Others like Craig Kelly needed even more than ever

Yesterday I put up a post on Craig Kelly standing up for sense in the face of the climate change idiocies we are forced to endure. I titled the post, More like Craig Kelly needed. I am coming back to it only because it has been brought up again somewhere else.

I hadn’t seen Craig Kelly’s original interview on ITV but Gerard Henderson had: Interview more about ‘look-at-me’ Piers Morgan than Craig Kelly. First the bad news, which I had not known:

Early on, Morgan put this question: “Do you accept the planet is heating up at a dangerous level — yes or no?” To which Kelly replied “yes”.

It’s almost certainly untrue, but during the times in which we live, that is the only answer a politician, other than Donald Trump, is permitted to give. There was then more. The gullible self-harming fools who watch Morning Television on ITV in the UK are not part of Craig’s constituency. So what followed next only matters here in Oz:

Within minutes, [the pommy weather girl] Tobin entered the discussion by accusing Kelly of burying his “head in the sand”. She added: “You’re not a climate sceptic, you’re a climate denier.” This, despite the fact that Kelly had accepted Morgan’s proposition that the planet is heating at a dangerous level.

This would suggest that Tobin was more interested in stating her case than listening to what Kelly had to say.

Of course they’re not interested in listening – we’re talking about the ABC and their like-minded cohorts. They are just part of the liars-squad who for reasons already well-known, are the actual deniers, the ones who deny there is no problem.

Although Henderson thinks there is nothing to be gained by putting the case that global warming “science” is almost entirely fraud, there is, in fact, a great deal to be gained. Someone in a position to actually be interviewed needs to say these things in public or they will never be said where others can hear. Good for Craig Kelly and tough luck for Britain if that is the level of their understanding about climate change.

Of course Uri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind, you bloody morons.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Others like Craig Kelly needed even more than ever

  1. stackja

    And the world is flat!

  2. Karabar

    Of course the Coalition has plenty of ignorant morons like littletobeproudof.
    The biggest mistake is harping on about how limited our “emissions” are relative to everyone else. The salient point is that “emissions” have nothing at all in common with the weather.

  3. Rafe Champion

    I wonder if Kelly believes the warming mantra, he may have conceded just to have some common ground for an exchange of views about the matter in hand, that is the fires and whether they are related to climate change. Unlike politicians we are can tell the truth without having to court public opinion or votes.

    Thinking about the advice to give politicians I went to Bill Hutt in Politically Possible…? to revisit his views on economic policy advice. He proposed to offer a plan A and a plan B, where one is what is actually required and the other is something that might be politically acceptable (a la the art of the possible). He thought too many economists went straight to plan B to avoid being laughed at.

  4. Roger

    Early on, Morgan put this question: “Do you accept the planet is heating up at a dangerous level — yes or no?” To which Kelly replied “yes”.

    Sigh.

    Politicians suffer from a particular version of the ‘other-directed person syndrome’ first identified by David Riesman in the sociological classic The Lonely Crowd.

    That is, they want to be liked by others on the basis of shared opinions rather than respected because they act on principle.

    ‘Liked’ in political terms translates into ‘desirous of votes’, whether electorally or in party pre-selections. In a polity with compulsory voting, this means politicians will seek to hold on the the so-called middle ground, thereby alienating as few voters as possible, to the point of speaking out of both sides of their mouths (Hi Bill!).

    Craig, you’re better than this. Go out swinging!

  5. jupes

    Early on, Morgan put this question: “Do you accept the planet is heating up at a dangerous level — yes or no?” To which Kelly replied “yes”.

    Yeah nah … well yes he did … but he hesitated before answering, then went tried to clarify. At that point the hosts were talking over the top of him, but I thought I heard him say that the world had only heated 1 degree since (couldn’t hear).

    I assumed he was going to argue the “dangerous” part of the question but he was never given the chance. Hopefully he learns from this and if the opportunity presents itself again just answers “NO”.

  6. a happy little debunker

    Is the planet heating up? Yes
    Is it heating up to dangerous levels? No

    Has the risk emphasis changed due to the planet heating up? Yes
    Does this represent catastrophic warming? No

    Life spans are getting longer, poverty is reducing, individual health is increasing, costs of extreme weather is decreasing, Fatalities during extreme weather is at a universal low.

    Have threats to species become changed during this time? Yes
    Are these changed threats solely as a result of global warming? No

    Have oceans become slightly less alkaline? Yes
    Have they become more acidic? No

    So much denying, far too little time!

  7. nb

    a happy little debunker (#3289613) says:
    ‘Life spans are getting longer, poverty is reducing, individual health is increasing’
    Therein lies the catastrophe for the left. They must now manufacture poverty to have a constituency.

  8. Mark M

    How it might have gone …

    PM: Is the planet heating up?

    CK: It looks cold in your part of the planet. You tell me.

  9. miltonf

    Morgan- the same grub who called the US constitution their ‘little piece of paper’. The puffed up sense of self importance of these people is grotesque. Oh yes ‘good morning Britain’ – no doubt a knock off of ‘good morning America’

  10. pbw

    I think Craig is under instructions from the Central Committee. After saying “yes” to dangerous global warming, he tried to steer the conversation to economic impacts. In other words, to the standard line that Morrison has been peddling since the election campaign. Craig Kelly was at a triple disadvantage. 1) Morgan always plays dirty. 2) Kelly was on a delay line from Oz, so there was always a lag between accusation and answer. 3) “Experts” were on hand to rebut his arguments with Science.

    We all have a pretty good idea what Craig Kelly believes. Does anyone have any idea what Morrison believes in? I’ve had it with hearing what politicians can’t afford to say. That is, why politicians must lie. This country, its economy, and the integrity of all political and scientific discourse is being flushed down the toilet by the likes of Morrison. The whole society and culture is being choked to death by lies, and all these scumbags can do is try to figure out which lies will be the most effective.

    Morrison is turning on a spit of his own making. If he believes this crap, then who should act as if we are facing “the greatest moral challenge of our age.” If not, he should tell us all what he believes, and dedicate the full resources of the government to exposing this lie.

  11. min

    Having discussed this issue with Craig when I met him at a meeting in Melbourne, he would say that there had been as slight increase in warming as we have come out of a mini ice age. He knows the science and can argue facts well . What frustrates me are the stupid statements like I believe in the Science and interviewer never asks what research would that be? I could guarantee that all they do is quote opinions and have never read a research paper in their lives or IPCC reports

  12. Faye

    There are enough skeptics to be a force against the constant climate change propaganda. But skeptics aren’t a force because we are not a united front. There are many brilliant skeptics who fight the fight individually to their precise audience. However, the alarmists have free reign, there is no public credible group out there to question and corner them publicly. The governments, media, universities, etc etc etc are not called to account.

    We need to take a business like approach of a formal identity group with a plan of attack and a completely functioning office working assiduously with facts to blow up the dozens of crazy statements and ‘scientific’ papers made by the alarmists every day. Skeptics with the scientific knowledge of both sides of the argument should be ‘out there’ replying/rebuffing the alarmists as soon as anything happens. Also follow what governments are doing, what specific laws are being passed, uncover fraudulent behaviour, etc etc.

    If the silent skeptics saw a working credible group forcing the alarmists to prove, justify, reply, debate, explain their actions, and in so doing, expose their house of cards pile of unscientific, unprofessional, no empirical evidence, self peer reviewed proclamations publicly, then the skeptic force would grow louder, bigger and stronger.

    In other words, there are heaps of sites like this which largely criticizes climate change but the larger population never reads them. All they hear and see are the fake media.

    The money needed to run such an enterprise may come from donations – surely there are well healed skeptics who are fed up with the stranglehold that climate change is putting on Australia? We will be waiting to doomsday for the government to call a halt to propping up the climate change mob.

  13. Karabar

    Faye
    Such an organisation is The Saltbush Club.
    Here is an example of The Saltbush Club feeding into a template for what you are contemplating, which is called The Friends of Science, in Calgary, Alberta.
    https://blog.friendsofscience.org

  14. mem

    The Swedish public has voted that climate change spending has been the biggest waste of taxpayer money in 2019, according to a poll by the Swedish Taxpayers’ Association.
    Perhaps the ATA should be doing similar surveys here in Australia?
    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/01/11/swedes-vote-climate-policy-biggest-waste-tax-payer-money-2019/

  15. Crossie

    Is the planet heating up? Yes
    Is it heating up to dangerous levels? No

    The point of these questions is that only the first one is asked, the second is irrelevant since the visual and audible grab has been produced. After that everything is heresy and must be punished. For an anti-religious movement they certainly have a very army of Torquemadas.

  16. Crossie

    The Swedish public has voted that climate change spending has been the biggest waste of taxpayer money in 2019, according to a poll by the Swedish Taxpayers’ Association.

    They will all be sent Greta to yell at them in person “How dare you?”

  17. the sting

    At least Craig had a go . If you want to win the battle , first you have to turn up .

  18. Kingsley

    Faye I think your idea has serious merit and it should have international affiliates/chapter all over the world. Also who I think would be superb as the peak leader and just happens to be looking for a new job – Nigel Farage. He’s got Brexit done now he can dedicate himself to killing climate change extremism.

Comments are closed.