In deference to our Open Thread on Saturday, Monckton submitted this for WUWT readers. It is insightful and worth a read IMHO – Anthony
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, courtesy of wnd.com
It will be from Heaven that Margaret Thatcher, the greatest friend the United States ever had, will observe the now-inescapable disintegration of the dismal European tyranny-by-clerk whose failure she foresaw even as it brought her down.
Margaret was unique: a fierce champion of people against government, taxpayers against bureaucrats, workers against unions, us against Them, free markets against state control, privatization against nationalization, liberty against socialism, democracy against Communism, prosperity against national bankruptcy, law against international terrorism, independence against global governance; a visionary among pygmies; a doer among dreamers; a statesman among politicians; a destroyer of tyrannies from arrogant Argentina via incursive Iraq to the savage Soviet Union.
It is a measure of the myopia and ingratitude of her Parliamentary colleagues that, when she famously said “No, no, no!” at the despatch-box in response to a scheming proposal by the unelected arch-Kommissar of Brussels that the European Parliament of Eunuchs should supplant national Parliaments and that the hidden cabal of faceless Kommissars should become Europe’s supreme government and the fumbling European Council its senile senate, they ejected her from office and, in so doing, resumed the sad, comfortable decline of the nation that she had briefly and gloriously made great again.
Never did she forget the special relationship that has long and happily united the Old Country to the New. She shared the noble ambition of your great President, Ronald Reagan, that throughout the world all should have the chance to live the life, enjoy the liberty, and celebrate the happiness that your Founding Fathers had bequeathed to you in their last Will and Testament, the Constitution of the United States. I know that my many friends in your athletic democracy will mourn her with as heartfelt a sense of loss as my own.
The sonorous eulogies and glittering panegyrics will be spoken by others greater than I. But I, who had the honor to serve as one of her six policy advisors at the height of her premiership, will affectionately remember her and her late husband, Denis, not only for all that they did but for all that they were; not only for the great acts of State but for the little human kindnesses to which they devoted no less thought and energy.
When Britain’s greatest postwar Prime Minister was fighting a losing battle for her political life, I wrote her a letter urging her to fight on against the moaning Minnies who had encircled her. Within the day, though she was struggling to govern her country while parrying her party, she wrote back to me in her own hand, to say how grateful she was that I had written and to promise that if she could carry on she would.
I had neither expected nor deserved a reply: but that master of the unexpected gave me the undeserved. For no small part of her success lay in the unfailing loyalty she inspired in those to whom she was so unfailingly loyal.
Margaret savored her Soviet soubriquet “the Iron Lady”, and always remained conscious that, as Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, she must be seen to be tough enough to do the job – the only man in the Cabinet.
It was said of her that at a Cabinet dinner the waiter asked her what she would like to eat. She replied, “I’ll have the steak.”
“And the vegetables?”
“They’ll have the steak too.”
Yet her reputation for never listening was entirely unfounded. When she was given unwelcome advice, she would say in the plainest terms exactly what she thought of it. But then she would always pause. The advisor had two choices: to cut and run in the face of the onslaught, in which event she would have little respect for him, or to stand his ground and argue his case.
If the advisor was well briefed and had responded well to her first salvo of sharply-directed questions, she would say, “I want to hear more about this, dear.” She would tiptoe archly to the bookcase in the study and reach behind a tome for a bottle of indifferent whisky and two cut-glass tumblers.
At my last official meeting with her, scheduled as a ten-minute farewell, I asked if I could give her one last fourpence-worth of advice. She agreed, but bristled when I told her what I had been working on. “Don’t be so silly, dear! You know perfectly well that I can’t possibly agree to that.” Then, as always, she paused. I stood my ground. A salvo of questions. Out came the whisky from behind the bookshelf. I was still there an hour and a half later.
The following year, during her third general election, I told the story in the London Evening Standard. Within an hour of the paper hitting the streets, a message of thanks came from her office. Unfailing loyalty again. She won by a 100-seat majority.
To the last, her political instinct never left her. One afternoon, Sir Ronald Millar, the colorful playwright who wrote her speeches, took her onstage at the Haymarket Theater, which he owned. She gazed up at the rows of seats, turned to Ronnie and said, “What a wonderful place for a political rally!”
During the long speech-writing sessions that preceded every major speech, Ronnie would suggest a phrase and Margaret would rearrange it several times. Every so often, she would dart across to Denis, sitting nearby with a gin and tonic. She would try the line out on him. If he did not like it, he would drawl, “No, no – that won’t fly!”
A couple of years ago her “kitchen cabinet” invited her to dinner. For two hours she was her vigorous old self. I sat opposite her. Late in the evening, I saw she was tiring and gave her a thumbs-up. Instantly she revived, smiled radiantly, and returned the gesture – using both thumbs.
It was not hard to see why Margaret and Denis Thatcher were the most popular couple among the old stagers working at 10 Downing Street since the Macmillans. Now they are reunited; and I pray, in the words of St. Thomas More, that they may be merry in Heaven. They have both earned it. Let her be given a State Funeral. Nothing less will do.
I read it and note she also said
Mr President, the evidence is there. The damage is being done. What do we, the International Community, do about it?
In some areas, the action required is primarily for individual nations or groups of nations to take.
I am thinking for example of action to deal with pollution of rivers—and many of us now see the fish back in rivers from which they had disappeared.
I am thinking of action to improve agricultural methods—good husbandry which ploughs back nourishment into the soil rather than the cut-and-burn which has damaged and degraded so much land in some parts of the world.
And I am thinking of the use of nuclear power which—despite the attitude of so-called greens—is the most environmentally safe form of energy.
But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level.
It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
We have to look forward not backward and we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort.
Before we act, we need the best possible scientific assessment: otherwise we risk making matters worse. We must use science to cast a light ahead, so that we can move step by step in the right direction.
The United Kingdom has agreed to take on the task of co-ordinating such an assessment within the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, an assessment which will be available to everyone by the time of the Second World Climate Conference next year.
But that will take us only so far. The report will not be able to tell us where the hurricanes will be striking; who will be flooded; or how often and how severe the droughts will be. Yet we will need to know these things if we are to adapt to future climate change, and that[fo 6] means we must expand our capacity to model and predict climate change. We can test our skills and methods by seeing whether they would have successfully predicted past climate change for which historical records exist.
Britain has some of the leading experts in this field and I am pleased to be able to tell you that the United Kingdom will be establishing a new centre for the prediction of climate change, which will lead the effort to improve our prophetic capacity.
It will also provide the advanced computing facilities that scientists need. And it will be open to experts from all over the world, especially from the developing countries, who can come to the United Kingdom and contribute to this vital work.
But as well as the science, we need to get the economics right. That means first we must have continued economic growth in order to generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment. But it must be growth which does not plunder the planet today and leave our children to deal with the consequences tomorrow.
And second, we must resist the simplistic tendency to blame modern multinational industry for the damage which is being done to the environment. Far from being the villains, it is on them that we rely to do the research and find the solutions.
It is industry which will develop safe alternative chemicals for refrigerators and air-conditioning. It is industry which will devise bio-degradable plastics. It is industry which will find the means to treat pollutants and make nuclear waste safe—and many companies as you know already have massive research programmes.
The multinationals have to take the long view. There will be no profit or satisfaction for anyone if pollution continues to destroy our planet.
As people’s consciousness of environmental needs rises, they are turning increasingly to ozone-friendly and other environmentally safe products. The market itself acts as a corrective the new products sell and those which caused environmental damage are disappearing from the shelves.
And by making these new products widely available, industry will make it possible for developing countries to[fo 7] avoid many of the mistakes which we older industrialised countries have made.
We should always remember that free markets are a means to an end. They would defeat their object if by their output they did more damage to the quality of life through pollution than the well-being they achieve by the production of goods and services.
On the basis then of sound science and sound economics, we need to build a strong framework for international action.
It is not new institutions that we need. Rather we need to strengthen and improve those which already exist: in particular the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme.
The United Kingdom has recently more than doubled its contribution to UNEP and we urge others, who have not done so and who can afford it, to do the same.
And the central organs of the United Nations, like this General Assembly, must also be seized of a problem which reaches into virtually all aspects of their work and will do so still more in the future.
CONVENTION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE
Noelene says (April 14, 2013 at 8:03 pm): “I read it and note she also said…”
==========================================================
Right, she was a sort of all-round alarmist: “…we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger. It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries. It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself. … It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.”
“””””…..Gareth Phillips says:
April 14, 2013 at 12:14 am
Gods teeth, what has happened to this site? It has metamorphosed from a science and associated issues to a primarily political campaign……”””””
So Gareth, then what special dispensation was granted to you, that you elected to comment on a thread that riles you up so much.
Perhaps you should read Anthony’s site heading again as it states quite clearly what this site IS about.
“””””…..Gerg Goodman says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Strange I don’t see any mention of the Poll Tax here. That was the one big mistake.
Having destroyed the power of the unions she thought there was nothing that could hold her back. She decided to attack the majority of working and unemployed people in Britain by replacing the property tax (“rates”) with an individual tax on every adult in the country……”””””
So Gerg, what tax system could possibly be more fair, than a tax on every adult in the country.
Contrast that with today’s United States of America, locked in a graveyard spiral; with half of the adult population paying no tax at all.
If you’re not paying any tax; somebody else is paying your fair share, and as a result, they have to increase the price of everything they provide for you to purchase, or make use of. If they didn’t have to do that, then you would also be able to afford to pay your fair share of taxes.
When some can get everything for nothing, just handed to them, then obviously money ceases to have any value; same goes for hard work.
The British; just like the Americans, thoroughly deserve what is surely coming their way; after all, they asked for it.
Lech Walesa, Solidarity, Pope John Paul II, Ronald Regan, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika, Glasnost, the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the liberation of Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War. The miracle of the decade in a century of miracles.
Greg House says: April 14, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Right, she was a sort of all-round alarmist:
You must have skipped some of the thread. Even Homer nods but she got it right in 2002.
‘…in her last book, Lady Thatcher had already written, under the heading “Hot air and global warming”, what amounted to a complete recantation of her earlier views, voicing precisely those fundamental doubts over the warming panic that were later to become familiar.
Pouring scorn on what she called “the doomsters”, she questioned all the main scientific assumptions that had been used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the main force shaping the 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 what she recognised as “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5 degree 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 that posed a very serious threat to human progress and prosperity.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9990332/Margaret-Thatcher-On-two-of-the-great-issues-the-lady-was-indeed-for-turning.html
Nigel S:
Your post shows you are joinin g others in this thread who are trying to convnice themselves Margaret Thatcher did not create the AGW scare or – if she did – then she soon ‘saw the light’ and changed her mind.
Margaret Thatcher created the AGW-scare for reasons of pure personal benefit that had nothing to do with coal and/or miners. Her political party was willing to go allong with her AGW-campaign because it was not helpful to coal. She dropped the campaign when it had fulfilled its political purpose for her. She then attacked AGW (as she always attacked what was not useful to her).
How and why she created the AGW-scare can be read here.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
Richard
richardscourtney says:
April 15, 2013 at 12:45 am
Well an article by you will probably support your point of view, I wasted no time in reading it. I read quite enough on the topic on Junk Science some years ago.
I was simply pointing out that she did get it right eventually. The rest is political spin and point scoring.
Here are some more annoying myths, enjoy!
http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/7-most-annoying-thatcher-myths/5218.article
@ur momisugly george e. smith says:
April 14, 2013 at 8:41 pm
“””””…..Gareth Phillips says:
April 14, 2013 at 12:14 am
Gods teeth, what has happened to this site? It has metamorphosed from a science and associated issues to a primarily political campaign……”””””
So Gareth, then what special dispensation was granted to you, that you elected to comment on a thread that riles you up so much.
Perhaps you should read Anthony’s site heading again as it states quite clearly what this site IS about.
………………………….
Apologies George, I thought we had a right to comment freely on threads that we disagreed with as long as we stayed within the rules. I know understand that we should only comment if we agree with what is being posted.
[As you obviously read the comments here the only conclusion is that you inadvertently left the “/sarc” tag off of your comment . . mod]
The interesting thing about this thread is that we have the right wing expressing revisionist histories of a difficult time in UK history, celebrating the successes and glossing over the disasters, and the Left pointing out that Thatcher was part of a European time where many things occurred, but that she was not a Saint by any means. Incidentally it’s interesting to see how many people praise her from countries other than the UK. I wonder if things always look better if you do not have to experience something and look at the events through the wrong end of a telescope. It’s good to see that skeptics are not all raving right wing loonies, and that lefties are not all Marxists; as someone else has said, it’s a broad church. Possibly we can accept that there are skeptics and warmies on both sides of the political debate and oppose any move to hijack the high ground by any side?
I have now accepted that the Thatcher post was a useful exercise to demonstrate these issues. Which politician are we discussing next? Can I suggest Neil Kinnock who hauled the Labour party kicking and screaming into modern politics, or Bill Clinton who appears to have been the best President the US has ever elected in modern times. I don’t tend to debate with Willis as he has a much more detailed understanding of the science than I have, but politics is my work and interest so it’s great to see another site for political debate appearing.
@Apologies George, I thought we had a right to comment freely on threads that we disagreed with as long as we stayed within the rules. I know understand that we should only comment if we agree with what is being posted.
[As you obviously read the comments here the only conclusion is that you inadvertently left the “/sarc” tag off of your comment . . mod]
————————————————
Thanks Mod, I had kind of hoped my post spoke for itself, but I will remember to make things a bit more simple for future reference. /sarc ( is that how to write it?, if not, maybe some details?)
Nigel S,
Thank you for posting that link. Most of the myths I already knew to be such, but I was pleased to see the “Mandela= terrorist” myth revealed in its true context. I do remember news reports about “necklacing” and found it deeply shocking – almost like being transported back in time to when victims were hung, drawn and quartered.
There is no doubt that at the time the ANC engaged in brutal violence against its political opponents, including supporters of Buthelezi. I am sure that Mandela was above such acts, and would never condone it, but his wife Winnie was something else. It is quite common that violence perpetrated by the left, such as by the ANC and Sandinistas are ignored by left wing thinkers in the west.
There are numerous grammatical errors in my last post but it’s readable.
Nigel S:
Your post at April 15, 2013 at 1:11 am says to me
Clearly, you really do support Margaret Thatcher and her methods: i.e.
obtain an idea which suites your purposes then deliberately ignore any and all analysis and information pertaining to that idea.
To quote from the Introduction of the item I cited which is at
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
[snip]
Simply, my analysis was conducted BEFORE the scare arose and predicted how and why Margaret Thatcher would create it and it would become the major environmental issue.
But, of course, such an analysis is of no interest to someone who has read opinions written on JunkScience decades later.
Richard
Thank you Lord Monckton. It was a great tribute to a lady that is admired on this side of the pond as well by rational people.
richardscourtney says:
April 15, 2013 at 3:39 am
‘Clearly, you really do support Margaret Thatcher and her methods’
An average of 13.5 million people voted for her in three elections over eight years. To my eternal shame I didn’t at first but then I bought a house and had children and put away childish things…
Gareth Phillips says:
April 15, 2013 at 2:46 am
Can I suggest … Bill Clinton who appears to have been the best President the US has ever elected in modern times.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Did you leave the sarc tag off again?
@richardscourtney says:
April 15, 2013 at 3:39 am
Very interesting! Even if someone is inclined to take issue with each and every influence you you cite, and the effect of them individually and in conjunction with each other, the predictions flowing from your study can be evaluated. And they clearly have more evidence to support them than anything at all to do with AGW when viewed as “science” alone!
This is the level that the whole issue needs to be dealt with. It is obvious that, as a matter of intellectual construction, not science, AGW has, and never has had, any legitimacy as a basis for public policy decisions. The proposition of significant detrimental impact from CO2 has, at best, only ever been one possible result, with no reason at all for preference over alternative outcomes.
Your reduction of the reasons for this having occurred to what might be called “human impulse” in the various forms you mention, I think will prove to be largely accurate. What is telling is that you at least were able to discern these things at the time, 33 odd years ago now. Whilst not at all deprecating your insights – obviously they were not widely shared – the things you mention were prosaic and were there to be seen.
Personally, although the structural elements of “politics” you mention were not then active or obvious, I date, as an approximation, the start of this as a cultural/societal process to 1968 and the publication of “the Population Bomb”, after which the “idea” that humans were destructive began to be formalized by some, and the general population was “primed” to accept any notion that apparently reflected this.
For this reason, very much supported by your 1980 evaluation, I am completely certain that AGW is now a “dead man walking” soon to be finished off. Quite independently of “science” this has run its course.
@ur momisugly Nigel S says:
April 15, 2013 at 5:49 am
Gareth Phillips says:
April 15, 2013 at 2:46 am
Can I suggest … Bill Clinton who appears to have been the best President the US has ever elected in modern times.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Did you leave the sarc tag off again?
—————————-
Freddie and Fannie? Is that the company who collapsed under Mr.Bush’s watch?
How many adventures did that man have? By the way satire is ruined by having to explain that a phrase used is satire, it’s like explaining a joke. If I call our current Prime Minister Kim Il Kameron I sort of hope most people will understand that this is satire without me having to give clues. Then again, maybe I am missing something in our cultural divide.
jc:
Thankyou for your comment on my analysis of the formation of the AGW-scare which you provide. at April 15, 2013 at 7:33 am.
You say of my analysis at
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
Obviously, I would – and do – agree with that.
Unfortunately, debate of AGW tends to be dominated by people who deliberately choose to be ignorant bigots. They exist on both ‘sides’ of the issue as, for example, is demonstrated by Nigel S in this thread. Frankly, I despair of people who – as he has – claim they have gained an opinion so do not want information.
Richard
Gareth Phillips says at 2:46 am
“The interesting thing about this thread is that we have the right wing expressing revisionist histories of a difficult time in UK history…”
No; what we have is people who were there at the time, who persoanlly experienced the horrors of the collapse of society and of the UK economy in the 70s, pointing out why Margaret Thatcher’s election was necessary. She didn’t get everything right – who does? – but she got the country *as a whole* back up off its knees, and left it infinitely more prosperous than she found it.
Ideologues in the union-dominated north and Wales preferred to remain stuck in the attitudes which led to our collapse – that’s why they suffered and still do, to this day, from lack of investment in their areas
Pointing out these things has nothing to do with right-wing revisionism: it has everything to do with pragmatic people who lived through those events themselves (as I did) telling it as they see it. I loathed Maggie at the time and would not want to sit next to her at dinner – but I voted for her (with my head) and find the vitriolic and entirely misleading insults heaped on her in the last week (inc by a few on here) to be ignorant, dishonest, and in many instances, distasteful.
richardscourtney says: April 15, 2013 at 9:01 am
‘Unfortunately, debate of AGW tends to be dominated by people who deliberately choose to be ignorant bigots. They exist on both ‘sides’ of the issue as, for example, is demonstrated by Nigel S in this thread.’
‘Ignorant bigots’ is a bit strong. An engineering MA from Isaac Newton’s old college and nearly 40 year’s industry experience give me some idea of what’s up.
To being at the beginning…(1:11 AM)
I said (quoting Christopher Booker) that Margaret Thatcher had got it wrong on CAGW at first and corrected herself in 2002. I think that’s a reasonably accurate summary. More so than your description of me at least.
‘…in her last book, Lady Thatcher had already written, under the heading “Hot air and global warming”, what amounted to a complete recantation of her earlier views, voicing precisely those fundamental doubts over the warming panic that were later to become familiar.’
Gareth Philips again:
“Freddie and Fannie? Is that the company who collapsed under Mr.Bush’s watch?”
It’s the company which was set up at Bill Clinton’s diktat to force banks to give mortgages to those who could not afford them, this leading to the near-collapse of the banking system (after Clinton left office). The Left’s adulation of the Clintons is a complete mystery to those of us who view politicians with some degree of objectivity.
Sam the First says: April 15, 2013 at 9:44 am
Thanks for that, in fact they both existed before Clinton (1970 and 1938) but he did the damage for which we are all still suffering as you explained.
“Sam the First says:
April 15, 2013 at 9:44 am
Freddie and Fannie were setup well before Clinton and Bush.