Planet of the Humans is Michael Moore’s latest documentary which slays renewable energy – wind, solar & biomass – as well as electric vehicles which rely so heavily on fossil fuels in their production.
Think of it as Crony Capitalism 101.
Planet of the Humans is Michael Moore’s latest documentary which slays renewable energy – wind, solar & biomass – as well as electric vehicles which rely so heavily on fossil fuels in their production.
Think of it as Crony Capitalism 101.
You have to hand it to the editors of The Guardian. In what world can anyone draw an equivalence between action on climate change and a crazed gunman who murdered 27 people, mostly kindergarten kids? Who wouldn’t think the two are interchangeable?
The Guardian columnist Brigid Delaney wants us to believe the connection. At the very least this article proves once again why the paper still asks for charity at the bottom of each article because the content doesn’t warrant a high enough value that ordinary people are willing to shell out for it. Sometimes, content IS the problem.
Her column takes similar cues from the recent NY Times article on ‘Australia committing climate suicide.‘ The Man Booker prize-winning author of the opinion piece, Richard Flanagan, is a novelist, not a climate expert.
“As Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, once observed, the collapse of the Soviet Union began with the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986. In the wake of that catastrophe, “the system as we knew it became untenable,” he wrote in 2006. Could it be that the immense, still-unfolding tragedy of the Australian fires may yet prove to be the Chernobyl of the climate crisis?“
Such dramatic language may well have inspired Delaney,
“Sandy Hook was the rock bottom moment – where things are so bad you know they can no longer continue as is. After rock bottom, there is a choice: stasis and misery or growth and transformation…This apocalyptic-seeming Australian summer is our Sandy Hook moment. We have to seize it and change our thinking, our priorities and our politics. In doing so we can change our country, our future, and transform ourselves into global leaders on climate change.“
Delaney might reflect on the facts surrounding gun violence in the US. 95% of firearm-related murders in the US are committed with handguns, not automatic weapons. So despite the constant fixation on automatic rifles, statistically American lawmakers would be better off banning sales of pistols. Deaths from mass-shootings are less than 0.6% of the total. Horrible yes, but a handgun ownership culture moment would have been more apt given that almost 40,000 that perish at the wrong end of a trigger every year.
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, murders in the US appear to be very concentrated: 54% of US counties (representing 11% of the population) in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties made up 51% of the murders, ironically in states with the strictest gun controls – Illinois, NY and California.
Who needs facts when it is much easier to put the blame at the feet of 5 million law-abiding citizens who happen to be NRA members. Perhaps Americans don’t view gun massacres as ‘rock bottom’ moments when it comes to defending their amendment rights. Mark Robinson gave a perfect example of why Americans are fed up with being punished for the actions of others. Obama had control of both houses in his first term. Spoke about 2A. Didn’t do anything about it. Plenty of gun massacres in his first term including Fort Hood.
Moving on from Sandy Hook and guns, allow us to indulge her commentary on The Guardian’s pet topic of climate change. Let us not forget that the newspaper implores its journalists to crank up the alarmist rhetoric. If only as much effort went into investigating the numbers behind the claims.
“…Transformation is recognising the facts: Australia is a climate vandal, led by wreckers. We are ranked the worst of 57 countries on climate policy.”
Delaney has probably never read the entire CCPI report which ranked us 57th. If she had (like we did), she might have found the following,
The CCPI measures the emissions, renewable energy share and climate policies of 57 countries and the European Union. It released the document at the COP25 summit to bathe in the spotlight with alarmists pals. Where was the journalistic rigour? Of course, it was non-existent.
Who were the Aussie based “experts” (activists) the CCPI relied on to provide really in-depth qualitative opinions on our climate policy evaluation?
Doctors for the Environment Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation
The Australian Institute
All climate activists. Precious little objectivity there. It is isn’t hard to work out why Australia scored a 0.0 on climate policy. Even worse, any think tank with the remotest thirst for integrity in reporting and sensible data collection should have questioned a zero score. CCPI didn’t.
Yet Delaney went in all guns blazing to bash Australia’s lack of climate-friendly credentials, citing this farce of a study as gospel. It is so bad it actually makes the IPCC climate bibles look good and that takes some doing given many scientists slammed the processes which were documented in the internal feedback study. We summarised the outcomes of that 678-page document here.
Is Delaney aware that according to Bloomberg NEF, an organisation owned by an individual with heavy green credentials, Australia has the 3rd highest clean energy spend per capita! We spent twice as much in real dollar terms as France yet these climate alarmists marked us down to zero “because our democracy supported Adani.”
Sorry Ms. Delaney, we are finding it hard to reconcile how Australia spending 11x the global average on renewables makes us climate vandals? What level would you suggest we lead? We await your data-rich analysis.
Is this the takeaway from your rich climate expertise?
“What might our transformation look like? It might look like a simple acknowledgement of causation between climate change and this summer’s fires.“
OK, so we just get ScoMo to declare a climate emergency? Job done!
Presumably, if we follow alarmist logic, had we legislated to accelerate renewables by not having a democratically elected carbon-loving prime minister, supported by the Murdoch media and fossil fuel industry“, these dreadful bushfires, many lit by arsonists taking advantage of poorly managed fuel loads, wouldn’t have happened, right?
It couldn’t have been the lax fire service management of the forests and the closed shop mentality of our emergency services? Did Delaney know that Greg Mullins, the leader of the 29 former fire chiefs, barely mentioned climate change in the last five years of FR NSW annual reports under his leadership? If it is such a huge issue in retirement, why didn’t he mention it when in a position to prosecute the case? Mullins would have sounded far more credible were his alarmist fears documented in black and white. They weren’t. Go figure.
If we indulged Delaney’s “the painful lessons of this summer could be transformative, if we allow them to be. Australia – having experienced the pointy end of the climate catastrophe – could become a leader in the global fight to reduce emissions.” for a moment, does she honestly believe that spending billions more on renewables in Australia and terminating coal exports would put a dent in our already minuscule 0.0000134% contribution to human-caused global CO2, much less the world’s? Can she make a case in data?
Will she stand in Tiananmen Square and shake her fist at China, which is building between 300 and 500 new coal-fired power plants out to 2030? Or rant to President Xi that China will spew one full year of Australian emissions every week by that date vs every two weeks as it stands today? Just easier to hitch to the media wagon and heap scorn on ScoMo.
We have been lucky to speak to one of the brave volunteers (pseudonym Fred, a 25yr veteran in the RFS) who has spoken out about the utter incompetence of the administration within fire services HQ. You should be furious after reading this. You are being lied to and the media is complicit by failing to do basic investigative journalism.
Instead of all of the glowing praise being heaped on the senior management of the fire services, here are some brutal comments that contradict the current media narrative.
What you will read are some of the direct quotes from our conversation which throw more light on some of our earlier suspicions.
FNF Media has been questioning the competence of senior management in the HQs. We have been demanding that the fire services are thoroughly investigated when this is all over. At the moment senior fire management teams are being deified in ways that almost seek to make them exempt from any wrongdoing. If there is nothing to hide, they should welcome the clean bill of health that would arise from an audit.
Putting it down to climate change, as some of our former chiefs suggest, is just way too convenient a scapegoat to cover up for what looks more and more like poor management practice.
We noted last week that budgets and salaries have been rising at NSWRFS, but equipment levels falling. How is that that with $140mn extra dollars last fiscal year, a 78% jump on 2014/15 levels, can this be? Fred mentioned,
“there has been a massive effort in restricting bushfire hazard reduction burning by the fire services. Also, the senior management of the fire services act like a mafia. I don’t know how they get away with it.”
Scarily we’re told that no resources are being refused. Unfortunately, we have evidence to the contrary. Fred said,
“Premier, Minister and Commissioner all lied when they said that all resources were being used and no offers of assistance were ever refused.”
Fred has asked FNF Media to withhold the proof of the conversation with RFS and it is damning, to say the least. It is toxic.
Recall our post which discussed the frustration within the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association (VFFA) with respect to restricted burning. The VFFA said,
“Hazard reduction is the only proven management tool rural firefighters have to reduce the intensity and spread of bushfires and this has been recognised in numerous bushfire enquires since the Stretton enquiry into the 1939 Victorian Bushfires…The amount of ‘green tape’ we have to go through to get a burn approved is beyond frustrating; says Peter Cannon. The VFFA is calling on the NSW State Government to reduce the amount of green tape involved in planning and conducting hazard reductions so that our Volunteer Firefighters can get on with the job of conducting fire prevention works in the cooler months to prevent the inevitable summer bushfire disasters…Remember that it’s far more cost-effective, say around 66 to 100 times more cost-efficient, to prevent wildfires through hazard reduction than it is to have reactionary fire response, which is what we have at the moment. With the great number of lost homes and decreasing property values through these wildfires, what then will the total fiscal amount be…when it could have all been prevented by effective Hazard reduction!”
Fred’s comments with us sing the same tune.
“They spend such huge amounts of money on tech, equipment and salaries and yet achieve bugger all bushfire hazard reduction works. If I had half the budget of the FRNSW Bushfire Section I could do at least 4 times more burning. They are so inefficient.”
“My volunteer brigade did Zero burning last 12 months…volunteers are having to purchase their own uniforms and PPE… RFS senior management lies constantly and the media go along with them.”
In the most recent fires, Fred commented,
“The state government, RFS and FRNSW all declined our assistance, even as homes burned down with no trucks to save them.”
“The back burn on Bells Line of Road SW of Mt Wilson. It ended of pushing East and took out Mt Wilson and then went into the Blue Mountains National Park. Media reported that fire as part of Gospers Mountain but it was a wholly separate fire lit by RFS in exactly the wrong spot.”
This is commentary from an experienced veteran volunteer with a quarter-century of under his belt, not some rookie with a garden hose who will just get in harm’s way. Yet Fred’s well-trained services were refused. Period. We have the evidence. He went further,
“Very poor use of available volunteers. 70,000 are on the books but less than 7,000 are being used????”
“They [management] should be investigated and sacked. Not given medals and bigger budgets.”
“I am hoping I will be a witness in the inquiries or Royal Commission after…This all needs to come out.”
“I have emails from RFS and FRNSW already shared with the Minister and Premier. They are well aware of the problem. But the RFS Commissioner is like Santa at Christmas right now.”
Will our mainstream media going out of its way to ask probing questions instead of having the likes of Karl Stefanovic rant on morning TV about the PM’s shortcomings while blowing wind up the backside of the fire chief? Apparently not. Too simple to report on easy clickbait, devoid of any facts.
Let us pray that when all the fires have died down, the post-mortem avoids arse covering and blame-shifting. Although we know that is exactly what will happen.
Remember climate change is an irrelevant argument as we pointed out in our study here. FR NSW mentions the word ‘climate change‘ once in the last 6 years of annual reports. Even then it was in reference to fire stations voluntarily switching off non-essential lighting for Earth Hour. Hardly pointing to detailed statistics derived from their own experience. On the flip side, the Victorian CFA mentions ‘inclusion‘ 56 times in the last 6 years of annual reports. Priorities don’t seem to lie where the core business lies.
Money does not seem to be the major problem even though a further $2bn is being committed for relief. It is increasingly looking like mismanagement. If the volunteers, who do it without compensation, are screaming at the desk jockeys who orchestrate the controlled burn-offs (or lack thereof) doesn’t it make one curious as to why the fires got so ridiculously out of control?
We have every right to be angry. We should settle for nothing less. FNF Media is astonished at the generosity of the $40m in donations raised for bushfire relief. However, we worry that the fire services don’t appear to have a lot of skill in allocating vital funds where needed if volunteers like Fred are to be believed and as we wrote in previous discussions. Given we have the proof, he should be and the cover-up will be found out.
For listed corporations, an annual report reads like an opus magnum which outlines the company’s major achievements, missions, strategic outlook, future concerns and goals. No ifs and no buts. The chair and CEO write glowing puff pieces about their achievements and why you, the shareholders, should keep them doing their jobs! Fire chiefs also write about the achievements during the year, every year.
Therefore when studying the language within the last 10 years of annual reports of the state fire services around Australia, why is ‘climate change‘, the words that 29 former fire chiefs told us is such a big factor, barely mentioned, if at all? Take Fire & Rescue NSW’s only mention of ‘climate change‘ on p.81 of its 2018/19 Annual Report,
“Where practicable, FRNSW crews were encouraged to turn off all non-essential lights on 30 March 2019 from 8:30pm until 9:30pm, joining millions of people worldwide in showing their commitment to tackling climate change and inspiring all generations to support environmental initiatives and sustainable climate policy.”
That is it. No words saying that the ‘catastrophic climate emergency’ preached by a 16-yo truant will lead to devastating increases in bushfires…Further evidence that we can sleep sound at night knowing that some (not all) firefighters might have switched the lights off for 1 hour on one day. So much for instilling a sense of unbridled panic preached by the retired fire chiefs…that’s right one mention of the word ‘climate change’ in 6 years.
Wasn’t Greg Mullins’ most important leadership role to warn NSW residents of the danger of climate change while in the top job? Wouldn’t it have been important to document those ‘climate’ fears in the annual reports that are presented to parliament each year? Clearly not. Best do it when sponsored by advocacy groups. Unfortunately, the ‘lack’ of acknowledgement by the fire service senior management surrounding climate change is an indelible mark by its very omission.
The chart above highlights the number of times the word ‘climate change‘ was mentioned in state fire authorities’ annual reports since 2010/11.
The QFES mentions ‘climate change’ 28 times in its 2018/19 annual report as it references an earlier report written on the subject. Prior to that, there are very few mentions.
Tasmania’s TFS notes ‘climate change’ alongside terrorism and economic downturn as things to watch in its 2015-16 annual report but makes no further in-depth reporting on global warming.
The Victorian Metropolitan Fire Brigade (VICMFB) mentioned climate change once in its 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 annual report but it only refers to the federal department that includes the name ‘climate change’ as a footnote. In 2018/19 the VICMFB refers to an “awareness” of climate change but it hardly sounds like a definitive statement.
Note that in 2011/12, FR NSW mentions climate change twice – once in the index and a loose passage that refers to it potentially having impacts. Yet FR NSW makes no determination by virtue of its own personal experiences. Note in 2010/11, ‘climate change’ is mentioned eight times by FR NSW but even then it refers to the IPCC research, not the findings of its own in-house data.
Let’s get this straight. If climate change was such a huge flashing red light issue in 2010/11, why no mentions between 2012 and 2017, a time when alarmist Greg Mullins was Chief Commissioner of FR NSW?
FNF Media encourages readers to save the following link for future reference. It is the 678-page IPCC internal review tabulating qualitative feedback on the processes of how it compiles the very climate bibles our media and governments swear by. A few excerpts comfortably debunk the credibility of the science contained within.
On page 16, someone complains that:
“some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.”
Here are other direct quotes:
“There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)
“The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)
“Half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)
Even those from minority backgrounds agreed (p.330):
“The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality, we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.”
Remember this is the IPCC evaluating itself. Imagine if this was a topic that wasn’t related to climate change. Would you be concerned at diverting billions of taxpayer dollars against such woeful governance and amateur approaches to compiling data and legislating policy? Exactly. Frightening!
The alarming part of the annual reports published by the state fire fighting authorities is that they don’t contain much in the way of words that the laymen would expect to see e.g. hazard reduction or fuel load. However, there has been an explosion in words such as diversity and inclusion. These two charts below outline clearly where the shift in purpose would seemingly lie.
Note that Californian power utility PG&E took this approach. The company had absolute clarity on the breakdown of gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity of its workforce and suppliers. Sadly it had woefully incomplete data on the age and status of its infrastructure (aka its core business) which caused the scheduled blackouts and forest fires. Unfortunately, because of this focus on diversity & inclusion, it dropped the ball on providing the very service its customers paid for and is now bankrupt. Get woke, go broke.
Forgive FNF Media for being blunt. If your house is at risk of burning down, will you be secretly praying that the emergency crew sent to put the fire out ticks the diversity box or competency box? If you prefer inclusion over ability, then don’t complain that your prized possessions have gone up in smoke. It is such an irrelevant metric to focus on all of this warm and fuzzy data without reporting the very actions that we should be benchmarking the brave men and women who actually serve in the capacity of firefighters.
We can wail at climate change as the cause of these dreadful bushfires or accept the sickening amount of people arrested for arson.
Sorry to keep labouring the point. We should conduct a thorough audit of the fire services to determine whether they have lost their way in deprioritising the safety of the very people they are supposed to protect for the sake of woke causes. Make no mistake, we cast no aspersions on those who work as first responders.
We hope that people drop their climate alarmist/denial bias and take a cold objective view of the data. Take out the emotion. Seriously, does the only comment in the latest FR NSW annual report surrounding voluntary ‘Earth Hour’ participation strike one as making meaningful impact on climate change?
Perhaps we appear cynical but when we see alarmist former fire chiefs sound the alarm on climate change, we could have at the very least expected consistent, comprehensive and extensive data/research “on the record” while they were in a position to do so. They didn’t. Those actions really have the alarm bells ringing!
No wonder Premier Dan Andrews had the support of the United Firefighters Union in the 2014 election. Once put into office he pushed the Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) under its wing. Since elected, over 850 new FT jobs have been added to the CFA which stand at nearly 3x that of the NSW RFS. The CFA budget, according to the annual reports (here) has ballooned from $484mn to $657m over the same period.
CFA employee benefits have grown from 48.7% of the budget since Andrews took over to 56.7%. To put that in perspective, NSW RFS went from 30.4% to 22.3%. Average salaries at the CFA have also grown from $123,806 average to $134,435.
We also note that under Dan Andrews, the number of volunteers has fallen from 59,700 immediately before he took office to 54,621 today. Volunteers were none too impressed to be told their selfless service would be controlled by a union.
So do we immediately implore PM Scott Morrison to start splashing out the cash in Victoria? What has Victoria got for its money in terms of equipment?
In terms of fire trucks, the CFA has less than half the number that the NSW RFS has in its fleet. Only on water carriers does the CFA trump the RFS with 286 vs 63.
Unfortunately, the CFA has very limited data on controlled burn-offs and data that is useful in making a comparison. We will need to dig deeper into the bowels of the CFA statistics.
Within the annual reports, the CFA spends far more time discussing LGBT Pride, gender equality and diversity. Which probably goes some way in explaining why so much of the CFA budget is directed at jobs, not equipment.
Once again, FNF Media thinks the grounds for auditing the fire services is a necessary evil to get to the heart of how such devastating bushfires got out of control and burnt for so long. The data here simply throws up too many questions. As a consolation, the NSW RFS looks far more efficient than the CFA. Then again, in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria, this should surprise nobody.
Another good reason to rehash Thomas Sowell’s apt quote,
“Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”
The media has been quick to pick on the calls for our government to spend more on our fire services. We thought it a good idea to look at the facts gleaned from the annual reports of the NSW RFS, available here. We will go through state by state in the coming days and look at the totals to work out where our money has gone. What you are about to read may surprise you.
The first chart denotes the NSW RFS budget. The 2018-19 budget was $554mn, up from $311mn 5 years prior, or a 78% increase. One would expect that money would be spent on shiny new toys to help fight fires.
As we can see, the number of fire trucks in service has trended down. From a peak of 4,385 in 2014/15 to 3,883 in 2018/19 or down 11%. There could be an argument made for replacements to more efficient equipment but in order to put out blazes, sheer numbers should help
Water Pumper numbers have fallen from 71 to 63, or -11%. Water carriers have fallen from a peak of 64 to 53, or -17%.
When looking at the number of grass or bushfires that were dealt with the trend looks as follows.
When assessing controlled burns, the total area in hectares by year that was conducted is as follows.
However, when dividing by the number of controlled burns conducted by year, we see that the average slid from 259ha per burn to 74ha. This is not proof of efficacy.
How has the trend of the brave and selfless volunteers at the NSW RFS progressed?
Employed staff at the NSW RFS has increased from 846 in 2012/13 to 936 in 2018/19.
With that, average salaries have crept up from $114,285 in 2012/13 to $131,908 in the latest filing. In no way is FNF Media casting aspersions on the value of those full-time employees.
Although the growth in the Chief Commissioner’s total remuneration has grown from $292,450 in 2012/13 to $439,015 in 2018/19 or a 50% increase over that period.
Running the RFS is no simple task. Hiring good people to run the operation shouldn’t be done on the cheap.
The reason FNF Media has suggested that the fire services need a thorough audit is to work out whether tax dollars are being spent wisely. Since 2012/13, $2.75bn has been spent on the NSW RFS. Are we right to question why a rising budget has led to a drift in equipment and a fall-off in volunteers? Can we link the reduced average burns in some way to the very high level of fuel loads that many volunteers have pointed to within all of the current political grandstanding of chucking more money at the problem instead of evaluating the efficacy of that spend?
Because to look at the data on a stand-alone basis, it would seem that the ball has been dropped somewhere. It doesn’t seem plausible that firefighters can be short of vital equipment when there was a $140mn extra spent last year. Only $15m went on extra salaries. Stands to reason that there might be a problem within the decision making processes in the senior management echelons of the fire service that warrants closer inspection.
That is a job for you Gladys Berejklian
Well, well, well! If we ask the volunteers who dedicate their time for free, we get the truth. No vested interests. Just the wish to serve.
This is an excerpt from the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association(VFFA). It noted,
“The Volunteer Firefighters Association (VFFA), the body representing the Voice of Volunteer Rural Firefighters in NSW refutes the claim by green alarmists that climate change is the cause of the recent bushfires in New South Wales.
It’s ridiculous to blame climate change when we know there has been far worse bushfires stretching back to the earliest days of European settlement in Australia including the Black Saturday Victoria 2009, NSW Bushfires 1994, Ash Wednesday Victoria 1983, Blue Mountains NSW 1968, Black Tuesday Hobart 1967 and Black Friday Victoria 1939, said Peter Cannon, President of the VFFA.
The VFFA is angered by comments from the green lobby groups that tackling climate change was more important than prescribed burning of forest fuels to reduce bushfire risk. The real blame rests with the greens and their ideology as they continue to oppose and undermine our efforts to conduct hazard reduction in the cooler months and to prevent private landowners from clearing their lands to reduce bushfire risk.
Hazard reduction is the only proven management tool rural firefighters have to reduce the intensity and spread of bushfires and this has been recognised in numerous bushfire enquires since the Stretton enquiry into the 1939 Victorian Bushfires.
The amount of ‘green tape’ we have to go through to get a burn approved is beyond frustrating; says Peter Cannon. The VFFA is calling on the NSW State Government to reduce the amount of green tape involved in planning and conducting hazard reductions, so that our Volunteer Firefighters can get on with the job of conducting fire prevention works in the cooler months to prevent the inevitable summer bushfire disasters that are now becoming a more regular feature.
The NSW State Government must also provide sufficient funding for bushfire hazard reduction works on a planned and sustained basis, including the creation of asset protection zones and upgrades of all fire trails in high bushfire risk areas.
Remember that it’s far more cost effective, say around 66 to 100 times more cost efficient, to prevent wild fires through hazard reduction than it is to have reactionary fire response, which is what we have at the moment. With the great number of lost homes and decreasing property values through these wild fires, what then will the total fiscal amount be…….when it could have all been prevented by effective Hazard reduction!
To increase the area treated by prescribed burning on bushfire prone lands from the current level of less than 1% per annum to a minimum of 5% per annum, as recommended by the Victorian Royal Commission and many leading bushfire experts.
Hazard Reduction by prescribed burning has been identified as a key management tool to reduce the intensity and spread of bushfires in national bushfire enquiries since the 1939 Stretton Royal Commission. In this regard the VFFA supports:
1 Strategic and targeted hazard reduction by prescribed burning to reduce forest fuel levels and bushfire threat to human life (including fire fighter safety), property and the environment in areas identified as high bushfire risk.
2 Bushfire risk management planning approach based upon the ‘Canobolas’ Model in NSW.
3 Integrated hazard reduction by prescribed burning and complementary methods such as slashing, grazing and cultivation.
4 The provision of adequate recurrent state and commonwealth funding to rural fire agencies, land management agencies and local government for the creation and maintenance of asset protection zones and fire trails in high bushfire risk areas on a planned and sustained basis.
Ongoing relevant research on fire behaviour, prevention and management and the effects of fire on biodiversity through the bushfire Cooperative Research.
Mr. Peter Cannon
Be it on the heads of the alarmists for a tragedy that could have been minimized if not avoided. This is what happens when ideology meets reality. Thank you VFFA for exposing the truth.
“My message is that we’ll be watching you. This is all wrong, I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.”
4 words – “Go to you room”
If CM had spoken to his parents like that, it would not have impressed them. Not one bit.
Sadly Greta Thunberg’s abuse continues with accelerating momentum. The adults that direct her care not one bit. They enjoy her emboldened demagoguery. So much so that she is believing her own sanctimony.
How dare they. And yes Greta, you should be at school rather than taking a year off to embark on this ridiculous crusade.
Perhaps she should ask her overseers why coal fired power producing nations are banned from speaking at the conference. Is that how mature adults behave by bullying and shaming those that disagree?
Further proof and justification for Trump and Morrison’s to turn down the conference. They’ll still demand their billions in any event.
The beauty of those that wrote this open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion throws up some very enlightening facts. Read it and weep. Not the letter – the stats.
Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter is 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.
Yet, why couldn’t they sign up a majority of scientists in the profession of the very climate change emergency they wish to sanctimoniously lecture us on? And we are paying billions to these schools to educate us? Hmmm.
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,
Undoubtedly this research has only certified climate science credentials at Swinburne University to convince sceptics of the validity of XR.
Southern Cross University was the only group of signatories where the majority had a connection to a faculty related to climate science.
On reflection we should be exceptionally happy these woke academics have opened themselves up to how empty their rhetoric is. The overwhelming majority of signatories are from liberal arts backgrounds. Surely with the aggregate IQ of 268 people they could have realized the flaw in pushing a cause where the qualified people that can prosecute the argument for them are conspicuously absent.
We need a Royal Commission on our education system. The gaping holes in standards are self-evident. This is an unmitigated clown show.
The Hon. Cate Faehrmann MLC,
The public wishes at all times for politicians to represent them. However, a member of parliament should refrain from full-blown activism. No one questions reasoned conviction. There is a difference.
However, is it right for you to openly support rallying protestors to potentially disrupt law enforcement in the neighbouring state of Queensland over Adani? To then claim Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk’s government was out of line to “silence climate and anti-Adani activists” who were disrupting a public that overwhelmingly voted in favour of Adani going ahead. Perhaps you might reflect on what some may view as a double standard of silencing those that criticize you for failing to prosecute arguments on your own social media pages?
Do you represent the people of NSW or Queensland? Because if it is the latter you should be running for office there. We have no business meddling in their politics as much as they have no say in how ours is run. That’s how democracy should behave.
In what should have been an important speech you made about women’s rights on abortion, you had to drag it into irrelevant mudslinging surrounding the gender pay gap (illegal), identity politics (feminism) and treating domestic violence as a one-way street.
According to a UK study on domestic violence,
“Male victims (39%) are over three times as likely than women (12%) not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.
The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has increased sevenfold since 2004/05. From 806 in 2004/05 to 5,641 in 2015/16…In 2015, 119,000 men reported to English and Welsh police forces stating they were a victim of domestic abuse. 22% of all victims who report to the police are male. In 2012, 73,524 men did…
Men don’t leave abusive relationships for various reasons – the top reasons being: concern about the children (89%), marriage for life (81%), love (71%), the fear of never seeing their children again (68%), a belief she will change (56%), not enough money(53%), nowhere to go (52%), embarrassment (52%), not wanting to take kids away from their mother (46%), threats that she will kill herself (28%) and fears she will kill him (24%).
Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer from partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.
Let’s be clear – domestic violence is abhorrent on every level, but it is disingenuous to suggest it is a one-way street because it is simply not. Thank God for those toxic males who took out a knife-wielding perpetrator in Sydney’s CBD recently. You may note that Gillette has now flipped its ‘woke’ advertising campaign to champion what it recently censured to the cost of US$8bn in destroyed market value.
You even took the liberty in your speech to have another swipe at Alan Jones AO in what one can only deduce in the hope he loses his job. You went as far as highlighting ‘male’ and ‘female’ in bold font when referring to him. To what aim?
Unfortunately for you, his career is a matter for his employers, not for a NSW MLC with an axe to grind. He broke no laws. If this speech was truly about abortion, why the need to attack a radio presenter for holding different beliefs to you? He admitted he crossed a line and apologized for it sincerely and publicly, including a letter to PM Ardern who gracefully taunted him back with a sledge over the likely outcome in the Bledisloe Cup. Touché. Two adults who made peace between the only parties concerned.
Since when is it your business, or anyone else’s, to barrack for his dismissal? If you support free speech then you should support it even when those views clash with your own, including Alan Jones. People can make their own minds up about him. He has been put on notice by his employer. It has been sickening to witness those utterly spineless advertisers hiding behind self-censorship post the Ardern event.
If we looked at the ratio of men Jones has pilloried on his radio program over the years it would far outweigh any misogynistic narratives you secretly must wish to be true. It would be safe to assume you are not a regular 2GB listener in the mornings. Perhaps you might ask Peta Credlin if she believes he is the misogynist you charge him to be to cohost a Sky news program with her? For your speech on abortion could be equally interpreted as misandry, given the one-sided stance it took.
Yet on the subject of abortion, it might help to delve into all of the facts.
It is an absolute necessity to ensure safe hospital/clinic-based abortions are made available where it is warranted and necessary. It should never be seen as a way to sacrifice those on the altar of convenience, especially where some cultures choose to do so on the basis of gender, usually at the expense of females. So much for feminism.
Do you think this is only a traumatic thing for women? Is it possible that some fathers of the fetus can suffer considerable anguish with regards to termination? Should they wish to raise by themselves, should they be denied that right, no matter how small the probability of such a scenario?
1,000 women may die from unsafe abortions in The Philippines. It is terrible. Your speech made reference to the WHO and the five million women hospitalised from abortion-related complications. 47,000 die. Another awful statistic.
Perhaps you might look at the even more ghastly stats on abortion.
c.700,000 fetuses are terminated in America each year. Down from 1.4 million in 1990. Hardly stats to cheer about. Of course, the arguments for a woman’s right to choose will always be thrown at pro-lifers. Yet allowing termination until birth in places like New York, a city that lit up monuments in celebration of being able to terminate right up to the point of delivery rightly raises concerns about infanticide.
Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive.
Every. Single. Year. sobering .
Now even the religious “far-right”, as you call them, can distinguish between medical need and the irresponsibility of couples to engage in sexual activity. RU-486 was supposed to be the miracle cure that ended abortion for good but the numbers remain so high. It is tragic. We should all reflect on how to improve the choice set made available.
You claim that a mother might not be positioned to give the best start in life to a child. Is that the only out? What might the fetus say? Unfortunately, the fetus doesn’t get any rights and this is what some “far-right” people question. You might argue it is just a clump of pre-formed cells. What if that tissue turned into the next Einstein or Mother Teresa? You would actually find more pro-life advocates support alternatives to abortion, including far more robust adoption facilities to give the unborn the right to life. At the moment the current rushed debate in NSW Parliament is purely binary.
With respect to Planned Parenthood (PP), only 3% of its patients are abortion-related in number. Most of it is related to pap smears, health checks, birth control and other consultations. Yet in its latest annual filing, every single division saw a decline in business activity except abortion and guess what? Total revenues rose appreciably. Which essentially means that abortion is the highest margin service offered by PP.
Which begs the question, why is there a pressing need to rush abortion legislation in NSW? People are free to travel to Queensland or Victoria to have it conducted as much as someone in Alabama can travel to New York to have a procedure.
That is not a valid reason to prevent an update to abortion legislation in NSW but it has been so ill-considered and done under unnecessary pressure without balanced and reasonable debate or due process. It deserves nothing less, even if it includes dragging those from the stone-age kicking and screaming. No wonder the Premier has had to back down. It was poorly executed from the start.
You’ll find the “far-right” less of a menace by allowing reasoned legislation based on common sense and civil discourse.
As far as forcing doctors to conduct abortions against their conscience, that is something that has no place in any legislation. There will undoubtedly be enough medical practitioners who do not carry guilt in conducting abortions yet the state has no place forcing the will on those who don’t. Surely the marketplace in our digital world can quickly separate those who will and won’t terminate fetuses purely based on gender selection.
If you truly wish to advance the cause of women’s rights, engage all sides of the debate. Your opinions are as valid as those on the other side of the coin. They should be weighed by the market of free speech.
The power of listening to all perspectives is what is needed more than ever in politics. Instead of defending your own, defend those of others. If your arguments are compelling then they will stand on their own merit.