Free Speech

ACF threatens Tennis Australia with Corporations Act

It was only a matter of time. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has regurgitated a report it wrote on the increasing risks of heat stress on cricketers during Boxing Day tests by applying it the Australian Open tennis.

It chose the same partial voice to undertake the study.  The Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub (MCCCRH) openly states that it “conducts social research and leads impact focused projects to build media and policy infrastructure that adequately addresses climate change in Australia.”

Not balance. Just agenda based.

The main points were as follows:

“The MCCCRH finds”:

“Australian tennis is already experiencing the impact of climate change, with smoke from bushfires and extreme heat driven by climate change increasing health risks for players and the likelihood of match disruptions.

Haven’t we worked out that dreadful bush management is a root cause, not climate change? That despite 57 inquiries into bushfires since 1939 we still haven’t learnt how to maintain our bush land despite aborigines being successful custodians for 1,000s of years before climate change was even a thing? Incompetence seems to be the issue, not climate.

“Tennis authorities should consider a series of actions to protect players, such as extending the length of the tournament — to allow games to be cancelled in the hottest part of the day if it’s too hot on court — or moving the event to November or March.”

Has the ACF considered some players are fitter than others? Shouldn’t the players determine such things with TA, not a bunch of alarmists with an axe to grind?

“Climate change threats may soon represent ‘material financial issues’ for Tennis Australia and its directors, who could face liability under the Corporations Act for failing to adequately address and report these risks.

Do we really need to have the ACF resort to threats via the Corporations Act to shame Cricket Australia and Tennis Australia (TA) with unsettled science? Does it realize that corporations reporting on climate change has fallen to 14% from 22% over the last decade? 1000s of Aussie directors are already well aware of their risks without having the ACF throw the rule book in their face. So they disagree with you.

Will the ACF insure the risk of lost revenue if its alarmism they predict fails to eventuate? If the ACF is so confident in its prophecies it should have no qualms backing such a notion. Put its science where its mouth is.

On page 16, TA got a slap on the wrist for having ANZ as a sponsor because it supports the fossil fuel industry at $7.70 for every $1 it does on renewables. Could that be because of the relative risk profile, ACF? Does ANZ dictate to TA what it must do with the tournament other than contractually honour advertising exposure? Does TA have any rights to tell ANZ how it, a bank, deploys shareholder capital? No.

Although we do note the ACF commended TA for joining the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework and urges it to raise its voice for strong, meaningful climate action from our government.

The ACF should demand that TA restrict the Australian Open to players who walk, cycle or sail to the tournament. As the UN sports body states,

“Sport is not just a victim of climate change; it is also a contributor, through greenhouse gas emissions.

What better way to mitigate the dangers and show the very actions that will stop the climate emergency dead in its tracks by making the tennis players ditch fossil fuel derived transport of any sort to any future events and give up their carbon rackets and naphtha based synthetic clothing.

In closing, FNF Media hopes for the sake of consistency, that the ACF will guarantee it will publish a report on professional skiing competitions where skiers may have to brave record cold temperatures to compete? If such an event comes to pass, we can guarantee it would never see the light of day. After all we just had the coldest maximum summer temperature in history at Thredbo late last year.

By the way, here is the Melbourne forecast for the tournament and the peak temp hit in 1939.

BoM could tell you but they’d have to kill you (or charge a fortune)

Following on from yesterday’s report on the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BoM) fuzzy reporting standards which ignored satellite data, Jo Nova once again reports on the status of the ‘undisclosed’ methodology that we aren’t privy to.

On the face of it, if the BoM is to be regarded as the hall monitor for our government to set policy prescriptions against, shouldn’t the taxpayer and our lawmakers be entitled to 100% transparency of how BoM derives its predictions? And no, it shouldn’t be a question of we mere peons not being of sufficient intellect to be able to interpret it.

There should be standards that can face proper scrutiny and are comparable to other global meteorological bodies. If BoM’s methodology is superior, why isn’t it sharing it with the world and beating its chest to make us revere it even more? Isn’t that how we save the planet by promoting our own as the best in class that others should follow?

The following should boil your blood.

“The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.

As we have said all along, the all new ACORN wonder-data was not created with the scientific method. Adjustments to Australian temperature data were done with a black box mystery technique that only the sacred guild at the BOM are allowed to know. Far from being published and peer reviewed, the methods are secret, and rely on — in their own words — a “supervised process” of “expert judgment” and “operator intervention”. In other words, a BOM employee makes their best guess, ruling in or out the “optimal” choices, making assumptions that are not documented anywhere.

It’s a “trust us” approach. Would we let an ASX company audit their own books? Would you buy shares in such a company, or let it inform national policy on billion dollar schemes?

Here is the entire section on replication from page 9 and 10 (below). This is what any semi-skilled PR operative would write if they were trying to justify keeping their methods secret. My translations included.

Only BOM staff are smart enough to understand “scientifically complex”  thermometers (this is something that engineers, astrophysicists, aeronautics experts and physicists would not be able to do, is that what they are saying?):

The Forum considers that the algorithms and processes used for adjustment and homogenisation are scientifically complex and a reasonably high level of expertise is needed to attempt analysis of the ACORN-SAT data. For this reason the Forum had some queries about the ability to reproduce findings by both experts and members of the public.

Thinly veiled put-down coming:

It would be useful for the Bureau to provide advice about the necessary level of end-user expertise (notwithstanding a likely tendency for end-users to feel qualified to attempt such an analysis).

It might be more “useful” if the BOM staff provided their personal exam results in fluid dynamics, heat flow, mathematics and statistics. Or even just their resumes? We’ll find people who outscored them. OK?

Here’s the statement that no one has replicated the Australian temperature set:

The Forum felt that reproducing the Bureau’s ACORN-SAT daily analyses would be a very onerous task, and advice was supplied at the Forum meeting day that, while international groups have provided independent data homogenized at the monthly time-scale, no groups other than the Bureau are known to have attempted to produce or analyse an homogenized daily data set for Australia. One option would  the Bureau to work with local and international collaborators with the appropriate skill set to broadly assess the ACORN-SAT daily homogenisation methodologies.

Here is the statement that no one can replicate them because only the BOM knows how it was done (my bolding):

The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.

The process can’t be “automated” — which means it can’t be described by a set of rules other people, or other computers could follow. It’s a bit of a red herring: skeptics have never demanded “automation”. We just want explanations. The crux of science is replication, not automation. If ad hoc judgements were part of the process, they need to be recorded and their impact on the numbers included in the processing from raw data to final product. Justifications can come afterwards; let’s first establish what happened.

These are weak and vague promises here for something that is not just a basic tenet of science, but should be obligatory for government funded work as well. (Bolding all mine):

The Forum recommends that the Bureau work towards providing robust code that supports a level of automation that allows sensitivity analyses to be reasonably undertaken by independent parties.

What “independent re-analysis”? There is no independent analysis of all of ACORN.

This goal could be pursued through a careful documentation of existing code and feedback from the independent re-analysis recommended in the preceding paragraph.

The Bureau would like to help but it costs too much, and skeptics will have to pay more for answers from these tax-funded workers:

While the Bureau expressed willingness to support end-users who wished to reproduce findings or conduct independent analyses using the ACORN-SAT data, subsequent follow-up on such intentions may have significant resource implications. It is thus recommended that the Bureau limits the amount of assistance it provides end-users and includes a statement on the ACORN-SAT website that while reasonable assistance may be provided by the Bureau, extensive assistance could not be provided without an appropriate at-cost charge. Such limitations are likely to also limit the ability of end-users to replicate ACORN-SAT findings, but the resource implications of offering open-ended support to end-users may be substantial.

The Bureau of Meteorology Budget was 344.2 million in 2014-15. The Australian climate is a national crisis, but the Bureau can’t employ one person to answer questions about its secret methods?

When will the BOM start to behave as though the climate is important? When will the Greens demand science be done properly for the sake of the environment?

Our Sandy Hook moment?

You have to hand it to the editors of The Guardian. In what world can anyone draw an equivalence between action on climate change and a crazed gunman who murdered 27 people, mostly kindergarten kids? Who wouldn’t think the two are interchangeable?

The Guardian columnist Brigid Delaney wants us to believe the connection. At the very least this article proves once again why the paper still asks for charity at the bottom of each article because the content doesn’t warrant a high enough value that ordinary people are willing to shell out for it. Sometimes, content IS the problem.

Her column takes similar cues from the recent NY Times article on ‘Australia committing climate suicide.‘ The Man Booker prize-winning author of the opinion piece, Richard Flanagan, is a novelist, not a climate expert. 

As Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, once observed, the collapse of the Soviet Union began with the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986. In the wake of that catastrophe, “the system as we knew it became untenable,” he wrote in 2006. Could it be that the immense, still-unfolding tragedy of the Australian fires may yet prove to be the Chernobyl of the climate crisis?

Such dramatic language may well have inspired Delaney,

Sandy Hook was the rock bottom moment – where things are so bad you know they can no longer continue as is. After rock bottom, there is a choice: stasis and misery or growth and transformation…This apocalyptic-seeming Australian summer is our Sandy Hook moment. We have to seize it and change our thinking, our priorities and our politics. In doing so we can change our country, our future, and transform ourselves into global leaders on climate change.

Delaney might reflect on the facts surrounding gun violence in the US. 95% of firearm-related murders in the US are committed with handguns, not automatic weapons. So despite the constant fixation on automatic rifles, statistically American lawmakers would be better off banning sales of pistols. Deaths from mass-shootings are less than 0.6% of the total. Horrible yes, but a handgun ownership culture moment would have been more apt given that almost 40,000 that perish at the wrong end of a trigger every year. 

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, murders in the US appear to be very concentrated: 54% of US counties (representing 11% of the population) in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties made up 51% of the murders, ironically in states with the strictest gun controls – Illinois, NY and California. 

Who needs facts when it is much easier to put the blame at the feet of 5 million law-abiding citizens who happen to be NRA members. Perhaps Americans don’t view gun massacres as ‘rock bottom’ moments when it comes to defending their amendment rights. Mark Robinson gave a perfect example of why Americans are fed up with being punished for the actions of others. Obama had control of both houses in his first term. Spoke about 2A. Didn’t do anything about it. Plenty of gun massacres in his first term including Fort Hood.

Moving on from Sandy Hook and guns, allow us to indulge her commentary on The Guardian’s pet topic of climate change. Let us not forget that the newspaper implores its journalists to crank up the alarmist rhetoric. If only as much effort went into investigating the numbers behind the claims.

Transformation is recognising the facts: Australia is a climate vandal, led by wreckers. We are ranked the worst of 57 countries on climate policy.

Delaney has probably never read the entire CCPI report which ranked us 57th. If she had (like we did), she might have found the following,

The CCPI measures the emissions, renewable energy share and climate policies of 57 countries and the European Union. It released the document at the COP25 summit to bathe in the spotlight with alarmists pals. Where was the journalistic rigour? Of course, it was non-existent.

Who were the Aussie based “experts” (activists) the CCPI relied on to provide really in-depth qualitative opinions on our climate policy evaluation?

Doctors for the Environment Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation 
Oxfam
The Australian Institute

All climate activists. Precious little objectivity there. It is isn’t hard to work out why Australia scored a 0.0 on climate policy. Even worse, any think tank with the remotest thirst for integrity in reporting and sensible data collection should have questioned a zero score. CCPI didn’t.

Yet Delaney went in all guns blazing to bash Australia’s lack of climate-friendly credentials, citing this farce of a study as gospel. It is so bad it actually makes the IPCC climate bibles look good and that takes some doing given many scientists slammed the processes which were documented in the internal feedback study. We summarised the outcomes of that 678-page document here.

Is Delaney aware that according to Bloomberg NEF, an organisation owned by an individual with heavy green credentials, Australia has the 3rd highest clean energy spend per capita! We spent twice as much in real dollar terms as France yet these climate alarmists marked us down to zero “because our democracy supported Adani.”

Sorry Ms. Delaney, we are finding it hard to reconcile how Australia spending  11x the global average on renewables makes us climate vandals? What level would you suggest we lead? We await your data-rich analysis. 

Is this the takeaway from your rich climate expertise?

What might our transformation look like? It might look like a simple acknowledgement of causation between climate change and this summer’s fires.

OK, so we just get ScoMo to declare a climate emergency? Job done!

Presumably, if we follow alarmist logic, had we legislated to accelerate renewables by not having a democratically elected carbon-loving prime minister, supported by the Murdoch media and fossil fuel industry“, these dreadful bushfires, many lit by arsonists taking advantage of poorly managed fuel loads, wouldn’t have happened, right?

It couldn’t have been the lax fire service management of the forests and the closed shop mentality of our emergency services?  Did Delaney know that Greg Mullins, the leader of the 29 former fire chiefs, barely mentioned climate change in the last five years of FR NSW annual reports under his leadership? If it is such a huge issue in retirement, why didn’t he mention it when in a position to prosecute the case? Mullins would have sounded far more credible were his alarmist fears documented in black and white. They weren’t. Go figure. 

If we indulged Delaney’s the painful lessons of this summer could be transformative, if we allow them to be. Australia – having experienced the pointy end of the climate catastrophe – could become a leader in the global fight to reduce emissions.” for a moment, does she honestly believe that spending billions more on renewables in Australia and terminating coal exports would put a dent in our already minuscule 0.0000134% contribution to human-caused global CO2, much less the world’s? Can she make a case in data?

Will she stand in Tiananmen Square and shake her fist at China, which is building between 300 and 500 new coal-fired power plants out to 2030? Or rant to President Xi that China will spew one full year of Australian emissions every week by that date vs every two weeks as it stands today? Just easier to hitch to the media wagon and heap scorn on ScoMo. 

Data you’ve never seen compiled on our Australian fire services

CCFRNSW

For listed corporations, an annual report reads like an opus magnum which outlines the company’s major achievements, missions, strategic outlook, future concerns and goals. No ifs and no buts. The chair and CEO write glowing puff pieces about their achievements and why you, the shareholders, should keep them doing their jobs! Fire chiefs also write about the achievements during the year, every year.

Therefore when studying the language within the last 10 years of annual reports of the state fire services around Australia, why is ‘climate change‘, the words that 29 former fire chiefs told us is such a big factor, barely mentioned, if at all? Take Fire & Rescue NSW’s only mention of ‘climate change‘ on p.81 of its 2018/19 Annual Report,

Where practicable, FRNSW crews were encouraged to turn off all non-essential lights on 30 March 2019 from 8:30pm until 9:30pm, joining millions of people worldwide in showing their commitment to tackling climate change and inspiring all generations to support environmental initiatives and sustainable climate policy.

That is it. No words saying that the ‘catastrophic climate emergency’ preached by a 16-yo truant will lead to devastating increases in bushfires…Further evidence that we can sleep sound at night knowing that some (not all) firefighters might have switched the lights off for 1 hour on one day. So much for instilling a sense of unbridled panic preached by the retired fire chiefs…that’s right one mention of the word ‘climate change’ in 6 years.

Wasn’t Greg Mullins’ most important leadership role to warn NSW residents of the danger of climate change while in the top job? Wouldn’t it have been important to document those ‘climate’ fears in the annual reports that are presented to parliament each year? Clearly not. Best do it when sponsored by advocacy groups. Unfortunately, the ‘lack’ of acknowledgement by the fire service senior management surrounding climate change is an indelible mark by its very omission.

The chart above highlights the number of times the word ‘climate change‘ was mentioned in state fire authorities’ annual reports since 2010/11.

The QFES mentions ‘climate change’ 28 times in its 2018/19 annual report as it references an earlier report written on the subject. Prior to that, there are very few mentions.

Tasmania’s TFS notes ‘climate change’ alongside terrorism and economic downturn as things to watch in its 2015-16 annual report but makes no further in-depth reporting on global warming.

The Victorian Metropolitan Fire Brigade (VICMFB) mentioned climate change once in its 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 annual report but it only refers to the federal department that includes the name ‘climate change’ as a footnote. In 2018/19 the VICMFB refers to an “awareness” of climate change but it hardly sounds like a definitive statement.

Note that in 2011/12, FR NSW mentions climate change twice – once in the index and a loose passage that refers to it potentially having impacts. Yet FR NSW makes no determination by virtue of its own personal experiences. Note in 2010/11, ‘climate change’ is mentioned eight times by FR NSW but even then it refers to the IPCC research, not the findings of its own in-house data.

Let’s get this straight. If climate change was such a huge flashing red light issue in 2010/11, why no mentions between 2012 and 2017, a time when alarmist Greg Mullins was Chief Commissioner of FR NSW?

FNF Media encourages readers to save the following link for future reference. It is the 678-page IPCC internal review tabulating qualitative feedback on the processes of how it compiles the very climate bibles our media and governments swear by. A few excerpts comfortably debunk the credibility of the science contained within.

On page 16, someone complains that:

“some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.”

Here are other direct quotes:

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)

Even those from minority backgrounds agreed (p.330):

“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.”

Remember this is the IPCC evaluating itself. Imagine if this was a topic that wasn’t related to climate change. Would you be concerned at diverting billions of taxpayer dollars against such woeful governance and amateur approaches to compiling data and legislating policy? Exactly. Frightening!

hazred.png

The alarming part of the annual reports published by the state fire fighting authorities is that they don’t contain much in the way of words that the laymen would expect to see e.g. hazard reduction or fuel load. However, there has been an explosion in words such as diversity and inclusion. These two charts below outline clearly where the shift in purpose would seemingly lie.

Diversity.png

inclusion.png

Note that Californian power utility PG&E took this approach. The company had absolute clarity on the breakdown of gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity of its workforce and suppliers. Sadly it had woefully incomplete data on the age and status of its infrastructure (aka its core business) which caused the scheduled blackouts and forest fires. Unfortunately, because of this focus on diversity & inclusion, it dropped the ball on providing the very service its customers paid for and is now bankrupt. Get woke, go broke.

Forgive FNF Media for being blunt. If your house is at risk of burning down, will you be secretly praying that the emergency crew sent to put the fire out ticks the diversity box or competency box? If you prefer inclusion over ability, then don’t complain that your prized possessions have gone up in smoke. It is such an irrelevant metric to focus on all of this warm and fuzzy data without reporting the very actions that we should be benchmarking the brave men and women who actually serve in the capacity of firefighters.

We can wail at climate change as the cause of these dreadful bushfires or accept the sickening amount of people arrested for arson.

Sorry to keep labouring the point. We should conduct a thorough audit of the fire services to determine whether they have lost their way in deprioritising the safety of the very people they are supposed to protect for the sake of woke causes. Make no mistake, we cast no aspersions on those who work as first responders.

We hope that people drop their climate alarmist/denial bias and take a cold objective view of the data. Take out the emotion. Seriously, does the only comment in the latest FR NSW annual report surrounding voluntary ‘Earth Hour’ participation strike one as making meaningful impact on climate change?

Perhaps we appear cynical but when we see alarmist former fire chiefs sound the alarm on climate change, we could have at the very least expected consistent, comprehensive and extensive data/research “on the record” while they were in a position to do so. They didn’t. Those actions really have the alarm bells ringing!

Civility Wars – 2019 in review

As we roll into the final days of 2019, FNF Media has complied some of the highlights/lowlights of 2019, a year which probably defines the war on civility. To us, confected outrage has been a strong theme. There is no doubt that in 2020 we will only see the battle of the oppression Olympics hit new highs.

Having had the privilege of living abroad for the past 20 years in a country that knows no political correctness, coming back to my Aussie homeland over the past 12 months has opened my eyes to just how pathetic a nation we have become in so many areas and how afraid many are to speak out for fear of being whacked by the woke warriors.

So lets have a look at how 2019 panned out, in no particular order.

1) CLIMATE EMERGENCY & BOWING DOWN TO A 16-YO TRUANT

Climate change causes everything OK and how dare you question a 16yo pigtailed truant for pointing out your wicked ways.

Remember the caring and nurturing Newington College headmaster rolling over to student demands to attend the climate strike in Sydney? As we pointed out, the school’s academic achievement rank in the HSC just completed saw the school sink from rank 98th to 176th.

At the very least we got to see students, so oblivious to their own hypocrisy, happy to gorge on McDonalds after the strike, despite that evil bastion of capitalism summarizing single use disposable waste with their guardians.

We shouldn’t forget how many local councils strayed from the remit of mowing parks and collecting residential rubbish to pass resolutions on the ‘climate emergency.’ Bega Shire Council unfortunately boasted about the increased air traffic through the local airport and Northern Beaches Council championed a 293t CO2 saving which would assist the world by a mammoth 0.000000000699857% saving! Yes 9 zeroes. Little did they know they put a picture of its least efficient fossil fuel powered vehicle on the cover of the latest annual report.

2) BUSHFIRES & A PRIME MINISTER ON HOLIDAYS

How easy it was for the media to lambast the PM Scott Morrison for taking a holiday during the bushfires. Instead of staging political theatre where he handed out water bottles in front of dozens of media crews getting in the way of fire fighters, we spent over a week beating him up. Funny how Queensland Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk escaped all criticism for the same crime for taking a cruise?

How quick the media used climate change as the culprit despite almost 100 people being arrested for suspected arson. Never mind the Australian Institute of Criminology’s statistics that show 85% of all bushfires are either accidentally, suspiciously or deliberately lit.

How quickly the press fell in love with former PM Tony Abbott who they admonished for helping fight fires while in the top job now they had a new person to attack.

3) ARMCHAIR EXPERTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Ah but 29 former fire-fighting chiefs (under stewardship from the Climate Council’s very own High Priest of Dud Predictions, Tim Flannery) told us climate change was the main culprit behind the bushfires, even though the West Australian government’s own fire fighting wing categorically writes the exact opposite.

FNF Media stated that we couldn’t hold a candle to these brave firefighters when it comes to battling blazes, but that expertise in climate science was not a given.

What a joke it was to have the Australian Medical Association (AMA) pushing its complete lack of knowledge in climate science to ram home our reckless ways. Never mind that AMA membership as a % of doctors has plummeted from 95% to around 27%. Isn’t their a membership emergency it should focus on?

Even better we had our regulators APRA and ASIC stepped into the breach to warn us of why our corporates must report on climate change, even though their own statistics bear out that companies have viewed it as less of an issue over the past 6 years. So if companies won’t comply with things that don’t seem to be a problem, our regulators will enforce it so they can garner extra observatory oversight at taxpayer expense, even though they fail time and time again on catching errant behaviour.

Never mind, the Australian Conservation Foundation has lent on Cricket Australia for not using its platform to push climate change! How wonderful to learn that the UN created yet another body to push the climate change agenda. Would people truly listen to Cricket Australia on the climate emergency especially as day/night BBL matches are played almost daily with players jetting across the country non-stop?

4) HOTTEST TEMPERATURES EVER?

How the media fawned over the claims that Australia had its hottest recorded average temperatures ever. Never mind that the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) starts its data set from 1910, politely ignoring far hotter temperatures in 1896 and 1909.

5) ACTIVIST INDUSTRY FUNDS FAIL TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARDS

Instead of pushing for maximum returns on investment, half of our ACSI member industry superannuation funds failed to meet the very criteria they set for corporate Australia in terms of gender targets. Poor CEO Katie Page at Harvey Norman had to face a barrage of criticism over these woke metrics at her company despite the long term performance of the retailer smashing the socially responsible industry funds by a country mile.

6) ISRAEL FOLAU & RUGBY AUSTRALIA

No need to go over his controversial tweets. No need to cover the supposed settlement and mutual apology. What Folau exposed was the utter incompetence at Rugby Australia. The complete failure in management that led to the coach of the main franchise to proclaim he had no relationship with the CEO and a poor one with the chair.

All of this aside, when a sporting franchise pursues avenues that alienate the very fans that pay the bills, that is never going to be a wise move. Revenues are floundering alongside match attendance.

7) GET WOKE, GO BROKE

Who could forget the ridiculous toxic masculinity campaign led by Gillette? What a surprise that its parent P&G was forced to write off US$8bn (an entire Qantas Airlines) in market value. There is a high chance when you walk into Woolworths or Coles that Gillette products are deeply discounted. A great lesson in why corporates shouldn’t dictate terms to their customers.

On a hilarious note, a vegan feminist cafe was forced to close in Melbourne. Little did it realise that hating your customers could lead to bad reviews. One Trip Advisor comment went so far as to say,

A terrible cafe that has no respect for either equality or the law, with horrible staff that I swear the owner had to scour the scum of the earth to find. Spend half an hour trying to get a waitress to come over and when they finally showed up they told me I’d have to wait because I was a “cis gendered white man” and there were women who needed to be served first. According to the waitress I’d have to wait until ALL women in the shop were served before they’d take my order, even those who came in after me. I left at that moment and will never return.

8) UNWINNABLE ELECTIONS & DUD POLLS

This year has been a year of unwinnable elections. BoJo got his mandate to leave the EU. Gladys Berijiklian won in NSW against ‘thank you for your service’ Michael Daley and Scott Morrison beating Bill Shorten in the federal election. It is no longer about parties but respecting the will of the people. Politicians must not forget this in future elections. Batman summed it up best. How many times have we seen polls miss the mark? Ever more so, people are hiding their true preference until the ballot box.

9) IMPEACHMENT

What a clown show. The Democrats have turned what should have been an exceptionally grave and serious event surrounding impeachment into a complete circus. From Dem representatives wearing Batgirl costumes to vote, to a Stanford law professor who confessed to crossing the street to avoid walking in front of a Trump building when testifying as a key witness to another Dem representative live streaming golf during the hearings. To top off the supposedly solemn occasion, Nancy Pelosi had to zip up her unruly kids after radical left wing representative Rashida Tlaib live streamed her beaming smile on the way to vote to impeach Trump.

So embarrassing have the hearings been that Americans don’t support the impeachment of the president.

10) IDENTITY POLITICS

Where to begin? As a middle-aged white heterosexual male FNF Media has the worst selection from the identikit.

Perhaps the best quote from the radical left on the poison that is identity politics, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley who said,

We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.

Since when did all black, brown, queer or Muslim voices all conform to a predetermined script of how they must behave, act and think? Don’t comments like this make those who practice identity politics as the very racists, bigots and fascists they condemn?

The funniest take on identity politics was a motorcyclist competing as a cyclist because who is anyone to say he wasn’t who he said he was?

11) OUR NATIONAL BROADCASTER & BIAS

Our ABC has claimed forever that it is unbiased. How embarrassing that an internal staff survey showed only 46% of staff were engaged. Many complained that management failed to deal with underperformers appropriately.

How the Q&A program allowed a bunch of feminists who supported the murder of men, the destruction of the white patriarchy and setting things alight. Management issued an apology several days later citing the need for an inquiry.

Don’t forget that ABC Kids also has no problem making shows educating kids about white privilege.

12) DO AUSSIES REALLY WANT JACINDA ARDERN AS PM?

How many times have we read media comments that Australians pine for NZ PM Jacinda Ardern to lead us?

Yet how many of the 570,000 kiwis living in Australia have made a B-line to return to the land of the long white cloud and bask in the wokeness of the Wellness Budget? We wrote, that Ardern’s wonderfully ‘marketed’ package was less generous than what Australia already provides in the mental health and social wellbeing areas. What a surprise no media bothered to report on it? Instead we had Lisa Wilkinson implore ScoMo pick up the phone if he was ever in doubt, despite winning the unwinnable election! Her husband, Peter Fitzsimons had his finger off the pulse re Brexit, slamming the decision by Brits as harking after Little Britain.

13) THE WAR ON FREE SPEECH

It is quite disturbing to read what constitutes as hate speech. Rigel Robinson, a young councillor in Berkeley, California has said that “words matter“. The city will remove gender-specific language like “manhole” and change it to  “maintenance hole.” In his proposal, the words “policemen” and “policewomen” will also be phased out. “He” and “she” will also get the boot in favour of “they”.

One story that many missed was one about Oberlin College in the US. The university was sued $44m for falsely accusing a bakery of racism when they had simply caught several students shoplifting. The university blew it up into a racism story.

14) JUSSIE SMOLLETT & HATE CRIME

Who could forget the elaborate hoax set up by Empire actor Jussie Smollett in order to stoke tensions against MAGA hat wearers. How fantastic that the Chicago Police turned on him for wasting their time and charging him with the bill for their investigative work. What a surprise to see the mainstream media latch onto the hoax which was further pushed by politicians like Maxine Waters.

Hate crime in America according to the FBI has plummeted in the last two decades. For Smollett’s reference, Anti Black Hate Crimes have more than halved since 1996. As a % of the black population, Anti-Black hate crimes have fallen from 0.0131% to 0.0046% of their racial background.

15) THE STATE OF EDUCATION AROUND THE WORLD

We should be really worried at the state of how our universities have ceased to be campuses of free thought and open mindedness.

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. The reason?

The Americas encompass a lot more than the United States. There is South America, Central America, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean just to name a few of 42 countries in total. That’s why the word “americano” in Spanish can refer to anything on the American continent. Yet, when we talk about “Americans” in the United States, we’re usually just referring to people from the United States. This erases other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.

Some of the other loony words that are deemed offensive include:

Basket case, Eye for an eye, Takes the cake, Crazy / Nuts / Maniac / Lunatic / Insane / Deranged / Psycho / Demented / Depressed / OCD, Freshman, Eenie meenie miney moe, He or She, Ladies or Gentlemen

The University of San Francisco went on a mission to ensure that white students checked their privilege and ran an entire ad campaign around campus which can ge seen here.

If we wrap students in any more cotton wool they will not know how the real world works when they enter it.

It extends to kindergarten too. The loony left are looking to equate kisses from a grandparent with sexual consent. It doesn’t take much imagination but in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria some educational apparatchiks believe a grandparent kissing their grandchild can violate them. In what world does a grandparent showing affection to their own flesh and blood have incest on their minds? Most likely never.

Is it any wonder we have falling PISA scores when our educators are focused on this irrelevant garbage?

16) WHERE WOULD WE BE WITHOUT THE WISDOM OF CELEBRITIES?

It wasn’t so long ago that Will.I.Am got into a disagreement with a Qantas stewardess who asked him to follow her guidelines. So incensed was he that he posted her name on Twitter to dox her. Good on Qantas for agreeing to support her legal defamation case.

Hollywood Actress Rosanna Arquette told the world of her “disgust” and “shame” at the “white privilege” afforded her. She tweeted, “I’m sorry I was born white and privileged…it disgusts me and I feel so much shame“. If she feels so badly about maybe she should sell her mansion, move to a poor neighborhood and give her money away to charities that support non-white minorities. Only then can she atone for the sins of her parents for not making her another colour.

Who could forget the praise for US Women’s Soccer Team champ Megan Rapinoe who pushed the equal pay movement in soccer despite every other person and their dog knowing that revenue drives pay. She used her Sports Illustrated sportsperson of the year award to attack the very people that gave it to her.

At least her antics rubbed off on the Aussie Matildas women’s team which happened to be beaten 7-0 by a bunch of 14yo boys. When will sporting codes just face up to reality? If men’s sports attract 4-5x the audience, is it any wonder pay rates are different? Could it be both men and women prefer the men’s game in most sports.

17) WHEN COUNCILS IGNORE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

One of FNF Media’s favour the clips was from the Seattle City Council which was criticized by a resident for planting with their phones while he was asking a legitimate question.

18) WHEN TRUMP CUT FUNDING FROM THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

So the media unsurprisingly hurled abuse at Trump for his plans to cut National Science Foundation (NSF) funding by $1bn. Typical. Yet maybe it’s worth reminding ourselves how the NSF has misappropriated taxpayer funds with such reckless negligence. 

The “National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope paper from 2011 documented some of the misappropriation of funds as follows,

An $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness”, a “$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships”, a study costing “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names”, a study costing “$50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;” a study costing”$2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends”; and “$581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist”.Ineffective management examples, cited in the report, included “ineffective contracting”, “$1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts”, “at least $3 million in excessive travel funds”, “a lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures” and “inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica”

We should reflect on the wise words of Thomas Sowell,

Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

IN CONCLUSION

Thank you to all FNF Media’s readers, critics and comments. Wishing everyone a wonderful 2020 even though we should prepare ourselves for it to be 2019 with more of the ridiculousness we have compiled for this year.

We will endeavor to fight for free speech and use data to disprove much of the group think espoused by today’s mainstream media and increasingly our academics.

30km/h speed limits will fix gender inequality

As part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), Australia is being asked to lower urban speed limits to 30km/h from 50km/h. At that speed, the new light rail project from Circular Quay to Randwick will feel like a bullet train by comparison.

Instead of looking forward and embracing automated driving and all manner of assisted driving technology (emergency braking, lane departure assist etc) the brains trust at the UN thinks progress on road safety will be achieved by looking solely in the rear view mirror.

Why not focus on mobile phone usage behind the wheel or stopping drug and drink driving? At 30km/h, these boneheads think fewer emissions will be emitted. Cars, like trains or aircraft become more efficient at certain speeds. Slower speeds don’t always lower emissions. Top Gear conducted a test where a BMW M3 high performance sports car was more fuel efficient than a Toyota Prius.

Forget all that, The Stockholm Declaration will call upon us to buy “safe and sustainable vehicle fleets” so we can address “the connections between road safety, mental and physical health, development, education, equity, gender equality, environment and climate change”.

Who knew driving at 30km/h could achieve so much? Lowering to zero would eradicate it, no doubt!

Time indulges another totalitarian voice for the 2019 Person of the Year

16yo climate alarmist Greta Thunberg defines our age. As many of you know, she has been awarded Time’s 2019 Person of the Year. Sort of fitting given the magazine has a tendency to hand it to those that speak in totalitarian tones (not her own of course). Recently, she dropped the following statement,

After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.

One doesn’t have to be a teenager either to formulate such views. It wasn’t so long ago that an 11-yo implored all climate activists to go beyond the battle for global warming and fight for gun control, LGBTQ+ rights and to demand that her teachers can receive a living wage. How dare we even question where she got such thoughts! Kids just know better than we selfish adults (who used to recycle milk bottles, wash diapers and push lawnmowers) who have trashed their planet!

FNFM has always felt pity for poor Greta and written so on multiple occasions. She has been systematically abused by authoritarian adults to push their ridiculous globalist agenda. Knowing that it is uncool to attack a kid, she makes the perfect human shield. She is the participation trophy personified. Her “how dare you” assertions are never challenged by the media who toss softball questions to further deify this high priestess of the climate change movement. We must not challenge and inevitably we will probably lose our right to do so thanks to the cancel culture amongst the youth today. Such blasphemy won’t be tolerated.

No one can deny the passion with which she has embraced her cause even if not completely aware of the hypocrisy created by it. While the gesture of sailing on carbon-based yachts across the Atlantic and back to save the planet in order to slash her carbon footprint was noble, the reality is that she would have lowered the aggregate carbon footprint by jumping a scheduled flight that was taking off anyway. Why, because the boat owners had to fly sailors across the ocean to make it a reality. Yet we can calculate her potential impact:

If we assume Greta’s weight around 35-40kg, it would mean she would add 0.016% to the fuel calculations a Boeing 777 pilot would have to account for. Her impact would be so minuscule as to beggar belief.

280 million trips were made by commercial aircraft last year according to the IATA. Her transatlantic return flight would only be 2 of those meaning she would represent 0.000000714% of all annual flights taken.

Given that airlines, by the IATA’s own stats, annually produce the equivalent to 2% of all man-made emissions or 0.000016% in total, her two flights would make up around 0.0000000000114%. That is slightly unfair as the journey would be longer than most flights (predominantly short-haul). So if e bumped it 4-fold, her return trip would have penalized the planet 0.0000000000007314%.

Thunberg has amassed 3.2m Twitter followers. It is an incredible feat in and of itself. However, FNFM worries that with all of this social media exposure, when none of the prophetic doom and gloom she parrots comes to pass by the deadlines set by climate alarmists, she might realise she has been summarily duped by the very people who have actually “stolen her childhood.”

Unfortunately, she is blissfully blind to being amidst the epicentre of 27,000 hypocritical climate catastrophists at the COP25 summit, most of who flew in to tell us how we all must save the planet (on their behalf). In that sense, it is wonderful to know there is still some innocence left.

If only she knew that her climate change evangelism has thrust the ‘save the planet‘ agenda back on the map, leading to the 21% surge in delegates over the Katowice (COP24) conference. If she wants to fight against those who have “stolen her dreams” they are right in front of her.

Many of her critics suggest she should go back to school. FNFM disagrees. What is the point of sending Greta back to the very institutions that planted the seeds of this Marxist indoctrination in the first place?

To be honest, if we are to submit to the whims of teenagers who know all there is to know, we should close down our universities because there is simply no value in tertiary education, especially now that these centres for open thinking are muzzling it on campus.

Maybe one day, when Greta has a teenager of her own (assuming she doesn’t try to avoid having kids to save the planet), she will see for herself what we knew all along.

As the old saying goes. “Experience is a hard teacher. You get the test first and the lesson afterwards.