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.
I’ve enjoyed this site for refraining in personal attacks. Calling her a “blobette” is in very poor taste.
Agreed. But from the vast majority of comments, people evidently don’t understand how politics works.
Actually this is a great example of how politics does not work. Politics in a democracy is supposed to be a tool used to drive governance. Now politics has become not just a means but an end in itself, filled with self-serving incompetent nit-wits. Politics is disconnected from content, competence, and rational governance, it has become empty, meaningless,untrustworthy, cronyism on steroids, and tabloid sensationalism. Western governments are only surving now due to inertia, huge entities lurching forward blindly without insight or inspiration. If there were meaningful politics, climate science would be quickly be identified for what it is, an interesting branch of research with ludicrous alarmists polluting the well, and certainly without any policy ramifications in its current state.
Perhaps, but it is accurate.
Yes, that is why I refrained from commenting.
And UK politics is something I love to opine on.
But “blobette” is abusive and also kind of creepy.
Shes a politician and fair game for ridicule.
Squirm, squirm, squirm…
Boy, she is a good politician – and that may not be a compliment.
Andrew Neil has conducted several interviews from a sceptic position – this one being his most obviously sceptic that I have seen.
Trouble with that is the BBC is not there to give platforms to biased and opinionated interviewers and Neil may be in trouble on this one.
The fact that so many sceptics have lapped up this interview says it all.
James Abbott :
Have you ever heard of one Patrick Moore of Vancouver? He founded the Greenpeace movement. You should hear what he has to say now.
About the Greens that is.
That’s interesting. But this thread is about the Andrew Neil interview on the BBC.
Whoops-So now you duck out. Can’t say that I blame you. What an embarrassment for the Greens to have their founder refer to them in such terms.
James Abbott: . . . .
Perhaps, then, you could cast your mind back to the release of AR5 SPM last September. The BBC News 24 channel spent all afternoon focused exclusively on it, repeating the “95% confidence” line ad infinitum, and without question.
As a token to the skeptics, there was one 2-minute interview with Fred Singer. The interviewer (can’t remember who) asked Singer (in a tone of some disbelief) what he thought the IPCC scientists’ motivation was for exaggerating or misrepresenting the science. Singer replied that he “would have to ask them”.
The interviewer then spent the rest of the short slot repeatedly asking the same question with an increasingly Paxman-style air of cynicism, finishing off with “I still don’t know why you would think that they would do that – I mean, were they just having a laugh or something?”
Not one question about the science, Singer’s views on it, or the NIPCC, It was very possibly the worst, most slanted and most insulting interview that I have ever seen on the (once great) BBC.
Is that more your idea of ‘non-biased’ or ‘non opinionated’ journalism?
Strangely, it passed the top brass by completely, so I’ll certainly be interested to know if Andrew Neil’s attitude does produce rumblings of disapproval.
Now, that IS interesting
As opposed to every single editorial given by David Shukman et al? Seriously, please don’t patronise us with claims that the BBC is bias free, Neil is about the only presenter that actually questions the dogma ingrained throughout the corporation that we pay for, and are lied to every day despite over 50% of the licence fee payers being sceptical on the issue.
The fact that warmists scoff at the the interview says even more
He’s a fully paid up member of the Green Blob. He’s programmed to say stuff like that.
There is only one way that this issue will become rational, i.e., until there is a Consequence. If that happens in the winter, people will die.
Politicians never answer the questions put to them, they generally only make statements remotely related to the question if related at all. Amazingly, occasionally the actual question asked will co-incide with their statement.
Reporter: What do you say to critics that your energy policy is confused, lacks focus, and not grounded in any pragmatic way?
Politician: Well energy policy is very important to me and should be to you too, since our children will be the ones to suffer. I have dediciated myself to helping the old and saving the young from a future of ruin brought upon by climate change.
Reporter: Your policies have been dark pits where money is continually shovled in but benefits fail to appear. Will you be changing your energy policies based on these poor results?
Politician: Well my policy is of course to use all our public monies as wisely as possible, and as a representative of the people I am very dedicated to this. Thank you no more questions.
So let me understand…Britain doesn’t want coal, fracking, nukes or land based windmills, but does want solar (I thought Britain was cloudy) and off shore wind ( impossibly expensive in the North Sea ).
That leave us with efficiency.
Advice from a Yank…Huddle round your peat fires or rise up.
Oatley October 27, 2014 at 4:45 pm
So let me understand…Britain doesn’t want coal, fracking, nukes or land based windmills, but does want solar (I thought Britain was cloudy) and off shore wind ( impossibly expensive in the North Sea ).
That leave us with efficiency.
Advice from a Yank…Huddle round your peat fires or rise up.
*********************************************
Thats probably why they stopped gun ownership here.
They get trained well in evasion. Frustrating.
Wonder what she was going to say when she said “level the playing field” before she got cut off.
No matter how inept Elizabeth Truss sounds in that video, she seems a climate focused genius compared to how Mann sounds in his talks at the University of Bristol and UCLA.
John
She is a huge liar and dissembler. I have to give credit to the questioner, who kept to his questions despite her continual refusal to provide any answer.
She’s what us simple country folk call a “greased pig”.
I can’t help but think playing Slim Whitman’s “Indian Love Call” in the background while talking to her might make for good optics, to borrow a phrase from another climate moron.
The public is interested…in trees and bees. Bees love trees and trees love CO2. Starve the trees; starve the bees. I’m confused. What I meant to say was everything must be green…except the flowers. Bees love flowers. Bugger the trees. Bugger green.
It all makes perfect sense… as long as you can’t do math, and always just choose the answer that makes you feel good even if it is impossible.
Unfortunately, the various engineers of the world have found ways to do some damn near impossible things, so the eco-loons now think anything and everything is possible if you just demand it enough and it makes you feel good enough. Reality need not apply.
The really sad thing is that, like Obama, she expressed a confidence that someone magically will come up with a technology that will supply a an abundant supply of affordable energy to generate electricity.
That has the intelligence of Tarzan swinging through the forest letting go of the last branch before the next tree branch is even in sight while failing to realize that billions of dollars has already been wasted on a replacement fuel with zero success. Of course most of that money has been wasted on mature technologies like wind turbines and solar which has zero possibility of achieving the goal. Having lived in the suburbs of London for 2 years I cannot imagine anyone even considering solar.
Finally I don’t recall any discussion of transportation fuels which are even more difficult to replace..
There is no mention of the country involved in this piece. A number of countries have Environment Secretaries, Prime Ministers, and green blobs. So why not tell us where it is instead of making us guess from the accent in the video? A previous article, “Sanity: Subsidies for solar farms to be cut to help safeguard farmland” also mentions Elizabeth Truss without telling us what country it was in. I hate to nitpick, but it really would be helpful if the name of the country was included in the title or first paragraph for those of us who are too uneducated to have memorized the names of every politician and secretary in the world.
Seriously?
Louis
Two of the first three replies mention the UK.
tonyb
I’m sure a Google search would have been faster than writing that comment…
“Well what I would say is, I haven’t been briefed properly for this, I have no idea what i’m talking about, I am ill suited for this position in the cabinet, and I really don’t want to be here”
I really hope Owen Patterson jumps (the sinking) ship to UKIP.
Well, this has helped to convince me to vote for UKIP in the next general election. At least they answer the questions they are asked.
The Tories have “previous” as regards putting young poorly briefed women ministers in front of journalists who know their stuff. Look on youtube for Chloe Smith and Paxman. Cringe-making. I don’t know if the Tories think it’s character-building for the victim, or is designed to terminate their careers. Either way, I can hardly bear to watch it. I’d prefer it (from a natural justice point of view) if the minister being skewered was a well known rotter, but anything that deflates the green blob a little will do.
Utterly hopeless. If I was that rubbish at my job I’d be fired
I’m confused. Which cheek is the Tories? The right one? Or the left one? So hard to tell them apart.
And it depends on if theiy’re upside down or not.
Is that from you perspective or theirs?
The most damning part of the interview was not the 18 years of non warming but the implications of the 80% decarbonisation targets. It would be quite hard, imo, to defend a policy that requires as yet undiscovered technology to meet it. It makes HS2 look like an exemplar of economic planning.
This interview demonstrates the need for a political strategy in our fight against green propaganda. Owen Patterson, the sacked minster for the Environment used, worked with Dr Richard North of http://www.EUreferendum.com, to create a well documented summary of the British madly expensive commitment to an ineffective green energy policy. Mr Patterson used his political reputation and position to put this well organised information into the media in a form that could be quoted and relied on. This gave Andrew Neil the platform from which to skewer the green minister.
The point is that a good political strategy can create the conditions for a better informed debate. The minister was unable to find wriggle room between denying hard facts and backing policy decisions that are ineffective and madly expensive.
I have said on this blog many times that we should be taking more notice of EUreferendum.com and political blogs because these people are masters at politics. The point is that we have often won scientific arguments only to find our victories obscured by politicians who simply ignore the scientific evidence.
Some confusion here:
“Roy
October 27, 2014 at 3:48 pm
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.
Vince Causey
October 28, 2014 at 1:38 am
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.”
I’ve not much time for Ms Truss or her inteerview performance but, sorry, lads, that is what we do in the UK. We elect representatives to parliament and ministers are, with only odd exceptions, chosen from members of parliament – who remain members of parliament – like Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. I think you are confusing the British constitution with the US one. And by the way, MPs are not “mere” representatives – ministers and the executive are responsible to parliament.
The Green Blobettes’ energy “plan” appears to be:
1. Get rid of coal.
2. Temporarily increase reliance on NG, with the idea that “it will run out” eventually anyway.
3. Increase wind and solar.
4. Increase nuclear.
5. Increase energy efficiency.
6. Hope for new energy types such as unicorn farts and fairy dust.
7. Hope CCS can become reality and fill the “carbon gap”.
8. Keep fingers crossed and hope for the best.
Total insanity, in other words.
@ur momisugly mpainter October 28, 2014 at 7:49 am
Of course, I understand that point entirely, having also voted for UKIP in the past. My point is that, ultimately, kicking against the pricks gets us no further than a perhaps a few more compromised political animals in Westminster, albeit political animals with a more principled mandate from the hinterland. And perhaps there is a place for that in the wider war against the Machiavellian forces of the NWO, though I personally no longer want to be a part of that particular theatre.
But without sound long-term strategies for disengagement, all UKIP are doing is feeding on negative sentiment, however understandable such ire may be. That does not represent a plan, but a reaction. And if history teaches us anything, it’s that reactionary forces are really nothing more than an integral part of the negative Hegelian Dialectical model, the spiral of death and rebirth, the Thanatosis Tango. That cycle of revolution and reaction continually orbits around a hard core of death, destruction and waste. Sad, and unnecessary IMHO.
My assertion is that we need to work on the basis of a symbiosis of positive alternatives, which is why I am more drawn to Dr North’s offerings. UKIP in my eyes represents the opposite of that, being essentially a partner in the ‘symthanatosis’ dance of destructive revolution and negative reaction, of divide and conquer. Would it not be far better to engage, outside the puppet theatre of bubble-dwelling zombies, with exiled thinkers like Dr North to think up positive and affirmative alternatives? Surely it’s not beyond the wit of man to imagine creative possibilities outside the current, corrupt paradigm?
And yet I realise that the fierce tribal loyalties of UKIP supporters tend to bypass their critical faculties. Perhaps it’s the sense they have that this is their last-ditch opportunity to save a lost way of life they yearn for – the ‘good old days’, when Richard Briers and Felicity Kendal showed us all what domestic bliss could be. But now I’m just being facetious.
Call this the revenge of Owen Paterson. To use boxing parlance, Paterson has landed a direct counter punch right on the Government’s chin – well Liz Truss’s chin actually. And to borrow another boxing term, she’s got a glass jaw.
This counter punch was perfectly executed. It was not some blind, desperate punch landing in thin air, but with pin point precision and with his full weight behind it. Inevitably, the hapless minister has found herself hauled before the cameras and for the first time that I can recall, a minister has been forced to explain a policy so absurd that if it had been a script for dumb and dumber it would have been rejected as being too dumb.
Finally, I hope that this heralds the beginning of a much need debate on energy policy. If nothing else, kudos to Owen Paterson for putting this into the public arena.
I agree. That this actually aired, seemingly uncut, on BBC is a significant step forward – however tentative. “Endeavor to persevere!”
Vince Causey:
“.. the hapless minister has found herself hauled before the cameras…”
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>
Her promotion to cabinet rank would have been a big, heart-throbbing thrill for her. But I wonder what she thinks now. The truth is that smooth-faced Dave put a newby on the hot seat. The wise ones would have spotted the trap and said “No thanks, Mr. Smooth-face”.
If the glib miss wises up she will come to see that Paterson knew what he was doing when he got himself fired. She will come to see that she is sitting pretty, because smooth-face Dave cannot risk the fallout of firing a second environmental minister over the issue of an increasingly obnoxious political stance.
These are interesting times, Ms. Minster, doo nae you agree?
The truth is that smooth-faced Dave put a newby on the hot seat. …. if you can’t win the argument, you may as well have all the PR for a woman.
Of course, the cynic in me, says they only put a woman there to show how good the men are!
Which is as much a comment about the sexism of the Tories as the way we only seem to get inept politicians in the Tories.