Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
Could Thatcher have done more on climate change? Probably, but you have to bear in mind that the science was fairly new in 1989. In addition, you have to bear in mind that she was gone a year or so after giving the UN speech, as not being a very nice person caught up with her in the form of Geoffrey Howe. Perhaps she would have done more had she stayed in post. Trying to stay calm for ten seconds and trying to be objective in your response, had she survived the coup within the party and announced an accelerated pit closure programme to help to address climate change in say, the early 90s, would you have supported that or would you have denounced the science as a Tory trick and pushed for another strike?

On the question of doing more to address climate change, this site has recently seen a poster saying that he could easily do more, but declining to do so. I also noted your comments about pies on the 'Is football fixed' thread. Are the pies you enjoy climate friendly vegetarian ones?

The ‘bluff and bluster’ are figures coming from NCB accounts and from a Monopoly and Mergers Commission investigation into the coal industry. The industry was losing money hand over fist. That had to be addressed.

I agree that coal from South Africa would have been a concern given that country was an apartheid regime at the time, but Australia and America? Come on.

I agree that geological problems were not necessarily endless, but the Tories had nothing to do with the decision to close Maltby. It was owned at the time by Hargreaves Services Ltd, who had shelled out £21.7m for it in 2007. It wasn't an asset that they would lightly dispose off. Indeed, their share price took a serious kicking in the face of the problems:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ion-hitch.html

Your concerns that it could suit the Tories to cite geological problems bring me back to the question I asked earlier; if you think economic reasons were not behind the ending of the mining industry in the UK, what do you think was?
Shown yersen up again you intelligent person you....if the science was fairly new in 1989, it's pretty old now, wouldn't you say? In that case, how stupid is it of you to continue to supprt fracking, how irresponsibly stupid is that?

Secondly, you know if the science had been irrefutable, like it is right now(remember your support for fracking while you read this) and i still worked underground, i'd have quickly recognised that a responsible gov't would be strenuously looking for environmentally acceptable alternatives..and i'd have got out myself, and there's the difference between us, i can happily accept science and happy to move on, you're still stuck in your 1970's mindset of profit before planet, don't ever come at me with your condescending attitude to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, once again, you've proved yourself a pathetic hypocrite.

Ah, coming at me about pies now....you couldn't make it up....

You know that industry that was losing money over fist, and in a previous post mentioned £50M in subsidy, remind me agaiin, if you're so against subsidy, i suppose you were fully behind the reasons behind the subsidies for the banking industry, giving them money that far and above outweighs any amount gived to the coal industry........

You say 'come on' in regard to blood stained coal from the USA and Australia....i've previously told you, British mines were the safest in the world, because the union, US, wouldn't allow management to use dangerous practice....neither are(were) a patch on us in terms of safety....