Corporate Marxism

Now I know my ABC

FNF Media has finally got around to updating the state of our ABC as compiled in the 2018/19 annual report.

The national broadcaster still believes we should fork over even more taxpayer dollars to keep this icon producing more of what the citizens supposedly demand, even though more of the audience believes that “efficiency/management quality” is headed south (p.158) and overall ratings continue to slide.

Despite over $1bn per annum, why do ratings in the metro and regional areas keep falling? We wrote about this last year:

Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 the TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

In 2018/19 it fell into the mid-40s. So inside of 13 years, ABC audiences have shrunk by 10-15%. That is appalling.

We have argued for a long time that the ABC needs a complete overhaul.

In the 2018 annual report, the ABC staff survey revealed engagement was at 46%, 6% below the previous survey. This put the broadcaster in the bottom quartile of all ANZ businesses. Reform was and still is desperately needed.

ABC staff complained that management didn’t do enough to get rid of underperformers. Another clear signal that state-sponsored mediocrity was tolerated and staff didn’t like it.

In the 2018/19 annual report, Chair Ita Buttrose AC made the following comments,

Staff morale was badly shaken, and my priority has been to reinvigorate it by restoring order and enhancing good governance with the help of Managing Director, David Anderson, and his management team. Our employees, in content areas and vital support functions, need a strong sense of direction and a feeling that management has their backs. I feel we are now providing it.

Tucked away in the back pages (p.216) is an interesting subsection on the Code of Practice. There is some eye-opening content with respect to the way it conducts its business.

Take this gem to start with on complaints as to whether it constitutes a potential breach of the charter:

A complainant is entitled under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“the BSA”) to take their complaint to the ACMA if, after 60 days, the ABC fails to respond to the complainant or the complainant considers the ABC’s response is inadequate.

The ACMA has a discretionary power to investigate a complaint alleging the ABC has,
in providing a national broadcasting service, breached its Code of Practice. Section 151 of the BSA provides that the ACMA may investigate the complaint if it thinks that it is desirable to do so.

The ACMA’s jurisdiction under sections 150-151 does not encompass the ABC’s print content or content disseminated by the ABC over the internet or through mobile devices.

Print and internet-based content fall out of the remit for complaints. So technically ABC can say what it pleases. ACMA is hardly wielding a big stick when it comes to the ABC.

Accuracy is a fun area which would seemingly fall foul of rarely being presented in context:

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Why did the ABC report that less than 1% of burnt area in the recent bushfires had been started by arsonists? Given that most fires couldn’t be attributed to anything at the time, the ABC forgot to mention the “unknown” category so it could slice the data so it could list the smallest possible percentage. 12,000 fires had been reported since August 2019. 1,700 had been investigated with 42% reported by the NSW Police as deliberately lit.

Impartiality

…The ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Why did it allow a bunch of radical feminists to openly call for the murder of men, providing a platform to a convicted terrorist or happily release a tweet that said former PM Abbott liked anal sex? Or calling conservative politicians “c@nts“? Guess we’re just not open minded enough.

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Why does the ABC constantly run a climate alarmist narrative? Why does Q&A attack conservatives on the panel almost every episode?

Secret recording and other types of deception

“5.8 Secret recording, misrepresentation or other types of deception must not be used by the ABC or its co-production partners to obtain or seek information, audio, pictures or an
agreement to participate except where:

(a) justified in the public interest and the material cannot reasonably be obtained
by any other means; or
(b) consent is obtained from the subject or identities are effectively obscured; or
(c) the deception is integral to an artistic work.

In cases, the potential for harm must be taken into consideration.”

Why did the ABC insert ­itself into the election campaign with a program timed to derail the election prospects of the Left’s hate ­figure, Pauline Hanson and One Nation? An Al ­Jazeera expose, How to Sell a Massacre, was a sting three years in the making, employing hidden cam­eras to ­record One Nation’s ­unsuccessful attempts to solicit foreign funding with the aid of the National Rifle Association. Why was the ABC consorting with the national broadcaster of a foreign power which has highly exceptional human rights standards which flies in the face of all the woke agenda pushed by the ABC? Double standards much?

Privacy

Privacy is necessary to human dignity and every person reasonably expects that their privacy will be respected. But privacy is not absolute. The ABC seeks to balance the public interest in respect for privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.

That is a whole can of worms. Can we trust the ABC to execute fairly in this regard?

Harm & Offence

“7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make
reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.”
7.6 Where there is editorial justification for content which may lead to dangerous imitation or exacerbate serious threats to individual or public health, safety or welfare, take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks, particularly by taking care with how content is expressed or presented.
7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”

Again, what purpose was there to get a panel of radical feminists outright calling for the murder of men? Or just use taxpayer funds on an article on how to give blow jobs?

Kids Programs

Take due care over the dignity and physical and emotional welfare of children and young people who are involved in making, participating in and presenting content produced or commissioned by the ABC…Take particular care to minimise risks
of exposure to unsuitable content…

Why did the ABC run a kids program attacking white privilege?

We have long supported a shift to the TVNZ model, where the kiwi national broadcaster is forced to raise most of its own revenue by appealing to the demands of the market.

TVNZ gets $310m of its $318m purse from advertising. It’s staff costs excluding capitalizing into programs is $72m which converts to 23% staff cost/revenues. They do with 642 FT employees. Revenue/employee is $495,000 vs half that at the ABC. It paid a dividend back to the government of $3.7m. i.e. it is a revenue generating asset.

In 2007, TVNZ had $339m in revenue. It employed 1,023 people. Therefore revenue per employee was $331,380. So in a decade, TVNZ efficiency improved almost 50%. A 6% cut to revenue on 63% reduction in staff. TVNZ ratings are up too.

So instead of Ita Buttrose impersonating Oliver Twist she should be channeling Jerry Maguire and asking advertisers to “show her the money!”

The ABC needs to live in the real world of media because it provides no distinct differentiation from what is already available in the marketplace. You see our ABC should be confident that it has a sustainable audience for its type of journalism. It shouldn’t be one to fear but one to embrace.

For the ABC, it’s best not risk it. Easier to suck on the teat of the taxpayer and ask for even more money so it can try to arrest the decline in so much content that is totally unsalvageable.

Victoria to become 100% female if superannuation laws passed

The Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria is wanting to push legislation to allow companies to pay women a higher rate of superannuation than men to close the gap. Adjustments to the Sex Discrimination Act would be required.

Given the legislation that allows one to change gender without question in Victoria, why would anyone identify as male if their superannuation might be higher with a company that wanted to be woke? Who are companies to deny my right to identify as the gender I claim to be.

Even if companies wanted to voluntarily pay women more superannuation, they should prepare for a revolt by men. As bogus as those making a gender change claim might be, if they have it formalized on their birth certificate then, as a matter of law, companies would be forced by their own hand to pay men who identify otherwise.

The market is a wonderful weighing mechanism. Obamacare was one of the largest contributing factors as to why 94% of jobs growth under President Obama was part time. Companies avoided red tape by bypassing the legislation that would raise costs to unsustainable levels.

If governments want to create higher unemployment, pushing higher super is one way to put a brake on jobs growth and push companies to hire cheaper male employees.

So by the very misguided altruism of the Victorian government, women could end up worse off and the gap even wider.

What if a person with genuine gender dysphoria identities as a trans male. That would mean under the legislation a company would be entitled to lower super payments.

There are plenty of other ways to address the gap – this isn’t one of them.

Global Coal-fired power statistics – Diary of a Wimpy Kid

What is it with the self-flagellation over coal-fired power? The announcement that the Morrison government intends underwriting “ONE” coal-fired power plant brings with it the hysteria of publicly force-feeding kindergarten kids with highly radioactive sludge at recess time. Naturally, none of this outrage is based on facts. It is all tokenism.

Here are the stats for coal-fired power stations globally:

Coal Capacity

Australia has only 2.5% of the coal-fired capacity of China. Versus our total of 58, China has almost 3,000 in service.

Coal Operation

Coal-fired plants that have been announced, are under construction, permitted and pre-permit stage around the globe total 1,046. Where are the climate activists in China, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Japan, Russia, Mongolia, Botswana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Korea, Thailand, Malawi, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Turkey, Egypt, Poland and South Africa?

New Coal

The mt CO2-e output of each country is as follows. Note China produces 36x more CO2.

Coal CO2

So China and India are responsible for 58% of coal-fired power generated emissions and will be 50% of all new capacity additions going forward.

Coal CO2 Contrib

China has 100x more coal-fired power on the drawing board than Australia yet we behave as though we are the biggest climate sinners on the planet! China and India have consistently been 70%+ of all new coal-fired plant capacity additions since 2006.

Coal Capa

So do Australian activists honestly think that canning one domestic new coal-fired power plant will have the slightest effect on global temperatures when our Asian and African neighbours are full speed ahead?

There have also been arguments made by activists that our coal exports should be counted against our totals in terms of emissions. Fine. Then by that logic, FNF Media expects the total emissions of every car sold in Australia (including fuel consumed) to be charged back to Japan, China, Korea, America and Europe. Every aircraft, every electronic device, every imported building material, crane, bulldozer, wind turbine, solar panel and truck that transports it. It would equal itself out pretty quickly.

Our global neighbours seem to be prioritizing national growth over climate alarmism. For it would appear they do not have the same level of brain-washed fanatics telling our kids that they have inherited a planet that will make them the last people on earth to survive.

The quickest route for Australia to end its prosperity is to cower to this insanity. To fall in line to the idea that renewables are cheaper (they aren’t) and more green is preposterous. Wind turbine blades are being put into landfill and solar panels are toxic to recycle and likely to end in the same place. Germany is giving us a great beta test case of how renewables are failing them. Indulge yourself here.

Coal-fired plants in Australia are forced to run sub-optimally to cater to the demands of the fluctuations in renewables which must be given priority to the grid. Ask anyone in large scale manufacturing how being forced to run at fluctuating levels destroys efficiency. It really is that simple.

Coal Price

Thermal coal prices are far from going out of control. So our power plant electricity generation isn’t becoming pricier due to input costs.

We have to stop becoming emotional about numbers and data and look at what they are telling us rather than build a narrative and reverse engineer the results. It always catches up to us in the end.

Our government needs to show some backbone and provide easy to understand data about reality. Rather than fold at the confected outrage which appears backed by crony capitalists.

Now that former PM Turnbull is weighing in on the debate (contradicting comments made while PM) saying that it is lunacy to pursue coal. Given his record of poor judgment, it stands to reason building cleaner coal-fired power plants is a sensible way to lower energy prices and remain a competitive global economy.

As FNF Media likes to say, the numbers will always be right in the end. Fiddle them at your peril.

Open letter to Michael Mann

Dear Professor Mann,

I saw your performance on ABC Q&A last week.

Unfortunately, you may not have been aware that this is one of Australia’s worst media platforms for balanced debate or reasoned argument. The show has been raked over the coals (excuse the pun) countless times for its shockingly poor standards whether it be inviting radical feminists hurling profanity while openly calling for the murder of men, giving platforms to convicted terrorists or allowing tweets that suggested the then sitting prime minister enjoys anal sex. Without knowing its dismal editorial history, you can be forgiven for heaping praise on the show. Don’t worry, the program has made countless promises that it will do better in the future. We’re still waiting. Forewarned is forearmed.

You said you enjoy “taking climate deniers to task” but I believe it is this type of attitude that creates the very problems that get in the way of convincing them.

While you might have found it necessary to appropriate the aphorism that “you should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out,” why didn’t you just educate Senator Molan with a list of specific hard data points instead of resorting to the one size fits all ‘consensus’ line? As much as his gaffe will be replayed on a loop, I sincerely doubt those words came out as he intended.

On the subject of consensus over the science being settled, why do we still have such poor governance practices in the scientific community?

Let’s face it. There have been many controversies that have come from climatologists based on fraudulent data or lax governance in the peer-review process. Unfortunately with next to no risk of repercussions for falsifying/homogenizing data or ‘you scratch my back, I scratch yours‘ endorsements, scientists can make outlandish claims at will with no lasting consequences.

Take this example.

A major scientific paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, was withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology.

The authors sheepishly said,

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept.”

It was pulled only because it was caught. Peer-reviewed? Have the people responsible for giving their blessing been struck off the list as gurus for future papers given the lazy approach to miss such basic errors? Surely to have the same names appear on future academic work risks diminishing potentially important content as sub-standard. There do not appear to be consistently high enough standards to ensure the studies are always top drawer, which they need to be if debt-ridden governments are to deploy more of our taxes effectively.

Nicholas Lewis said after the retraction that,

“This is just the latest example of climate scientists letting themselves down by using incorrect statistics. The climate field needs to get professional statisticians involved upfront if it is going to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future”.

At the very least, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said

Climatology is littered with examples of bad statistics, going back to the infamous Hockey Stick graph and beyond. Peer review is failing and it is falling to amateurs to find the errors. Scientists in the field should be embarrassed”.

It would be much better if people who possess high profiles in the scientific community such as yourself to become much more active in criticizing these shortcomings.

Put it this way. I, like many others, would like to get to the truth in climate science but because of the actions of a few bad apples, the rest of the value-added that might come from the majority of the scientific community gets diluted in the process. Fraudulent behaviour is reprehensible on any level in any industry. Yet the public have little scope to make these determinations of which science passes muster until it is exposed for failing to be up to standard. Yet they won’t roll over and accept ‘settled science’ given the levels of crony capitalism in the system.

If the climate activist movement wants to win over climate sceptics (not deniers) without shutting down the debate, start by cleaning house first. Advocate for scientific bodies to come down hard on cheaters amongst your own flock. They need to be exposed so that such works are discredited which has the added effect of improving the pool of best-in-class data and research. It would be helpful if the media helped spread the message that such bad behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

Countless people who have been non-compliant in the financial industry have faced harsh punishment in terms of fines and jail sentences. Companies have lost trading licenses and faced fines in the billions of dollars. I have yet to see any scientists face such risks when caught out for highly unethical behaviour.

Perhaps we could get far more sensible outcomes in convincing sceptics were the bad apples prosecuted. Furthermore, whistleblower protections would accelerate a cleanout of the dodgy scientists that game the system and ruin it for the rest. It has worked very successfully in your homeland with financial sector prosecutions up 16x since whistleblower laws were introduced in 2011. Better still, honest scientists have nothing to fear because such legislation acts as an insurance policy which protects their hard work.

That is how you’ll bring trust to the table.

I would be highly surprised if most scientists haven’t seen or heard of unethical practices conducted in the field of climate science.

You also mentioned that, “My view is the view of the world scientific community, every scientific institution in the world that’s weighed in on this matter – climate change is real, it’s human-caused, it’s already leading to disastrous impacts here in Australia and around the rest of the world. And it will get much worse if we don’t act.

Every institution? Even if we were to take this as gospel, it is highly likely that the majority have distinctly different takes on the ‘extent’ of human impacts made more disperse by varying timelines. Some no doubt say there are very minuscule impacts to others that paint more extreme scenarios. Therefore to imply there is one united view seems a bit far fetched. Despite the position of more conservative scientists, the only view that is pedalled appears to be the alarmist one.

We constantly hear noise from the media, egged on by alarmists, that extreme weather events are becoming more widespread. However, the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) notes:

“…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systemsin some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”

Where is the scientific community’s transparency in pointing out that the probabilities and confidence levels about such ‘extreme weather’ claims remaining very low? Coming from a background in statistics, such low confidence levels smack more of ‘unsettled’ science. Yet the alarmists preach it as though the evidence is irrefutable when it statistically can not be. It gets worse.

Although the media never covered it, can you please explain why so many scientists trashed the IPCC for its governance practices? The public is constantly told that the UN IPCC climate bible is the gold standard which cannot be denied.

Did you see the UN Interacademy Council committee posted a questionnaire on its website and invited interested parties to respond to the processes at the IPCC? This is what they said;

some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.” (p.16)

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)

The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)

half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped,

The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality, we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.” (p.330)

Are climate deniers, as you label them, justified in questioning the validity of the processes which are relied upon to allocate $100s of billions in taxpayer money if the scientists themselves see deep flaws? This survey wasn’t conducted by a fossil-fuel lobby group but the UN itself. This is the home team exposing its own inadequacy but the media is deathly silent.

The above survey is an utter embarrassment and I would be interested to hear your response to those claims. It is alarming to know that government policy is being based on such sub-standard procedures. It would be nice for scientific bodies to come out in unison to call out these problems to ensure that properly vetted governance practices are introduced and enforced. We all win if this happens.

You said on the Q&A program that, “If we act, if we bring our carbon emissions down by a factor of two within the next 10 years, which we can do if all partners work together, then we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

Do you honestly believe if Australia brings emissions from 1.3% to 0.65% that will have the slightest impact when we know that China has openly stated that its emissions (now at c.30%) won’t stop growing till at least 2030? Furthermore, Australia’s population grew by 10% since 2013. Reducing emissions in half with a growing population will mean that even more drastic measures would be required.

China will be growing an Australia every week by 2030 from every two weeks today. If we hit your target, China will still be steaming ahead at two Australia’s per week. Unfortunately, the economic pain inflicted to reach such targets is simply too steep in reality. Renewables have a very poor record in Australia despite our world-leading commitment per capita in introducing green energy.

You make the criticism about the stance taken by the Murdoch media on climate change. By that measure, The Guardian is conspicuous for its constant alarmism where it openly admits to sensationalising language.

I sincerely hope you join me in ways to close the gap between alarmists and sceptics. We live in a cancel culture society. The more this is accepted, the harder both sides dig in their heels. The only way to effectively find common ground is to tidy up the procedures, governance and practices whereby poor behaviour is summarily punished and outed so that people on all sides can have trust that investment decisions made reflect fact, not fiction.

With a heavy heart, the EU’s recent declaration of a ‘Climate Emergency’ rejected revisions to the legislation which requested, “Recalls that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it scientifically so that policy, and especially spending, is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and what percentage is natural.”

Surely if we are to build a sensible united front, this is a shockingly poor start. Instead of taking sceptics to task, work to put their concerns to bed via cleaning up those that muddy the waters of those with a genuine message. Questioning bad behaviour doesn’t require an open mind. Ignoring it risks one’s brains falling out.

Yours sincerely,

M. Newman

 

Telstra’s CEO should close down operations to be on the right side of history

Telstra CEO Andy Penn has suggested that climate change will be the “defining challenge” of the decade but proclaims he doesn’t want to be drawn into the government policy debate. 

He has called for “more urgent action on climate as changing weather patterns deliver more frequent bushfires, floods, droughts and storms” at an American Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday. 

What a pity that the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) contradicted Mr Penn:

“…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systemsin some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”

Never mind what the scientists ‘actually’ think. Just run the narrative of the activists instead to prevent Extinction Rebellion nutcases from super glueing themselves to the lobby entrance. FNF Media could indulge you on what the scientists actually think of the IPCC. For those interested please see the link here. Spoiler alert – it is exceedingly critical.

Mr Penn said that businesses and individuals should become aware of their carbon footprints. He admitted Telstra is one of the biggest consumers of electricity in the country as data storage needs explode by up to 50% per annum.

If it is such a massive concern, Penn should put Telstra’s shareholder money where its mouth is and charge customers extortionate fees for data storage and data usage such that he can force them to lighten their evil digital-driven carbon footprint. That way he can slow his electricity consumption. Then, Telstra can await all of those woke customers fleeing Vodafone and Optus in droves to sign up for inferior service for more money. Not quite sure what shareholders would think of that…

Even better he could suggest to the board that they close the business for good for the sake of the planet. After all, by going the whole hog he can sleep safe in the knowledge that his kids and grandkids will know he was on the right side of history (the standard alarmist playbook) before we’re swept away by the rising sea levels. Think of all that energy saved.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen this vacuous corporate virtue signalling tokenism before. Who could forget the comments made by Josh Bayliss, the CEO of Virgin Group? He said,

“It’s definitely true that right now every one of us should think hard about whether or not we need to take a flight.”

Why didn’t he close down the airlines in the portfolio? Instead of waiting for his customers to grow a conscience via flight shaming and do the right thing why not force their choice? The obvious answer is that it’s hypocritical in the extreme.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has already positioned behind the flight shaming movement to do its bit for climate change. In a two page flyer, it covered the idea that we reckless passengers must consider our carbon footprint but at the same time help the U.N. raise $40bn in taxes, sorry ‘climate finance,’ between 2021 and 2035.

The Carbon Offsetting & Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is the vehicle which the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) intends to liberate us from our sins and help fund the waste so endemic in the NY based cabal. Wherever the UN is involved expect a sinister agenda behind the virtue.

All airlines have been required to monitor, report and verify their emissions on international flights since Jan 1, 2019. Operators will be required to buy “emissions units” from the UN. If one asked the UN would it prefer emissions to be cut or taxes to be raised, it would select the latter every time.

Still, the easiest way to gauge public fear on climate change is not via a biased think-tank poll but monitor individual consumption patterns. It isn’t just population growth, because it isn’t growing  at these rates. Three examples:

  1. Aircraft demand – In 2019, Boeing reported airlines will need around 44,000 new commercial aircraft worth $6.8 trillion by 2038, vs. 43,000 planes worth $6.49 trillion estimated in 2018. There are currently 25,830 commercial airliners in service.
  2. Smartphones – estimated that the number of global mobile subscriptions could be 13.8 billion in 2025 and 17.1 billion in 2030. The number of global mobile subscriptions has already reached 6.7 billion in 2013. Smartphones will grow from 6.3bn units in 2020 to 12.1 billion by 2030.
  3. Energy Consumption  – the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that world energy consumption will grow by nearly 50% between 2018 and 2050. Energy consumed in the buildings sector (including residential and commercial structures), increases by 65% between 2018 and 2050, from 91 quadrillion to 139 quadrillion Btu. Rising income, urbanization, and increased access to electricity lead to rising demand for energy.

So good luck trying to get people to feel awkward about their individual carbon footprints. They’ll be to busy charging their mobile devices while booking the next overseas holiday to the Maldives.

“Climate change” Casanova

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again.

While the alarmist media continues its attack dog mission on PM Scott Morrison over the bushfires, they overlook the most glaring hole in the argument of the fire chiefs – consistency.

If former FR NSW chief Greg Mullins truly believes that “climate change” is such a critical issue, why was the subject absent for so many years in the annual reports which were submitted to parliament that he oversaw? Surely he had the perfect opportunity to raise awareness year after year on the topic. Yet he didn’t.

Annual reports are like an opus magnum. They document the key opportunities and challenges for an organization. In Mullins’ case, the mention of climate change is conspicuous by its very absence. In the 2018/19 FRNSW annual report there is a reference to climate change by way of voluntary participation in Earth Hour. Hardly a detail oriented study on the effects of bushfires and global warming!

Now that Mullins is in cahoots with the Climate Council, it is very convenient to drum up ‘awareness’ on climate change post the bushfires for a Royal Commission (RC). Forget that 95% of a RC would probably draw on the exact same advice garnered from 57 former enquire since 1939.

Our belief is that incompetence has reigned supreme. Fire department senior management seemed more engaged on ticking the diversity & inclusion box (please see data in the above link) in annual reports than providing rich data on the core business i.e. preventing and extinguishing fires.

That is to take nothing away from the brave fireys who risk their lives on the front line. As some volunteer firefighters have made clear, they think the senior management act like a mafia.

For Mullins to use the get out of jail free card of climate change in any RC by saying it will ‘fail at the first step’ without is ridiculous.

To include it now should highlight the media by years of exclusion when he had the authority and opportunity to do something but didn’t. Why? Will anyone ask this question? Not with our powderpuff mainstream media.

Statistically speaking, to introduce climate change in the 58th review in 81 years would smack of being an outlier. Outliers shouldn’t be ignored but they must be viewed in context of the relatives of intensity, area burned, fuel loads, hazard management, weather conditions, people and machines deployed. It is likely that these fires will be less than one standard deviation off the mean which effectively would conclude that climate change wouldn’t be a driver.

Climate change is now a phrase of convenience tossed around more frequently than Casanova telling girls they are “the only one” on Valentines Day.

Cancel culture puts holes in Swiss chocolatier

Featured Image

Cancel culture. Weak corporate. Gutless response. Repeat.

It seems that Swiss Airlines will remove Swiss chocolatier, Läderach from its supplier list in April over the owner’s affiliation with a pro-life/pro-family Christian organization.

Who is this supposed to help? Passengers have a hard enough time consuming airline meals at the best of times to have the only edible certainty banned. To be honest, how often do passengers actively look through the list of suppliers of crackers, chocolates or packaged cheese and demand a boycott? Why don’t corporates truly work to understand their customers?

For over 10 years, Läderach had supplied Swiss Airlines with small boxes of chocolates that were given to some passengers as a token of appreciation. The company was aware of the CEO’s stance. Why didn’t it conduct proper due diligence 10 years ago?

According to an article published by Swiss magazine “Beobachter,” the airline has a significant number of homosexuals among its employees.

CEO Johannes Läderach denied being against homosexuals.

We have homosexuals working for us, too. We don’t ask them. I attended a gay network event because I wanted to hear what the LGBTQ movement has against Läderach. There I explained that I may have a different opinion on same-sex marriage or on the question when life begins. But this does not mean that I have anything against homosexuals. Läderach has zero-tolerance for discrimination.

Jürg Läderach, the owner of the chocolatier, is president of ‘christianity for today‘ (cft), a Swiss-based group. Johannes Läderach is a board member. cft advocates pro-life and calls for Christian values to be instilled in children.

In October 2019, left-wing activists attacked the Basel Läderach store using butyric acid which causes respiratory irritation, nausea and vomiting. 7 stores were attacked and forced to close for two days to clean the mess. A lot of lost business. Protestors surely broke the law. Repercussions? Probably not. It only emboldens more radical activism.

One has to wonder why Swiss Airlines doesn’t stand up against this form of terrorism instead of giving in to it. The majority of Swiss Airlines passengers probably pay little mind about the views of a chocolate owner. Is everything up for debate? Will something said 20 years ago surface?

As it turns out. Swiss Airlines buckled to a German homosexual lobby group which suggested,  “One way of protesting would be, for example, if hotels or restaurants decided to eliminate Läderach’s products from their range of goods and clearly mark the reason.

Are you noticing a pattern? The list is longer than FNF Media thought.

Greyhound Australia chickened out to a bunch of truants over Adani.

Gillette told its customers to mind their toxic masculinity but was forced to wipe off $8bn in market value as a result of alienating its core clientele. 

Extinction Rebellion inspired protestors are actively trying to bankrupt Shell through willful property destruction.

NFL ratings plunged on the back of the kneeling saga.

Cricket Australia and Tennis Australia were targeted by the ACF over risking violating the Corporations Act if they didn’t address climate change. This was despite the average temperatures during both events being below the long term average.

John McEnroe & Martina Navratilova protested Margaret Court holding different views and pushed Tennis Australia to rename a stadium named after the 77yo sports star after someone they hadn’t consulted who actually loves and admires Court.

Greta Thunberg slammed Roger Federer for having a sponsor which financed the fossil fuel industry. He folded with an utterly spineless response.

Nike cancelled a sneaker on the back of advice from a woke social justice warrior Colin Kaepernick who still can’t make the cut.  

Recall Starbucks forcing its staff to undergo compulsory training to understand their ‘white privilege’ over the legitimate arrest of two people freeloading in the restaurant.

Reebok told us about compelled speech. 

The plastic bag boycott movement which in reality only proved substitution rather than reduction.

NY Times hired an editor who openly said she hates “dumbass f*cking white people“. She has since been fired.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed told her staff that she will no longer conduct business with 22 states that have laws limiting the ability of women to obtain abortions, specifically late-term. Sadly for Breed, Coca-Cola, WalMart, AT&T, Aetna, Pfizer & Eli Lilly have donated to politicians who have advocated for abortion bans in some of those 22 states. Will SF City Council vending machines be stripped of Diet Coke?

Multiple corporates folded to Mad F*cking Witches over radio presenter Alan Jones’ remarks over Jacinda Ardern. One has to question the corporate PR departments to flake out over a group who has that as a name. Companies like Koala Mattresses proudly dumped Jones despite promoting its brand via profanity-laced man-hater, Clementine Ford.

The Code of Conduct from the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia has some interesting clauses regarding nurses acknowledging our colonialist past and check our white privilege.

The University of Texas  started the  “MasculinUT” programme. It was organized by the school’s counselling staff and most recently made a poster series encouraging students to develop a “healthy model of masculinity.” The program is built around “restrictive masculinity” and tries to encourage men to drop traditional gender roles to “act like a man”, be “successful” or “the breadwinner.”

11,000 signatories attached to the non-peer reviewed paper which the media made absolutely zero attempts to question the validity of included Mickey Mouse, Aminta Aardvark and Albus Dumbledore. Typical drip-feed brainless and contemptable reporting.

An open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion threw up some very enlightening facts. Read it and weep. Not the letter – the stats. Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter is Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields. Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science.

The Inclusive Communications Task Force at the Colorado State University has introduced an appropriate language guide and it has deemed the words “America” and “Americans” might prove offensive to some and have discouraged their use on campus.

Dr. Aaron Brough of Utah State University conducted the study to see if there is a correlation between toxic masculinity and climate change. His assumptions ran the line that men see environmentalism as more feminine and get triggered if forced to make ecological choices if they feel threatened.

The government-funded University of Melbourne allows an artistic performance that requires “paying” white customers access on the basis of signing an acknowledgement of white privilege.

Don’t miss the posters put up by the University of San Francisco which pointed out how to spot privilege.

A Michigan State University religious studies professor Shreena Gandhi has claimed that white people who do yoga contribute to a “system of power, privilege, and oppression… White Americans should learn yoga’s history, acknowledge the cultural appropriation they engage in and possibly reduce the cost of yoga classes for poor people, a group that often includes people of colour and recent immigrants, such as Indian women to whom this practice rightfully belong.”

According to the BBC, it was. The UK taxpayer-funded broadcaster is buying into this hypothesis that the CIA may have been too “white” and not diverse enough to spot the terrorist activity around September 11, 2001. Weren’t the whites that founded the agency in 1947 the same thinkers who had the nous to use “diversity” (Navaho Native Americans) to devastating effect to transmit sensitive information during WWII?

We could go on and on – but you get the drift.

There have been some good wins from those that have stood up for their beliefs.

Chik-fil-A, refused to back down on its Christian beliefs that the store was founded on.  It is now the fastest-growing fast-food chain in America.

Adani has said things are progressing just fine.

FedEx told customers that it didn’t like guns but wasn’t getting involved in boycotting NRA loyal customers after the Parkland shooting.

NRA membership searches surged 4900% the week after the Parkland shooting as people valued their 2A rights.

What a surprise in today’s academia. Three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable politically correct jargon (wrt gender equality, white supremacy, LGBTQI) and developed ridiculous conclusions with the aim of placing these ‘peer-reviewed’ pieces in high-profile journals. At the time of exposing the hoax 7 journals succeeded in being published, 7 were in the approvals process

This growing intolerance and failure to respect alternative opinions. Instead of openly debating Läderach on how normal the overwhelming majority of LGBT people are, do lobby groups honestly believe shouting them down, using acid, shaming and boycotting will somehow win them over? Not in a million years.

Worryingly, a CIS study in Australia showed that 58% of millennials had a favourable view of socialism. Unfortunately, 51% did not know who Chairman Mao was. Another 32% did not know Stalin and 42% hadn’t heard of Lenin. If we combine with “know but not familiar” with “don’t know” we see almost 80%, 66% and 74% respectively. Oh, how wonderful to learn in school about three men whose social policies led to the deaths of 10s of millions.

Silence is consent. As Orwell said, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!