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.
Hi from (sane)Oz. Did viewers of this farcical ‘interview’ also note the clever use of the term ‘technology neutral’, which implies that the most appropriate technology would be supported, except of course that wind and solar are heavily subsidised, coal is banned, and shale gas is facing every hurdle that can be thrown up. What an affront to truth! God help you poor Poms – because your government certainly won’t! By the way, we still have a few places left for migrants (like me) down here if you are quick…
As a boy from Tottenham … Boy, do Spurs suck! Bring back Redknapp … And Modric, Bale and Defoe
As a boy from West Ham, I can only chuckle …
This is heart-warming. We tend to complain about mainstream media bias in favour of CAGW, but Andrew Neil certainly counts as mainstream, on the BBC, and he is pulling no punches. More power to his elbow. Maybe the damn is cracking….
Astonishing – BBC. He skewered her good and proper.
“The Green Blob”, lol, that term is going to stick.
Incompetent office holders like Truss, along with the whole climate change debacle, will eventually create a legacy of Libertarianism I suspect!
Anyone over thirty having their first experience with incompetent office holders? A streak of foolish wars and foolish bailouts on this side of the pond has been met with 90 percent reelection rates.
Good point! I think when it comes to hoping people will learn from mistakes, I must be in denial!
She’s obviously had some very successful charisma bypass surgery.
HA!
Smooth-faced Dave will pat her on the back and allude to a “next female PM”. She delivered for him but it will cost her. End of the line for you, slippery miss.
Smooth faced Dave will be sweating – as it dawns on him that Neil’s markedly tougher line of sceptical questioning is a precursor to things the electorate will be demanding answers to before long – only with burning torches in hand. I just wonder whether it’ll be her head or the chief scientific advisor’s on the block first (before Cameron is himself thrown under a bus by his own party)?
Here is the Daily Mail article on the Green Blob – exploring the big money behind Big Green.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794803/ex-minister-attacks-green-obession-heart-whitehall-owen-paterson-accuses-ministers-raising-energy-prices-poor.html
Ralph
Oh for goodness sake!
She didn’t do that badly considering the situation she was in! The whole thing is a big game between the press and the politicians and if anyone listened to what the meat of what she was saying it’s really actually quite encouraging.
The questions Andrew Neil asked were tough but fair. But she is not experienced or senior enough to be able to make the statements that the questions demanded of her. I know its awful and irritating to watch a politician squirm out of having to answer a question directly but there is no way she could have without risking the serious ire of party leaders.
What did she actually say:
– She used the word “adaption”. Several times.
– She made the point that the voters aren’t interested in what is causing the erratic weather (I disagree entirely that the weather should be characterized as ‘erratic’ – erratic compared to what?) only that the government make sure that measures are in places to be able to cope with it. Absolutely true.
– She pointed out that the policy allowing for the evolution of technologies that would allow them to hit their emissions target. I really liked that – that is sensible policy. If CO2 does turn out to be a problem (highly unlikely now I know) then natural gas will help them bring emissions down and possibly carbon capture as a possibility to bring it down further. That’s reasonable. When she talked about “nuclear” I was also extremely encouraged. I am pretty sure that that also meant fusion or thorium fission developments.
– She also pointed out that wind is no longer getting any subsidies and has to go through local planning (meaning it will be extremely unlikely that there wioll be any further development of wind power).
– She also said that solar will only subsidized on commercial buildings- not on agricultural land. I am very skeptical about the efficacy and utility of solar especially in the UK, but that seems to be a fairly sensible policy in the light of everything else.
You guys need to bear in mind the advice they have been given – which is that emissions have to be cut because of manmade climate change. They can’t just ignore that advice. I know the advice is flawed for all the reasons it is, but you can’t expect a responsible government minister to just ignore it out of hand.
I am no Tory supporter – at all. I am politically left of Labour and generally vote Lib Dem here in the UK, and I am generally not supportive the current government. But I am highly conscious of the games and sparring that goes on between pollies and journalists such as Andrew Neil. It’s a game – he is trying to get something out of them he can then beat them over the head with later, he does it with them all.
There was no way she was going to come out and say the things he wanted her to say – not if she wanted to keep her job. But given that, what did emerge is very encouraging indeed. It means the UK government is thinking in terms of adaption, and managing uncertainty over climate in the longer term, and not just blindly following the green agenda.
Isn’t Labour now left of the lib dems? Brownite Ed got in not his Blairite brother David.
I know you might not believe it but because of Ed, or more importantly because the Unions supported Ed in the leadership contest we’re in for yet another 5 years of right to far-right politics in UK.
Even if his politics were sound he’d still lose. The guy is unelectable – meek, useless and unstateman like appearance. Has about 1/20th the charm of Blair and Clinton and about 50% of faux charm Obama peddles for his poodles.
We’ve NEVER had a far-right government in the UK. Anyway, far -right and far-left are the same thing, i.e. fascist. Democracy, with all it’s faults, is the only way that respects ordinary people.
Maggie you almost had it before ww2. Daily Mail and some other rich and selfish (or just scummy) entities wanted fascism in GB.
There is always a parallel between how dictators and populists get in. Using politics of fear and division is abhorrent to me, but this is exactly what UKIP’s been doing.
Farage is popular because it still appeals to a sizeable part of the population. Whenever something goes wrong blame the johnny foreigner of course. Such base tribalism should have been consigned to history 70 years ago yet many still fall for it because they deep down believe the rhetoric.
Farage is a crook. Expenses, both at home and EU. Ridiculous wages to his missus and of course not having any serious figures past the scare mongering ones… yet to his supporters he’s the architypal non politician.
They are either very naive, insane therefore can’t vote or they get off at tribalist division that won’t end well.
I forsee much social unrest should the “further”-right agenda become more prominent. Popularity of Farage and Boris is that sign of the times.
You are seriously deluded if you think that Cameron’s government is anything remotely approaching ‘right’, let alone ‘far-right’. He is more social democrat than conservative.
DECC is in an invidious position. I’ve been watching DECC for years now. They have a real problem…
– How to keep the lights on and the costs down for political reasons of electability.
– How to placate the powerful EU lobbies that are cleaning up on energy and especially renewable energy..
Their ‘vision 2050’ or whatever it was was pure doublethink. It featured no less than 60GW of nuclear capacity – to essentially run the country off and displace fossil away from any area it could be displaced from, and 120GW of wind and other renewables to meet ‘renewable obligations’.
Politically it was a joke. From an engineering standpoint it was utterly insane. Once you have nuclear at all, intermittent renewables are a total waste. The nuclear does everything that renewables do – deliver low carbon cheap energy – without any of the disadvantages and costs associated with intermittent renewables.
Why would you want to throttle back nuclear power – a zero carbon source – to make way for wind and solar?
Might as well put sails on a nuclear submarine…
To have nuclear at all, you have to invest heavily in plant, which you want to run as near full capacity as possible. You also have to have a functional fuel supply and waste disposal chain. Which you also want to leverage the most out of. That means once you have any nuclear at all, you want to have at least enough to run all the baseload plus a bit more to cope with power station outages and regular routine maintenance. Realistically that’s at least 30GW for UKs current grid, and 60GW for a nation that is using nuclear electric for things like space heating and industrial heating.
Ideally you would peak follow with hydro, but the UK has almost no serious hydro potential to cover demand peaks. Solar is totally useless, since it occurs when demand is at its lowest. Summer daytime is less than summer evenings. Wind cannot be relied upon to be there when needed as peak demand is in colder less windy winter periods.
Peak following requires dispatch of stored energy: Renewables are not storage based, except biofuels and hydro. Hydro potential is inadequate and so is biofuel.
In reality, a zero carbon UK would be more likely to use surplus nuclear electricity to synthesise hydrocarbon fuels as a way to store summer surpluses of nuclear power for winter demand. Lets face it, the supply chain for gas and oil and diesel type products already exists, and if there is no access to fossil supplies, the actual synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels instead at least is not much more expensive than running the nuclear at low capacity factors in summer. That is, once the nuclear plant and fuel chain investment is made, the opportunity cost of using surplus power to synthesise hydrocarbon fuel is only the capital cost and O & M cost of the synthesis plant itself. Nuclear fuel itself is trivially cheap.
Assuming (and it is a large assumption) that governments are in place that actually have any responsibility towards the citizens that comprise their electorates at all, and democracy still exists in some form, the inevitable solution will have to be massive deployment of nuclear power in the 21st century, simply because no other viable alternative actually exists.
All we are seeing is the gradual appreciation of that single salient fact.
And it actually preserves the value of big Oil and big Gas, as they simply move from drilling and fracking at the front end of the supply chain to using nuclear electricity as the basic ‘refinery’ feedstocks.
My considered opinion is that when all is said and done, synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is the least worst alternative for storage of electricity to provide off-grid and dispatchable power in countries that lack large hydro potential.
see http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Beyond_Fossil_Fuels.pdf
Why wouldn’t you just make hydrogen?
Agnostic, you are the only one here who has nailed it. Pity that you vote Lib Dem though. It’s liberal thinking that has got Britain into the mess it finds itself – its justice system, law, local government, health & safety, energy, and climate change. I am no natural Tory either, but we are only ever going to achieve a better society by recognising how Capitalism works, not by socialist ideals. The big Labour idea is dead, and liberalism doesn’t work. I’m UKIP myself, and realise that we can only ever achieve a reasonable society (where not everyone wins) by conservative thinking. I was brought up way to the Left, and found out that Labour is a cruel joke, promised to the working class, and something that can never be delivered. I now despise the political party that I was once a member of. I hope, with all my heart, that Labour NEVER attain power here again. They are a fraud, a fraud that just wants to spend everyone’s money on policies that would lead Britain to strife and despair.
Ghost,
Is this the “better society” you were referring to? :
http://iotwreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/YoGwX5Q.jpg
Dbstealey. No, it isn’t. You are confused, and I understand that. For how much longer would you like to carry on borrowing money to spend? Would you wait until the interest that you are paying is your largest item expenditure? Now, i realise that the Tories are still spending more than they should (you probably don’t see that), but they would never have been able to get the agreement of the pathetic Lib Dems to see a proper fiscal policy through – wouldn’t get re-elected either. The people are too thick to see that we are struggling to pay just the interest on a debt that isn’t going to get inflated away. The vast majority of British people wouldn’t even understand that last sentence. They want Eastenders, their Sun, their Strictly, and their Jungle. They cannot comprehend national debt, just as they cannot comprehend nuclear fusion. If we carried on the Labour way, we would be fighting each other in the streets in 15 years, because we’d have no money left. Remember that not that was left for the Chancellor? Do you?
For ‘not’, read ‘note’.
Ghost,
I do not disagree with anything you wrote. But it’s clear I didn’t make myself clear. Sorry about that.
My only point in posting that notice was that society is not going in the direction that most folks would prefer.
It is all part and parcel of the same thing: liberalism [by which I mean Socialism and its associated bureaucratic excess]. It is destroying society, both there and over here.
Sorry. Agreed. Everyone wants to be a celeb, they want to be rich, they want to live forever. It’s not honest. To spend money we don’t have, and to pass that debt on, when it can’t be inflated away, is not just dishonest, it’s disgusting. Dishonesty is destroying society. We should be forcing the masses to understand that some people will clean toilets, that we cannot spend a bottomless pit of money on health, that we cannot get on with people who aren’t like us (multiculturism). But there has never been honesty in politics.
Ghost, I rarely discuss politics here but this perhaps the time to mention my views:
– the question of whether climate change is largely manmade is a scientific one, and what to do about it is political.
– I am keenly concerned about the environment which is why I am not in favour of renewable energy. It is both invasive to the environment, and locks us into fossil fuels longer. High density modular energy production is the most benign form of energy production (small scale nuclear in reality). Humanity can’t progress until we leave FF behind. We didn’t leave the stone age for lack of stones.
– The biggest threat to the environment is poverty. Therefore anything that drags on wealth creation is a threat to the environment as well as social welfare (tied with the environment as my biggest concern). I don’t really care how that wealth is created so long as it is.
– Trade, not just in goods and services, but in ideas, is the most important force for developing society and reducing its impact on the environment.
– I am extremely pro-EU, you are probably not going to like to hear. The EU for all its insanity, inefficiencies and inconsistencies has been overall a tremendous force for wealth creation. We focus on all the bad stuff and it all seems really bad, but perspective is not just something artists should worry about.
– I strongly disagree with the Lib Dems over climate, and I think they are wrong about other things too, but over all they best represent my views. I am pretty disenchanted with Labour and while the most recent Tory/Lib Dem government hasn’t been an abject failure, I think they have made things more painful through the recovery than was necessary.
But she is ‘experienced’ and ‘senior’ enough’ to make a difference to government policy. Pity she’s just not intelligent enough.
Why not? She seems pretty intelligent to me. Ask yourself what you might have said in her situation bearing in mind these constraints:
– You are not allowed to disagree with the IPCC or the scientific advice you have been given.
– You are not allowed to say that you do not think the warming has stopped.
– You are not allowed to say that 20th Century warming may not have been manmade.
– You are not allowed to contradict a former and more senior government minister.
Read between the lines. The “game” is that Andrew Neil would try to make her say things she knew she was not allowed to. Between the lines were very reasonable things. It sounds to me like government policy is starting to properly reflect uncertainty about climate and future technology, rather than hadn-wringing that we are all going to hell in a handbag.
Agnostic:
You are smitten by the miss.
Yes, yes, confess: you have the hots for her.
Agnostic:
“They can’t just ignore that advice”<<<<<<<<<<<
Is that the way it works in the UK? They can't seek other expert opinion but are tied by the leg to the technocrats? Whew!
Agnostic, good comments. I thought her answers were moderate ones. Maybe signalling in a small way a shift in the proper direction.
Agnostic. She definitely did NOT say wind is no longer getting any subsidies. Go watch it again.
She said that wind will have to go through local planning. That makes it VERY unlikely that more wind power will be developed – at least on shore wind.
Agnostic. Whether a project goes through one planning or another has nothing to do with whether financial support is being provided. Whether it makes any difference to success or otherwise is beside the point – planning permission is a matter for planners and their constituents. If they do approve new projects, guess who will pay?
In fact, she said NO INCREASE in subsidy, and that is quite different to NO subsidy. Under EMR, new wind turbine projects (if approved) will get a contract with a price of £100/MWh, dropping to £95/MWh by 2019. That’s about twice the present wholesale power price.
“wind is no longer getting any subsidies” This is a manifesto promise by the Tories for new installations, as far as I know existing subsidies are locked in for the life of whatever contract they signed.
“….has to go through local planning (meaning it will be extremely unlikely that there wioll be any further development of wind power).”
Local planning will push them through because it is central government policy. Any rejection means an appeal, at which a government inspector will approve over the heads of local government. This costs local government money, so pragmatically they tend to approve wind farm development.
Way simplistic. Wind power at a local level is extremely unpopular. Very unlikely more wind farms will be developed. Not impossible but very unlikely indeed. It’s not the local government that would stop them, it is local opposition. People mobilise against these things and stop them dead. I know, I have been involved in a similar thing, except in this case it was local government trying to force it through against the wishes of the residents. If it’s deeply unpopular locals have quite a bit of power to stop these things if they organise.
Wow. Now that is a wild take on the interview.
She refused to answer any questions acknowledging that the advice she was given on global warming did not comport with reality. You refuse to acknowledge the same fact and make the decision that what she said was reasonable because only an unreasonable person would consider the facts.
You absolutely can ignore advice (good or bad) as is standard practice in politics. In an appointed position of governance, it is her responsibility to make a determination as to what advice is good or bad and make a decision on that. Unfortunately, she is now faced with a bad law, based on bad advice, which requires the near complete elimination of fossil fuel energy production, and she refused to give the public a truthful answer on that particular little detail.
Very strange how people on the left see the world.
“She refused to answer any questions acknowledging that the advice she was given on global warming did not comport with reality. ”
There’s no way she would be allowed to. It’s naive to imagine she would make statement like that. The next thing would be a question to the Prime Minister “Do you agree with your environment minister that global warming has stopped?”
Think about the political ramifications of the PM trying to answer that.
It might seem strange but that is how politics works in this country. I have watched tons of Andrew Neil interviews – this was a good one but not untypical. If it was skeptic minister they would have been raked over the coals in the same way, only this time it would have been questions like;
“Do you always ignore advice from your own scientists?”
“Studies have shown that 97% of scientists think manmade climate change is real and a serious threat. Even the Royal Society agrees. Yet you are just going to ignore that and make up your own mind?”
“How are you going deal with Brussels? They’ve just signed up to a new treaty. Won’t that affect relations and trade with the UK?”
I know all of that is bollocks – I am not saying it isn’t, but that’s how they go about it. You have to get used to seeing how the politicians have to deal with these sorts of questions and look beyond it to subtext. Think of it from the politicians point of view. A single comment that could be taken out of context can absolutely blow up and destroy careers.
What you have missed is that she left the door wide open for nuclear – traditionally very unpopular here. They are looking to develop shale gas and gas power generation. They are pulling back from solar and wind (thank god). It strongly sounds like more moderate voices of reason have been at work on energy policy. And not too soon either.
Agnostic:
You very eloquently present the dilemma of the glib miss. Our duty is to see that she slips not out if our grasp. Your empathy is misplaced. P**s on elected officials who have led their country into an odious predicament and then dawdle and speak newspeak when confronted with the mess.
I have no idea how the British public is able to tolerate The Right Honourable Elizabeth Truss MP even for a minute.
There is one reason I can think of – the others are even worse! I accept that this is not much of an endorsement though.
This is cringeworthy.
It is clear the woman is either not a good politician or she lacks conviction in what she’s saying.
If I were in her place I’d definitly lack conviction, especially after these 18 years.
Chris Huhne got (a) conviction…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Huhne_and_Pryce
NO! You mean “Convicted criminal and proven liar Chris Huhne …” You shouldn’t mention the name without adding those words. It’s important to remind people.
No, she is actually doing exactly what politicians are supposed to do – can you seriously not see that?!? She is actually a good politician! Do you not understand politics at all?
The trick is to make those non-anwsers non-obvious. The fact that her side’s been banging on about settled science and she can’t anwser one simple question on it properly shows exactly she was not prepeared for the interview. Her body language… and her voice tone were often defensive rather than comfortable when dealing witht he questions. Shows she didn’t read up on the standard responses to such questions given by the cAGW lobby.
That or she knows the absurdity of the situation but jumped on the chance to be a minister for ‘something’ regardless.
No wonder people are voting for Ukip.
Yes, and things like this help UKIP.
Obama is even better than this woman. He doesn’t dodge questions, the Whitehouse press office censors the questions from the press pool and makes sure he gets softball questions that make him sound great. And the press do this because their “face time” would be reduced if they are kicked out of the Whitehouse press pool. Worse times are coming.
I am encouraged by her reluctance/inability to answer the questions. She knows the truth; she just can’t bring herself to admit it publicly. Keep pushing, eventually, those with less than a religious commitment to CAGW will find a way to back down.
Spot on, Patrick.
Ms Truss’ biggest concern is that she gets another job before the CAGW carbon poo hits the wind power generator blades.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
CLIMATE ACTIVISTS DENIERS:
DENY 18 Yr 1 MONTH PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING
DENY WEATHER WAS MORE SEVERE IN THE PAST
DENY THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD WAS WARMER
DENY RENEWABLES HAVE BIG CARBON FOOTPRINT REQUIRE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUEL FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE
DENY “SKYROCKETING”
SKYROCKETING FUEL PRICES DOOM POOR TO DEATH BY FUEL POVERTY
What is most significant is that Andrew Neill was able to do that on the BBC…that is a radical shift in BBC internal guidelines..
I’m an American and I’m not familiar with the characters but it seemed to me that this interview was of a tenacious bulldog trying to get a grip on a greased pig.
Nah, he’s done it before. A lot of times actually.
So much propaganda, when she was elected to represent her electorate, not crucify them. So the poor in electorate have to burn newspapers and library books in winter to stay warm, so she can hold her perks. Shame. Shame Shame.
What about her wood burning generator. So Britain has reverted 300 years to the same wood burning that stripped the country of trees. If that is useful adaption then she should be in a mental institution. She claimed there were more trees in Britain than for 700 years, now they are burning them or other people trees.
The greens in Australia shut down at least 3 woodchipping plants and EPA approved sawmills all over Australia, yet the UK boasts about a woodchip generator.
These people are incorrigible liars.
She defended herself with carbon capture. In Australia, they spent over $500million in Queensland alone and abandoned anymore carbon capture programs. It can be done but cost would bankrupt the state.
So why do they trot out this failed strategy as if it is St George conquering the dragon.
While Agnostic is cheered by reading between the lines, the only adaption this person is taking is in language as the CO2 driven warming implodes. She has learnt if she says these things it might cut the heat of interview, but then she goes back to her cuts by 2030. So, they are only expanded weasel words as they drive the nation broke.
If the UK has a really cold winter over the next few months, then goofies like Elizabeth Truss and Ed Davey promising there will be no blackouts in the UK, will deservedly look exceptionally stupid and naive.
If they weren’t both relying on wind power when high pressure systems, bringing cold weather, negate so much of the UK’s electricity supply, they might be right.
A long spell of cold winter weather – and sadly lots of deaths from hypothermia – in the UK might just bring about the demise of the green blob and the country’s current insane energy policy. The winners will be UKIP, the only British political party with a sensible energy policy, which is firmly anti-green blob.
The UK has already had a succession of cold winters and summers, but these thieving shites continue to blather; and they pay the UK Met Office to provide the “proof”. They are profiting; what’s wrong with that?
I actually applaud the interview for two reasons: One, the questioner was persistent and not in the bag for the lefties; and two, the woman agreed to be interviewed in this hostile venue. You won’t find those things in this country (USA).
Really? This is normal over here. Look on youtube for ‘Jeremy Paxman’. The British politicians that have gained a position in office are the sort of people who can conduct an interview and not answer a single question. It’s an art. We are taught to debate and argue, to win with facts, or to rebutt if facts are not on our side. It becomes a sword fight, with a parry or a stab. There is no ‘right’, it’s purely a matter of opinion on which line is the best to take.
If British citizens keep electing people like this, then they deserve to suffer the consequences. Just like we do in the US.
Just to underline your point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnY4O3oDpk
Politicians today are driven today by focus groups and surveys. They also tend to believe that what happens on twitter or other ‘social media’ is what ‘ordinary’ people are thinking.
She would receive an email every morning telling her what her core beliefs are for the next 24 hours of the news cycle.
Politicians like her tend to fall apart when questioned without advisers feeding her information. You will never see leaders like Obama hold a news conference where there is a risk they will be asked a difficult question. Uncontrolled environments are extremely dangerous to politicians.
No, you are wrong. She is advised, but she is quite capable of defending her position and policies, even if they are absurd (which they are). You should have noticed that she didn’t fall apart even once. She was composed, and never actually answered Mr Neil’s questions.
A politician who is or is not aware of reality?
Aware, Robert. She has only just got the job. If she spoke what she believes then she would lose her job by Friday. She is a professional politcian.
But if she cannot truthfully answer questions, then why did she agree to be interviewed? It seems the prudent thing to do would be to claim that her schedule disallowed it.
‘What I would say’ ☺ to her is this: don’t agree to an interview with Mr Neill unless you have solid answers.
Obviously, she didn’t. So she tried to wing it. Bad form.
I think I can say that there is no focus group or poll that puts “Global Warming” above last place in the UK. No, she is conforming to the political bubble she lives in that is Westminster.
Dear me! This is what you call a “Conservative” minister in Blighty? She’s a died-in-the-wool and dogged AGW hugger. You lot are in very big trouble if there is no opposition party digging in against this lunacy.
No, she isn’t. Read between the lines – others here saw it. She doesn’t actually believe that stuff at all. She is simply keeping her job.
And you just made my point, perfectly. An “opposition” person (in or out of a job) voices opposition – as the moniker implies. I see them going at it hammer and tongs in Prime Minister’s Questions every week, but never over this issue. Fact is the Cameron government does agree there as an AGW “problem” – and (as proven here) not just tacitly. Silent and compliant “opposition” is no opposition at all – it’s genuflection.
Well, her upbringing was in a left-wing family in a wealthy area of Northern England. Cameroon and co. have shown no desire to end the global warming fraud, particularly as his father makes loads of dough from it. So, yes, you could say she is keeping her job by lying; this is what politicians do; but there are times and places when the truth must be operated upon, or disaster ensues.
That’s not the point you made. You said that she is a AGW hugger. She isn’t! That’s what I meant about reading in between her lines. And we DO have opposition. We have UKIP. It isn’t much yet, but it’s growing.
In the US the conservative republicans are similarly neutered, unable to clearly state common sense realties.
For instance a conservative politician can not state that the “I am owed” blame mentality of certain minority citizens is a cultural handicap primarily responsible for their lack of economic progression. Just as thy cannot own a bumper sticker proclaiming “Stop Global Whining!”
Meanwhile sanity prevails in Tasmania.
Hydro Tasmania ditches $2b King Island wind farm project.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-27/hydro-tasmania-ditches-242-king-island-wind-farm-project/5844484
Hydro Tasmania (HT) was one of the top 250 “carbon polluters” under the ALP’s price on carbon (CT) policy. HT in the first year of the CT, HT made an additional Au$50mil profit as a direct result of the CT. HT is also involved in coal-to-liquid projects in China.
Politicians slippery as an eel, that’s the quality of our democracy.
I do apologize to North Americans for this British John Kerry. She is just full of shite. What about gas? That releases XCO2 doesn’t it?
“Well, we will run out of gas anyway”.
Pray tell why argument doesn’t apply to oil or coal? Upper class twit.
And what’s with her speech patterns? She’s from Norfolk, but says “nae doot” like a Glaswegian.
I believe she was brought up in Scotland as a child. She’s not from Norfolk, in fact she probably never visited it until she was parachuted into her constituency just before her election.
You maybe interested to know that we have even bigger muppets:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809995/Government-measures-slowed-global-warming-Energy-minister-claims-policies-playing-role-curbing-rising-temperature.html#ixzz3HNrrp3Kh
May?
May have slowed?
Well wait a minute I personally may have slowed the warming by eating less spicy foods. Just this week I may have inadvertently caused large sun-spots by trying to cool the sun with my thoughts.
Well on a positive note, the energy-minister is acknowledging termperature is no longer rising, and also exposed himself as insane for thinking he and his government controls global termperature. I mean you do have to be crazy to think that, don’t you?
It’s so they can claim energy starvation policies and taxes are working to save the planet.
@ur momisugly 6:25 “the reality is we only have a limited amount of fossil fuels.”
@ur momisugly 7:25 “gas is going to run out anyway.”
The keg of beer will eventually run out, folks. Let’s quit drinking the beer now and switch to the wine.