How did Conservative UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher feel about &quot:liberal&quot: and &quot:alarmist&quot: global warming?


Leading Republican Party presidential hopeful and authority on climate science, Sarah Palin, pointed out recently that

“these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.”

Last weekend as keynote speaker for what would have been the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, Palin said:

“In 1964, the conservative movement heard him. In 1966, California listened to him. In 1976, finally, the G.O.P. rank and file listened to him. In 1980, the nation listened to him. And in 1984, the whole world heard him”

While Palin in 1984, was serving as Miss Wasillia, Margaret Thatcher was serving as prime minister of Britain. Thatcher was in that position during the entire presidency of Ronald Reagan, the international leader with whom her prime-ministership was most aligned.

Could the Conservative former British Prime Minister (only female UK prime minister) be a role model for Sarah Palin as regards policy towards climate change?

Thatcher was prime minister long before most folks realized how serious global warming was going to become.

could thatcher serve as a role model? no, she had a brain.

palin could never have been prime minister in Britain, assuming that she was there, because the prime minister is elected by parliment itself, and they’re not hoodwinked by mama grizzly talk.

&gt:&gt:Could the Conservative former British Prime Minister (only female UK prime minister) be a role model for Sarah Palin as regards policy towards climate change?&lt:&lt:
Well obviously if the PM accepted AGW then she was actually a commie liberal enviro-nazi warmista. Also Sarah Palin obviously needs no role models when she can caress the English language as only she can.
&gt:&gt:“these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.”&lt:&lt:

_

Unknowing, you have struck at the root of the problem. Global Warming is a political football. The kicker doesn’t necessarily need to be liberal. Margaret Thatcher used any device available to fend off her political opponents. The coal miners’ union was a target, and her references to the dangers of global warming was little more than political expediency. Why insult Sarah Palin in your question? Isn’t this just more warmers’ bigotry?

Maggie is a role model for conservatives as is Ronald Reagan. If you are looking for her for your science education, I would suggest that you are looking in the wrong place. If you like Thatcher and Reagan so much, perhaps you should change your political stripes. Reagan definitely wouldn’t be gullible enough to swallow the AGW BS. Thatcher was dealing with alternatives to coal unions and attempting to push nuclear if memory serves (can’t open your link to Youtube). You have to be careful what you do because unintended consequences are often far worse than the original problem

Note: Herbert apparently assumes that Thatcher wants what is worse for humanity because she isn’t a Marxists (thus a fascist to the small minded). Only an alarmists could be that delusional.

Margaret Thatcher said, &quot:The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.&quot:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document…

She would laugh at claims that global warming is left wing science.

I think Palin does have quite a number of similarities with Margaret Thatcher but I think she is very much her own woman. I kind of see her more like a Reagan or W than Thatcher. On Unions though I believe Palin has been supportive of them in the past at least in Alaska as her Husband has been involved with one I believe, though to what degree I’m not sure but I imagine that it would be restricted and she would not be in favour of business and the economy being held to ransom by them.

There are similarities with Thatcher but Margaret Thatcher shut down the coal mines and opening up North Sea gas which ironically helped Britain meet emission targets decades later when we signed up to all the Anthropogenic Global Warming nonesense, Kyoto and EU targets etc. I see Palin as opening up coal mines if its economically viable as well as drilling for oil in Alaska and elsewhere etc. One of her motto’s is &quot:drill baby drill&quot: 🙂 I don’t think Palin will let anything get in the way of pushing America to become more energy independent instead of relying on oil from the mid east etc.

Margaret Thatcher never took much notice of the greenpeace brigade when she was in office, or after and had little regard for them. She rightly ignored the chicken little crowd. I see Palin as being similar in this regard and pretty much in line with Bush Junior. She will want complete and absolute proof of something beyond any doubt before she is even going to consider signing up to something that is going to restrict economic growth never mind ratifying it. When it comes down to it I don’t think any nation is going to sign up to something that restricts their growth and harms them based on snake oil science unless there is somthing in it for them economically or politcially, and the AGW movement does seem to be a political movement with a leftist marxist socialist stench about it.

When Clinton and Gore were in office what they did was they made agreements to agree to things at a later date but they never ever ratifyed anything because they knew it would never get past the house etc. They just did the populist thing though by saying they support something even if they were never going to support it. They would sign up to it for sure but they would never in a million years ratify anything like Kyoto if it had been on the table. Bush on the other hand just gave a blunt &quot:NO&quot: and that was that end of discussion. He was the only straight shooter.

Gore while he was in office for all that time did absolutely nothing on the environment. He didn’t even bad mercury cans. Yet as soon as he was out of office he started writing in his book about how it was a crime on a par with the holocaust that America hadn’t banned mercury and was blaming Bush. He was in office for 8 years before that but did precisely nothing whatsoever about it. What a hypocrite. If he was so concerned with this mythical AGW as well what exactly did he do about that while in office? For 8 whole years he was the second most powerful man in the World after Bill Clinton but did absolutely nothing whatsoever about it. That speaks volumes. The truth is that Bush Jr did a lot more for the environment especially wetlands while he was in office than the previous administration had ever done.

Who cares?

I love how the GW propaganda videos always show natural disasters as if they are something new that just started happening since the industrial period. lol :^)

As a Fascist she was against it, and any other socially progressive movement that would improve the lot of humanity

its fake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *