Margaret Thatcher, compassion, and letting things go.

I strongly objected to many of Margaret Thatcher’s decisions, her support of apartheid, Clause 28, the sinking of the Belgrano, the selling off of the things the people of Britain already owned, the list goes on, I didn’t like her style, her tone, I didn’t even like her voice, but I don’t demonize her. 

Policies that were considered racist and homophobic are now long forgotten. In many respects she lost the culture wars, and her brand of social conservatism has faded away, whereas no subsequent government has seen fit to roll back any of her economic changes. 

Would Britain have become more liberal sooner without Thatcher? Perhaps, but we’ll never know for sure. 

Did the people of Britain agree with the economic changes? Well, neo-liberalism has been the political consensus ever since.

I distinctly remember a sense that hers was a government lacking in compassion. Their faith in free markets appeared to have little time for the weak, the slow, and the vulnerable. I found this baffling at the time. I couldn’t understand how people could look down with such distain upon frailty. 

I’m reminded of this because I see that same distain now. That same lack of compassion. 

 

There was a time to be angry at Thatcher. There was a time to stand up and push against the neo-liberal economic revolution. There was a time to reject the materialism, to forgo the benefits of deregulation, to fight for a sense of community against rampant individualism. 

You missed that time, Britain. You chose not to take that opportunity.

Well, you made that decision all those years ago, you bought that Thatcherite dream, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that many of you ejected any sense of compassion along the way. Being compassionate towards people you like is no compassion at all.

There’s nothing to rage against here, and nothing to celebrate. 

An old woman died. My tribal allegiances died long ago.

New Video: Arctic Ice – The Death Spiral Continues

Climate Denial Crock of the Week

After watching several videos of the breakup of Beaufort sea Ice during the dead of winter, I decided to contact a leading ice expert, Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, for analysis and perspective. I mixed his comments in with the increasingly-on-the-same-page warnings from his fellow scientists around the country.

I’ll post our full conversation later in the week.

View original post

the site with no reply

www.realclimate.org

This website, RealClimate, appears to be infuriating for global warming “skeptics”, those of you who proclaim an understanding of science, but present misinformation based on nothing of any scientific value.

I’ve seen no attempts to address any on the arguments and counter arguments methodically laid out by working climate scientists from RealClimate during my review of the “skeptic” position.

I’ve dealt with every kind of fallacious argument you can imagine.

For asking a series of questions to the “skeptics”, I’ve been called hysterical, alarmist, a “warmer”, an eco-fascist, a liar, an ideolog, privileged, condescending, and an arsehole.

I may have missed a few out, but you get the picture.

I’ve also been told how insensitive it is that anyone calls anyone a “denier”.

I was banned from Tallbloke’s Talkshop even though I never swore, insulted anyone, or was rude in any way, and the site claims to have no rules about how people should interact, other than minding manners, which I did. I’m not moaning about this, I don’t care, I point it out merely to indicate the quality of the argument I’m dealing with here.

I was in search of a fair-minded, scientifically credible discussion, with openness and a certain intellectual rigor. I got none of these things, as shown in the comments on my previous post.

The only possible conclusion I’m left with is that they have no argument, no data, no evidence, and the attempt to characterize their position as in any way scientific is patiently deceptive.

Climate shmimate! Answer me this…

image

A tuatara, an endangered “living fossil”

1. Why do all the highly regarded scientists I know of with no direct connection to climate science, who get all their funding from other areas, who have well documented track records of challenging authority, why do they all support the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming?
2. Where is the smoking gun that is evidence that either
a. shows there’s a global conspiracy to suppress the real data, or
b. falsifies the co2 hypothesis?
[if you wish to actually try and answer either of these questions, note that 2 only needs a link to evidence. It does not require any further discussion, and I’ll edit responses appropriately. If you’d prefer a broader discussion, please read through this previous post.]