The easiest way to expose the fundamental ignorance of ideologues is often to just ask them basic questions. As Matt Walsh has so effectively shown, ask a gender activist, even leading “transition” doctors, “What is a woman?” and they are completely stumped.
Similarly, ask a climate activist basic questions, and they are stunned into silence.
As I reported yesterday, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young was flummoxed when a journalist asked how much the Greens’ “net zero” policies would cost. “What do you mean by cost?”, Hanson-Young mumbled.
But that’s “Sarah Sea-Patrol” for you. Everyone knows she’s not exactly a brains-trust. On the other hand, Penny Wong is supposed to be intelligent.
Instead, it looks as if she’s as dumb and ignorant as a Greens senator who thought a tv drama was a documentary.
Senator Pauline Hanson has pressed Senator Penny Wong over Labor’s climate change policies and what they will cost Australia during a fiery exchange in the Senate on Wednesday.
The One Nation leader asked Ms Wong three questions in a row about net zero emissions and what impact those policies would mean for everyday Australians.
Remember, this is Labor’s signature policy. It was the almost sole focus of their first parliamentary session. Wong is one of the most senior members of the government, and a former Climate Minister, so she ought to be all over the detail of the policy and its costs and impacts.
Pauline started with the simplest question of all.
The government’s leader in the senate was first asked whether she could put into “layman’s terms” what net zero meant.
She might as well have asked “What is a woman?”
Ms Wong replied saying she was “not sure how to explain it other than to say it means net zero” before stumbling over her words as she attempted to make her explanation simpler.
“I’ll think through if I can provide an explanation that makes it clearer than that, to me the words net zero are quite clear I think we all understand what net emissions means,” she told the Upper House.
Sky News
So, she couldn’t answer, and she fell back on the most painfully ludicrous circular logic: “net zero means net zero”.
This is the best and brightest the Labor Party can produce.
The Daily Telegraph’s Tim Blair later helped Wong out with a very succinct and simple explanation:
“Net zero means obviously that you are producing emissions but you’re doing things that either off-set or otherwise address those emissions so the effect is net zero.”
Sky News
Penny Wong is rumoured to have retorted, “Speak English, Egghead! We ain’t no climate scientamists!”
Meanwhile, Hanson wasn’t letting Wong off that easily.
“Actually I’m gobsmacked from the first answer I don’t know whether I should actually ask a second one,” she said.
“How much will the government policy to reduce emissions by 43 per cent, and you don’t know what net zero is anyway, by 2030 I would really like to know how much it’s going to cost the government by 2050 but I doubt I’m going to get an answer on the first one.
“If you can answer my question: how much is it going to cost the Australian taxpayers to reduce emissions by 43 per cent.”
Wong’s answer was a 100% gibberish non-answer.
She said the modelling showed the reduction would create 604,000 jobs, with five out of six new jobs to be created in the region, spur $76 billion dollars of investment and would deliver 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
Note that none of that actually answers what the cost would be.
But the One Nation senator saved the best for last: a double-whammy on Labor’s emissions and migration policies.
Ms Hanson asked a question about how Labor’s plans to increase migration would fall into place with its emissions reduction targets […]
Labor announced there would be 195,000 places for skilled migrants with an aim to create an easy path to permanent migration to help fill the skills shortages following the Jobs and Skills Summit last week.
Sky News
As Wong admitted, population size is directly linked to increased emissions. But, she says, Labor has a “plan” to “delink” them.
We hear a lot about Labor’s “plans”, but they can never really explain what they are. Any more than they can explain what “Net Zero” means.
*And for all those nitwits blithering, “Google it!”, I suggest you Google the Reversing the Burden of Proof fallacy.