#snowflakes

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.

Surely there must be some mistake?!

Has the World Economic Forum (WEF) taken leave of its senses? Not even we think President Trump is a “world-class speaker” despite his capacity to draw huge crowds and make us all sit up and listen. There is a touch of irony to see Trump included by the WEF in this category. Poor old Al Gore will speak but presumably dud predictions has put him on the B-list.

A brief study of the upcoming live sessions published by the WEF reveals it isn’t hard to work out what an utter waste of aviation fuel the summit will be. Woke causes feature broadly. See the following list of live streams available;

The 26th Annual Crystal Award Ceremony

Join us in honouring exceptional Cultural Leaders who are improving the state of the world through their outstanding contributions to inclusive and sustainable change.

Redesigning Democracy in the Digital Age

From data dignity to quadratic voting, join economist and best-selling author Glen Weyl for an exploration of radical solutions to societal decision-making in the wake of unprecedented technological change.

The Fight for Artistic Freedom

Join Wanuri Kahiu on her journey from filmmaker to unintentional leader for freedom of expression in Kenya after her film.

On Music and the Human Spirit

On the 250th anniversary of Beethoven’s birth, conductor Marin Alsop shares lessons on how music can help cultivate joy in the darkest of times.

The Reality of Racial Bias

From politics to the public sector and from housing to education, racial bias perpetuates a crushing structural disadvantage for people around the globe. Join Phillip Atiba Goff as he illustrates how data and evidence-based approaches can be used to turn racial bias into a solvable problem.

The Role of Faith for a Cohesive and Sustainable World

Eighty-four per cent of the global population identifies with a religious group. With eroding social cohesion and near climate breakdown, how can the power of faith foster a cohesive and sustainable world?

Musical Moments: Yo-Yo Ma plays Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1

Cellist Yo-Yo Ma, 2008 Crystal Awardee and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees, performs Bach’s Suite for Solo Cello No. 1 to inspire a conversation about how culture helps us to seek truth, build trust and act in service of one another.

Free to Be (LGBTI)

Fifty years after the Stonewall riots in New York and the birth of the gay liberation movement, LGBTI youth still face rejection and discrimination, resulting in high mental illness and suicide rates among LGBTI youth. How can schools and families contribute to safe and inclusive environments for all?

Seeing the Other

Join photojournalist Rena Effendi to learn about her mission to give a voice to the voiceless through her collection of portraits and places celebrating the strength of the human spirit. Rena Effendi is a Fellow of the New Narratives Lab, a mentorship programme dedicated to fostering a new and diverse generation of cultural leaders.

An Insight, An Idea with Jin Xing

A conversation with choreographer and 2020 Crystal Awardee Jin Xing on her journey from male army colonel to one of China’s most influential female TV personalities.

The Power of Youth

From the 2018 March for Our Lives fighting for gun control in the US to the Global Climate Strike in 2019, young people are mobilizing and increasingly influencing today’s most pressing political and environmental issues. How can these movements transform their will for change into action?

The Beauty of Inclusion

Join Thando Hopa, the first woman with albinism to appear on the cover of Vogue, on her journey to unearth the missing stories needed to achieve equality for all persons. Thando Hopa is a Fellow of the New Narratives Lab, a mentorship programme dedicated to fostering a new and diverse generation of Cultural Leaders.

A Conversation with will.i.am

Join a conversation with musician will.i.am and young activist Naomi Wadler on the fight to end gun violence, and how they are influencing policy change and inspiring the next generation.

Augmented Voices

Join vocalist and researcher Harry Yeff, also known as Reeps100, who reveals our true range of communication and the hidden potential of the human voice.

How to Turn Protest into Progress

Anti-government protests fuelled by anger about inequality, corruption and political repression are paralysing cities and nations. How can movements transition from protest to political change more effectively? This session was developed in partnership with Tortoise Media.

Power of Narratives

Powerful narratives, consisting of shared causal and principled beliefs, are the prerequisite for human collaboration, yet also lead nations to war and move markets. How might societies co-create powerful narratives for a cohesive and sustainable world?

Being Out and Equal

While openness about being LGBTI at work increases well-being and productivity, more than half of the community avoids being open about their sexual orientation and gender identity in professional settings for fear of negative consequences. What are best practices to create open and inclusive workplaces for all? Access the Platform for Shaping the Future of the New Economy and Society on TopLink.

Although we shouldn’t be too critical of WEF. Economics does find its way into the subject matter.

Behind close doors, we note that Greta Thunberg will speak on a panel discussing “Averting a Climate Apocalypse“, Al Gore will speak on “What’s at stake: The Arctic” and Christina Figueres will speak on “Swapping subsidies for Green Incentives.” Precious little open-mindedness to be expected in those sessions.

Other topics will include the following;

After Brexit: Renewing Europe’s Growth

As the European Central Bank maintains interest rates at record lows, the economic forecast for the region remains weaker than desired. What will a new Commission and the eventual withdrawal of the United Kingdom mean for the European economy?

Shaping the Global Growth Agenda

In 2019, global debt levels soared to a record $250 trillion, alongside a “race to the bottom” for interest rates. What level of debt, inflation and interest rates are healthy for economies to grow?

Stakeholder Capitalism: Creating Common Standards for Social Excellence

From supply chain labour standards to operating in conflict-affected regions, navigating the social responsibilities of a company is a complex endeavour. What difficult decisions are chief executives facing in the pivot towards a broader social purpose?

In the face of all the dire predictions of climate doom to be reported by the media, we can be rest assured the assembled globalists will be telling our government officials that we minions stand the best chance of survival – economic, environmental and otherwise – if we submit to their superior intelligence.

Greta Thunberg issues Roger Federer a code violation.

The 17yo pigtailed truant has taken to shaming tennis superstar Roger Federer for being a Credit Suisse ambassador because of the bank’s involvement in financing fossil fuel companies.

Activists launched the hashtag #Rogerwakeupnow on Twitter to hit the 20-title Grand Slam winner.

The article notes

According to Greta, the bank would be the largest investor in fossil fuel companies with more than $7.8 billion annually shared among more than 40 companies that most contaminate the planet.”

Sorry Greta, forget trying to get him to ditch CS. Demand he stop flying to tournaments around the world.

Federer said in response,

“I take the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously, particularly as my family and I arrive in Australia amid devastation from the bush fire…As the father of four young children and a fervent supporter of universal education, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement, and I am grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions…We owe it to them and ourselves to listen…I appreciate reminders of my responsibility as a private individual, as an athlete and as an entrepreneur, and I’m committed to using this privileged position to dialogue on important issues with my sponsors.

What a woefully soft and pithy stance. The only noble action is to stop playing tennis with multiple carbon rackets and clothes made from the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps he should give all of his fossil fuel derived sponsorship and tourney winnings to the UN so they can best advise him on how to save the planet.

Maybe Federer should educate Greta and her young activist mates on the following when reflecting on the recklessness of the older generations…or not…

At the store check out, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

The older lady said that she was right our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then. We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the “green thing.”

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much.

Once again it only highlights how the current generation believe that they’re smarter than the previous one as well as the one that will follow them.

As for Mr Federer. New balls please.

Analysing 37 anti-Trump Psychiatrists for glaring bias

On July 7, 2019, a video did the rounds on social media referring to a book titled, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,which contained the updated findings of 37 psychiatrists and mental health experts, led by Dr Bandy X. Lu, a forensic psychiatrist from Yale School of Medicine.  It followed on from a previous work published in October 2017, where only 26 other psychiatrists had joined forces with Lu at the time. 

Social media lapped up Dr. Lu’s claim that she was the President of the World Mental Health Coalition (WMHC).  If one throws ‘world‘ in a title it sounds more impressive, doesn’t it? Although Americans often struggle with the word “world”. For decades Americans hosted a baseball event called the “World Series” where no other nations played.

Still, we felt compelled to check how gargantuan the WMHC is to properly measure its global status. For reference, the American Psychiatric Association has c. 38,000 members. We could be easily led to believe the WMHC had multiples of that. Sadly not. It has a total of 37. Yes, thirty-seven. Given the World Psychiatric Association represents 200,000 members worldwide, we can get a fair idea of how much ‘pull’ WMHC hasn’t.

Turns out WHMC is an “all-volunteer organization, and donations are used for direct educational activities, to strengthen the fabric of society as we better our collective mental health.” with the following donation manifesto:

“We:

1. provide consultation to government bodies upon request;
2. organize public forums for discussion and education; and
3. alert, protect, and educate the public when when we see signs of imminent or lasting danger within the body politic or in its leaders.” [although there is a typo they might wish to address which we have highlighted for them]

Perhaps the most telling part of the bias in the updated version can be found in the Amazon summary of the latest book,

The prestigious mental health experts who have contributed to the revised and updated version of ‘The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump’ argue that their moral and civic “duty to warn” supersedes professional neutrality.

You don’t say? If these psychiatrists ever testify in court (as they proudly claim they often do), any attorney defending the accused should just dredge out this summary to prove they aren’t impartial by their own admission.

Lu proved once again that Trump Derangement Syndrome lives and breathes within the walls of elite tertiary institutions of America, just like Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan who admitted she crossed the road to avoid walking in front of a Trump building during her impeachment testimony. This is the level of maturity one gets for a $70,000pa education.

The WMHC has no qualms publishing a question from a town hall which included an “…historic number of leading psychiatrists in our country felt the imperative to publish such a book because of their unprecedented fears about a President with such severe mental problems…”

Historic being 37…If 500 law professors can get their act together on co-signing a letter on articles of impeachment, surely the psychiatric community can achieve a higher watermark. May we suggest they take a leaf out of the 11,000 scientists who signed a letter on climate change which Mickey Mouse, Albus Dumbledore or Araminta Aardvark were among the co-signatories.

Back to the video. Lu’s opening statement was that Trump “failed every criterion for rational and reality-based decision-making capacity.”

Reading in a robotic style off an autocue, Dr. Lu said that Trump is unfit to be president based on the wealth of data gleaned from the 448-page Mueller Report (released to the public on April 18, 2019). So between April 18th to July 7th, the WMHC has absorbed all 448-pages with a thorough and impartial eye.

Forget that the Mueller said under oath that the report “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated” with Russia.

Dr Lu said, “first and foremost, we want to remove Mr Trump’s access to nuclear weapons and war-making powers…we could offer many more, but given the urgency, we decided to focus on the two most important.”

Since when did 37 psychologists become experts in foreign policy?  In more than 1,000 days in office, no country has come close to being nuked by Trump. Unlike his predecessor, foreign powers realise he is not messing about. Cross a red line and there are consequences. Period. Are psychiatrists confusing unorthodoxy with mental illness?

Did the WMHC predict that Iran would end its retaliation so soon? It is a bit silly to believe that they won’t continue the 4-decade proxy war.

However CNN (which is in thorough need of psychiatric assessment alongside WaPo. NYT and other mainstream media outlets) indulged us with, “Iran’s strikes seem intended to avoid US deaths. Here’s why that might be the case.” Wow. That is a pretty darned expensive way to fire shots across a bow. We guess once in possession of Obama’s gift of billions, Iranian generals can afford the luxury of expending multiple $100,000 missiles instead of $1,000 shells.

Maybe the WMHC can tell us why CNN believes those thoughtful leaders of the Iranian regime were compassionate enough to spare the lives of an enemy they swear death to. Who knew?

Lu makes the audacious claim that, “Our work is not about Mr Trump who may not be a danger as a private citizen, but about protecting society against the powers of the presidency in a person who has not demonstrated the ability to handle them.

If the work isn’t about Trump, why does the WMHC have a section that also targets this administration’s border protection policies? It released a statement on refugees which said the following,

We write as mental health professionals who are deeply concerned about the psychological harm our nation’s current immigration practices inflict on asylum seekers, immigrant communities, and our society…We are alarmed that recent changes in executive policy and personnel show increasing cruelty with intent to inflict as much pain as the law allows.”

It is a safe assumption to think that the WMHC members aren’t staunch Republicans. Never mind that Obama first introduced kids in cages separation laws at the border, something confessed by the mainstream media late last year. Who needs facts on the psychiatrist’s couch?

Presumably, the next iteration of the book will suggest that the 63m that voted for Trump are equally in need of having their voting rights repealed for their inability to handle their democratic rights.

Lu proudly states she has testified in court cases with respect to forensic psychiatry but in this case feels that interviewing the subject is not important. She read out from the screen,

As the evidence was overwhelming, and since outside perspectives are more important in a functional exam than a personal interview, we did not feel we needed one…the wealth and quality of the report’s content made this possible…in fact we had more and better data under sworn testimony than we have ever had in our usual practice.

Psychiatrists are banned by law from diagnosing patients without examining them although Lu thinks this step is unnecessary to make a determination that he is unfit. Hmmm.

Also, we are not interested in a diagnosis of the president because he is not our patient.

Lu said her group offered the president to undergo an examination if he believed himself fit. His office acknowledged receipt of the request. Like any sane human being, a polite “p*ss off” was the only appropriate reply to a bunch of sanctimonious intellectuals who think they know better than all of us.

Force in numbers (even as tiny as 37) signing consensus-based documents like this are the latest weapons used by liberals. Albert Einstein once said to a scientist who claimed he’d get 100 scientists to prove him wrong replied, “it only takes one!

Of course, we can already hear the defenders of the WMHC ring loud on the basis of their academic credentials.

However, we hold a different view. Just because one holds qualifications in a particular field from a reputable institution, doesn’t mean they don’t carry biases or conflicts of interest. Schools with brand names often escape rigorous scrutiny because they are so revered and citing them is seen as adding credibility to one’s own arguments.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change.

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that

“two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary? Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate sceptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not, in fact, possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

We don’t accuse the WMHC of committing crimes but we think this example shows that we shouldn’t blindly accept the findings from academics without heavier scrutiny.

Certainly, in the case of these 37 psychiatrists, even a deplorable uneducated Trump supporter can see through the heavy coats of bias and condescending rhetoric. The ultimate irony is these people have such confidence in their own intellectual superiority that they reckoned one would look under the hood.

Maybe when 200,000 global psychiatrists ascribe to the same view as WMHC, we may be inclined to lend more credibility to the suggestions of Trump being unfit for a role. At the moment the WMHC appears to be mentally unsuited to uphold the very high standards of the wonderful work done by the rest of the mental health community.

They needn’t worry. It is likely that more than 63 million Americans will make that determination in November 2020 on whether he is still fit to serve.

Yael Stone forgets that the scheduled flights will still take off

Image result for yael stone"

Yet more moral preening from celebrities. While Yael Stone might think such virtue signalling has a purpose, she needs to get to grips with the fact that the scheduled flights between the US and Australia will still be taking off, with or without her. Did she miss Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes introduction?

Her net impact is likely to be a number so close to zero so we thought we’d assist with the maths before she pulls the plug.

280 million trips were made by commercial aircraft last year according to the IATA. Her one way trip to Australia would mean she represents represent 0.000000357% 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% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, her flight would make up around 0.0000000000057%.

The Boeing 777-300ER that would likely carry her has a maximum take-off weight of 351,000kg. Let’s assume she weighs 50kg and carries 50kg of luggage. Her impact on the pilot’s fuel calculations would be 0.0028%.

Overall her “skin in the game” as she calls it, would result in a 0.0000000000000022344% personal impact on flight shaming based CO2 emissions.

FNF Media strongly advises she reads the 20-year forecast from Boeing.

Demand in the commercial market is forecast to more than double in the next two decades. To meet this demand…the number of jet airplanes in service nearly doubling to 50,660.

Car Crash Interview? Depends on which car you were sitting in

Car crash interviews are so subjective. Because it all depends on the narrative. If you take the time to watch the Good Morning Britain’s (GMB) interview with Australian conservative politician Craig Kelly MP on the Aussie bushfires, the panel swerved onto the other side of the road in an attempt to drive him off the road.

Listen to the conversation objectively. Just watch the way the GMB panel cut Kelly off and talk over him when he fires back with facts.

Craig Kelly maybe a climate skeptic but he is thorough. However, in an attempt to punk Kelly, GMB decided to bring in their meteorologist, Laura Tobin. From the 3m 15 sec mark, she just lets her climate alarmist stance dominate.

First of all, Tobin opened up with Australia having the highest temperatures ever recorded. Yet she doesn’t realise the Bureau of Meteorology starts its data series from 1910, to get a warming bias. It was hotter in 1896 and 1909. But don’t let that get in the way of lashing Australia on its Paris commitments. America isn’t a signatory and its emissions are going down. Where was the stitch-up of China?

The second mistake she made was to say Australia has the “second-highest emissions per person on earth.” Sadly, the truth is Australia ranks 15th, behind countries such as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman and Canada on global emissions per capita. They are also falling per capita. She didn’t acknowledge that.

Tobin then accused Kelly of burying his head in the sand for not accepting the climate emergency and that he is a denier, not a sceptic. What exactly is a climate emergency? There is no standard formula. It is on balance a virtue-signalling exercise.

If she followed the Northern Beaches Council in Sydney, which has acknowledged a climate emergency, she could relish the commitments. 293t of CO2e saved last year. This amazing effort has meant a reduction of 0.0000522% of Australia’s total. Put it against Australia’s CO2 impact vs the entire atmosphere means that Northern Beaches have hammered home a mammoth 0.000000000699857% saving! Yes, 9 zeroes.

When Kelly answered there has been more rainfall in the first 20 years of this century than the first 20 years of the last century, she jumped to the “more extreme weather” argument which is not supported by the IPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming).

“…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.”

So sadly Tobin is not making a scientific claim based on any evidence, even though she is a meteorologist. That is what happens when one is an alarmist. When Kelly says Australia spends more than any other nation on renewables per capita, Piers Morgan jumped in to stop her airbag from deploying.

Then Morgan makes the sanctimonious point that “virtually the entire country is being eviscerated by fires…Mr Kelly, I’ve just got to say wake up!…climate change and global warming are real…and Australia right now is showing the entire world just how devastating it is…and for senior politicians in Australia to still pretend there is no connection is absolutely disgraceful.” 

Piers mustn’t have heard of arsonists. 183 have been charged by NSW Police alone since this bushfire season kicked off.

Although the press here – SMH, SBS, The Guardian etc – wasted no time trying to use a set up conducted by a UK breakfast program as a seriously in-depth and cutting investigative piece of high-brow journalism. Give us a break.

After the interview, Laura Tobin felt she had to respond to Craig Kelly on Twitter after he pointed out there were no large trend changes in rainfall. She responded with,

I’m a meteorologist: a degree in physics and meteorology, four years as an aviation forecaster at the RAF, twelve years as a broadcast meteorologist, attended a WMO climate course last year and up to date with all the science.”

We have just pointed out she isn’t across “all” the science. Nobody is. Possessing a degree in meteorology is one thing. Deliberately setting out to belittle a guest by preparing an ambush that backfired isn’t. It would seem her more extensive experience in broadcasting has overshadowed her ability to express impartiality over the science. To think otherwise is denial on her part.

Tobin’s Twitter profile is as follows:

Weather presenter/Meteorologist ‘s Good Morning Britain every weekday from 6-8:30. Loves storms, sweets, friends, family & Bon Jovi! Mummy to Charlotte

Maybe her alarmism should be replaced with denial so she can indulge her love of storms. We hope she didn’t fly to her WMO climate course last year. Greta would be most upset.

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.