Finding the time to put up something slightly more coherent with regard to the leaked CRU material then her ramblings of last Tuesday, she still isn't able (or willing) to look beyond the 'criminal act' and drones on about climate skeptics selectively 'cutting, pasting and editing' the material until they find support for their views.
Complaining about one-sided, a-symmetrical information in the zip-file leaked over the internet, she suddenly, and with abundant clarity displays what she understands to be a 'healthy scientific discussion':
Everything is taken out of context and all sorts of characters that think the climate problem isn't so bad (and that the earth is flat) are running with it.Got that? If you think AGW may not be as bad as the IPCC says it is, you MUST be the kind of primitive, superstitious troglodyte that believes in a flat earth. This sorry excuse for a cabinet minister was at one point a professor in Environmental Sciences. One would think that in that capacity she learned a thing or two about scientific discussion. In my experience at least, labelling the other side 'flat earthers' was not normally on the menu. Then again I wasn't a climate or environmental scientist, was I?
One wonders what fraction of the Dutch population (let alone the world population) our porcelain doll managed to offend with that unfortunate remark.
Be that as it may, prudent policy making should demand that any clues that the publics money (our money) is spent on pipe dreams is investigated seriously. The money we spend now on far-fetched (and hugely expensive) schemes such as carbon-sequestration or building more unprofitable wind parks cannot be spent on more useful (and needed) goals, like improving our health care and education (to name but two).
Minister Cramer has signalled her reluctance to seriously consider the evidence, instead offering up platitudes like 'taking the IPCC as an anchor', since their report is based on the work of 'thousands of scientist', or that the leaked material was 'shopped together selectively'. This callous approach to spending public money makes her unfit as a serious policy maker. And to put insult to injury, anyone not agreeing with her hallowed eco-religious views is labeled by this minister (and by extension then, the whole government) as a flat-earther. Can we please get rid of her now?