Vanity

Bernie can whip up crowds too

17,000 showed up to Bernie Sanders’ latest rally in Washington. We shouldn’t underestimate the scope of his support despite not being able to cost healthcare for all, free education or canceling student loan debt. Some pundits put it at $60 trillion.

While we still think Trump will win 2020, the Democrats need to carefully weigh their hatred of the president vs their dislike for Sanders stealing the Democratic nomination as an independent. The DNC is no stranger to dismissing democratic process in the primaries.

Declaring a Climate Emergency without many scientists

タイトルなし

On Feb 14-15, the likes of Dr Keryn Phelps, John Hewson, Peter Garrett, Michael Mann, Adam Bandt, Jane Caro and others assembled in Melbourne to pontificate at the National Climate Emergency (NCE) Summit where they slammed the table and demanded we hold politicians accountable under a new democracy!

While we vigorously defend their right to free speech, we question the glaring lack of scientists that wanted to participate as speakers at this event. This was the breakdown of the 100 speakers.

NCE

That is right, there were as many high school student activists as people who could profess to be legitimate professional climate scientists. There were even more lawyers present. In fact, media (the majority who have worked or work at the ABC), activist/lobby groups and politicians made up 67% of the total. Therefore one can work out quickly enough that there were precious little scientific-based facts behind the agenda.

At the very least, several poets were invited to speak to add to diversity. Many academics who spoke weren’t actually from climate fields.

Here are a few speaker profiles in no particular order:

Recently elected Darebin councillor, Trent McCarthy, had written in his profile, “Trent is the proud parent of two primary school student strikers.

Another panellist, Costa Georgiadis was referred to as “a TV personality and landscape architect. Since 2012, he has hosted the ABC’s Gardening Australia

Bernie Hobbs is an award-winning science writer and presenter at the ABC.”

“[Paddy] Manning has more than a decade of experience as a journalist for the ABC, Crikey, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian Financial Review and The Australian.”

“Natasha Mitchell is a multi-award winning science journalist, presenter, and podcaster with the ABC.”

“Leigh Ewbank is the current Act on Climate coordinator at Friends of the Earth.”

Precious little diversity of thought among the 100 speakers.

Yet we have seen this type of shallow content activism before. Remember when we reported that 268 Australian academics cosigned an open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion.

While the content was predictable, the statistics were anything but convincing. We noted,

Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter was Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields.

“…Many of the woke academia come from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender, racism…are you catching the drift of those supporting XR? Even Monash University’s Campus Operations Manager and Telephony Application Administrator signed it! Wonderful individuals but should we hold our educators to such high standards when anyone’s opinion will do?”

“…Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science. Which means, why weren’t the scientists in these universities willing to commit their names to a cause that fits their ideology? Who needs them when one faculty member from Monash University deals with ‘Imaginative Education‘?…”

“61% of the signatories were from universities situated in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria. Within that, 65 (more than all those that signed from NSW universities = 63) of those 164 names from Victoria were from RMIT, the school where the lecturer offered bonus points for sending selfies from the school climate strike. Precious little free thought one imagines.  Monash had 44. So two universities in Melbourne made up 109 of the 268 Add La Trobe University and half of the signatories are from Victoria. Premier Dan Andrews must be proud.

Tinonee Pym, a research assistant at the Swinburne University of Technology in NSW helped pen,

C’mon, no one wants a dick pic’: exploring the cultural framings of the ‘dick pic’ in contemporary online publics

Undoubtedly this research has only certified climate science credentials at Swinburne University to convince sceptics of the validity of XR.”

Once again, the force of numbers means absolutely nothing. We are often told by climate activists that we should listen to the climate scientists. We would most gladly do so provided events like this managed to herd a much larger representation of such expertise, including those with dissenting opinions. As it stands when only four scientists attend, including those with very contentious records, there is little hope for sensible debate.

As it stands, the NCE Summit was nothing more than a confirmation bias gathering of activists trying to swing policy to suit their crony capitalist desires.

The NCE forum only wanted to indoctrinate, not educate. Is it any wonder FNF Media was blocked from XR Australia. Identical mentality.

Net zero heroes won’t save us

What is it with net zero emissions by 2050? It is so simple for politicians to blurt out these words as near as makes no difference none of them will be in office to take responsibility for any outcome.

As for Australia, PM Scott Morrison has a point that it should be technology led. However let’s think logically about the “cost” which he says Aussies have right to know about.

First of all, no one has worked out how to decarbonize steel. Carbon fibre is derived from petrochemicals. So that is two vital structural materials taken out. Aluminum is hideously power intensive to produce despite recyclability. Scrub the 170,000 jobs in mining. Manufacturing? Another 840,000 roles no longer needed.

No steel or fossil-fuel derived plastics will make it complex for tradesmen to be able to construct let alone repair homes or buildings. Glass also requires a lot of energy. As does gyprock. Bin 1.1mn jobs in construction.

What of a net zero carbon emissions world in other areas?

Let’s start with tourism:

$60bn industry. 8.5million visitors came to Australia in 2018. 1.4m from China. 789k from the US, 733k from the UK and 470k from Japan.

These numbers don’t include Aussies that want to take holidays abroad. 9.5m trips were made by Australians to overseas destinations.

Still to get to net zero, we need to ban air travel. With that, might as well stop Badgery’s Creek airport construction immediately. No point building such extra capacity if we won’t have much time to use it. Wasteful spending.

Tourism? Throw another 1m jobs into jeopardy.

Hotels? Bring your own towels and sleeping bag.

Coffee? Bring your own mug only.

Retail? No carry bags and no goods that are derived from fossil fuels can be sold. Gone. Of the 1.3m jobs in retail, most no longer needed.

Restaurants? There will be no gas to cook your meal. Bring your own utensils.

We need to ban long distance trucks and the haulage business. Forget those living in remote areas who rely on road trains. Forget your out of season fruit and veg at Woolies. Another 600,000 jobs.

Cars? Get rid of them too. The batteries in EVs create 150,000km of CO2-e in the production process before leaving the factory. For safety, cars will be required to use materials to meet crash standards. Even if autonomous driving succeeds, it won’t be 100% foolproof. Better off banning cars outright to meet 2050.

Synthetic rubber in the tyres and door seals made from fossil fuels. Out. Brake and electric motor materials – all made from fossil fuels. Scratch. Air bag with pyrotechnics? Fossil fuel derived. Dashboard, seats, seat belts or iPad centre console? Petrochemicals.

The power grid to charge them? All fossil fuel derived – from wind farms to solar panels and the equipment to make the charging stations. If there are miscalculations on power needs after Dec 31st, 2049 then too bad. Rationing will be required.

No TVs or smart phones or computers. All fossil fuel derived.

No hospital equipment or life saving medicines. All made from petrochemical and fossil fuel derivatives.

In short, in order to decarbonise to net zero by 2050 we’d need to spew carbon emissions like there was no tomorrow to meet the crushing penalties that would result.

Why are governments even entertaining such ridiculous stupidity?

We only want to see Mad Max in the cinema, not in real life.

Here is a picture of HK International Airport check in last night for a bit of context on how a virus can slam an economy before we bother with net emissions

Extinction Rebellion Australia commits fratricide

FNF Media commented on XR Australia’s (XRA) FB post which praised Russell Crowe‘s video on climate change and how we all needed to do our bit. We merely suggested that Hollywood lead by example rather than give them a free pass by highlighting the cause. We suggested Crowe force players and coaching staff of the South Sydney Rabbitohs (where he is an owner) to commute to training by bicycle, play only during the day and attend away games by public transport if he was to live up to his words.

Initially, the early XRA gatekeepers made a polite response to say Australia was the highest emitter of GHG/capita globally and 10x the global average. We pointed out Australia was 13th and only 3.5x the global average and suggested XRA correct their error. They did not. We thanked them at the very least for refusing to be feral.

Sadly the XRA bodies that assumed the night watchmen role decided to delete the discourse of FNF Media. Why?

Simple.

Many of the XRA supporters threw praofanity laden comments to FNF Media’s data driven responses using sources that they themselves often view as gospel (eg IPCC, World Bank, IMF, USGS, IEA etc) with ad hominem attack after another. All points were refuted with data and polite discourse but rebutted with personal attacks. We expected this.

Sadly. XRA deemed the amount of triggered followers and bile spewed without a single data point being offered to refute FNF Media that they deleted us.

We wear it as a badge of honour because there was nothing but “follow the science” type angles and put downs. Unfortunately if any comments are made which refutes the narrative, they play the man not the ball.

Unfortunately, one person that called FNF Media out for questioning a response to another XRA follower eventually criticized XRA for censorship. They have since left the cause. Their response is at the top.

Once again, when the argument doesn’t stack up, deleting dissenting voices is all that is left. Sadly they abandoned their own followers in the process.

Typical.

BoJo’s EV adventure by 2035 is risky

Image result for ev charger nullarbor

There is a lot of irony when studying electric vehicles (EVs) and government policy. The lack of consultation with the very industry it seeks to regulate is mind-boggling. This picture of an EV charging station powered by a diesel generator along the Nullarbor highlights how poor the thought processes are. The problem governments face is that they are starting with a narrative and trying to reverse engineer the data to fit it. Sadly, the market will ultimately decide – that means consumers.

3 years ago we met with an EV parts supplier, Schaeffler AG, which openly admitted the task to meet the government EV demands was being impeded by their own desire to out virtue signal each other.

Schaeffler said, 200 cities across Europe had EV policies as distinct as the other. Therefore carmakers were struggling to meet all of the non-standardised criteria which was driving up production costs and making EVs even further out of reach. Instead of all working for the “same” outcome, the parts suppliers were saying until governments came to a sensible balance, the delays would continue.

The irony is that the broad range of EVs available in the market is too narrow. Of course we can argue in 15 years that will have vastly changed. The question is whether production can keep up.

First of all, governments around the world tend to generate around 5% of total tax revenues from fuel excise. You’d be a fool to think that EVs won’t end up being stung with a similar registration tax to offset it. It is already happening. Cash strapped Illinois has proposed the introduction of a $1,000 annual registration fee (up from $17.50) to account for the fact EVs don’t pay such fuel taxes.

Secondly, the UK government may well have to introduce cash-for-clunkers style subsidies to entice people to ditch their petrol power for an EV. Because, unless someone owns a classic car, the second most expensive household asset will be near worthless meaning many may not bother to switch by 2035. That will put huge pressure on the auto industry and dealers to convert sales.

Third, the infrastructure to be able to charge millions of EVs overnight will need significant upgrades, especially to the power grid. If the UK wants to go down the renewables path good luck in meeting the surges in demand because EV charging will be highly random. People won’t be happy to be sitting at home waiting for a charge and realising that 200,000 others want to do so at the same time on a cloudy day with no wind.

Then there are the automakers. While they are all making politically correct statements about their commitments to go full EV, they do recognise that ultimately customers will decide their fate. A universal truth is that car makers do their best to promote their drivetrains as a performance differentiator to rivals. Moving to full EV removes that unique selling property. Volkswagen went out of its way to cheat the system which not only expressed their true feelings about man-made climate change but hidden within the $80bn investment is the 3 million EVs in 2042 would only be c.30% of VW’s total output today. Even Toyota said it would phase out internal combustion in the 2040s. Dec 31st, 2049 perhaps? Mercedes have vowed to keep diesel and petrol on the menu out to 2050.

Put simply, why is the government trying to dictate the technology to an industry that has made such amazing advancements in safety and technology? By all means, have a zero-emissions target by 2035 but offer the industry complete technological freedom to achieve it. The consumers will ultimately decide and if carmakers are forced to meet a target that was based on ill-advised government policy, we shouldn’t be surprised if dealers are forced to close or car makers requiring bailouts.

Also at 2m vehicles a sold annually in the UK, it won’t get to dictate where car makers allocate their global EV inventory. If easier market conditions – based on the available output and cost per vehicle to meet the standards – are found in the US, China or Germany, the costs to Brits to make the shift will make the 2035 target even more pointless. Pricing themselves out of the market.

However, it won’t much matter because many of the politicians making the move won’t be in government come 2035 to clean up the mess.

Wit & wisdom of Mike Bloomberg’s locker room talk

 

タイトルなし

Will the public honestly care about what Mike Bloomberg said 30 years ago? How soon we forget that Donald Trump’s “grab ’em by the p#ssy” comments were in the final months of the 2016 election campaign. It was on the ballot and it wasn’t enough for voters to go into meltdown and pick someone who had higher standards. Or were Hillary Clinton’s standards so low that Trump was the lesser of two evils?

Mike Bloomberg’s book, ‘The Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg,‘ is doing the rounds, courtesy of the Washington Post, which presumably is hoisting the flag of Bernie Sanders. In it Mike Bloomberg says,

On Negotiation

What do I want? A 10-year contract, an automatic extension and I want you to pay me. And I want a blow job from XXXX. Have you seen XXXX lately? Not bad for 50.”

Keep your legs closed

On being told “No”

Let me tell you something, buddy boy, I have pictures of you and they’re not with your wife.

Characterizing of a Competitor

Cokehead, womanizing, fag.

On the Bloomberg terminal

It will do everything. including give you a blow job. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.

On computers

You know why computers will never take the place of people? Because a computer would say the sex of the person giving you a blow job doesn’t matter.

On the marriage of his employees

“Are you pregnant?”

“Male or female?”

On being asked a sport that doesn’t use balls

“Lesbian sex”

In today’s cancel culture, the past is the most formidable weapon to smash people over the head with.

FNF Media believes in “equality.” Therefore anyone that tries to smear someone for something said three decades ago, should be open to having their own past dredged up and made public.

In any event, Bloomberg’s quotes will unlikely affect his campaign run. Bernie Sanders took his honeymoon in communist Russia which is far more offensive!

Rattlesnakes are rattling

Always fun to see how politicians on the same side eviscerate each other on policy and character.

It was no different with the GOP when Trump was hammering “low energy Jeb” and “Little Marco.” In 2016. Ted Cruz even challenged Trump to a “Mano a Mano” debate such was the divide.

The problem for the Democrats is if the DNC stiffs Bernie Sanders again, his supporters will stay away in November and one has to question whether he will rush to endorse Bloomberg as he reluctantly did with Hillary Clinton.

The funny thing is that in today’s world financial market players rely on over regulation to squeeze the smaller guys out. Get politicians to make the costs of onerous compliance so high that the larger firms gain the spoils.

So Bernie would be doing the financial firms as big a favor as Bloomberg and his “crooked mates” on Wall St by putting more red tape in place. So much for helping out the poor and oppressed.