You just have to watch this, it shows weaseling out of direct questions as an art form. Key phrase: “Well what I would say is…” From Bishop Hill: Take a look at the new Environment Secretary Elizabeth Truss discussing the green blob with Andrew Neil. It is scary to think that people like this have our collective future in their hands. Even scarier to consider that a Prime Minister would want them in his cabinet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb4vh0mcFK4#t=505
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Water quality, record count of trees, more woodlands, so nothing stated on progress in Energy. IE spend 10k on plants 100,000k on energy and only the 10k pays off. Real good return on 1 of them.
“Water quality” etc.
I’m not familiar with past UK environmental issues, but it sounds like ( I might be wrong.) that her opening salvos were attempts to claim past common sense responses to actual problems as justification for nonsensical responses to imagined problems.
The trees will suffer if the gummint manages to cut off their vital CO2 supply!
great point, Why is the point that by reducing CO2 reduces PHOTOSYNTHESIS which reduces plant growth and thus reduces our production of FOOD..
Camoron sacked Owen Paterson, the only sensible minister he had, to put this useless woman in the job. Of course she is a PPE, so knows nothing of any use (just like most of those in power or at the top of the main political parties n the UK).
Philip, I could agree with you except for the fact that Paterson is pushing smart meters. To get that in perspective, imagine having your water (another everyday utility) turned off whenever the government decided. You couldn’t – you wouldn’t.
What Philip said was he was the best minister Cameron had. He didn’t say that he was fault free and perfect. Being the best of a very poor lot is not really a great accolade.
PPE, does that mean p!ss poor education?
Holy cow.
Cowish yes. My dairy cattle are about as smart, and moo similarly when they want to be fed.
Holy, no.
Bees rather come to mind with all the buzzphrases.
Five minutes in, I already wanted to strangle this woman!
Looked like Andrew Neil did, too.
‘What I would say’ is: “Exasperating!”
That’s what I would say.
The thing that I found most interesting Dave, was that she said basically she has no understanding of the science and has no wish to as she simply is guided by the government scientists. That is quite astonishing at many levels but at the most fundamental I would have thought she would have canvassed the opinions of some scientists outside of the “established order”.
Ministers are appointed for political reasons not ones of competence in the area of their ministry however with the enormous implications of Global Warming I would expect her to at least find out what’s what.
On a slightly different note there is an enormous debate going on now in the UK over renewables thanks to Paterson. Also the power supply is reported as being somewhat iffy. So much so that just now on SKY news Kay Burley had her ass handed to her by a guy who said that renewables were not ready for prime time and the money would be better spent on research and development of alternative energies rather than the ineffectual gesture of putting up wind turbines and solar panels. Burley is a true believer and even though she tried ridicule, anger and sarcasm the fellow just calmly and effectively put her down.
That would never have played on the MSM in the UK even six months ago. It seems that rising bills and falling energy availability is working its magic on the public psyche.
Mad cow more like.
I thought BSE was supposed to have been eradicated in the UK.
BSE has been. Unfortunately this person suffers from CJD.
She must have played Mouse Trap as a kid, SO many times, that she figured out every possible escape avenue (except the Honest one).
The honest escape avenue leads to the guillotine – from all sides 😉
They can’t predict squat after all that money they spent let alone all the catastrophes. The MET predicted a dry winter last year…..and they got flooding. here is my prediction: The legally bound contract carries the risk of crushing their economy. But what is the need for an economy if you have no environment?
My son found a sea urchin fossil at 1686 feet this weekend. And you are worried about how much sea level rise from your hypothesis?
Sorry to be picky, but marine fossils at that altitude will be there as a result of tectonic uplift, not changing sea levels. There are fossils high in the Himalayas, but no-one supposes the sea was ever that high – there just isn’t enough water for that!
Didn’t you see that movie with that blonde woman and the big arcs they built in the Himalayas?
sorry, arks
I have nothing against blondes with big arcs.
When you say legally binding you imply penalties What are they?
I loved it, she should be on TV every day, especially when interviewed by the indominitabe Andrew Neil
I could not get past the flooding comments. Lack of dredging must be climate change now!
Always avoid a direct question by saying, “what I would say is…”
And the interviewer should counter,
“and what I would ask you is…….”
Play their game to show contempt. Ridicule is a powerful weapon.
The British people have elected representatives… they should be made to understand that the people will not countenance unelected slippery weasels like this woman, overseeing their nation’s interests.
Liz Truss was elected by the people of South West Norfolk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Truss
East Anglia is strong UKIP territory…she may get ..deselected one day…
You should read your own links Bloke. That election was in 2010 for a different job. Not the job she is filling now.
In September 2012, she was “appointed” ( not elected ) as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Since 15 July 2014, she has served as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
She may well be a good mp, serving her constituents well, for all I know. The issue is her promotion to secretary of state – ie moving from a mere representative to a member of the executive.
Um, Roy, that’s how Parliament works. The cabinet is formed from the elected membership. She’s still an MP.
Roy, as I presume you are not a resident of the UK, you may wish to check out this link and in particular where it says ‘By constitutional convention, all government ministers, including the Prime Minister, are members of the House of Commons – or, less commonly, the House of Lords – and are thereby accountable to the respective branches of the legislature.’
And we’ve also got this muppet
What on earth has gone wrong here, how can The Chief Scientific Adviser be such a gullible and unthinking clown?
He knows on which side his bread is buttered. That is all. The fact that he is unqualified to comment on this science is barely relevant. Sometimes they get ennobled before telling the government what it wants to be told and sometimes they are ennobled afterwards. Whichever way the deal is clear enough to those concerned well before the appointment is made.
Rotten all the way to the top, then.
They have the same function in the UK as the communist party apparatchiks had in the eastern block.
They are not “scientific” advisers, but instead “academic” advisers giving advice for an on behalf of the public sector.
Wow. That has got to be the first time I have seen a UK television political program actually say “climate scientists are divided about whether erratic weather is caused by climate change” and “is the pause significant?”
That is quite a change from the past.
Agree ! There might be a hope ….
This is what you call being in denial.
A shameful performance. How can you trust someone who never answers a question? She comes across as the propaganda — not environment — secretary.
Normal politician. Never answer the question they’ve been asked, always answer with whatever they want to be “On message” with.
Standard political fare … she has no real belief system, no hard ideology, she’s a standard run of the mill politician … in other words, she’s pragmatic … if it works, she’ll swallow it.
+1
+1
Agree. If the subject were banking, only some nouns would change.
Actually I think she does have a belief system. Unfortunately, under it, honesty and integrity don’t seem to be considered virtues.
But, yes, too many politicians worship at the same altar.
+1
Yup…and, by the way, she’ll be long out of office in 2050.
Logical question: does he legal obligation to reduce carbon remain if Britain leaves the EU?
It’s arguable that the EU “decision” isn’t legally binding on individual nations so the 40% nonsense may not be relevant if (when?) we leave.
Unfortunately we have the Climate Change Act which was passed by Parliament in 2008 voluntarily. It was designed by Greenpeace, taken through Parliament by Ed Milliband, now leader of the official opposition, and enthusiastically supported by David Cameron, now Prime Minister. The number of votes against passing the bill was 3. That law does contain real, legally binding targets, more onerous than the EU’s, which would be unaffected by a UK withdrawal. As I have indicated, the likelihood of repealing or modifying it are very small.
Well, it’s a pity but a sad reality that in Europe nearly all mainstream politicians (no matter whether from the left or right side, as here) are still true believers of the CAGW religion thanks to an almost total control of the mainstream media by green-driven journalists (and green teachers in schools as well). People will believe what they are told daily again and again, even more so politicians if they want to get elected by the brain-washed majority. The power over liberal nations lies in the control over their mainstream media. The green CO2 witch-hunters have realized this fact very early and acted accordingly, with overwhelming success so far…
And now: “The gas of Life” CO2, the foundation of a green and thriving Earth, is believed to be the greatest enemy of mankind! What a absurd parody indeed!!!
I fully support Your comment. But what can we do about it ??? Just wait another decade to watch the temperature N O T to increase ? And what happens when/if Main stream realizes they have been fooled ?
QUESTION: “…and what happens when/if Main stream realizes they have been fooled ?”
ANSWER: Hell will have frozen over.
That is a nonsensical question. MSM are among the primary responsible for fooling people. They cannot hide behind their stupidity any longer,
Actually, if people would use strictly scientific standards, the CAGW religion were disproved already thanks to “The pause” in spite of the steadily increasing CO2 Level, because this contradiction proves – even together with all the fanciful excuses given – that the warming period before “The pause” (between 1980 – 2000) was at least more than 50% naturally caused. Thus another decade long observation of “No Global Warming” should be unnecessary.
But alas! The High Priests and eager storm troopers of “The Holy War” against fossil energy and CO2 simply cannot surrender without loosing their careers and honor. So they have to play “Moving the goalposts” even if they have realized their errors in the meantime. And the brain-washed followers and general public do not even recognize the failure of the CAGW projections because of the ongoing and totally biased propaganda in the main stream media.
Therefore it is difficult to guess, when the CO2 hysteria will be overcome at last. Maybe we will have to wait until a CAGW heavy weight has his “Pauline Conversion” and publicly breaks the “Omertà” of the IPCC mob. This could be – hopefully – a real “tipping point” of the CAGW debate…
This sounds just like it was written by the people who brought us ‘Yes Minister’. It was meant to be funny, yes? No?
Politicians are just too scared to speak for themselves they merely repeat, ad nauseaum the sound bites and cliches they’ve been told to spout. It leads to car crashes like this when the pre ordained response doesn’t fit the question. She and all of them must know they have made a total tit of themselves in these circumstances
Andrew Neil should have simply asked her ‘how much CO2 is up there in the sky and how much of it is man-made?”
He should have asked her if she knows what the scientific method is, and if the chief scientific officer does too? I suspect that she doesn’t and the chief scientific advisor has forgotten how to apply it.
The bimbo, trying to convince the audience that she has some expertise, claimed to have worked for an energy company. What as? Typist or tea lady?
What you will never hear:
Truss:”I would say..
ONeil: “Excuse me, Minister, but we would like to hear what you wouldn’t say.
Hmm…”I would say..”
That sounds like she considered what Neil brought up as hypothetical questions rather than facts. Her answers weren’t what she will actually try to do because she doesn’t consider the questions to be based on (her) reality.
Dealing with the Press: Yes Prime Minster
I would have asked…if you get rid of the co2 do you think it would really change the weather…and what do you think will happen…no rain..no warmth thus creating cold..and everything will be utopia?
Well, sincerely, if you did ask that question, I would say … but of course you didn’t, did you.
She is another reason why I shall be voting UKIP next May.
I have seen several references to UKIP. I am with you but they run the risk of losing a referendum because they do not serious Brexit plan. Read Eureferendum.com. Otherwise, stick it to the elite bubbleheads!
Indeed Robert, you’re absolutely right to point that out. The UKIP vote is ultimately a protest vote, not a serious strategic step towards a less, err, dystopian future. Their Top Man – famous for his highly entertaining Farage Barrage – is a bombast, a polarizer. Not unlike Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands. And some of Farage’s more prominent disciples are clearly from the WASP school of negative hectoring.
They often speak truth to power and clearly have a point, which is of course why there are so many good folk who are drawn to support them. However, their message is essentially a negative one, and that will be their downfall. You will not win the hearts and minds of the intellectuals and opinion-formers you need on-side with bluster and Godfrey Bloom-style foaming of the mouth.
The Dear Good Lord Monckton’s presence was in my opinion one of the saving graces of UKIP in that regard, being the heavyweight – and gloriously eccentric – intellectual he is. But he is clearly not your common-or-garden bubble-dweller either.
Ultimately, any genuine disengagement from the artificial supranational construct we call the EU has to centre around a credible exit strategy that factors in all the multitudinous levels of local, provincial, national, supranational and global government. Not to mention the multiplicity of powerful global NGOs and the like, and especially the massive ‘hidden’ UN/WHO-based bureaucracies in Rome, Geneva and elsewhere, including the infamous Codex Alimentarius and its ilk.
And that’s where the endearingly irascible Dr North’s Flexcit plan and Harrogate Agenda win hands down, in my opinion. They represent intelligent and well-thought-out exit strategies for disengagement. What’s more, they offer credible and positive alternatives to fill the power vacuum – the void left when casting off such large parasitic organisms as the EU (see Matthew 12:43–45). All grist to his mill!
Solve et Coagula – distilling the wholesome essence of the legacy today to build clusters of value for tomorrow’s world…
Jan Smit:
“Their message is essentially a negative one”.++++++++
Nonetheless with a powerful appeal to those who have a negative attitude toward present policy, and pray tell, who does not. For a new party trying to elbow its way into the political scene, it is the only strategy that makes sense. Trying to out-promise the other side of the political spectrum leads nowhere.
There is a lot of that about.
“Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you.” — Robert McNamara
Classic. A fully programmed working robot. After that performance I am sure the Green bureaucrats/advisers will quickly remove her batteries and send her back to Room 101 for reprocessing.
Whenever they start with ‘what I would say is…’ I want to shout ‘WHY DONT YOU THEN?’
What I would say is that this woman is a total incompetent.
I follow Andrew Neil on twitter. He is probably the only BBC interviewer with any credibility whatsoever. Whoever is sitting in front of him gets a real grilling. He does his homework, thoroughly and is the only BBC employee in current affairs who has taken the time to actually research the mechanics of climate change and is willing to put sceptical questions to alarmists at all.
He must be on the list to be sacked then
The BBC would not dare, he is the only person that they can point to, in order to show any sign of political impartiality whatsoever.
Yes, he does do his homework on climate change. I have also seen Kirsty Wark do the same on Newsnight. She once trotted out a lot of sceptic stuff at an interviewee. I was surprised.
No, no Kirsty Wark is a green lefty luvie in every sense. Can’t stand the woman even if she is a fellow Scot.
Kay Burley on SKY this afternoon was completely demolished by a skeptic about wind and solar. It was a joy to behold because she is a rabid little greeny.
I wonder could we get the interviewer to come to Australia. He is badly needed here.
Well spotted, Don. Unfortunately, the woman that he interviewed almost certainly thinks that she did a great job of it by not answering a single question!
That’s her job, she is a politician. Actually, she did her job very well! There is talk of her becoming leader of the Conservatives in the future.
Big Jim Cooley:
Ha ha, would smooth faced Dave chuckle at your jibe or would he feel a sense of rivalry, I wonder.
You can have Andrew Neil if we can have Tony Abbott in return.
Yeah we’ll do an exchange for Tony Abbot as your PM
Can we clone them both as both countries need them?
As soon as I heard before the last election that David Cameron was proposing to put a piffling windmill on the roof of his Notting Hill house, I knew we would be in BIG trouble! (Helped of course by our evangelical but innumerate Energy and Climate Change Secretary)