#climatefraud

Sydney Lord Mayor thinks we’re stupid

Lord Mayor Clover Moore proudly tweeted the City of Sydney went 100% renewable energy.

Shame 87.3% of the state’s electricity came from coal on the day of that announcement. Or is that how it works? Calculate the total energy consumed in Sydney and claim that any renewable energy across the state of NSW was hers?

Forbes deletes climate alarmism apology

forbes

Below is the article Forbes published then deleted. One imagines it must be hold a certain amount of truth.

Perhaps the climate alarmists – so annoyed at having their platform hijacked by COVID19 and systemic racism – used their collective idle resources to mobilize and gang up on Forbes with all manner of threats. Cancel Climate Culture?

Here is what was deleted

——–

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003

The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor

We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress

The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land

The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium

100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%

We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities

Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did

“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions

Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon

The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

APRA priorities are frightening

We wrote a while back that the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) had taken its finger OFF the pulse when assessing the risks facing our financial institutions. That was before COVID19. We think our banks are heavily leveraged and have little equity to offset a collapse in the property bubble.

Despite being faced with the prospect of a property meltdown thanks to an employment destroying pandemic, APRA thinks hiring a “Head of Climate Risk” is the way forward.

Why does APRA bother pursuing a field it has no expertise in much less look to create new green tape to extend its oversight?

It is not alone. The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) is now seeking more oversight on corporates reporting on climate change.

ASIC’s own study found that fewer and fewer companies were reporting on climate change over the past decade. Shouldn’t we take that as corporates having a better pulse on the impact that climate change will have on their industries than a bunch of bureaucrats wanting to legislate an ideology?

With the COVID19 driven seismic economic shifts to come, it is frightening to see our government departments pursuing irrelevant regulation that companies are even less concerned about.

APRA should be focused on ensuring the coming property market implosion doesn’t cripple our banks. Instead of using the time to fine tune a wide variety of scenarios and stress tests to combat the troubling future, it is only proving it should have power taken away not granted.

Climate experts demand Planet of the Humans be taken down

Planet of the humans

You have to love the climate alarmists. Instead of challenging, dissecting and dismantling each point made in ‘Planet of the Humans‘ that was factually incorrect or misleading, it is far easy to lean on “the science is settled” argument and put pressure on YouTube pull it down.

How do these people honestly think they will persuade climate sceptics or people sitting on the fence if the only answer is to stifle or shut down debate? What of those climate alarmists who may have been disappointed to see the crony socialism at play? If the science is indeed on their side, why not provide the rebuttals rich in data and empirical facts? That way people can make even more informed decisions instead of being pilloried for questioning such findings.

Let’s be honest. The truth is that renewables rely very heavily on the fossil fuel industry. From the mining of the raw materials to the energy-intensive manufacturing processes.

We, like most rational people, want clean air and efficient use of resources that minimise waste but the problem is that the economics to put these green dreams into action is punitive. Should we accept that one needs 400x the area of a gas-fired power plant to produce the same amount of output with renewables?

We could go on and on. Bill McKibben of the Sierra Club gifted us some amusing backflips much like his colleague Aaron Mair did in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the environment. The video is utterly hilarious in showing just how little the Sierra Club knows about the supposed field of expertise – global warming. The hot air was in abundance.

We have always wondered why even if one wanted to believe the supposed 97% of scientists that concur with global warming, isn’t there any curiosity about what the 3% have to say that challenges the prevailing sentiment?

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.

When climate alarmists start trusting bankers

If global warming alarmists ever wanted to pick an industry as steeped in unreliable forecasts as climate scientists, one would find it hard to beat investment banking. Having been in that industry for two decades, the list of woefully misguided and poorly researched puff pieces is endless. There is a reason global banks are trading at fractions of their former peaks. They don’t add much value and most never picked the GFC of 2008. If they were smarter, greed wouldn’t require recessions.

Never mind. When JP Morgan economists are portending climate doom, why not hitch them to your global warming wagon? There is a kind of conflict of interest. Evil, greedy fat bonus paying tax avoiding corporates preaching virtue on climate.

By the way, you won’t find a research analyst who believes they don’t deserve air travel at the pointy end and luxury limousine transfers to and from the airport.

Yet they are aligned with the hypocrites at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which told us at the 1500 private jet junket at Davos that it’s central bank members are “climate rescuers of last resort.” This despite their monetary policies having played a major part in fueling overconsumption via the debt bubble. Ultra low interest rates will ultimately have a profound effect on carbon emissions – a global economic crisis of epic proportions which won’t require one wind turbine or solar farm to achieve. They’ll save the climate by destroying the wellbeing of so many in the process.

On the one hand, JP Morgan can now claim some kudos for allowing such free thinking which isn’t at the behest of the investment banking team.

Maybe it’s worth pointing out that most banks keep meticulous (but useless) data on the readership of such reports. Much like the media chasing advertising dollars through clickbait, research analysts strive for internal point scoring to boost their year end review chances to push for bigger bonuses to their excel spreadsheet obsessed line managers who look at quantity, not quality. So if a warmest piece can create noise, irrespective of the quality of the content, then that serves a purpose for internal bosses.

Such has been the hollowing out of investment banking research teams, the last remaining life jackets are in short supply. It was only last year that Deutsche Bank closed its entire global equity platform. While regulation is part of the problem, there is simply very little value add to convince clients to pay for.

While the report supposedly chastised the bank’s lending of $75bn to the fossil fuel industry, in a world of ESG, which puts ideology ahead of risk assessment, JP Morgan can now claim it has seen the light so it can hopefully fool green tech companies in need of cash that they are worthy environmentally friendly financiers. This will also give the public relations team a welcome talking piece to the media and ESG retirement fund managers that they practice social responsibility.

Back to the report. On what pretense do the JP Morgan analysts have for the climate crisis threatening the human race? Citing the IPCC (where scientists have slammed the processes which prioritize gender and ethnicity over ability and qualification) and the IMF (which couldn’t pick economic growth it it tried) are hardly the sort of data one would gladly source as gospel to compile a report.

It seems everyone is an expert on climate change nowadays. Central banks, ASIC, APRA, RBA, the Australian Medical Association and now investment banks. As we pointed out earlier in the week, where were the scientists who made a b-line to speak at the National Climate Emergency summit in Melbourne? That’s right 2/3rds were activists, lobbyists, left-wing media and academics with no scientific background.

You know when alarmists are channeling bankers, that they are running out of credible evidence. Even worse, most banks have an uncanny ability to act as contrarian indicators.

We can be sure that a whole lot of malinvestment will continue thanks to governments trying to declare emergencies to justify infrastructure spending to replace sensible business friendly structural reforms that would have a far better chance of keeping them in power for longer.

In closing, it seems even the media has lost faith in investment bank research, choosing to channel NY Mets baseball pitchers for commentary on stocks instead.

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.

Seattle City Council strikes again

We want proper evidence to convince us that the state of climate change is anywhere near as big or as dangerous as alarmists claim it to be. This video doesn’t help convince those who want more proof.

Seattle City Council is a gift that keeps giving. Not just the tree activists singing but the complete “don’t give a damn” attitude of the councilors.

Zali better pray that politicians don’t judge her climate bill on the results of Warringah

FNF Media was curious as to how the tally for Warringah MP Zali Steggall OAM’s ‘Roadmap to Zero‘ (R2Z) worked. As is often the case with these grassroots woke causes, the structure of the claims can be misleading. Amateur data collection methodology can undermine the very cause. We reveal how easy it is.

R2Z currently claims 551 ‘households’ have signed up from the 66 when we first looked into it earlier in the week. Technically this would mean that 0.8% of households in the Warringah electorate have signed her compact, up from 0.1%.

To turn that on its head, Steggall, who ran on a campaign of climate change, can’t seem to get the other 99% of households in the electorate over the line to sign up to R2Z.

Looking deeper into the sign-up process we found it only involved one’s email, name and postcode. That’s all. So one could technically live in Newtown, input a Mosman postcode and sign up. There doesn’t seem to be a process to cross-reference the signatories to the electoral roll.

One would think if the honourable member wished to truly get an accurate map of where the more environmentally conscious residents lived, a fixed address may have been a more useful process to ensure that the inputs were a) legitimate and b) where resources might need to be focused. Easy to have people tick a “privacy” waiver if indeed they are passionate enough to save the planet.

It is a bit hard to claim ‘household’ when one’s full address can’t be logged. There is nothing stopping all members of the same household signing up of the same person using multiple emails. This just reduces the quality of the data collection from a statistical perspective.

As awful as 0.8% of households is, 0.35% of the 147,333 Warringah residents is even worse.

Beyond the fact that 99% of her own electorate seemingly doesn’t care for R2Z, The Guardian ignores that and concludes,

The woman who toppled Tony Abbott in Warringah at the last election on a platform of climate change action now has the whole parliament in her sights as she seeks bipartisan support for a climate change framework bill aimed at transitioning Australia to a decarbonised economy.”

She won on a platform to remove Tony Abbott.

Ironically The Guardian includes her R2Z link as a “conscience vote” which sort of undermines the argument,

Steggall and the crossbench have begun a conscience vote campaign online and within their communities. They hope to win over enough government MPs to see the bill, which has been modelled on existing legislation in the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, pass in Australia.

She better pray politicians don’t judge her bill on the strength of the commitment of the residents or households of Warringah.

FNF Media endorses Steggall’s view reported by The Guardian

With the government’s party room once again at war over climate policy, Steggall said it was time to let individual MPs speak for their communities rather than toe a party line.”

Warringah has spoken, even with the risk of dodgy data collection. Mickey Mouse awaits updates on how to save the planet.

“Climate change” Casanova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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