Sunday
Oct262014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Your future in their hands
Oct 26, 2014 Climate: Parliament Greens 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.
Reader Comments (85)
Thank heavens for Andrew Neil, the only journalistic in the entire BBC with the courage and independence of mind to challenge climate dogma. What a contrast to the deferential lightweights on the Today programme.
David Cameron has finally been exposed as the source of all "greenery".
When David Rose said "Her (Bryony's) proposal was first taken up by David Cameron, and FOLLOWED by the then Labour government..." we were left in no doubt who was to blame.
In 2011 Geoffrey Lean asked - "will Greenpeace consider renaming one of its ships SAMANTHA CAMERON,after it's former supporter" he knew whereof he spoke.
We need also to look at the "quango" called the Carbon Trust run by uber-green ex-Shell Chairman James Smith.
Cameron handed over £23,047,000 of YOUR money to Smith last year, for the sole purpose of lobbying parliament for more off-shore wind-farms. The Carbon Trust however it may choose to disguise this, has no other purpose.
His promotion of this "pretty" but otherwise compliant young woman, after ousting one of the few Cabinet Ministers prepared to do the job for which he'd been appointed, is a national disgrace.
Yesterday in Brussels, "Dave" was revealed as an ill-informed bully. Without Greenpeace Sam, to "advise" him, he is an empty shell, he really must go !
Ms. Truss is a robot, yes?
"Gas is going to run out anyway over the next few years".
Is she a moron or a liar? Cos it's one of them.
Interesting how the newest Environment minister is now promoting 'better communication' and 'a debate', when for years we've been told the debate is over.
Pretty dismal stuff from La Truss.
Meanwhile Andrew Neil plainly holds the green blob in absolute contempt and was as ever superb.
I watched it live this morning. Gave me indigestion. No honesty or integrity. Or no understanding. Or all three. The politician I mean, not Neill.
Your Grace is right - it is pretty scary that Cameron has this ignoramus in his cabinet but he also has another ignoramus on in the form of Ed Davy.
Makes one wonder how awful are the other possible candidates Cameron considered for for her Ministry. Dear Liz had a mantra that she was clearly coached to use as a way of evading any attempts to answer Andrew's questions so one can only conclude that her minders decided that it was safer for her to look like a fool than expose her real ignorance by letting her attempt to answer any of the questions posed.
I wonder if she has the slightest conception of what her world would be like if CO2 emissions ( NOT CARBON EMISSONS) were in fact reduced to 20% of the level in 1990. I doubt she has the slightest idea. I suppose she thinks she would still have the same access to energy as she dos now - at a much higher cost. Perhaps she would but I wonder ow the rest of us would fare?
Scarey or not, it is reality. And there is an endless supply of such loons. You are looking at why the West is toast, to be overtaken by those who will not be deterred by such nonsense. We will no longer be able to compete, and the prosperity increases of the past that made it possible for these loons to come to power are over.
To coin a phrase, "What I have to say" is that she's been well and truly trussed up like a spatch-cock. If she were my MP I'd enjoy NOT voting for her. Light-weight doesn't even begin to cover it and based on this performance she is toast.
Her performance also shines a light on the (lack of) quality of her advisers and her inability to argue the toss with them - like the 18 year peak.
"Well, what I would say..." must have been repeated 50 times at the beginning of almost every response.
I couldn't watch it. I went back and tried 3 times but cracked up each time. I knew she was a lightweight when she won her seat at the election but really, this is pathetic drivel.
Kick these bums out you brits. Vote UKIP.
Of course! It's just occurred to me that there is another context that can be drawn from the words: "What I have to say..." - as in 'what I have to say (because that's what I've been told to say)'. Maybe it was a sub-conscious grammatical tic.
Truss must be feeling like a complete hypocrite having co-authored a book called "After the Coalition" that sought to challenge the consensus that Britain's economic decline is inevitable, by arguing for the return of a more entrepreneurial and meritocratic culture. Then "Britannia Unchained" a critical assessment of Britain's challenges in the face of future uncertainty where Truss emphasises the importance of science in education. (Praised by the physicist Brian Cox as an "excellent article").
Ah ............... now it makes sense she is part of the self reinforcing green blob network living in their own golden bubble and loving it! What is entrepreneurial about subsidies and why is it that she does not apply scientific principles to challenging the drama-greens? It is easy to get upset when listening to the likes of Truss ......... but looking on the bright side, she sells her credibility and people are able to see that taking place - bring it on!
PS Since she is strong on maths, I wonder what she thinks of Mann's approach to statistics? (A possible future question for Andrew Neil to ask).
She really doesn't have a clue about anything does she ?
I've heard some waffle in my time. The age old trick of trying to pad out an interview by repetition
and over expanded language. This always signifies dishonesty and evasion and did not play well.
We could see she knows she's talking BS but it's the brief she's been given and is trying to remember what all the greenie people have been telling her and thinks it all makes sense because they are very well paid and have letters after their names and belong to Greenpeace and WWF and stuff.
It doesn't make sense luv, it never has because this is not about climate is it ? It's just a means to a 'common purpose'.
Turning virtually all conventional energy off then relying on existing wind and more (limited) solar WILL close down UK plc.
What she is proposing is not treason against the UK but it's getting pretty close.
The wilful degradation of the country through the planned destruction of it's energy generation in the name of Green Totalitarianism.
ISIS don't need to bother coming over to wipe out the UK; our own 'green blob' government are managing just fine.
UKIP or die people.
Her seat in south west Norfolk may prove difficult for her to hold next year. The county council seats in the May 2013 local elections that are in her constituency had for the most part UKIP in second place with around 5% between them and the winner which was generally Tory.
Being my MP I have written to her regarding these matters but basically just received DECC decarbonisation polemic in return.
We're in big trouble.
What I would say is that warming has been taking place and there is no signs that 'Carbon' has anything much to do with it.
The lady also seems to imply that it makes no difference which mode of fuel we use, we'll just deal with the legal side of it by using "Carbon Capture & Storage". Better may be to invest in fussion rather than fiction for what amounts to a non-problem that only the conditioned see.
Sounded to me like she knew the current policy was flawed and the reasons why... she was just too scared to admit it explicitly on TV.
Watching the first three minutes, I take a similar view.
She seemed to me like someone who has taken a new job, and is now doing her best to defend the official line. She may not believe it, may not understand it, and has undoubtedly been fed a lot of stuff she is expected to regurgitate.
That's why I could only watch three minutes. I actually felt sorry for her, even though she is paid to do it. Lets hope she now takes the trouble to read around the subject.
But Andrew Neil was right. If only other journalists would take their job as seriously as he does, then embarrassing situations like this might be avoided.
At the 1:16 mark it could be read that she is agreeing that there is a green blob but choosing not to use those words. "experts active" being her smoke screen and then adding that the subject should be opened up to the public. Could it be that Owen P. is not alone in his views although others remain in the closet. :)
Watching this interview leads me to see the usefulness of waterboarding.
Oh for f**k's sake, it doesn't matter a single toss what these twats say after they've been kicked out of office, it's what they are/where doing when they are in office that really counts. Stop sanctifying Saint Owen of Paterson for what he said to the GWPF the other week, when most of this train crash happened under his watch at the DECC.
Do you lot realise how lucky you are to have the BBC and Andrew Neil? Here in France, the Minister of Ecology has just announced a new law which will reduce the country's consumption of energy by 50% by 2030 (without specifying how) while cutting the proportion of nuclear in electricity production from 75% to 50% and maintaining its present ceiling in terms of Gigawatts..
No-one, on the left or the right, has been so impolite as to point out the absurdity of this law, possibly because the minister of ecology (and unsuccessful candidate at the previous presidential election) is the mother of the current president's four children; possibly because everyone, left or right, has warm feelings about ecology; possibly because of French pride in the fact that the French President and his minister of ecology, ex-mistress number three and mother of his four children, will be hosting together the Paris 2015 COP meeting that will decide future of the planet.
Betapug:
Waterboarding is not the answer. Andrew Neil is the answer.
That was painful to watch, almost torture, but Andrew Neil does have to be credited for the focused line of questioning. I suppose she may have felt a bit straitjacketed on national TV by trying to walk a tightrope, balancing playing to small-c conservative voters, many of whom are considering UKIP, as well as not kicking up a hornet's nest with the green blob. Nevertheless, even taking that into account it was a sterile talentless showing.
There was an obvious conflict where she said early on "the gas will run out by then" (false, doesn't know what she is talking about) and then later brought up shale gas exploitation when Andrew Neil was pinning her down on how decarbonisation targets for 2030 and 2050 could be achieved.
I have mixed feelings about how Andrew Neil tried to pin her down towards the end that to meet the 2050 target there would have to be a massive expansion of wind farms (which she is denying will happen under the Tories) which anyway is probably not technically right taking into account the need for spinning reserve (maybe there is an assumption on CCS which is another matter altogether). Nevertheless, he isn't supposed to be doing anyone's bidding and is in a way exposing broken logic of current policies, although I can see the Labour party possibly making hay with low information voters if that line of reasoning, which appears false, is not addressed. Maybe Andrew Neil erred a little bit by not following through all the way on the logical continuation, towards questioning her on (mini-) nuclear & CHP, which was obviously a cornerstone of Owen Paterson's speech. Anyway, putting this all aside, there is only one person responsible for replacing OP with this know nothing, only emboldening the green blob / Environmental Taliban further in the process.
Elizabeth Truss, Ed Davey and David Cameron form a Triumvirate of Stupidity, Ignorance and Malfeasance. Vote UKIP.
She claimed to have taken scientific advice (presumably from Sir Mark Walport-climate expert..cough) as an answer to Neill's no warming questions, but then tried to back up the warmist stance by using the dubious scientific method of vox popping the public about what they thought of last year's floods, as if this would prove that 'climate change' is happening, and the floods were caused by it. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable.
"Instead of spewing cr*p all over perfectly respectable blogs, can I suggest that you return to the Air Vent "
Paul. Not sure what that means.....
Anyway, your comment left at the air vent brought me to the hill today to enjoy this video which made my night. That lady is absolutely crackers, and somehow she is the one in power? The reporter is fantastic though and gives me some comfort that there is a little reason still left in the world.
“The reporter is fantastic though and gives me some comfort that there is a little reason still left in the world.”
Thanks Jeff Id for your support for the practice of independent public broadcasting.
Wherever free humans are gathered together, a consensus will give rise to a contrary opinion. It's starting to happen at the BBC. May it happen at CNN, NBC, ABC...
The starter "what I would say...", suggests that the interviewee is under some kind of constraint, and is not allowed to say what they want to say - "what I would say...if I didn't have to parrot mouthfuls of nonsense that I only half understand". "I would say..." is just about forgivable, as a form of reticent affirmation, but "what I would say..." transfers responsibility for the statement to some other occasion and some other time, both in an indeterminate future.
More seriously, it is interesting to see the Green Blob drawing upon arguments about potential and unspecified technological developments between now and the need to meet these 'legally binding' reductions in 'carbon emissions' (please - carbon?). The entire Stern/IPCC/Science-Is-Settled family of arguments depends upon a complete absence of technological innovation, with a discount-rate set accordingly. So having a fully functioning 'Carbon Capture and Storage' dangled before our eyes, by Ms Elizabeth Truss, is rather fun. I wonder what else we might invent, between now and 2100?
The things I want, which the 'Eagle' promised me in the late 1950s, are an anti-gravity belt, a time machine, and a battery with limitless power that lasts forever. I hope the government chief scientific adviser is working hard on them, and I wish him luck, as with all his other endeavours.
@Jeff Id
How dangerous is the written word. No slight to the Air Vent intended on my part, as I think you already know. I am still laughing over your rejoinder.
No offense taken Paul, it was just a fun comment to reply to.
Every parliament has its loonies, timeservers and newbies determined to follow their script no matter the arguments or evidence presented to them, and God knows our NZ parliament has its share, but the Truss woman is so obviously a newbie determined, utterly determined, to stay on-message that she became a parody of herself for this interview and strayed into the realms of unconscious comic genius in the mold of 'Yes Minister'.
The Trussian nonsense would be amusing if it was not so damnably frustrating.
In essence, she is saying that the "legally binding" agreement is not considered a binding agreement of any sort, that conditions of the time may accept, refute or modity this agreement as the government of the time sees fit.
The general discomfort with her non-position is that nothing you are told is necessarily going to happen, the bad but also the good. Which is certainly the experience of the average voter.
Would truth and honesty and straightforwardness be a good way to run a civilization? Tony Blair, in his regret about the FOI legislation, certainly didn't think so.
The world is full of liars, manipulators, thieves and generral selfish ne're-do-wells. It would appear that even the "best" of governments thinks that this is the only way to be. Despite what centuries of religious scholars and humanitarian philosphers have offered us, those currently in powerr - as our Lady of the Environment so craftily demonstrates - dissimulation is the fabric on whidh human lives are sewn.
Forget what our churches and mothers have said; Machievelli had it right, and perhaps even The Great Beast himself, Aleister Crowley: there is only one way to holding power and holding things together the way you think they should be held together: do what thou can and wilt.
Good grief, I thought we had a monopoly on the mad Green Left in Australia. How are you going to pay your share of the IPCC dictated $100 billion dollars to the third world if you are rapidly on your way to join them.
Having only just plucked up the will-power to watch this, my first response was the same as many others. Ms Truss has a complete lack of understanding of what she is talking about and evaded answering any questions by repeating time after time (wish I'd kept count, but couldn't bear to go back and do it) "what I will say is....". We are really in the deep doo-doo if this is the best replacement that Camoron can come up with to replace Owen Paterson. Talk about an ignoramus - sheesh. I wonder if Camoron gives them a job interview before appointing them. Let's face it, you would think twice before giving her a job in which she had to earn her salary.
Well, what I would say, Andrew, is please stop asking me difficult questions. Can't you see I'm totally out of my depth? (It was all Sam Cam's idea, anyway.)
Good job Scotland voted to stay in the union
We kept our Nuclear Submarines and Andrew Neil
Slow motion car crash!
Meanwhile The Telegraph's Emily Goodson is beginning to go off-message on wind energy:
However, Emily gives the last word to the Green Blob spokesperson and an anonymous 'Government spokesman':
Source: Wind farms can 'never' be relied upon to deliver UK energy security , The Telegraph, Oct 27th 2014
Here are my two comments from Unthreaded, for those who cannot play the clip:
Sunday Politics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04ls3vv/sunday-politics-london-26102014
My meager notes:
I didn't hear any scepticism! Doesn't agree with any of Patterson's recent statements that I noticed.
The public are interested in trees, bees, air and water quality.
Not agreeing that the forecast effects of Climate Change have been consistently and widely exaggerated.
Saying warming has taken place (FIVE times!) and we are seeing more erratic weather patterns.
the wettest winter on record, Climate Change played a part.
Has there been scaremongering? Question ignored. We need to adapt to new weather patterns.
She gets and accepts advice from Government Scientific Advisors (so we are doomed).
Andrew's statement TO HER that the legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions will require stopping people using gas for cooking was the beginning of the end ...
And then they went onto this coming Winter's flooding ... Immigrants needed to pick fruit/veg and CAP!
I give up - she must be part of the Green Blob! But she is spending more money than before, so everything will be OK!
Oct 26, 2014 at 4:41 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher
Ross Lea on Oct 26, 2014 at 5:17 PM
Sunday Politics
Having given this interview a bit of thought, after recovering :) , I remember the Minister giving responses that were like the smell of meat to Andrew Neil. (He must be a carnivore - when interviewing Ministers, at least!)
To offer the phrases, warming has taken place, (as Neil pointed out, FIVE times),and more erratic weather patterns, pushes the buttons of Sceptics, so why, when she is going into the Lion's Den, is she not briefed on this?
Is it because scepticism is verboten within Whitehall, or is it yet to find a presence there all all?
That, I think, is the most disparing aspect of the interview.
[In response to Ross] Roll on Caroline Flint and Ed Miliband and Roger Helmer.
But don't forget Ed 'the lights are not going to go out' Davey!
As Lis Truss did avoid one question, that don't you agree the 80% cuts in 'carbon emissions' by 2050 will stop cooking and heating by gas in the home, by saying it was the responsibility of DECC.
Oct 26, 2014 at 6:07 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher
Once again we see one of Owen Paterson's constituents seeking to blame him, because "most of the train crash happened under his watch at the DECC".
What has this foul-mouthed "contributor" really got against Paterson, he denies that he's a UKIP supporter ?
Remember, Liz Truss was on the “A-list” of Tory parliamentary candidates!
starting to happen at the BBC. May it happen at CNN, NBC, ABC...
geoffchambers
Geoff, Neil has been doing his interogations for some time. A year or back he gave Beddington (UK chief scientist? now there's a misnommer) a really good grilling. He is ex-editor of one of the UK's best selling news-sheets.
Personally, I never liked him when he was editor but have grown to like his latest persona.
toad on Oct 27, 2014 at 8:49 AM
As a UKIP member, and as a Climate Sceptic, most of us are forgiving of those who see the truth and confess, like Carswell, and hope (and pray) that others will follow. It's the only way of getting a majority in the House of Commons, so I am not surprised if he was not a UKIP supporter, or even not a member.
The train crash started well before Owen Paterson became a minister, in fact, well before 2008. His (very serious) eye operation was certainly very badly timed and Cameron did remove him from office. He didn't leave of his own accord!
Most of our ire should be aimed at (Common Purpose and) DECC and its ministers anyway: EdM, Chris H and Ed Davey. We must hope Liz has a conversion on the way back to South West Norfolk. It does happen.
WTF is "technology neutral"?
Paterson was never at DECC.
When was Owen Paterson at DECC?
Look you guys, carbon capture will save us all.
In fact I am working on a cc scheme myself that involves billions of Kilner jars whereby we merely drive as much air into them as possible -which contains lots of co2 as we all know-then we just shut the lids tight. Brilliant eh! And much more coherent and ready to go than anything the Govt has got. I will need lots of space to store the jars of course. So if you have big gardens just let me know.
I am looking for a grant to carry out more research. Should I apply to Ms Truss?
tonyb
Sadly, Ms Truss epitomises a class of MPs produced by tribal voting. Parachuted in because she fits a profile designed by a marketing man, she is voted for by people who would vote Conservative almost regardless of who the candidate was.
When the power goes off that should be the end of her career, along with that of any MP who voted for Milliband's suicidal Climate Change Act. Sadly, it won't be, because people will keep voting for a party rather than an individual.
In the short term, UKIP might offer answer. In the long term, it too will become a blob of its own.
"erratic weather patterns" she claims, have they forgotten to send the memo to Mother Nature who is not complying with the officially accepted norms for weather patterns, what ever they are. Priceless...