#climategate

COP 25 Delegates by nation & aspirational virtue

Image result for brown envelopes bribe

Carbon Brief has done an admirable job denoting how many delegates from each country are attending the COP25 boondoggle, sorry, climate conference. It notes,

“The country with the most delegates is, by some distance, Côte d’Ivoire with 348. The West African nation also brought the largest delegation to COP23 in Bonn in 2017 – with 492 participants – and the fourth largest to COP24 in Katowice in 2018, with 208.

Côte d’Ivoire’s delegation is more than 50 people larger than the second-placed country, which is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with 293. The DRC also had the second-largest number of delegates at COP24 (with 237) and the third largest at COP23 (340).”

40.7% of delegates are from Africa. Similar to past years. Clearly, these COP summits create a fantastic opportunity to prey on the guilt of the West. As FNFM noted last year, the correlation with the number of delegates and the corruption index was significant.

India sent 35 to COP25 down from 182 at COP21. China sent 76, down from 326 respectively although it is more likely they sent investment bankers to see which African nation they can bribe to plunder their resources.

Australia has sent only 20 delegates but we should champion the fact that 65% of them were women. We even beat New Zealand’s 19 delegate field which only had 58% women. That should please those with Kiwi envy.

In what should rile the gender equality activists and Trump haters, the Paris Accord spurning Americans had higher proportional female representation than the EU or Norway. So much for capitalist pigs shunning socialist norms!

Syria had 100% female representation with the sole delegate. However the male patriarchy was perpetuated thanks to zero female representation from Pakistan, Yemen, Eritrea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Mauritius and Libya.

Naturally nothing will come of COP25 until a grandiose statement to tackle the climate emergency (FNFM is surprised the Wollongong City Council hasn’t sent a team after the unanimous declaration to “adopt an aspirational emissions reduction target of zero emissions by 2030 for its own operations“) comes in the death throes of the last day when the most hot air is produced.

Fair Dinkum Virtue Signaling

Atlasssian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes has been a huge advocate of renewables. So much so he has stated he wants to be a net exporter of wind and solar. Fair Dinkum Power (FDP), the company he helped set up, had a manifesto which stated the following,

We are a movement. We are a brand for Australia’s energy future. We are a rallying cry for all who believe in the power of the wind, the sun, the waves and – most importantly – the power of the people of Australia.

For energy to be fair dinkum, it must be honestly good for our wallets, good for our economy and good for our planet.

So to CM’s surprise today, the AFR noted,

“The Atlassian co-founder applied to deregister Australian Fair Dinkum Power Pty Ltd on November 27, almost exactly a year after he set it up in response to Prime Minister Scott Morrison referring to coal as “fair dinkum power” in comparison to solar or wind.

A spokesperson for the Rich Lister said the Fair Dinkum Power cause, which advocates for Australia to be 100 per cent powered by renewables and export as much again, would live on in the form of a website, an online petition (which has more than 90,000 signatories) and a Facebook page.

The company never undertook any business activity and the spokesperson said there had never been any intention to start any, despite rumours that Mr Cannon-Brookes would launch a retail energy supplier under the Fair Dinkum banner.

One can only imagine that the realities of the free market meant that it was never going to be good for wallets or the economy. CM awaits the media to conduct a full investigation into this sad outcome with all the gusto they did at FDP’s inception.

Fair Dinkum Virtue Signaling!

It was only several months ago that Mike Cannon-Brookes (MCB) was on a campaign to get the already left-leaning board of BHP to ditch ties with groups like the Minerals Council of Australia. But why?

CM believes that nothing shows the prosecution of a cause than leading from the front. MCB should use the might of Atlassian’s $32 bn market cap and seek to buy a controlling stake in BHP whereby it can behave like an activist shareholder and achieve those goals from within. A bit rich to demand a company like BHP fold to the whims of another listed corporate which has no direct business with it. That would be terrible governance for BHP to pay MCB any mind.

How would MCB react if BHP CEO Andrew Mackenzie turned around and demanded that Atlassian cut ties with ANZ for being embroiled in the Hayne Banking Royal Commission? MCB would rightly tell him to take a hike.

One doubts that MCB has much of his superannuation buried in BHP shares but why pick on the Minerals Council of Australia? After all, if he had a good look at what Australia’s mineral industry enables, Atlassian should be a backer not a knocker. Why not influence the debate by being part of it?

Here is a list of 30 things Australian minerals companies provide, including vital materials used in wind farms and solar panels, the very forms of renewable energy MCB wants Atlassian to rely on 100% to power its future. MCB’s Tesla is reliant on Aussie minerals to make the batteries. So does his smartphone, tablets, laptops and desktops. And so do the white goods that chill his food and the copper pipes that deliver hot water in his lovely mansion in Sydney. His dentist uses those minerals to maximise his oral hygiene.  The list goes on.

No one can take away the success MCB has achieved in the corporate sphere. However, it would appear that being an expert in the software world doesn’t always translate to being a sage on the environment much less hold any authority to dictate the boardroom discussions of a company that is more crucial to its existence than the other way around.

Lazy Journalism 101

CC.png

News reports, “Australians are becoming increasing worried about climate, with their concern on the issue doubling since 2018…Researchers for the latest Mapping Social Cohesion Report asked Australians to name their biggest concern off the top of their heads, with 19 per cent saying climate change.”

From the Mapping Social Cohesion report of 2017, “Environmental issues have declined from a peak of 18% in 2011 to 7% in 2017, close to the level of the previous
four years.

So essentially the above search took CM less than a minute. Effectively depending on the start point, we are near as makes no difference the same as we were in 2011 in our views on climate change. If the media outlet wanted CM to do their sensationalism for them they technically could have run a “near trebling from 2017” headline.

Typical media clickbait but we’ve proved they aren’t even any good at it. Hopeless alarmists.

Can we defund SBS too?

This isn’t journalism. This is alarmist quackery for the sake of it. Venice has been subject to flooding for centuries. While the floods in Venice now are the highest for over 50 years, it still means that floods were higher in 1966. Let that sink in. Presumably it wasn’t climate change driven back then.

One can only imagine what a Venice Council could possibly do to combat climate change? Perhaps ruin the skyline with wind turbines and solar panels atop the roofs of the Rialto Bridge or San Marco Square?? To alarmists, no amount of tokenism is too little. Claim a climate emergency and show how worthy you really are.

No matter what the Venice Council does to “combat” climate change it will have no effect. Maybe the gondola union can indulge in some crony capitalism and demand that the €7.50 Vaporetto passenger ferries are banned so they can charge €150 to go from Santa Croce to Piazza San Marco instead. At least gondolas are zero emission vessels.

The SBS needs to grow up and deliver proper well reasoned content for the $400m in taxpayer funds it receives.

Former Fire Chief inflames the climate debate

Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue said today, “Just a 1 degree C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters…Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”

CM could not hope to hold a flame (no pun intended) to his knowledge of fire behavior but why does the WA Government’s own fire service website, Bushfire Front (BFF) contradict him,

Compared to slope, wind strength, fuel quantity and dryness, temperature is an insignificant driver of fire behaviour. Experienced firefighters do not fear a 40-degree day per se. This is because even on a hot day, a fire in one or two-year old fuel can be controlled; on the same day a fire in 20-year old fuels with high winds would usually be unstoppable.”

One of them must be right. Could it be that Mullin’s personal beliefs about climate change are a factor? After all he serves as an author for the Climate Council.

Mullins also said that ” We saw it coming. We tried to warn the government.”

Indeed BFF notes clearly,

““Large wildfires are inevitable”

This statement is, to put it politely, bosh. Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:

• an ignition source,

• severe fire weather and,

• a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.

Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).

We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.

Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years. There were a number of very large fires in Western Australian forests from 1900 to 1960, but after the 1961 Dwellingup fire disaster, the wide-scale fuel reduction program carried out by the then Forests Department, ensured that the fuel accumulation was well controlled. The graph below demonstrates this very clearly. It was only after the burning program gradually fell away following a diversion of resources away from forest areas, that the area of wildfires began to climb again after about 1990.

How is it that so many of these fires have been started by arsonists? A 16-yo has been alleged to have started fires in central Queensland. Johannes Leak’s cartoon was absolutely on the money.

Even assuming Australia pandered to Mullins and went zero carbon emissions tomorrow, could he guarantee that the bushfires would slow or end? Even though Australia is such a tiny contributor to global CO2 emissions? Could he show the science behind his beliefs on fires and the link to climate change even though 85% are deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit?

Of course the climate alarmists immediately endorse his words because he is a firefighter. Although are his words on climate change anymore relevant than those of the AMA?

Maybe we should reflect on the politics within the upper echelons of the fire services? Not so much the rank and file front line fire fighters but the bureaucrats who make daft decisions such as buying a Boeing 737 fire-bomber which can only be used at 4 airports rendering it highly inflexible (as much as it’s a great political sales point) or a military helicopter which spends 5hrs in maintenance for every hour it is in the field working. Or replacing 1yo trucks with brand new ones because records are poorly kept?

Nope, just blame climate change for it. Get out of jail free card for everything.

Virtue Signaling Wallabies should look at their sponsors before lecturing the rest of us on climate change

Pocock.png

Wallabies flanker David Pocock, along with teammates Bernard Foley and Dane Haylett-Petty, have announced their partnership with a scheme that aims to compensate for the carbon emissions associated with travel. Woke.

Why aren’t they rushing straight to Wallabies CEO Raelene Castle and demanding that she jettison Qantas & Land Rover from the sponsorship list? Surely offsetting carbon emissions is best served by trying to get widespread media coverage to push legislation to ban petrol & diesel SUVs and restrict air travel.

Surely what better way to announce one’s true commitment to the climate emergency than refusing to endorse or play for a team where the very companies that violate the climate change movement’s goals are emblazoned on their sportswear? Sadly multi-million dollar contracts are clearly more important to these players to protect than saving the planet. Telling.

The Guardian noted, “musician Heidi Lenffer, from Australian band Cloud Control, launched FEAT. (Future Energy Artists), an initiative that would allow Australian musicians to invest in a solar farm in south-east Queensland…Lenffer was concerned about the carbon emissions generated by her group’s touring schedule and what she saw as her own contribution to the climate emergency.”

Notably, Lenffer had asked “climate scientists in the field, and connected with Dr Chris Dey from Areté Sustainability. Dey crunched the numbers for Cloud Control’s two-week tour, playing 15 clubs and theatres from Byron Bay to Perth…He found that it would produce about 28 tonnes of emissions.

28 tonnes of emissions in an Aussie context would equate to 0.00000509% of Australia’s emissions which are 0.00001345% of the earth’s atmosphere. So the global carbon footprint of her Byron to Perth tour would total 0.000000000068473%. Offsetting that will hardly be worth the efforts gone to working out the impact. None. She should double the scope of the tour and it would have no meaningful damage on the climate.

Carbon offsetting is such a wonderful idea. It essentially takes the form of commercialising hypocrisy. Effectively offsetting one’s emissions is like asking someone else to quit smoking on your behalf. How do you benefit? Don’t forget that Sir Elton John justified Meghan & Harry’s use of his private jet by offsetting on Carbon Offset which allowed him to technically pay for those emissions for the grand price of £8 return for the couple. Pocock’s trip to Japan would cost £38.70 return. That will be enough to pay for a sign to hang on the front of the FEAT solar plant.

Lenffer shouldn’t feel bad though. Climate alarmist, Bono of U2 once bragged that one of his global tours beat out The Rolling Stones in terms of trucks and 747s used to ferry all the equipment around because that’s how you measure a band’s popularity!

Maybe the players should strike in Japan and superglue themselves to a steel plant in Kobe. They best be careful, Japanese police can lock them up without charge for 21 days. They might risk missing the finals…surelythey wouldn’t want to put their careers behind their sanctimony.

If they still have pangs of guilt they can look up Extinction Rebellion’s guidelines for hypocrisy. Apparently it is justified in their view because they want the changes but have little choice but to consume in a fossil fuel world.

72% might believe climate change is affecting them personally but…

…only 19% willing to spend more than $500 per year on climate abatement. That’s the result from the online survey conducted by the Australia Talks National Survey (sponsored by the ABC, Vox Pop Labs and University of Melbourne).

The Climate Council was quick to upload a post of Ita Buttrose, who spoke of politicians who were blinkered to climate change, were ignoring the will of the majority of the Australian people. Bill Shorten wasn’t blinkered. Look what happened to him. He was beaten by a coal hugging knuckle dragger from ‘The Shire.’

Although, the question of “climate change” being the number one issue (72%) is misleading statistically given that it was the only area one could “enter” any answer for the most pressing problem whereas the questionnaire on every other issue bar year of birth and postcode was predetermined by multiple choice. So that would leave a lot of wiggle room for the survey collectors to select answers that supported “climate change.” One has to honestly wonder how climate change is affecting a majority of Aussies personally?

The question was worded as “please enter a [presumably single] response“. So if we add up these single answers published afterwards, we get answers totaling 380%. 72%/380% =19%. The same number as were willing to spend $500pa+ to save the planet.

Other interesting insights showed that people who took the survey in NT, QLD or WA, where there are higher numbers of Aborigines, voted overwhelmingly in favour of Australia Day staying as it is.

Apparently CM is 78% more right wing than others Aussies. Is that accurate?

Would love to see the raw data, including the age of respondents across the spectrum.

Don’t be surprised to see the media bang the drum that almost 3/4s of Aussies are afraid of climate change on a personal basis. Despite that, 78% people are positive about their own futures. Go figure?

Perhaps the most glaring issue with this survey is the ability for individuals to take the survey as many times as he/she/ZE likes which undermines the credibility of the data.