Even Maggy got some things wrong when she tried to be cute. Something like your post in fact.

When ever you lie about something, to try to gain advantage in another issue, the result is invariably bad.

Even the near infallible John Howard got it wrong, when he took the guns off honest citizens, to gain another advantage.

Ok Hasbeen

You now think Margaret was being “cute” in 1990, and as the author of this article notes, she did not forgive nor forget – up until recently anyway, bless her.

>> When ever you lie about something, to try to gain advantage in another issue, the result is invariably bad. <<

I agree but Margaret Thatcher wasn’t lying then and I quoted her directly.

Perhaps you are referring to one changing the issue to “gun control”.

Thatcher relied on scientists in making her mistake on global warming. She did not realise the sorry state science would reach under the corruption generated by the United Nations in its attempted fraud.

Before the UN puppet, the IPCC ,entered the field it was never suggested that computer models could make predictions.

Any scientist knows that they cannot, and the assertion that they can is one of the many falsehoods relied upon to support the assertions on AGW.

There has never been a successful prediction made by computer modelling. Tossing a coin is more successful.

Thatcher would have woken up to this fraud quite quickly. It takes a while when one has the disadvantage of trusting what one is misled into believing is science.

As Nigel Calder, a trustworthy scientist, says, the Royal Society will be one of the first in the Hall of Shame, for its lies about AGW.

Maggie would no doubt have relied on the Royal Society, amongst other hijacked entities, in being so grievously misled.

How dare Margaret Thatcher rely on scientists for science! Of course, being a scientist herself didn’t help.

Like Abbott (unlike Turnbull), it is much better to ‘get their science’ from media shock-jocks.

People do get confused over what “computer models” are and often misinterpret ‘projection’ and ‘prediction’.

No climate model can “predict” the future (as Leo says) and no scientist says this, despite insinuations and assertions to the contrary.

@ Leo

>> Maggie would no doubt have relied on the Royal Society, amongst other hijacked entities, in being so grievously misled. <<

Umm, Leo ... as the 'Lord Christopher Monkton' (climate 'sceptic' extraordinaire) keeps reminding us - He Himself was PM Thatcher's 'science advisor'.

Maggie (being a scientist herself) either didn't think very much of Monkton's advice or, he is/was a complete hypocrite or, he lies and makes stuff up.

My guess, all of the above.