Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Esther Rantzen's confused climate change scepticism

I have been pretty sceptical about anti-party candidates, suggesting that they can encourage an anti-politics approach to democracy. (And John Smeaton's performance in Glasgow suggested, perhaps more importantly, that the voters may not be champing at the bit either).

Esthern Rantzen will be a higher profile candidate at the next General Election than any candidate of the major parties who has not previously been elected.

But where will she stand on the major issues?

Can she avoid the trap of being tempted to be all things to all people?

Her position on climate change today suggested maybe not.

Indeed, she may be the idea person to head a new campaigning group 'Climate sceptics for a Copenhagen deal'.

Rantzen tweeted:

Actually I support Ed's Pledge, but 10 hot years in 12 do NOT prove that climate change is man made


Support Ed's Pledge &aims @ Copenhagen. Even if climate change isn't manmade, we've not helped &should conserve


Rantzen also retweeted a posting from Carol McGiffen of Loose Women who is considerably more hostile to the idea that that global warming is real or mandmade. That tweet from McGiffen to Bevanite Ellie read "No point arguing when u send links like that. If u believe that stuff, u are more stupid than I thought".

This was in response to a link of the summary of scientific evidence on Ed Miliband's Copenhagen website

Rantzen, when challenged about this, said:

"In fairness, I did say I agreed with Ed's Pledge so no argument from me, but you're blindly not addressing Carol's points".

What were Carol's points? McGiffen wrote this of The Great Global Warming Swindle

I've seen it, it's brilliant. They should be showing that in schools, not Al Bore's Inconvenient Truth propaganda.

And she declared the Copenhagen conference "a total waste of time and money".

It is arrogant and absurd that man actually believes he can control the climate of this planet just by telling us to switch off the lights. It's a simple example but you know what I mean. The climate will change regardless of how much they tax us or dictate to us. A giant conference of "believers" in Copenhagen is a total waste of time and money. Not to mention CO2.

Finally, it turned out that Esther Rantzen didn't agree with any of that at all, when challenged directly about her scepticism on man-made climate change.

benfolley asked:

Did @Esther4Luton say "even if climate change isn't manmade" - seriously!?

Joshua Fenton-Glynn wrote:

@Esther4Luton doesn't believe in man made C Change... this candidacy is leaving her dangerously exposed as lightweight with disturbing views

To which Rantzen replied:

@joshfg @benfolley Scuse me, @esther4luton DOES believe CC's manmade. @bevaniteellie argued w someone who didn't. My point's hypothetical.

(That was about three hours after she had written "Actually I support Ed's Pledge, but 10 hot years in 12 do NOT prove that climate change is man made").

So I hope that's clear!

1 comment:

Derek Wall said...

all climate scepticism is confused not just hers, some deny temperatures are rising, others that they are rising but this is not caused by emissions (although they disagree as to what is driving climate change) and others say CO2 is driving temperature change but this is beneficial.


are my more detailed thoughts.