’t even attempt to answer any of the points I raised about the stupidity of the government’s drive for renewables, about the damage this will do to economic growth, about the Verso economics report showing that for every “Green Job” created in Britain by taxpayer spending another 3.7 jobs are lost in the real economy. That’s because he knew – as increasing numbers of us know – that there is no answer to them.

Sitting on the same panel was a Conservative MP of considerably higher intellect who ought to be Secretary of State for Climate Change but won’t because he fails to align ideologically with Cameron’s liberal consensus. John Redwood MP, it was clear from his informed remarks, understands perfectly well what the problem is.

He spoke of how our freedoms are in danger of being “mangled by too much law and regulation.” And he warned that Coalition’s unilateral carbon reduction policies represented a kind of “false greenery.” How could it possibly make sense, he argued, to close down our economy and congratulate ourselves on the CO2 reduction we’d achieved as a result if the net effect was simply to export our energy intensive industries so that other, less hair-shirt economies could enlarge their carbon footprints instead? Redwood – unlike Barker, apparently – actually understands business. He recently visited a factory whose energy bill is three times its wages bill: you can imagine how much that factory is going to welcome it when government enviro regulations push energy prices even further through the roof.

If it weren’t for the immense soundness of Conservative Future’s committee members (at least they seem to understand what conservative principles are even if Cameron’s nomenklatura don’t) I should have ended the evening almost suicidal with despair. As it is I just left it feeling very, very, VERY depressed. Barker’s dismal, lame, flannel-ridden speech, full of manipulative phrases like “we’re doing it for our children and grandchildren’s future” but entirely devoid of any understanding as to why it is that the Coalition’s environmental policies are so wrong and damaging in every way, rammed home with all the chilly unpleasantness of the “rectal snip” I once had to endure while testing for bilharzia at the London Tropical Diseases Hospital just how stupidly, ludicrously, almost comically out of touch our political class are.

Reality, facts, arguments, practicalities, evidence: to our political class these are nothing more than a tedious irrelevance. They’ve already modelled in their silly little heads how they would like the world’s imaginary future to be. Now all they want to do is act on it.

It was exactly this same kind of muddled thinking which brought Greece into the Eurozone. The consequences will be no less disastrous.

Related posts:

  1. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  2. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.
  3. Why money-printing is like ‘global warming’
  4. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’

Posted on 21st June 2011Author jamesCategories Blog

2 thoughts on “This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Robert says:24th June 2011 at 4:19 am•Robert
    Regarding solar panels, and wind derrick’s (I use derricks instead of wind mills “Oil derrick” NIMBY) Liberal’s use lexicon to pull the wool over the tax payer eyes and ears to further their agenda. Their agenda is to live a very comfortable life on this planet without working, and we the tax payer support their elitist lifestyle and ignorant idea’s. I inserted links to articles in the Sac Bee today that should P*ss you off. The energy dept. is continuing their quest dig deeper into our pockets to fund this HOAX (alternative energy). Union owned retread “Brown” (California) is still trying to balance a budget without laying off permanently, the bloated numbers of UNION bureaucrats, and adjusting their retirement packages. And where are the legislators? They care so much, how about throwing in their own salaries, and expense cuts into the mix!?!?! Utilities say GREEN ENERGY bill COSTLY. Obama has given Billions in loans to George Soros’ Brazilian oil company that is drilling in our gulf. Yet our American oil companies cannot! WAKE UP! (And do not believe that non story days ago stating that Obama says the oil companies CAN drill. YES! And the cost for permits and the lag in the dept. energy, and the threats from the coast guard lay in wait. We are being starved of oil by our government. If you have solar on your roof, and a battery powered auto guess WHAT! It’s still being powered by a Hydro plant, natural gas, oil, and coal power generating plant!!! And when we have power outages; YOU HAVE NO POWER EITHER. It’s called (“Islanding”). You cannot direct power back on the grid during outages due to a safety protocol. During repairs, the grid will be safe for workers repair the outage. But! If you want you can have a multi thousand dollar battery backup system installed. And how do you dispose of the spent batteries? (Ah La: Nuclear spent fuel rods); conveniently left out of the argument. Ask anyone that lives OFF grid. And with $olar you have two payments: the utility provider and your banker. Also remember what the government thinks of you. They know better than you what’s GOOD for you. You, the taxpayers are stupid!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU&feature=player_embedded)

    http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/30/3513178/lawmakers-send-jerry-brown-bill.html

    http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/30/3513321/green-energy-legislation-means.html

    http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2010/05/wind-turbine-maintenance-costs-3-times.html

    http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/1010136/Breaking-down-cost-wind-turbine-maintenance/

    http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm#A.

    http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2011/02/14/daily2-Evergreen-unhappy-with-debt-exchange-outcome.html

    http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

  2. Capt G Blomstrom says:27th June 2011 at 8:59 pmWhile I’m certain you and that special little group you refer to as friends cannot stop laughing at your ‘insider’ jokes the rest of the world needs more then childish tantrum.
    You have a unique opportunity as someone with an occasional audience to make a substantial difference in the dialogue(s) of the human race. Don’t piss it away. It’s your world (or toxic unlivable rock) as well.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Margaret Thatcher: Climate Sceptic

There’s nothing a left-liberal enjoys more than invoking a great right wing name in support of his dubious cause. Eurotards – as Richard North notes – love to cite Winston Churchill in favour of closer European union (which he was, so long as it didn’t involve Britain); greenies, meanwhile, love to gloat that Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to take the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming seriously.

Unfortunately, as Christopher Booker reminds us in his Sunday Telegraph column, there is an awful lot of truth in this story. Here is what she said in a landmark speech to the Royal Society, given at Fishmongers Hall in the City of London on September 27 1988:

“For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.”

And if you think that sounds like deep-green alarmist eco-lunacy, wait till you read what she said next:

“Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!”

Does that sound like something which could have come straight out of the Dr James Hansen Big Bumper Booker of Implausible Climate Disaster Scenarios? That’s probably because it did. Most uncharacteristically, Margaret Thatcher had allowed her judgement to be clouded by one of her advisers, in this case the career diplomat and early-adopter of AGW – Sir Crispin Tickell – who in turn would have got his “facts” straight from the likes of Hansen.

A string of disasters followed. It was at Margaret Thatcher’s personal instigation that the UK Met Office set up its Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which – in one of her final acts as Prime Minister – she opened in 1990. The Hadley Centre, in turn, was appointed by the newly founded IPCC to provide ‘its primary data set to assess observed global warming.’ Under the leadership of committed Warmist Sir John Houghton, Hadley was also responsible for selecting the lead authors for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1) – authors who, in need hardly be said, could be relied on to push the IPCC’s reports in the ‘correct’ alarmist direction.

So yes, up to a point, AGW really was all Thatcher’s fault.

However, as Booker goes on to point out, Lady Thatcher has since very much repented her foolish ways.

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.

Of course, as a huge fan of Margaret Thatcher and her mighty achievements, I find this reasonably consoling. But not, I should say, quite consoling enough. Sweet God in heaven, what was the woman thinking in 1988? Was Sir Crispin Tickell really that silver-tongued? Did it not occur to her that being an ambassador to the UN, he might be ever so slightly unsound? Did no one tell her that before he took up global warming as a cause he was a great advocate of global cooling? Was it really just a cynical ploy to use AGW as a means to help crush Britain’s coal miners while bigging up the nuclear power industry in order to bolster her Trident programme? Perhaps we shall never know. But by golly is it a blot on her copybook.

Related posts:

  1. Margaret Thatcher dies; Dave basks in the limelight
  2. ‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic
  3. Lady Thatcher was a statesman. Blair and Cameron are mere politicians
  4. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all

11 thoughts on “Margaret Thatcher: Climate Sceptic”

  1. JLK says:15th June 2010 at 5:15 pmJames

    I know how you feel. When I discovered that my great hero, Churchill, was not only complicit (with Arthur Harris) of the mindless nighttime carpet bombing strategy over Germany during the war, but a prime mover, I was crushingly disappointed. Even to many contempoary observers it was a strategically useless strategy designed strictly to “terrorize” the civilian population by killing hundreds of thousands in firebombings. The US was much more effective using daylight strategic target bombing, and blasting the Luftwaffe from the skies during “Big Week” in Feb of ’44.
    Not to say Lemay and Roosevelt did not do the same damn thing to Japan in 1945. But then Roosevelt was never a hero of mine.
    JLK

  2. Patrickdj says:15th June 2010 at 11:26 pmWell now Delingpole, didn’t that ‘defrocked’ hero of yours, Christopher Monckton, claim to be a Margaret Thatcher adviser. Perhaps it was he who “turned her around” with the piles of sheer nonsense has has become so well known for, disinformation and misinformation proven to be wrong time after time.
    As you sit in that foxhole with him, why not ask him what he advised Margaret Thatcher about?
    In the meantime the planet continues to warm and the ice continues to melt.
  3. Turtler says:16th June 2010 at 12:40 amJLK: Get over yourself.

    Around the clock bombing of Germany was hardly useless, as we have documentsfrom the OKW itself citing it as being devastating to the German war effort and being a crucial drain on resources. The Romanians felt the same way after continuous USAAF and RAF bombing runs had leveled much of their oil fields and the surrounding area. And this is before we start talking about the decrease in the ability of the Germans to use their manufacturing capacity to replace losses in the field and to carry out their other objectives (unbelievable as it may seem, most of the infrastructure used to support the concentration camp system was deeemd INSUFFICIENT by Berlin. Care to imagine how that system would have operated with enough resources to meet the criteria of its creators?).

    And frankly, you talk of “terrorizing” the German and later Japanese populace as though it was a BAD thing. While I know I am going to get a LOT of flack for this- and not all of it unjustly- do you honestly think the dead of “The War to End All Wars” who died trying to stamp out German imperial aggression who would later see their descendents fight and die to counter a Germany that had chosen the warpath AGAIN would say such a thing?

    Bluntly, the Germans elected Hitler, as they elected Von Bulow and Bismarck before them. They chose after the horror they inflicted upon Europe and much of the rest of the world to try again under the singular delusion that they were not beaten in large part because the costs for their aggression were barely felt at home, with the French, Belgians, Italians, Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, Montenegrins, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Russians instead bearing the cost for not merely starting the war, but for waging it in a manner blatantly illegal in accorance with international law.

    Was it THAT terrible to teach unto the Germans what they had been party to in doing to the Poles and the British and to give to the Japanese the same medicine they had dispersed by air in Shanghai and Harbin?

    You do not have to convince me that bombing was a horrific and deeply scarring measure. What I disagree with is that it was uncalled for. Given the devastation of German and Japanese military capacity- which doubtless shortened the war considerably- after they themselves had brought it upon themselves by opening the door in Spain, Poland, and China, I would call it justified. But, if in addition to that, the trauma inflicted upon the German people convinced them in some small measure that another war to try and achieve their “place in the sun” would exact too horrifying a cost to consider, than I would go further and say it was in fact a HUMANE measure.

    War cannot be waged with stainless white gloves or with one’s hands tied behind one’s back. We must doubtless be better than our enemies, but we should not shrink from actually doing our duty in achieving victory and thus preventing yet more tragedy. It was the traumas of WWII that reformed Japan from a feudal empire into what it is today, and it was the traumas of two world wars, partition, occupation, humiliation, and the ravaging of Germany itself that brought Germany out of the tyrannical Bismarckian Empire or the horrifying Nazi nightmare it was into what it is now today. To discount those facts of the past is to merely invite disaster in the future.

  4. John of Kent says:19th June 2010 at 7:25 amA few points:-

    1) Monkcton has not been “de-frocked” no matter how much warmists would like to believe, and he was a science advisor to Thatcher. Monckton just presents data and facts in support of global climate realism. If the warmists have a problem with data and facts, well then it just shows what a pure fantasy the CAGW theory is. The truth is that Monkcton is very good at exposing the nonsense, misinformation and disinformation on the warmist side.

    2) The reason why Britain had to bomb germany by night was simply because we had no fighter plane that had the range to accompany the bombers. The Americans had the P51 Mustang that was both a match for the German Me109 and could reach the target areas and protect the bombers during the more accurate daylight raids. Yes, civillian deaths were apalling but the Germans also killed civillians and WWII was a total war. And war is hell!

  5. George says:19th June 2010 at 8:46 amJust a few small corrections John of Kent. Monckton wasn’t a ‘science advisor’ to Thatcher; he was a special advisor on economic matters. Thatcher’s scientiic advisors all had science degrees. Your confusion is understandable though; Monckton likes to pretend he’s something he isn’t – like a member of the House of Lords for example.

    I’m sure Monckton occasionally stumbles across some facts in his scatter gun approach to information, but I think it’s stretching the bounds of credibility to declare that he ‘just’ presents data and facts. He present a lot of lies and bullshit as well. To witness his thourough ‘defrocking’ you can just look up ‘John Abraham’.

    It’s easy to be taken in by smooth talking men who promise you the world, but I think you’re better than that.

    Yours,

    George

  6. John of Kent says:19th June 2010 at 2:33 pmGeorge, you are the one who is confused, and has been taken in by the “lies and bullshit” from John Abraham. As I said, monckton merely presents facts, and data. You can look this stuff up, and these facts and data show that AGW is not a problem.

    And he DID advise Maggie on scientific matters, doing then what he does now, digging up the actual data rather than listening to the activists. Yes, he may not have had that official title, but that is nit picking and basically nothing more than an ad-hominem attack.

    It is interesting that you alarmists hate Monckton so much, maybe because he expresses the case for non alarm so well that he is considered a danger. I have read Monkcton but saw the data previouslt from other sources- mostly climate and physical scientists and geologists that convinced me that there is no evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Which smooth talking man convinced you of the alleged imminent catastrophie?? Al Gore and his terrible movie that is chock full of lies and bullshit, as you like to say.

    Come on George, you are much better that that!

  7. John of Kent says:19th June 2010 at 2:38 pmI will let Monckton answer your charges himself in his own words:-

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%e2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/

    “Guest posting by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    Anthony Watts’ earlier posting about Margaret Thatcher’s sceptical approach to the climate question prompted some comments asking whether I could add anything to the story, since I gave her advice on science as well as other policy from 1982-1986, two years before the IPCC was founded.

    First, what on Earth was a layman with a degree in classical languages and architecture doing giving advice on science to the British Prime Minister, who was herself a scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society?

    Truth is, British government is small (though still a lot bigger and more expensive than it need be). The Prime Minister’s policy unit had just six members, and, as a mathematician who was about to make a goodish fortune turning an obscure and hitherto-unnoticed wrinkle in the principles of probabilistic combinatorics into a pair of world best-selling puzzles, I was the only one who knew any science.

    So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward. On my first day in the job, I tottered into Downing Street dragging with me one of the world’s first portable computers, the 18-lb Osborne 1, with a 5” screen, floppy disks that were still truly floppy, and a Z80 8-bit chip which I had learned to program in machine language as well as BASIC. ”

    read the link for more info.

  8. George says:20th June 2010 at 10:49 pmProbably best to let others judge the nature of the Abraham/Monckton exchange.

    Abraham’s defrocking here: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

    Monckton’s reply here: http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/comment-page-1/#comment-455

    Abraham’s reply here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html

    While I’d love to be able to take Monckton’s nostalgic anecdotes as gospel, the fact that he once made reference to himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” in a letter to two American senators, despite the fact that he is no such thing, rather puts his credibility in doubt. At least in my eyes.

    Don’t worry, I don’t hate Monckton. Pity is the overwhelming emotion.

  9. George says:24th June 2010 at 4:16 pmJohn,

    Sorry for the delay but I’ve just come across this at the Grauniad, thought you might be interested…

    Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has posted, on the blog operated by former TV weatherman and prominent “sceptic” Anthony Watts, a personal account of his influence on Lady Thatcher’s views about climate change during the 1980s. Thatcher shocked the UN in 1989 with a call to action on man-made global warming, but has since made sceptical public statements about anthropogenic climate change.

    As we have come to expect, Viscount Monckton’s recollection of events makes for interesting reading.

    He begins with the claim that: “I gave her advice on science as well as other policy from 1982-1986, two years before the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] was founded”, pointing out that the prime minister’s policy unit at that time had just six members and that he was “the only one who knew any science”. Monckton then goes on to suggest that “it was I who – on the prime minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward”.

    This revelation might be news to Lady Thatcher. On page 640 of her 1993 autobiography Margaret Thatcher: The Downing Street Years, the former prime minister describes how she grappled with the issue of climate change, referring only to “George Guise, who advised me on science in the policy unit”. Indeed, given Monckton’s purportedly crucial role, it seems to be heartless ingratitude from the Iron Lady that she does not find room to mention him anywhere in the 914-page volume on her years as prime minister.

    Viscount Monckton also modestly notes that he was responsible for bringing in “the first computer they had ever seen in Downing Street”, on which he “did the first elementary radiative-transfer calculations that indicated climate scientists were right to say some ‘global warming’ would arise as CO2 concentration continued to climb”.

    It is perhaps surprising that this novel and important innovation by Viscount Monckton was not recognised by the current minister for science and universities, David Willetts, who was also a member of the prime minister’s policy unit between 1984 and 1986. In 1986, “Two Brains” wrote a prize-winning essay on the role of the unit, but mysteriously omitted to mention Monckton’s historic contribution.

  10. neil bonsor says:24th June 2010 at 5:28 pmAbrahams has withdrawn his reply to Monckton . At least it is no longer on You Tube.
  11. Tom Forrester-Paton says:25th June 2010 at 4:30 amJLK repeats the (admittedly, received) wisdom about the futility of the RAF’s night bombing campaign. Much of this belongs to the “let’s make the world a safer place for war” school of thought. Much is simply wrong. As usual, the truth is far more nuanced, and includes:

    *It was conducted at a time when the USSR was the only one of the allies engaging the Germans at the borders of the territory they held. In doing so, they were losing life on a scale that dwarfed that endured by the British and Americans, and their continued willingness to do so was vital to Allied interests. They were demanding, as they had every right to, every possible effort by their Western allies to enfeeble the forces opposed to them, if not by territorial assault, then by diversion and impairment of resources. Churchill was right to try in any way possible to meet that demand, without holding the lives of his own soldiers as cheaply as Stalin did his.

    *The astonishing resilience of German industry under sustained bombardment is often cited as evidence that the campaign accomplished nothing. But this ignores the fact that the German economy entered the war operating well below capacity (no use was made of women, and single-shift operation was still common). Taking this into account, the campaign did impair German industry, although never as seriously as was predicted by its champions.

    *Simply by repeatedly entering German-controlled airspace, the RAF tied up thousands of 88mm guns and their crews, hundreds of night-fighters, etc etc, significantly impairing Germany’s ability to resist in the East.

    *The German people could have brought the whole thing to and end by simply leaving their cities and camping out in the countryside until their leaders brought the war to an end, as, deprived of their workforce, they surely must. Instead they repeatedly chose to re-enter their cities and resume production.

    So much for the defence of Churchill, Harris et al. Against them, it can be said:

    *That they entered the war excessively in thrall to the theories of Marshal Douhet, and were too slow to adapt their beliefs in the light of experience.

    *This led to an “idee fixe” as to the nature of a “bomber” – it was held to be a heavy, four-engined “bloody paralyser” that could never aspire to outpace or outclimb the fighters sent to destroy it, but wouldn’t need to because it could outgun them. When the DH Mosquito (first flight 1939) came along, able to fly to Berlin and back, it had a B17-ish bombload which it could deliver significantly more accurately than a “heavy”, because being higher and faster than almost anything opposed to it, it escaped much of the molestation they suffered. But it confuted the very idea of what a bomber “ought” to be, and very nearly didn’t make it into production. Had it been used instead of the Halifax and Lancaster as the main vehicle for the campaign, it would, (as the Pathfinder, Don Bennett VC has, from extensive experience of both categories, observed) have resulted in more accurate bombing, therefore more target damage and reduced collateral damage and injury, and in lower loss of RAF life machinery and, incidentally, fuel.

    *Long after everyone in the know knew that the idea of precision night bombing was all but nonsensical, RAF crews were made to follow procedures (e.g. flying straight and level for 30 seconds after release, to take a sequence of photographs of their target, instead of being allowed to “yank and bank” their way out of trouble as best they could) which were only really applicable to a genuinely precise attack. I find this hard to forgive.

    *Towards the end of the war, it seems clear that Harris needlessly risked a lot of life by bombing cities simply because they remained standing, and with no discernible strategic or tactical objective. Even here, however it is easy to neglect the extent to which a town of no previous strategic importance can suddenly acquire one when it becomes the only place within cooee able to handle road or rail traffic, all others having been destroyed.

    *Despite abundant evidence from the Spanish Civil War, their “bloody paralyser” preoccupation blinded commanders to the very notion of tactical air superiority and battlefield support, a role which the Mosquito (again!) was belatedly recruited to fill, with brilliant results, which tended to be either grudgingly acknowledged, or dismissed as anomalous, by the air power establishment.

    Commanders spend the entirety of any war learning how to fight it, and WW2 was no exception. Smug disparagement of their efforts is easy, but is unlikely to improve the conduct of future wars, since they, just like their predecessors, will have to be learned.

Comments are closed.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations