The crypto-communist conspiracy to deindustrialise the world?

But the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can’t repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river. It will take, for example, until the second half of the next century, until the old age of my grandson, to repair the damage to the ozone layer above the Antarctic. And some of the gases we are adding to the global heat trap will endure in the Earth’s atmosphere for just as long.

The IPCC tells us that, on present trends, the earth will warm up faster than at any time since the last ice age. Weather patterns could change so that what is now wet would become dry, and what is now dry would become wet. Rising seas could threaten the livelihood of that substantial part of the world’s population which lives on or near coasts. The character and behaviour of plants would change, some for the better, some for worse. Some species of animals and plants would migrate to different zones or disappear for ever. Forests would die or move. And deserts would advance as green fields retreated.

Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it’s sensible to develop alternative and sustainable and sensible … it’s sensible to improve energy efficiency and to develop alternative and sustainable sources of supply; it’s sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it’s sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it’s sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.

And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later

~ The Iron Lady, 6 November 1990

Link via John Quiggin (yes my title was ironic)


35 Responses to “The crypto-communist conspiracy to deindustrialise the world?”

  1. John H. Says:


    On current data it appears that if anything the IPCC was too conservative in its projections.

    Some studies are now suggesting that increased CO2 will not promote plant growth because the change in growing seasons will do more harm than good.

    Methane levels already appear to be rising.

    The solar cycle is back in action so it will be interesting what effect this has over the coming years.

  2. Steve Edney Says:

    “The solar cycle is back in action so it will be interesting what effect this has over the coming years.”

    It was out of action?

  3. BirdLab Says:

    I never thought I’d see the day when I agreed with Maggie. But then she was a bit close to Gorby, so perhaps she was a reverse double-switch backflip commie agent after all.

  4. rog Says:

    According to reports solar activity was recently at its lowest.

  5. steve from brisbane Says:

    I didn’t follow the Quiggin link, but clearly I should have.

    Tony Abbott is right to point out that conservatives value preserving the environment too, but if only he could actually follow Thatcher all the way in her views on this.

    As to how Minchin, Joyce and the others self-outed skeptics are supposed to look convincing in supporting Abbott’s soon to be revealed climate change policy, based as it will be on the assumption that CO2 does need to be reduced after all, I have no idea.

  6. JC1 Says:

    Maggie had a point, a good one. However the direction she wanted to take was to move towards the introduction of nuclear power and do so quickly

  7. rog Says:

    Put it this way JC, Thatcher wanted to cut down on coal because of global warming.

  8. jc Says:

    Gee thanks for telling me, Rog. I wouldn’t have guessed that at all from the post.

    She also said she wouldn’t have a bar of the way the debate has gone too and would have no interest in going in the current direction.

    And stop pretending you’re a right winger. You just haven’t realized that since your marriage to Geoffrey you’ll be voting Green as any disenchanted Doctor’s wife does.

  9. jc Says:

    Yet Thatcher saw traditional environmental concerns as very different from “the quite separate question of atmospheric pollution.” There her background as the only major world leader to be a trained scientist drove her approach. As she said: “There had always to be a sound scientific base on which to build–and of course a clear estimation of the cost in terms of public expenditure and economic growth foregone–if one was not going to be thrust into the kind of a “green socialism’ which the Left were eager to promote” (639).

    This issue was complicated by the nature of British science funding. Prior to Thatcher’s intervention, most government science funding supported industry, which engaged in extensive lobbying. But she thought that industry should pay for research and development, and directed government science funds to universities and scientific institutes.

    In her latest book, Statecraft (2002, 449-58), 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 former British ambassador to the United Nations-turned-global-warming- campaigner Sir Crispin Tickell convinced her to tell the Royal Society, “it is possible . . . we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.” She notes that the doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change, which “provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism” (449).

    Thatcher’s critics might claim that she has–to use a fashionable term–flip-flopped on the issue, but that is not necessarily the case.

    First, she stresses that she was initially skeptical of the arguments about global warming, although she thought they deserved to be treated seriously. She points out that there was “rather little scientific advice available to political leaders from those experts who were doubtful of the global warming thesis” (451). However, by 1990, she had begun to recognize that the issue was being used as a Trojan horse by anti-capitalist forces. That is why she took pains in her Royal Society speech in 1990 to state: “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” (452). In fact, Thatcher makes it clear that she regards global warming less as an “environmental” threat and more as a challenge to human ingenuity that should be grouped with challenges such as AIDS, animal health, and genetically modified foods. In her estimation,

    All require first-rate research, mature evaluation and then the appropriate response. But no more than these does climate change mean the end of the world; and it must not either mean the end of free-enterprise capitalism. (457)

    As Tracy Mehan implies, Thatcher’s environmentalism is founded on Edmund Burke’s conservative view of our inheritance as being worth defending. Yet that view is tempered by her classical liberal belief that human wealth and progress are crucial. That is why Lady Thatcher can be described as a true free market environmentalist.

    Thatcher’s response has always been to find technological solutions to the problem, not kill economies.

    You obviously have an issue with that Rog.

  10. daddy dave Says:

    First, in one respect it really doesn’t matter if these are sensible policies or not, if they’re sold to the public based on a falsehood. If they’re truly sensible policies then environmentlaists should argue for them on their own merits. But, it’s unclear whether these policies would ever get adopted without global warming. Therefore, it matters whether or not AGW is ‘real.’ (obviously I have an opinion on that but I’m arguing merely that it does matter, not one way or another)
    Second, the environmental position is that market forces and spontaneous innovation won’t solve the problems quickly enough as they arise. Therefore we need governments to solve the problems before the problems occur. This strategy:
    “Quick! Call the government! There’s no way the markets will arrive in time!”
    …is surely a leap of faith.
    I’d love to have a third point but two will do.

  11. rog Says:

    OK JC,

    Thatcher says she accepts;

    1 global warming

    2 the IPCC report

    3 free market capitalism

    So what is the problem?

  12. jc Says:

    Rog, you dolt. The IPCC report Thatcher accepted was 1990’s. She has been on record as saying that since then the issue has been stolen by the hard left in order to control the globe’s economic system.

    The other problem is that you’re not very bright.

  13. rog Says:

    Have you read that JC or are you just recycling op eds?

    I believe it was a quote extracted from her last book. There are other sections (AGW gets 10 pages) that could be quoted but for some reason they haven’t.

  14. jc Says:


    I’m kidding, but does your stupidity keep cascading down to a lower level each time you post a comment?

    She made the comment in 1990, supporting the IPCC findings at the time.

    Go to the thread again and see when she made the comment. Was it in 1990 or not?

    Which book are you talking about, Rog? Her Bio? I have a personally signed copy of that book, so tell me which pages I should look at.

    She wanted to cut down on coal use, that isn’t in dispute, however she wanted to cut down by going to nuke energy… That’s the energy type you’ve said isn’t “carbon friendly”. Recall?

  15. rog Says:

    Statecraft, section “hot air & global warming”

    Nuclear power is “carbon friendly” but the sourcing of material, building the plant and decommisioning are “carbon unfriendly”

  16. jc Says:


    You dumbness is carbon unfriendly. It’s making the planet choke.
    Look, moron, there would be 60 years of potential life in a 3rd generation nuke plant. Counting the input of plant commissioning and decommissioning is about as dumb as it gets.

    What do you think a propeller of a stick would do for carbon vs its life output of energy compared to a nuke plant on a per unit of output?

    She wrote the book in the early 90’s when that part of science wasn’t as infected with loons as it is now.

    You’re very close to being inducted in the stupid commenters hall of fame.

  17. rog Says:

    “She wrote the book in the early 90’s ”


  18. jc Says:


    I asked you which book are you referring to as her bio was not written in 2002 unless she rode a time machine from 2002 back to 1996 and handed me a copy of her signed book.

    It’s truly difficult having any sort of conversation with you because of your stupidity.

    The thread quote goes back to 1990. Take a look for the third time, or here I’ll post it for you:
    ~ The Iron Lady, 6 November 1990

    Thatcher wants nothing to do with the current left wing loons dominating the discussion.

    I also think she’d have a pretty low regard for doctors wives too, Rog.

  19. rog Says:

    You asked me and I answered you, not up to me dot every I and cross every T.

    One more time for the intellectually challenged;

    Statecraft, section “hot air & global warming”

  20. Ken Nielsen Says:

    Gee, Jason, this is turning into a mirror of Catallaxy.
    Are you sure that’s what you want?

  21. jc Says:

    Without Toozing the book, what does she advocate, Rog?

  22. rog Says:

    “U-turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.”

  23. jc Says:

    U-turn what, rog. Try and be a little less like Homer.

    What exactly isn’t the lady turning from? The science? The ways of dealing with it?

    You’ll find she’s not buying into any of the so called solutions or taking idiots like Gore seriously. She advocated nuke power and still does.

  24. daddy dave Says:

    Maggie was wrong on this point.
    She saw global warming as an opportunity, a vehicle to good policies that she wanted to adopt anyway. In this sense she was an early adopter of Rahm’s “never let a crisis go to waste.” But policies need to be decided on their own merits… using a crisis to get them through is dishonest and dangerous.
    Also, she didn’t forsee that the apocalyptic nature of AGW allowed it to be captured by the left.

  25. rog Says:

    If Maggie was wrong on this point she is wrong on all points. Of course she saw the opportunity – all her arguments have been political because that is her raison etre – politics.

    Its pointless to endlessly parse each comment made over time, others can be found to contradict.

    She did say that global warming/climate change was a challenge (“real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices”) and that is it.

  26. daddy dave Says:

    If Maggie was wrong on this point she is wrong on all points.
    What, everything? Like taking on the unions? The Falklands War? LOL

  27. jc Says:

    She did say that global warming/climate change was a challenge (“real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices”) and that is it.

    But so, what, roger you loon. She was a strong advocate of nuclear energy, not sticking propellers on sticks and thing we’ll be able to accommodate an industrial civilization.

    That’s what maintain, right? You think a few sticks and propellers will solve our problems. You actually think Maggie would have a bar of that non-science crap.

    You think she would be comfortable having the same opinion and Red Ken who she dismissed? You doctor’s wife, Rogget.

  28. rog Says:

    You seemed to be fixated by propellers on sticks JC, perhaps you should discus this with your doctor.

  29. jc Says:

    Why would I do that, Rog. You’re the innumerate fool suggesting we could fire up the engine with windpower which is quite possibly the stupidest idea I’ve heard.

    You just get upset because I keep rubbing it in.

  30. rog Says:

    I was a bit disappointed to read that after Maggie had left politics she took up a $500K/pa job with Philip Morris to advise on “on controversial issues including the penetration of tobacco markets in Eastern Europe and the Third World. She will also be asked to help resist attempts to ban tobacco advertising in the European Community and to fight cigarette taxes and state-run tobacco monopolies.”

    As a non smoker and PM she had spoken out on the dangers of tobacco saying that 95% of lung cancer deaths were due to tobacco and had instigated several Govt anti smoking campaigns.

    Now that is a U-turn

  31. Steve Edney Says:

    According to reports solar activity was recently at its lowest.

    Yes, but saying the cycle was out of action because of this is like saying the seasons are out of action because its winter.

  32. graemebird Says:

    “On current data it appears that if anything the IPCC was too conservative in its projections.”

    What a load of idiocy. You are a fucking stooge Hackensam. Lets have that evidence then. For fucksakes man? When are you going to get this right?

  33. graemebird Says:

    Here is the light scattering/absorption here. Where CO2 isn’t blocking incoming it is totally preempted by water vapour. This is why it has no measurable effect. This is why no evidence implicates CO2 in warming ever on this earth. We can expect that it has a tiny cooling effect except where the air is very dry. Air gets dry after the dew in some places. So in the early morning. Dry air on this planet is usually cold air. No extra joules in this area are going to find themselves accumulating in the oceans, the only body that can store cumulative warming very well.

    We know that most of the data is rigged. We know this for a fact. You Hackensam, Edney, all of you have to stop lying about this. You don’t have any evidence. The historical record and the absorption spectrum rule out CO2 as being a substantial warmer. This is physically impossible. In all likelihood its a tiny cooler.

    So good philosophy is important. Because if you are sound in your methodology you won’t make a prick of yourself in very easy topics like this. This is not a difficult matter. You ask them for evidence, they can’t come up with any, they rig the data, THATS FRAUD.

    So what is the problem. The problem comes with people being unscientific, irrational and failed analysts.

  34. graemebird Says:

    Where is your evidence. You keep on promoting this science fraud and never do you come up with evidence.

    Everyone retract now. Just retract. Just admit you were wrong.

    Right here right now. If someone has some evidence lets have it for fucksakes. Or admit that this is a fraud.

    rog you ready? You got that evidence? How about you Ken. Anybody got that evidence? No you haven’t. Why? Because its science fraud. With rigged data. And no evidence.

  35. graemebird Says:

    If you people are not going to take good methodology and reasoned analysis seriously why not give it away?

    How could you have all been so useless as to not have spotted as clear a science fraud as this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: