Aussie sceptics destroy EU carbon commissioner

Is this the best five minutes of radio in the history of broadcasting? I think it might be. Have a listen and judge for yourself.

It’s an Australian interview with Jill Duggan, a British woman who you almost certainly won’t have heard of, but who yet holds the economic future of an entire continent in her grasp. As an expert on carbon markets for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action, Duggan will help mastermind the EU’s bold – and massively expensive – plans to reduce Europe’s carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. In the process she will of course destroy every last vestige of 550 million people’s economic future: but until now – as is evident from her stumbling and surprise – no one has really called her on it.

(to read more, click here)

18 thoughts on “Aussie sceptics destroy EU carbon commissioner”

  1. Jill Duggen knows jack…. she can’t even give a benefit to the huge waste of money on carbon fraud (credits)… like all public sector staff they are the dumbest people in any country… by far

  2. James you know diddly squat about global warming. You have no clue about anything scientific.

    Go away stupid.

    1. “Chris P” this blog is my home and you, sir, are like a smelly old tramp who keeps breaking in to curl another of his stagnant turds on my sitting room carpet. Unless you can contribute something more sophisticated to the debate here than ad homs, insults and straw men – which, to judge by precedent, you cannot – then kindly bugger off. And this is your final warning. After this you are barred.

  3. The effect somewhat spoiled by the bullying (or is it just robust Australian?) tone of the interviewer. Still a shockingly bad performance.
    If it were me:
    Interviewer : Will it cost £250 billion?
    Me: Hard to say. It could be more, it could be less.
    Interviewer: What effect will it have on world temperature? Would it be as little as 0.05 of a degree?
    Me: Could be more , could be less but the point is…THAT ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN….blah blah

    Why anyone this clueless agrees to be interviewed by sceptics is a mystery. You would think they would at least get a narrative going.
    What really burns me up is the smug statement about how Europe does not know it has a CO2 Trading scheme. How true that is. The matter of the introduction of one is a white-hot debate in Oz, but it was sneaked in here.

    Q.How extensive is their contempt for us? A. It is total.

    1. I must say Jack I agree with Mike, I’m surprised you found the tone bullying. It was simple due diligence – and done with relaxed courtesy I thought. But I agree with the rest of what you say.

  4. look really price and bolt are really quite polite in the interview. A politician, even a conservative one would have been given a much rougher treatment from them if they gave the sort of feeble answers that duggan did. To me what so astounding is that she behaved as if not one has even asked these quite basic questions before.

  5. Thank you for that warning to Chris P, James. I admire your patience and restraint in giving him as much slack as you did. This is, after all, your blog.

    His baseless insults and uninformed comments are a senseless waste of space, (as I suspect is Chris P himself).

  6. James, don’t bar these people; the more odious they are the better.

    The left have no argument, they are squawking to the lowest common denominator; they rely exclusively on ‘appeal’; yet they have pretensions of being the good guys. Hence they generate their own dissonance by being simultaneously appealing and disgusting; so if they want to progress they will have to favour one over the other.

    If they choose the ‘Chris P’ way, they will simulate the bigoted thugs of fascism. If they try to argue as ‘nice guys’, they will lose their lumpen support.

    Anyone can be right in an argument or debate; but to win you need to bury your opponents in their own shit. The Chris P contingents make good topsoil, so preserve their kind in a well maintained midden.

  7. You have a point, Mr. Giro, but there are leftists who comment on this site by offering actual opinions and sometimes (but not often), facts. These are the ones that we can profitably “bury… in their own shit.”

    Asshats like Chris P simply engage in childish name-calling and gainsaying without ever offering a cogent argument. There is neither honour nor gain in arguing with them, because they aren’t on this site to engage in discussion. You may as well argue withn a turnip, for all the insight and intelligence that types like Chris P demonstrate.

  8. As the carbon commissioner is unwilling to enter into a cost/benefit analysis why not do a calculation for someone of average income of the hyperthetical effect of the current 20% (and 50%) cuts in emissions. At the moment the costs are hidden in utility bills etc. If an aggressive but reasonable guess was publicised it might just annoy people enough to start a revolt…..

  9. “best five minutes of radio in the history of broadcasting?”

    Er… might I be cheeky and suggest, ‘in your home’ and all, that surely things like the announcements of the ending of wars are the best moments in broadcasting history? I depends on your value system I guess – I smile with your exuberance however.

    I wouldn’t ask a scientist for genuine religious advice (though that’d be interesting for sure), just as a journalist probably isn’t the best source for scientific information – just look up “Do vaccines cause autism” in google to get a grasp of how bad journalists are at understanding science… despite there being freely available scientific investigations into whether MMR jabs cause autism (they don’t), journalists went ahead, quoting one (now dishonoured) doctor, and incorrectly scared the hell out of the population. The results from this? Cases of measles have risen and the UK newspapers have more money in their pockets. Yes. I’m cynical about journalists and their understanding of science. The list is endless.

    Perhaps you studied a science to post-graduate levels? In which case I eat my words sir. The fact that the majority of scientists believe in global warming surely counts for something?

    I personally don’t think climate issues matter one way or another – over a long enough timeline, we’re all toast. Might as well party. By ‘party’ I mean “use all available resources to make iPhones and not escape Earth for the safety of spreading out” of course. 😉

    Out of interest how would you describe your political beliefs (left, right, conservative, libertarian etc)? And do you think it relates to, or affects, your thoughts on global warming? I suggest it does cloud your interpretation of science a bit sir. Whereas science *will* self objectify, politically motivated thinking rarely aims for objective thinking (Tony Blair’s a prime example).

    Science has a long long history of self objectification. Sometimes referred to as Asimov’s 60 year rule – whether a scientific theory is correct/incorrect can be proven within an average 60 year time period. Take the idea of ‘super symmetry’ for example : a “beautifully simple” piece of maths that’s been a holy grail within particle physics for the last 30 years. The Large Hadron Collider is currently painting super symmetry into a corner. Thats 1000s of scientists who’ve chased a Nobel prize for 30 years, suddenly waking up to the realization that their life’s work has been a virtual martyrdom. Noble not Nobel. My point here is to observe that most, if not all, of those scientists will declare ‘thankyou, my peers, for proving me wrong’, making them unique.

    We all use peer review to verify all sorts of things, no matter what you do for a living. We rely on it in court ( a jury) for example. Awards are given out by qualified people voting.

    None of us find it easy to accept critical attacks by somebody we deem unqualified, nons? A scientist being lynched by journalists and bloggers is a little bit like witch hunting sometimes I find. If you disagree, I’d love to hear why? 🙂 You seem to treat scientists as if they have a political or religious motivation. Collectively they absolutely don’t. They hypothesize, investigate, dismiss or uphold. Time reveals all with science, making them unique.

    We used to put animals on trial in this country. Literally. Science dragged us partially out of the realms of lunacy. I don’t see enough respect for science from you in most of your climate articles (all written on devices that science produced – hah the irony!). Hence I’m quite dubious as to your motives and hence the quality and trustfulness of your information feed.

    Wish you well, you’re always a fun and thought provoking read.

  10. Please see Professor Richard Muller’s new talk about Climategate review immoral cover-ups:

    Aside: Professor Richard Muller is the brilliant physicist who first measured the tiny anisotropy in the microwave background radiation due to the Earth’s motion through the radiation, using U2 aircraft in the upper atmosphere.

    Also, if you click on my name for my blog post giving an analysis of the nuclear reactor explosion health effects from the xenon-135 radiation venting in Japan, yesterday.

  11. Hi N Taylor, I think you’ll enjoy my new book Watermelons in which all will be explained. I would tell you more now but actually I think if you scroll through my old blog posts you’ll find all the answers there. I’m not against “science” merely the abuse of “science.” I love your idea that the special, elite, white-coated ones in their laboratories are so beyond the understanding of mere journalists that their foibles are beyond criticism. This is of course exactly what they want us to believe. Climategate proved them wrong.

  12. Jaames
    the problem with these Govt crony scientists is that their science is not audited or cross examined properly. It is i’m afraid the usual slop-bucket public sector 3rd rate quality of work rampant across the entire State sector (see NHS, State transport, weather forecasting, road management etc etc etc).
    These sloppy Govt ‘scientists’ would not last 20 minutes in the commercially disciplined world. And it is indeed commercially disciplined (hard nosed) scientists like Steve McKintyre and Jeffery Glassman that have exposed the usual crap sloppy work of this public sector pig swill.
    And cut through all the pomp, bluster and bluff the State surrounds itself in to maintain its pretence it is anything other than a sack of crap and an Emperor with no clothes.
    You can’t get by in the commercial world with bluff and BS. In politics you can make an entire career out of it!

  13. Good point Velocity.

    I suspect that academia must also share the blame for allowing itself to go nuts deep in political correctness; thus spawning a generation of touchy feely mediocrities.

    In the good old days, a typical science department would be rife with intrigues, back stabbings, and the occasional corridor character assassinations; all of which stripped away any parvenus that would venture to contaminate the standards.

    These days a department gets financially rewarded for increasing the diversity of irrelevance, and places the parvenus in the chair.

Comments are closed.