#climatealarmism

Blowing the whistle pays & why we need it in scientific fields

Image for Whistleblower Promo

We update the latest 2019 US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) data on whistleblowing. As we have noted previously, the number of people to come forward with allegations has exploded since the introduction of legislation to protest the whistleblower.

WB1

Although the 2019 number is mildly down year on year, the sums paid out by the SEC approached $387 million, 26x the 2013 sum.

WB2

Not all claims end up in a result but the payouts average well into the millions.

WB3

We have long advocated a similar whistleblower system be introduced into the scientific community to ensure that taxpayers can adequately stop any fraudulent behaviour that may arise from data manipulation.

The entire Apollo project cost $200bn to implement and get a man on the moon. In climate science, we are allocating twice that amount every year into research. Do we honestly believe that there aren’t bad apples out there? Surely the best way to clean the marketplace is to make sure fraud is punished in so we can make more sensible investments based on more reliable data. At the moment, anything goes. The more alarmist, the more likely research grants will fall that way.

It seems to be working in finance and the sums in climate science seem no less trivial.

Heathrow jettisons reality for religion

Forget economic planning for the next 20-30 years. Drag up the non-binding Paris Climate Accord (of 2015) and use it as an excuse to hobble economic growth by claiming the third runway at Heathrow Airport is illegal. Forget the fact that passenger growth is a true underlying reflection of travellers’ true feelings about climate change. When it comes to offsetting one’s own carbon footprint by electing to pay a penalty, the truth is that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

Stopping Heathrow’s 3rd runway follows a dangerous path. Surely councils can see airport expansion benefits the community more than impedes it. Why do councils fall for tales of doom spewed by activists who often haven’t the first clue about what they are protesting about other than what they have read in The Guardian or heard from Hollywood star Emma Thomson who flew in from NY to tell them to panic?

Officers at Uttlesford District Council in Essex had recommended the approval of proposals to increase London Stansted Airport’s passenger cap to 43mpa in 2018 from 35m. However, the council’s special planning committee members rejected the scheme in January 2020.

Bristol Airport applied to the North Somerset Council to expand capacity by 30% in 2017, to keep up with the faster than expected demand. It was recommended for the jobs that would be created but the council rejected it, despite assurances the airport itself would be net-zero emissions in its operations.

While the activists may well rejoice at stopping the expansion, some fast facts about Heathrow Airport should send chills down the spines of Westminster:

  1. Currently operating at 98% capacity with 473,000 flights a year (capped at 480,000). It was 350,000 in 1991.
  2. Civil Aviation Authority notes Heathrow handled 80.9m passengers in 2019 up from 63m in 2002 and 40m in 1991. 
  3. Heathrow handles 50% of all London’s flights and 27% of all UK flights.
  4. Heathrow estimates 30% for business, 35% for holidays and 35% for visiting friends and relatives.
  5. 65% of passengers are going to the UK. 35% use Heathrow as a hub to connect.
  6. 76,000 are employed at Heathrow Airport.
  7. Heathrow is the 7th busiest airport in the world.

Demand is growing. Moreover, Britain’s population is expected to swell from 66m today to over 73m by 2045, the largest country in Europe.

The simple thing is facts don’t matter. Despite today’s modern fleet of aircraft burning 15-20% less fuel and spewing far lower emissions of planes even 10 years old, hysteria wins the day.

By the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) own admission, global air travel in totality is only 2% of man-made CO2 emissions. That is to say that all air travel is responsible for 0.00003% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Heathrow makes up 0.1% of all commercial flights globally.

Not to worry, IATA has got behind the movement to do its bit for climate change too. In a two page flyer, it covered the idea that we reckless passengers must consider our carbon footprint but at the same time help the U.N. raise $40bn in taxes, sorry ‘climate finance,’ between 2021 and 2035.

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

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

What of the UN IPCC summits going forward? How will activists, government officials and observers manage to get to upcoming climate conferences if their ability to fly is curtailed? Best allow for expansion to ensure their vacuous jollies remain uninterrupted, especially after Greta Thunberg’s efforts caused a 50% rebound in attendees at Madrid.

Forget fears of Brexit hurting the economy. Just let green councils run amock based on religion. The ultimate irony will be when airlines, bursting at the seams, request to put on larger aircraft to cope with the growth that has been restrained by the infrastructure.

Hollywoke. Oscars audience plunges to lowest ever

When Joaquin Phoenix lamented, “We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable. Then we take her milk that’s intended for her calf and we put it in our coffee and our cereal,” Hollywood hit peak woke. At the Golden Globes, he thought telling us he would be wearing only one tuxedo for the entire awards season while eating vegan would be a hit with mainstream Americans to highlight doing his bit for the planet. At the BAFTAs, Phoenix ran the “systemic racism” line. Yet he didn’t hand his gong to a person of colour that he believed was deserving of the award.

Hypocrisy sadly doesn’t resonate very well with mainstream Americans.

Essentially the Oscars has become a light-hearted entertainment version of the Democratic primary debates. The policy platform was all in there – speeches about feminism, gender equality, LGBTQI, climate change, healthcare and living with less. Basically, every “woke” politically correct subject got a mention, delivered by the very people who have zero place lecturing the rest of the world, as Ricky Gervais told them.

Celebrities, coming off the highs of the second-lowest audience total ever recorded in 2019 (after a 12% bump on 2018 which was 40% down on the prior 5 years), must have hoped that the 2020 Oscars ceremony would recover with more of the same social justice. Sadly 2020 was watched by the smallest audience ever.

23.6 million viewers watched (-20% or 6 million down). Among the 18-49 demographic, the audience plunged 31% vs 2019.

Joaquin Phoenix closed his speech by saying,

I have been a scoundrel all my life, I’ve been selfish. I’ve been cruel at times, hard to work with, and I’m grateful that so many of you in this room have given me a second chance.

FNF Media would prefer Hollywood gave Phoenix a third chance to revert to type. Because this act isn’t fooling anyone.

Ricky Gervais’ thoughts on The Oscars

Ricky Oscar

Ricky Gervais true to form in forecasting the hypocrisy that will emanate from the 2020 Oscars.

Hollywood has really lurched towards the “woke” genre. Sadly, audiences have little appetite.

Some notable flops in 2019 were:

“What Men Want”

The gender-swap comedy scored $54 million at the U.S. box office. Taraji Henson replaced  Mel Gibson, playing a character who can read what men think. The “What Women Want” comedy of 19 years ago racked up $182 million at the domestic box office.

“Book Smart”

Arguably the most progressive comedy ever made – looking at empowerment, virtue signalling and feminism. It only managed a $22 million haul.

“Long Shot”

Seth Rogen and Charlize Theron mock Republicans and embrace social justice. Audiences avoided it –  $30 million.

“Charlie’s Angels”

Elizabeth Banks, an actress-turned-director told reporters her movie would strike a blow against the patriarchy. Banks said, “Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too. This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.”

Tanked with an opening of $8.6 million in the US.

“Late Night”

The movie feminizes the already left-leaning Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” – $15 million box office.

“Terminator: Dark Fate”

Box office grosses for the franchise have been in free fall as it goes down the woke route. Arnie is no longer there to rattle off corny one-liners.

———

It should appear to Hollywood that movies about real-life stories are the ones that seem to resonate most with audiences – Titanic, The King’s Speech, Argo and A Beautiful Mind. These 4 films grossed $1.04 billion at the box office. It has been 12 years since Hollywood has had a fictional film it chose for itself beat the worst of the 4 movies based off real stories in ticket sales. It has been 15 years since having a proper blockbuster like Lord of the Rings which is arguably pure fantasy and extends to child audiences.

Films are of course subjective. One film one person may enjoy, others may not share the same view. It is interesting though that $100m box offices were a cert for an Oscar Best Picture award til 2004 after which it has been hit and miss since. 9 films in the last 13 have failed to breach $75mn. So instead of Hollywood being so preoccupied with espousing politics, perhaps it should look to the audience it ‘preaches’ to and starts ‘reaching’ them instead.

Zali’s Zero point One

For the 63,956 dwellings in my Warringah electorate, it is cute to see 66 households, yes 0.1%, sign up to local member Zali Steggall’s ‘Roadmap to Zero‘ campaign. Not even her army of campaign staff have signed up. In an area where there are probably more gas-guzzling SUVs per square mile than most places, this is the expected response to such a token suggestion.

Her website notes,

“Let’s Create a Plan for Positive Change.

We have been calling for the government to come up with a plan. If we are calling for it nationally, let’s work it out locally.

We’re focusing on seven sectors where we can make a difference: Energy, Transport, Waste, Food, Finance, Water & Other.

And we’re calling for businesses who can help us reduce emissions in these sectors to get involved and share their knowledge.”

As the recipient of a hard copy letter to the same effect, one wonders if Ms Steggall has had a larger carbon footprint in the mail out than she will save via 66 households who in theory should stop driving and start taking cold showers (responsible for 50% of household emissions) immediately.

What we want to know is how empowering is it to limit waste and emissions when 99.9% of households haven’t signed up? Perhaps she should go to Lotto Land football stadium when the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles play again and suggest no more night games.

We would like to remind Ms Steggall that the Northern Beaches (local) Council, a large part of the Warringah electorate, announced a climate emergency. In the 2017/18 annual report it states the council saved 293 tons of CO2. Given that Australia produces around 561m tons, 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.

Yes, the Roadmap to Zero, really is zero.

In order to be called a think tank, critical thinking would help

The problem with think tanks nowadays is that many are giving the rest a bad name. It would seem that not enough are actually doing the thing they are supposed to be doing – critical thinking.

It was only yesterday that the World Economic Forum’s 2020 report on gender justified a superior “health & survivability” gender gap score to Syrian women even though they live on average 15 years less than Australian women. Why? Because the WEF put more emphasis on the age gap between the sexes rather than longevity, poor Syrian males whose average life expectancies struggle to make 52-yo get back-handed applause for doing their bit for gender equality.

Closer to home, the think tank, The Australia Institute (TAI), has proposed the idea of a $1/ton carbon tax on fossil fuel companies to put into an independently administered climate disaster fund.

As ever with left-wing think tanks, taxation is the only viable cure to all ills. On page 37, TAI doesn’t miss the chance to write a few lines about our poor Pacific neighbours at risk of being inundating by rising sea levels despite a study showing 88.6% of Pacific islands and atolls being stable or growing in size. Who needs evidence when we want a narrative?

Don’t forget the one important takeaway. TAI was named as one of the four supposed “experts” prepared to put its name in a Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) report which scored Australia dead last on international and domestic climate policy. Remember this was the mob that handed Australia a 0.0 (zero point zero) score.

Only foaming at the mouth alarmists could derive such a ridiculous total and only a research body with little interest in objectivity would allow it to be included. If you are hunting for credibility, you won’t find it in the CCPI report.

Therefore if this is the standard at the TAI, why should we pay the slightest attention to them in terms of policy options to mitigate disasters?

TAI wrote in the heavily media, BoM & Deloitte sourced National Climate Disaster Fund report,

It is now clear that global warming increases both the frequency and intensity of many types of natural disasters including floods, bushfires, droughts and other extreme weather events. This is borne out by the science and experienced in unprecedented extreme events in Australia and globally.

Then why did the UNIPCC, the carbon cathedral of climate alarmism, state in its March 2018 report on weather extremes the following 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 floodslow 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 monsoonslow 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.”

Low confidence” is mentioned 230 times in the above report. “High confidence” gets talked about 169 times. “Cold” is mentioned 82x. “Hot” 44x. “Cold extreme” 11x and “Hot extreme” 8x. Is this a coincidence?

Backed by such “low confidence”, why would we lend time to TAI to give us solutions which only raise taxes on fossil fuel industries? Why hasn’t TAI consulted with the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to learn that 85% of Aussie bushfires are either deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit? Why not consult the WA Government’s Bushfire Front site which debunks the myth of climate change causing megafires?

Never mind such trivialities, TAI quotes the head of the Australian Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, who noted that Australia is in “the most natural disaster-prone region in the world” and thatclimate change is predicted to make disasters more extreme and more common.Since when did Australian military personnel become climate experts? Given our Navy uses pink nail varnish to promote recruitment is it any wonder he makes such activist statements?

For FNF Media, who does not profess to be a climate scientist, there is no escaping the list of activists straying out of their lane to push their non-existent credentials on the environment.

Take the Australian Medical Association (AMA). How is it that the AMA is being regarded as an expert on climate change? Does getting a degree in medicine bestow one insights on the impacts of hurricane or drought activity?

The Doctors for Environment Australia have jumped on the activist bandwagon too saying, “three medical colleges, the RACP, ACEM and ACRRM representing tens of thousands of doctors recently declared climate change a health emergency.

Yet do the AMA, RACP, ACEM or ACRRM speak for the each and everyone of their members? The stats say otherwise. In 1962, more than 95% of doctors belonged to the AMA. By 1987 it was 50%. AHPRA reports that in 2016 there were 107,179 registered medical practitioners. The 2016 AMA annual report notes a membership of 29,425. That is 27% of doctors. Shouldn’t the AMA board raise the alarm and focus on the hollowing of its base?

Or should we just follow the money? The non-warmist RACGP has more than doubled its revenues since 2012, while AMA has trickled up 10%. Not surprising AMA revenues have stalled when it has sought to get medical students, which now represent over 1/3rd of members to sign up for free in order to pad the numbers in the hope they’ll join the save the planet cabal.

Even the financial sector is blowing the alarmist trumpet. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) stated earlier this year, “there is no excuse for inaction on climate change, warning there is a high degree of certainty that financial risks will materialize as a result of a warming climate.”

Why isn’t anyone asking what APRA is doing by shaming companies that do not meet voluntary climate risk disclosure targets which are set out by the Task Force in Climate-related Financial Disclosures, a private sector body chaired by none other than global warming alarmist Michael Bloomberg? Where is the independent thought? Talk about taking one’s eyes off the ball.

Our own central bank is burning witches too. In a speech given by the Deputy Governor, the RBA is basing its assertions on the prophecies of the IPCC and BOM, two of countless organisations which have been caught red handed manipulating climate data. Why doesn’t data malfeasance constitute a red flag in the RBA’s internal analysis? Do they apply the same rigour to interest rate policy?

Or our mega banks that refuse to lend money to the Adani project, not based on any valid financial risk assessment but ideological moral preening. Shouldn’t shareholders be concerned that banks are making such irrational investment policy when they need to offset the alarming imbalance in their mortgage loan books? Never mind.

Or the revelation that a band of 29 former fire chiefs, who are proclaiming global warming expertise, are backed by the even more alarmist Climate Council, who we called out on their own “colossal bullshit.” Yes, the Climate Council’s Chief Councillor is none other than Tim Flannery, a man with an absolutely terrible record of dud predictions about our climate.

FNF Media couldn’t hold a flame to these gentlemen in understanding fire behaviour and how to extinguish them, but feels justified questioning the extent of their expertise in climate science.

Because therein lies the problem. The list of supposed experts keeps growing. Yet the ever compliant media falls into line and joins the cheerleading squad. Throw a Cate Blanchett into the mix and get celebrities to espouse their superior intellect to the rest of us.

Perhaps we might ask our click bait journalists whether they consult their bank manager for climate change wisdom anymore than they do the Bob Jane T-Mart tyre fitter for relationship advice?

There is a sad truth that more and more think tank tomes are succumbing to ideological clickbait group think rather than pushing rigid processes to come up with meaningful outcomes. TAI just adds to the growing list of those reverse engineering a narrative. Perhaps the TAI carbon tax solution should also include the manufacture of the raw materials that go to making solar cells, wind towers and battery backups (all derived in part from fossil fuels).

Oh and yes, there is no doubt Syrian men and women would trade a trimming of the health and survivability gender gap to add 15-20 years to their lives.

Bluescope to expand US plant thanks to cheap energy

Bluescope Steel Logo

Thanks to Australia’s ridiculous energy prices, Aussie company Bluescope confirmed the expansion of capacity in Ohio. In Feb 2019, the company CEO said, “much cheaper energy in the United States is a major driver of the company’s preparedness to invest in a $1 billion expansion in Ohio.”

Meanwhile, our lawmakers continue to behave as if they’re in control of power generation, pandering to pathetic ideologies instead of realities.

In 2017, Tomago Aluminium reported, “We have to grow to be competitive and to be ahead of the curve, but when the spot price went to $14,000 [per megawatt hour] we had to take that load off. It’s just not sustainable. You can’t smelt at that price. We have had to curtail or modulate the load [on occasions] or we get hammered by the price…We cannot continue to keep paying those prices. We have to find a solution. The prices are crippling”

Well done Australia. Home to the cheapest and best quality energy-producing assets around but saddled with the world’s highest prices. Beholden to being guilt-tripped into reducing CO2 levels that even if we cut to zero would have absolutely no impact on limiting global temperatures.

We only need look to Germany to see how well their renewables plan is working for them. What have the Germans done recently? Favour more electricity production from lignite (brown coal) and biomass which are the two highest emitting power generation bases. Furthermore,

“After the German government decided to reduce subsidies to the solar industry in 2012, the industry nose-dived. By this year, virtually every major German solar producer had gone under as new capacity declined by 90 per cent and new investment by 92 per cent. Some 80,000 workers — 70 per cent of the solar workforce — lost their jobs. Solar power’s market share is shrinking and solar panels, having outlived their usefulness, are being retired without being replaced.

Wind power faces a similar fate. Germany has some 29,000 wind turbines, almost all of which have been benefitting from a 20-year subsidy program that began in 2000. Starting in 2020, when subsidies run out for some 5,700 wind turbines, thousands of them each year will lose government support, making the continued operation of most of them uneconomic based on current market prices. To make matters worse, with many of the turbines failing and becoming uneconomic to maintain, they represent an environmental liability and pose the possibility of abandonment. No funds have been set aside to dispose of the blades, which are unrecyclable, or to remove the turbines’ 3,000-tonne reinforced concrete bases, which reach depths of 20 metres, making them a hazard to the aquifers they pierce.”

Canberra, please note that if you pursue common sense, voters will celebrate a reduction in power prices that current experience proves are NOT going to come through ludicrous renewable energy targets.