Essay by Dr. Tim Ball (Elaboration of my Heartland Climate Conference Presentation)
We’re drowning in information and starving for knowledge. Rutherford Rogers
So-called climate skeptics, practicing proper science by disproving the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming, achieved a great deal. This, despite harassment by formal science agencies, like the Royal Society, and deliberate neglect by the mainstream media. It combined with an active and deliberate Public Relations campaign, designed to mislead and confuse. Most people and politicians understand little of what is going on so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) strategy of using created science for a political agenda moves ahead.
Emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 2009, exposed the practices of the scientists controlling the IPCC. They also exposed the supporters and acolytes of their deception. Many were apparently innocuous incidents or comments, but they need examination and context. Comments often seem simple, but on reflection say a great deal. Wealthy Canadian businessman, Conrad Black was asked why he wasn’t in politics. His five words, “I don’t need to be.” spoke volumes.
In a December 2011 email to Michael Mann, Richard Littlemore, senior writer for the Canadian web site DeSmogBlog wrote,
Hi Michael [Mann],
I’m a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard Littlemore] (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.
It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger’s intervention in Science.
This email alone effectively discredits anything DeSmogBlog says. It also shows that climate science, practiced by the CRU and the IPCC, was a public relations exercise. The phrase “fend off” speaks volumes. It illustrates the battle was for the minds of the people, complicated by the fact that they, like Littlemore, “are not much about science”.
Arts and Science
I taught a Science credit course for Arts students for 25 years. I know how few know, or even want to know, about science. I taught the course by telling students it was basically about “How the Earth works” and as future citizens of Earth they should have some understanding, so they are less likely to be exploited about environmental issues. On the either side of the ledger of a broader education, I studied the ‘history of science’ and frequently gave lectures in the course. A History of Science course should be mandatory for all students. I add the empirical evidence of hundreds of public presentations and radio phone-in programs over forty years.
Approximately 25 percent of Americans believe the Sun orbits the Earth. The reality is, it doesn’t matter for most people; as long as the Sun rises and sets on a regular basis, it is of no consequence. One reason it doesn’t matter is because Copernicus presented his hypothesis in 1543, but the proof did not occur until 295 years later in 1838.
Newton’s Theory is equally of little consequence for most, so long as gravity works and they don’t fall off. Even fewer understand anything about Einstein, including many scientists. The big change came with Darwin, as science intruded on everyone’s sensibilities. In a grossly simplistic way, opponents of Darwin argued that he was saying your grandfather was gorilla. It changed academia from two faculties, Humanities and Natural Sciences, and added the third and now largest faculty, the Social Sciences.
Several years ago I was invited by a group of retired scientists in Calgary to form a group opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. Their concern was the inadequate science behind the planned policy. Located in Calgary, with some of them employed in the oil patch, they faced a dilemma of credibility. They chose to stick strictly with the science – a decision I supported. They did, and still do, marvelous work and gathered support, but were marginalized early when a very small donation from an oil company undermined their credibility. It is a classic example of the power of PR and politics over science. Another proof was the remarkable success of Gore’s movie produced by Hollywood, the masters of PR (propaganda).
Public Knowledge of Climate Science
A study by Yale University produced startling results about public knowledge of climate change. Figure 1 shows the actual results, with people graded, as if for a school exam. Only 8 percent scored A or B, while 77 percent received D or F.
Figure 1: Source: Yale University
That is all you need to know, but it didn’t satisfy the researchers. They decided,
To further adjust for the difficulty of some questions, we constructed a curved grading scale as an alternative scoring system.
There is no justification for applying “a curved grading scale”. Figure 2 shows the result. Now only 27 percent fail and 33 percent have an A or B.
How could the questions be too difficult? That adjustment condemns and negates the entire study. Some of the questions were badly worded and analysis was wrong because the authors didn’t know climate science. Regardless, the results are definitive and the problem falsely amplified by questions being difficult. Who decided they were difficult?
Figure 2
A cartoon (Figure 3) appeared in the September 1, 1977 issue of New Scientist.
How many people would understand the joke? Maybe the few who read the accompanying article about the Milankovitch Effect, but not many others. Indeed, Milankovitch effects are not included in IPCC models.
Figure 3
It is likely that at most 20 percent would understand. Figure 4 shows the percentage of students with High Level Science Skills in many countries.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5 shows slightly higher percentages of Science skills of University Graduates – a select group.
Lack of science abilities or training extends to several important sectors, for example, lawyers and politicians. Figure 6 shows that 12 percent of law students at the University of Michigan were science and math graduates.
Figure 6.
Media Failure
The mainstream media is the major group that failed society in the global warming debate. They abrogated the role of probing, investigative journalism, expected of them by the US Founding Fathers.
Few journalists have science training and increasingly produce sensationalist stories to fit political bias – their own and their employers. They are now the gossips in Marshall McLuhan’s global village. Like all gossips, they work on few facts, spread false information and spin stories, which combine to destroy lives. Jonathan Swift, one of the greatest satirist said, “What some invent, the rest enlarge.”
The IPCC deliberately used all these weaknesses to mislead people. Differences between the Science Reports of Working Group I and the Summary For Policymakers are too great to be accidental. Deception began with the definition of climate change. The media and the public believe they study climate change in total. In order to blame humans, the definition of climate change was narrowed in Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
“…a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
Nothing was done to disavow people of their misunderstanding. In fact, it is reinforced with incorrect statements by the IPCC.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change.”
Public Confusion, Political Reaction
A Pew Center poll (Figure 7) is representative of public opinion and places “dealing with global warming” very low (19 out of 20) on their list of concerns.
There are several explanations including,
• Lack of understanding.
• Confused by contradictory evidence.
• General suspicion of governments.
• Feeling there is nothing they can do about it anyway.
All this creates a dilemma for politicians. They are still afraid of accusations that they don’t care about the planet, the children, the future or any of the other emotional threats used to steal the moral high ground. From their perspective they are trapped between jobs and the economy or the environment. This seems simple and obvious, but environmentalism as a religion makes it very challenging.
Beginning with the US Senate vote on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol politicians profess concern about the environment, but opt for jobs and the economy.
…the US Senate voted 95-0 against signing any treaty that would “cause severe economic damage to the US”, while exempting the rest of the world.
Figure 7
Western politicians put on the cloak of green and remain afraid to discuss anything otherwise. A panel established by the Indian Prime Minister offset the morality issue in a different way.
“… the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.
“It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of well-being to its people.”
“India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries.”
The important connection between the two quotes is the opposition to inequality. Kyoto took money from Developed Nations, for their sin of producing CO2, and gave it to Developing Nations, to help them deal with the negative impact. None of this, either the claims of the IPCC or the counter claims of the Skeptics, has anything to do with the science.
Government Control Using Climate Change Proceeds Apace
Maurice Strong and creators of Agenda 21 and the IPCC are not concerned. The entire structure was designed to bypass politics and needs of the people. Bureaucracies continue apace to implement the goals of reducing human CO2 producing activities. The key was the role of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that put weather agencies in every nation in charge of energy policies. They are proceeding with plans to achieve the goal. Figure 8 shows the cover of a Climate Action Plan for the Province of British Columbia.
A Climate Action Committee produced the Plan as the government website describes.
British Columbia’s Climate Action Team was established in November 2007 to help the government reduce provincial greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent by 2020. It was made up of some of the province’s best minds, including nine world leaders in the climate sciences.
The nine included Andrew Weaver, contributing author for the computer modeling section of four IPCC Reports. (1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013).
The Plan is being implemented by visits from the Provincial government to municipalities. After one such visit I was invited by residents of Mayne Island (one of the Gulf islands) to make a presentation. They were angry because the government visit involved a screening of Gore’s movie followed by proposals to change policies and practices on their island. This involved discussions about banning all motor vehicles and eliminating roads.
Figure 9.
The Plan is based completely on the findings of the IPCC. It includes a carbon tax and requirement for Smart Meters among other things. Weaver provided an insert shown in Figure 9.
Gordon Campbell was Premier of the Province when the Climate Action Plan was introduced. He knew that control and power lay with the bureaucracies. In his first term he introduced wide ranging new legislation. He knew about the gap between what politicians intended and what the bureaucrats implemented and assigned one or two politicians to monitor implementation in each department. Bureaucrats tolerated this knowing they’d survive the politicians.
Maurice Strong did the opposite by involving WMO bureaucrats in planning, implementation and production. He effectively controlled the politicians of the world. Elaine Dewar, reported in her book Cloak of Green, his ideal was to eliminate the industrialized nations. She asked if he intended to become a politician to implement the idea. He replied, no, you couldn’t do anything as politician; he liked the UN because:
He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.
Dewar added:
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
As Strong planned and Weaver predicted, others are joining. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) information on how States and lower government levels establish a Climate Action Plan is shown below.
Climate Change Action Plans
Learn how to develop a climate change action plan for your community.
Regional Climate Change Action Plan
A climate change action plan lays out a strategy, including specific policy recommendations, that a local government will use to address climate change and reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Examples of climate change action plans developed by local governments are listed below according to their states.
AZ, AK, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, KY, LA, MD, MA, MN, MO, NH, NM, NY, NC, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA, All States
EPA based its plan on the science of the IPCC that skeptics proved was wrong. The only opposition to these plans will come from lost jobs and economic failures.
Figure 11
Either the British poster in Figure 11 will persuade people and politicians, or, the clever word play of a bumper sticker will prove true.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“How can you tell is a left-winger is lying? His/her lips are moving.”
Turns out this is not just a predjudiced view but corresponds to scientific research reported in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21607830-more-people-are-exposed-socialism-worse-they-behave-lying-commies
Approximately 25 percent of Americans believe the Sun orbits the Earth.
July 6, 1999
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx
So Americans were beating the Germans and the… Greater British, so what happened?
The “1 in 4” is sourced from the NSF:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7h.htm
Digging deep into the available Tables, I finally found Table 7-8, “Correct answers to factual knowledge questions in physical and biological sciences, by country/region: Most recent year”, viewable as a HTML table or you can download the data as an Excel file. Here’s table:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/tt07-08.htm
On the question Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? (ignore the epicycle enthusiasts going into spastic fits), the US at 74% in 2012 beat out the EU at 66% in 2005, India at 70% in 2004, and Malaysia at 72% in 2008.
We were only beat by South Korea at 86% in 2004, and since then South Koreans have been developing and promoting more girl and boy pop bands while doing it Gangnam Style with Psy.
Check the table. 1 in 4 is actually pretty dang good, and that’s with a yes/no type question without a third option, and likewise Americans still rank high.
And that’s with questionable brain-twisters like this:
It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl.
(In China and Europe they asked about the “mother’s gene” instead.)
Don’t know what you people have read, but I had learned it was the entire Y chromosome which contains a multitude of genes. Only now am I learning there’s an “SRY gene” on the Y chromosome. I could easily have gotten that wrong.
Which doesn’t hide how this is an incredibly vile bigoted insensitive question, as the State of California has determined what decides if a baby is a boy or a girl is the baby themselves, once they’ve developed enough to indicate their preference. Obama had better make a few calls and rein in this arrogantly incorrect NSF, as science and evidence no longer matter, personal perception is what is most important.
Read what I wrote and you’ll see I am correct about that poster, using Thatcher’s legacy, being divisive.
“The poster will spread the message that AGW scepticism is a right-wing policy decision. And will be rejected by all reasonable people who recognise that the real world works without recourse to political party.”
The real world does work without recourse to political party. King Canute demonstrated that. All reasonable people will agree with that – regardless of political affiliation.
Yet this poster calls back to Thatcher and equates Green policies with Labour policies.
-That is divisive (it won’t appeal to anyone in the UK who isn’t a Tory).
-It is also stupid as the majority (unaligned) will see that you can’t legislate the planet to warm or cool. Green concerns are not equivalent to political concerns unless you abandon the science.
The poster is the UK’s equivalent of the Unabomber ad by Heartland. A calamitous own goal.
Tim Ball:
I have read this thread with interest.
Your essay said and explained
Inevitably, the egregious and anonymous troll who posts as “wws” used your essay as an excuse to attempt to induce divisive attacks between climate sceptics: such attempts are the troll’s main activity on WUWT. Then, that was followed by richard verney attempting to induce irrelevant and pointless defence of the long-ago and best forgotten Thatcher governments in the UK: some die-hard Thatcherites still mumble into their pints while sitting in darker corners of Conservative Clubs, but even the Conservative-led UK government now tries to pretend that she and her policies never existed.
The real issues are as your article says that
Yes. And the “plans” are tailored to fit the different political and statutory situations in different countries.
These differences are why there is no unique solution to the problem of opposing the bureaucratic imposition of “goals of reducing human CO2 producing activities”: what is right in one country may be very wrong in another. M Courtney and vukcevic illustrate this because one opposed Thatcher and the other voted for her, but both see it would be self-defeating in the UK to use a poster which reminds of one of Thatcher’s election campaigns.
In my opinion, it is imperative that the real issue you have raised is discussed with a view to practical opposition to the bureaucratic activities. The advantages and limitations of specific actions require evaluation for use in specific countries, and it is imperative that expressions of silly political prejudices be prevented from disrupting this important practical discussion.
To oppose the bureaucracies or not to oppose the bureaucracies: that is the question. And – with apologies to the bard – we need to expect we will suffer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune while trying to find effective ways to conduct the opposition.
Unity IS a strength. Those who would divide us need to be ignored or reviled.
Richard
Comparison of ice in the Arctic on July 22, 2013 and 2014. visible a higher concentration of ice in 2014.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=22&fy=2013&sm=07&sd=22&sy=2014
Thank you Dr Ball for this article. You are very right in my opinion:
The more accurately, systematically and persistently someone proves Mr Chicken Little wrong, the less truth matters. The reason is within our heart: who’d want to join a gang plucking Mr Chicken Little of the week?
For this reason, in my opinion, it’s more compelling to take a stance defending fundamental rights.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
Yes, it’s more about politics, but who insists that it’s all about science?
M Courtney,
It is standard practice to rework a successful advertisement, regardless of the ideology, the message, or the product behind the original work.
eg: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_chZ-gcj_75I/SeZOsi7E1AI/AAAAAAAAASs/NjAGjPjJf2o/s320/leap.bmp
I think you will like that one. I personally didn’t like Maggie. She did, afterall, help launch the successful international crusade against CFCs, while kick started the international crusade against hydrocarbons. What was there to like?
But Tim’s poster doesn’t offend me at all. The line of wind turbines made to resemble barbed wire is very clever. Good article too.
To your list of science that is of little practical importance to most people, you might add the theory of evolution. Of course, it should be taught in schools, but it would be much more useful for the development of students’ critical faculty if they had the chance to discuss and figure it out for themselves instead of teaching it as dogma.
Khwarizmi says July 25, 2014 at 1:39 am… Tg eproblem is that the ad opens the door to accusations that Peter Lilley, Nigel Lawson and the GWPF are just old Thatcherites who can’t accept the world has moved on.
Most people have no political affiliation and they will easily accept that hypothesis. Especially if the debate is framed in a “harking back to Thatcher” way.
My objection to the Ad is that it works against its own case (supposing it wasn’t made by the Guardian as mickey-take).
M Courtney, Khwarizmi, et al.:
If my post at July 25, 2014 at 12:59 am leaves moderation (I don’t know why it is there) then hopefully the graph issue can be left behind and the thread can concentrate on the practical problems addressed by the above essay.
Richard
Dr.Ball: Thanks for the essay. From Propaganda (1928!) by E. Benays: ” The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democracy. Those who manipulate this UNSEEN (my emphasis) mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”. That’s why Conrad Black answered as he answered. Thanks again.
Nick in Vancouver says:
July 24, 2014 at 10:46 pm
//////////////////
+1
The reason why chinks are slowly appearing in western MSM is because the huge cost of the ‘green’ agenda is just beginning to be felt, and since western governments are insolvent (having run out of other people’s money), and the citizens themselves are strapped for cash and facing a cost of living crises (some have lost jobs, others have seen wages not keeping up with inflation), people are questioning the policy response and its costs. Since this is a real issue for the people, MSM is beginning to report on that, and at the same time, ever so slowly a bit of the conflicting science is also printed.
The developed world are facing a big problem in that they are less competitive than the deveoping countries, business is now truly global, and can easily shift to places where costs are lowests, goods can be ordered over the ether (the internet), their population is aging with immense future health/care costs looming, most citizens have not been able to save properly for their retirements because when working they were over taxed, and the government has not put enough of the tax taken aside to fund pensions, they are being overwhelmed by immigration, much of which (but certainly not all) is a drain on their welfare systems, and will require huge infrastructural investment which governments do not have the money to pay for.
The US is fighting a desperate battle to keep the dollar the international currency of choice. Most goods, on an international basi,s are traded in dollars, and the US earns a very small slice of the action even though the trade has nothing to do with the US. Should bitcoin, or the like, become an international currency, then the US will lose an important little earner. This is why the BRICS are trying to set up their own currency, and was one reason why the EU adopted the Euro.
Now I am not a US citizen but a lot of US companies have huge piles of foreign earnings that they cannot repatriate to the US without paying significant tax. The US Government should exempt any money returned to the US and invested in business say within 5 years, ie, the money cannot be brought back and paid to shareholders, but can be brought back and used to set up a new business venture, expand existing business ventures. This would result in jobs, and bringing down the jobless reduces government expenditure, and leads to tax revenues from those being employed. It is madness that US companies are not allowed to repatriate this money, and it obliges them to invest overseas money overseas, thereby giving foreign countries a new revenue stream, and providing the US with more competition. The problem is that governments want to sieze money for their pet projects, whereas it would be much better to let the market and free eneterprise get on with things.
Gvvernments of all ilks do not understand how companies work. Here in the UK, there is much discusssion about companies not paying their fair share of tax, earning billions, but pay tax of just a couple of million. But companies pay no expense (including tax). All expenses of a company (that is not trading at a loss) are passed onto the customer who uses their services or who buys their goods. It is the consumer that pays everything. If companies are forced to pay more tax, then it is the consumer who pays that bill, a BigMac meal will not be £4.99 but £5.25, a coffee from Starbucks will not be £2.99 but £3.20, to list on ebay will not cost say £10, but will cost £11 etc. The consumer will face all of these extra tax bills.
Recently, it emerged that last year the UK government collected about £49 billion in green taxes, equivalent to about £1,600pa for every family in the UK. The government spin on this is that businesses pay the vast majority of this tax, and the average family pays only about £400 pa. Not so at all. Unless a business is trading at a loss, it means that it has passed all of its expenses onto the consumer (including the green taxes that the company has paid), hence the true cost to the British consumer is the full £1600 pa. The consumer does not realise it because it is just one penny on a loaf of bread, a few pence on a bottle of wine, 5 pence for a plastic bag to put your shopping in, a few pounds on the cost of a car tyre etc, but eventually it bleeds £1600 pa from everyone. And green taxes are very much on the rise, especially in th energy market and waste disposal markets. It will not be long before it is £2000 pa, and that is a significant amount of most peoples NET take home pay.
In the UK, there is an argument about energy bills. The government spin is that only about 7% of the bill is green taxes/subsidies. Whereas, in fact, as far as electricity is concerned, the green agenda accounts for about 52 to 58% of the bill total. 25% of the bill is made up of infra structure charges but those costs are connecting windfarms (which are located in remote areas) onto the grid!. About 1o% is to help subsidise those on low incomes who cannot afford the high costs of energy, but if energy prices were to be slashed, the number of people who could not afford to pay the bill would be drastically slashed and hence that element would largely disappear. Coal cost only about £50 per Mwh, whereas wind £155, and emergency diesel generation costs over £1000 per Mwh, and can cost upto £4,000. The actual cost of supply, which accounts for only about 48% of the bill would be signifcantly reduced if the energy companies were not forced to pay the high costs for wind, and sometime for emergency diesel to balance the grid.
Of course, all of this has yet to come out. If journalists were doing their jobs properly it would already be in the public domain, but there are only a few minority journalists like Christopher Booker writing on these issues. So the public as a whole, are not well informed. But as expenses of this ilk continue to spiral out of control, it will come out, and the public will then be informed of the true costs of the green agenda, and will be shocked. There will be a huge public back lash on this issue, especially since it is clear that there has been government incompetences and establishment cover up. Those issues rile the majority, so one can expect things to get quite ugly.
We’re losing the policy war because the politicians who accepted AGW theory then drove through policies on the back of it are still either in office or influential to those who are.
There’s precisely no chance such people will admit or acknowledge their part in the single biggest pseudo-scientific-political error of judgement in the free world. None whatsoever. (Ask yourself; how many ex-politicians reflect that their policies in office were actually a disaster after all? In the UK…Blair on Iraq? Brown on selling gold / spend spend spend? The EU? The Euro? Multi-Culti? Never apologise, never admit you’re wrong. And they still defend their actions.)
AGW policies won’t go up in a cloud of smoke overnight. They will lapse at approximately the same rate it takes to remove the guilty people from office and the contracts they’ve dished out to run down and expire. new people come in and enact new policies. That takes time.
By then the guilty will be long pensioned off or dead. So Dr Ball, prepare for the long haul.
PS Thanks for the great work you post here and elsewhere. Always a fine read / education.
From richardscourtney on July 25, 2014 at 2:32 am (just a snippet):
I suspect it’s from invoking the name of “R.V.”, as there are those who have made the “boorish” part of the “always check contents” troll filter due to OT and/or excessive comments, and invoking their names triggers the filter. Which is understandable as replying could initiate a slew and a swath of OT and/or overly-energetic debate. Using the full name of “vuk” will trigger it, for example, no offense meant.
richardscourtney says:
July 25, 2014 at 2:32 am
If my post at July 25, 2014 at 12:59 am leaves moderation (I don’t know why it is there)
……..
I suspect it is for using my name in your post, I have been designated for the mods attention for some months now, ( v…. word is the trigger).
[the reason you get attention is that you do a lot of thread bombing with irrelevant links to your talk-talk website, change your behavior and you’ll fall of the moderation radar – mod]
richardscourtney says:
July 25, 2014 at 12:59 am
//////////////
Richard
If you have ever read any of my posts, you will know that I am reasonable and objective.
Whilst my political views are of no materiality, I could have voted for Thatcher. I did not. I have never once stepped through the doors of a conservative club, so I find the implications behind your comments distasteful.
It was you who brought up this particular slant of political bias, and my comment was merely corecting the bias that you yourself have introduced, and bringing some objectivity in to it, for the benefit of those who are not familar with UK politics, and how the voting system in the UK is skewed against the conservatives.
For sure, Thatcher was a devisive figure to those whose views sit more towards the extreme left, but she won, and won hansomely for the main part, notwithstanding that the voting system was biased against her (requiring her to get considerably more votes than would have been the case had she headed Labour), because she had broad appeal accross the over-riding majority of the country (both the ordinary working man, and those with a more Conservative bent, but of course not the union militant). That is just a simple objective fact that her elections victories bear out. You might not like this fact (whether because of your own personal prejudices, or otherwise), but it is, nonetheless the case,
Suggesting that someone is a decisive figure, often means little at all since everyone is devisive if you judge them against extremes. But to judge against extremes, is to introduce a bias.
Had i wished to introduce some political spin, as opposed to remaining wholly objective correcting the bias introduced by you, I could have commented upon what a basket case the UK would now be, but for the Thatcher government, or that more industry was closed down under Labour than under Thatcher etc.etc. But I did not. I did not want to side track the thread with pure political issues.
Normally, I enjoy reading your views. You are one of the commentators whose name I look out for (perhaps there are about dozen whose comments I always look out for), but I have seen in the past the chip on your shoulder that you carry against Thatcher, if I recall correctly you were in the coal industry, so no doubt that helped forge some of those views. It is unfortunate that you do not keep those chips to yourselves, your commenst would (in my opinion) be the better for that.
[change your behavior and you’ll fall of the moderation radar – mod]
Hi
I don’t think anyone bothers with my website, even I can’t find my way around it any longer. The [website] has no commercial value, purpose of the ‘talktalk’ link was for easy googling my past comments, so wouldn’t contradict myself too often. On the RC blog I am permanently relegated to the Bore Hole, but for different reason.
And finally, having a cat of the same breed as our host is no entitlement for a special treatment so sitting in moderation is fine with me.
[Your patience with the moderation queue is appreciated. .mod]
richard verney:
Your post addressed to me at July 25, 2014 at 10:44 am says
NO! You raised – and promoted – that historical distortion in your third post which was at July 24, 2014 at 4:57 pm. I referred to it once and in MY FIRST POST IN THE THREAD which was THE DAY FOLLOWING YOUR POST. I then wrote at July 25, 2014 at 12:59 am
The remainder of your post I am answering is equally fallacious. Importantly, your post attempts to continue the side-track which my reply had tried to kill.
You are trolling, and I now understand the explanation provided to me by kadaka (KD Knoebel) at July 25, 2014 at 5:05 am which is here.
Richard