Double Standards

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.

NBA ratings take a dive post HK/China saga

Last October, Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey tweeted his support for the Hong Kong protesters. Little did he know that the Rockets, the NBA and several key basketball stars of the game bowed to China by slamming Morey and apologizing on his behalf.

Rolling over was no surprise for the league given the attempts to drive the game into that populous market to make lucrative sums. LeBron James stands to make up to $1bn from Nike by the time he is 64 thanks to the China market.

Unfortunately, fans at home seem displeased. If the lessons from the NFL kneeling drama weren’t evidence enough, the NBA has also seen ratings plummet so far. Could it be that fans only watch to escape the stresses of a large mortgage, family and work?

Variety noted,

Viewership across ESPN, TNT and NBA TV is down 15% year-to-year overall, according to Nielsen figures. TNT’s coverage is averaging 1.3 million viewers through 14 telecasts, down 21% versus last year’s comparable coverage, while on ESPN the picture isn’t much prettier. The Disney-owned network is down 19%, averaging 1.5 million viewers versus just under 1.9 million viewers at the same stage last year.

Yet more evidence of how getting woke makes you go broke.

Naturally the league has blamed it on the absence of key stars due to injury. Or maybe it is because paying customers are sick of being lectured to?!

Fauxcahontas throws a gutter ball

Democrat presidential nominee Elizabeth Warren was asked at a town hall meeting at a bowling alley about her claims to be Native American. Here is the video of her reply.

Confirming what everyone already knew, Warren said,

I am not a person of color, I am not a citizen of a tribe, and I have apologized for confusion I’ve caused on tribal citizenship, tribal sovereignty, and for any harm that I’ve caused.

Confusion? Hijacking an identity for the sole purpose of advancing one’s career. Couldn’t be much clearer.

Talk about inauthenticity. To try to pin it on her parents for leading her to believe that identity. Imagine the presidential debates if she wins the nomination. Grab your popcorn.

10-15 flushes & the media is still floating

Pie chart of our water use

In 2018, Congress passed the WaterSense Bill which meant that the EPA would only attach WaterSense labels to products that are 20% more water-efficient and perform as well as or better than standard models. The legislation was passed because of long-standing issues with respect to water conservation. According to a 2014 Government Accountability Report, 40 out of 50 state water managers expect water shortages under average conditions in some portion of their states over the next decade.

Streamgages.png

Of interest on p.51 of that same GAO report was the admission that “State water managers and other experts we interviewed said maintaining the streamgage network is critical… …Specifically, 40 of 50 state water managers identified collecting data to determine the quantity of available surface water, a function that streamgages provide, as very or somewhat importantMoreover, many state water managers reported that increasing the number of streamgages to collect water quantity data would be a useful action federal agencies could take to assist states’ water management efforts. USGS works in partnership with more than 850 federal, state, tribal, and local agencies to operate and maintain the network of over 8,000 streamgages around the United States.

As the report documents in the chart above, 3,500 streamgages have been discontinued. Which begs the question, why aren’t legislators looking at getting better access to data with which to make more informed decisions?

What do you know? The GAO pointed to the following:

“In response to these data concerns, federal officials told us that insufficient funding is a primary barrier to expanding their data collection efforts. For example, an USGS official told us that the agency is committed to expanding data networks, but USGS’s ability to collect data at more locations, improve timeliness, and conduct additional analyses is severely hampered by funding constraints.

Wouldn’t it be better to bash Trump for demanding more budget cuts at the USGS (ignored by Congress by the way) instead of taking him to task for his style and manner in elucidating concerns over the efficacy of WaterSense legislation in practice?

Yet the mainstream media just couldn’t help but take everything out of context in order to mock Trump. His remarks about flushing toilets “10-15x instead of once” is now headline news. Not the president’s questions with respect to whether the newly labelled products are living up to the product claims. If the media wants to bash him, they only need to do a little digging to find plenty of factual ways of criticizing him instead of playing than man rather than the ball.

Thomas Sowell perhaps said it best with respect to government spending and efficacy,

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.”

Biden’s vote-winning strategy

Always a useful show of character when one has to use ad hominem attacks – weight, fitness, age and intelligence to defend a position against an 83-yo. And no, Trump is no saint when it comes to hurling insults. Although the difference between Trump & Biden is that the former is well known for that persona from his reality TV days whereas the latter is trying to deny his bitterness which extends to challenging an octagenarian to a push-up contest.

Yet none of it really matters. The most revealing sign of Joe Biden’s campaign is that Barack Obama, the man who called him the “best vice president America has ever had” and bestowed upon him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, has said absolutely nothing to support him in his presidential campaign. Tells us all we need to know.

But it gets worse. Rasmussen Reports noted, “59% of Democrats say it’s important for their party to choose a woman or person of colour as their presidential or vice-presidential nominee, including 26% who feel it’s Very Important.

Now that Harris is out and Elizabeth Warren is taking, what will they do if a cantankerous old jock gets the nomination?

Rugby Australia chokes on its own incompetence

IZZY.png

After exchanging a politically correct, vomit-inducing and nose-bleedingly insincere prepared statement drafted by professional media consultants -not lost on anyone – the fact remains that Rugby Australia (RA) is the loser in the Israel Folau saga. We can forget the original source of the dismissal and the rights and wrongs of it. If RA thought it had a proper case, the legal fees (which it claimed were worth saving and settling out of court) would have been way less than the $10m payout he was demanding. So much for supporting the very communities the RA plasters all over its website.

The outcome was the result of management incompetence in thinking that appearing woke trumped legal due process. In full knowledge that Folau had a $1.6mn war chest (courtesy of Christians, free speech advocates and rugby fans alike) to take up the case against his former employer, the board was forced to buckle and issue an apology to the former rugby star, which would never have been necessary if it had a smidgen of judgment in the beginning.

RA CEO Raelene Castle can laugh off “wildly inaccurate” speculation on the $8mn rumoured settlement but the fact is the board knows the exact amount. Israel and Maria Folau wouldn’t have been grinning like Cheshire cats were he to have signed away for less than his rescinded contract. It will be fascinating to see the composition of the 2019/20 reported figures that will be published in due course. Expect some accounting trickery to fudge it into the numbers.

Castle said a few months back that the franchise could weather paying out Izzy Folau’s $10m claim. Although CM is not sure that paying out $10m + costs – which would wipe out almost 2/3rds of the $18mn in cash on the balance sheet – is something a CEO should think is worth boasting about. What she has long needed to focus on is arresting the declining operating performance. Yet she stated emphatically that the RA won’t have to make changes to the budget. Maybe her lawyers pieced together a multi-year drawdown of the sum to be paid to smooth out the ultimate impact. 

The RA franchise is the laughing stock of the rugby world. So transparent is the lack of accountability, woeful internal coordination and deteriorating financial results that it requires nothing more than a drastic overhaul if the entity is to thrive.

Former coach Michael Cheika let loose that it was no secret he had no relationship with the CEO and a very poor one with Chairman Cameron Clyne. This coming from the very individual running by far the biggest RA franchise. Despite possessing by far the worst performance record of any Wallabies coach, management persevered with a man who didn’t have a leg to stand on but cast aspersions on the executive team.

Therein lies the problem. RA can push all of the woke causes (e.g. LGBTQI+, gender equality) it likes, but if the ultimate end customer derives no value from it, it is a fruitless exercise which can’t escape the scrutiny of the free market come time to pay bills.

Castle may believe that this was a commercial decision for the sake of providing certainty. Had she done the right thing from the start she could have avoided getting embroiled in a scandal that has exposed the poor governance within.

Isn’t it odd that the LGBT activists are now attacking the very institution that set out to promote them – RA. CM has never thought much of his tweets but the reaction to them has been so over the top. The faux outrage mob finds oppression in everything.

Castle should resign and if she won’t the board should fire her despite her defiance against the bleeding obvious – she is in over her head. Fans won’t return with the status quo.

Get woke, go broke.

COP 25 & Gender – apparently it’s a thing

Let’s get real. If the alarmists really believe we have no time to waste in order to save the rest of us from absolute doom and gloom, why is “gender equality” being pushed so hard at the COP25 summit?? If women make the best scientists, why not make them 100% of the process? That’s sensible. Alas, it simply exposes why the UN deserves to be defunded in order that it rationalise around proper governance practices. After all, this is the mob that thought Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe would make a good WHO ambassador and went out of its way to protect one of their own through a sexual harassment scandal at UNAIDS.

The document published at the COP25 summit today noted,

The full, meaningful and equal participation and leadership of women in all
aspects of the UNFCCC process and in national – and local-level climate policy and action,
including in consultations on the planning and review thereof is vital for achieving long-term climate goals…Collecting data, including sex-disaggregated data, and evaluating and
reporting on the effectiveness of processes to integrate gender considerations into climate
policy and action are vital for replicating action and strengthening efforts…”

The ultimate irony for the brains trust at the United Nations is explained by an extensive survey taken by itself on the processes in the compilation of the IPCC climate bible. Countless scientists slammed the lack of competence of the lead authors where the UN pushed diversity (i.e. identity politics) instead of scientific qualifications.

Donna Laframboise noted in her book, “The Delinquent Teenager” the following,

“In early 2010 the InterAcademy Council, an organization comprised of science bodies from around the world, took an historic step. It established a committee whose purpose was to investigate IPCC policies and procedures.

The committee posted a questionnaire on its website and invited interested parties to respond. Answers to those questionnaires were eventually made public after the names of the respondents had been removed. Those provided by IPCC insiders can be separated from the ones submitted by concerned citizens because the questionnaire begins by asking what role the respondent has played in the IPCC.

People with direct experience of this organization were remarkably frank in their feedback. According to them, scientific excellence isn’t the only reason individuals are invited to participate in the IPCC.

Remember, this is a UN body. It therefore cares about the same things other UN bodies care about. Things like diversity. Gender balance. Regional representation. The degree to which developing countries are represented compared to developed countries.
The collected answers to the questionnaire total 678 pages. As early as 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)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped, the person whose comments appear on page 330 agrees:

“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.”

The questionnaire did not contain the word gender. Nevertheless, it is uttered dozens of times in the answers people provided. While some feel the IPCC should not aim for gender balance, others applaud the use of this selection criteria. Among those with firsthand IPCC experience, therefore, it is an open secret that some people are
appointed for reasons that have little to do with world-class scientific expertise.

Depending on whose opinion you believe, this is true in either a small minority of cases or with regard to as many as half of the authors. In the view of at least one person, every IPCC personnel decision is influenced by concerns unrelated to science.

Clearly, it didn’t pay any attention to the results. Because if it did it wouldn’t be able to invent the kind of hysteria (that it has climbed down from constantly over time) to bully virtue signalling governments to force we mere peons to hand over $100s of billion every year to a bunch of incompetent globalists who want to keep this bandwagon going.