Fake News

How not to win over climate skeptics

This is exactly why climate alarmists struggle to sway climate skeptics. Screaming, chanting and laughing hysterically proves what? One thing – no willingness to challenge the thinking with reasoned argument, debate and engagement. If the research is so robust on the alarmist side, why not let the data speak for itself? Surely an open and shut case. Oh that’s right, the science is so settled that government and university bodies continue to be busted for scandalous manipulation of data to fit a ‘political’ wealth transfer narrative. NOAA was subpoenaed by Congress for willful distortions ahead of the Paris summit in 2015. Yet scandals don’t sway the faithful.

Where was the acceptance from the hecklers that US emissions have headed south for several years and likely to remain in % terms little different going forward? Where was the protest against China & India which are cranking up coal fired energy generation out to 2030? Or does blindly signing a document that is non binding and largely ignored in practice more worthy to the protesters that not signing and being more successful on containing emissions? Group think at its worst. CM worries about the future for our kids – not cut short from the risks presented by climate catastrophes but woeful indoctrination which removes their ability to critically evaluate.

How did these people miraculously get to the COP24 summit? Fossil fuel powered jet aircraft and cars perhaps? Did they realise that the steel that went into the transport that delivered them is derived from coal products? Have they not looked outside their own bubble at the 22,000 other disciples kneeling at the altar of the UNIPCC? Are 7,331 observers really needed? The hypocrisy is astonishing. Perhaps they expect the rest of us to offset their carbon footprint?

No it is just better to scream and shout and use kindergarten level tantrums to try to prove a point. No wonder the UN organisers fawned over a 15yo Norwegian girl who they anointed as an expert on climate change. She may have been behind the worldwide school strikes for climate ahead of the summit but it is truly sick to see the exploitation of kids to drum home a message that has failed to cut through on the merits of the science alone.

The irony of these summits is that the crowds attending do not want the circus to end. Every year the scare mongering gets more extreme to keep the attraction going. 22,000 frequent flyer accounts won’t be able to keep status if COP meetings don’t roll on to the next town.

CM is absolutely willing to be convinced otherwise. Happy to listen to sensible solutions that prevent civilians from setting light to their own cities in protest over climate policies that will achieve zero. However hysterical shouting down and chuckling cannot trump well researched and balanced debate. Perhaps when countries like Guinea send two delegates instead of 409 it maybe worth lending a more generous ear.

Being holed up in a hotel in Tokyo, the only English channel is CNN which is broadcasting climate alarmism on a loop. There was a touch or irony that the network featured a story about a Honduran man, who like many others, is escaping climate change at home to seek asylum in the United States, a country, according to the wailers, going the completely wrong direction on climate policy. Go figure. Instead of being in Katowice, these protesters should be on the Mexican border megaphoning that ICE is the least of their worries.

Maybe the teachers need to sit outside the headmaster’s office

If kids want to strike and learn to protest, shouldn’t we the public be able to see whether the children are being constructively taught both sides of the argument in class before they paint placards? CM has a strong feeling that only “one” side of the climate story is being pushed – the alarmist one. Skeptical kids should live in fear of detention.

Perhaps that should be the litmus test – if teachers are proud of getting kids to form such demonstrations, they should not be afraid to allow open access to what they’re teaching. Something tells me they wouldn’t dare because it would prove their own bias beyond doubt.

Here are three things CM would do:

Make the kids debate both sides of the argument in detail. Make them think. Research. Investigate.

Conduct an ethics class to show the countless lies, scandals and whistleblowers outing even government agencies on fabricating data. Kids know what happens when they lie. Perhaps they would grow up to be questioning about what bias they’re fed.

Do an economic feasibility study on renewables vs fossil fuels. Let students decide on whether investing their futures in renewables for zero outcome by 2100 makes sense. Teach them that renewables aren’t cheaper than fossil fuels for two reasons – first, fossil fuel prices are plummeting and second renewable calculations are based on 100% operating capacity which is unrealistic in the extreme. Put them at 20% and renewables are 5x more expensive relatively speaking.

If after thorough and rigorous debate the kids still believed they’re doomed then they can protest their little hearts out.

What it proves is that school faculties are pushing political agendas rather than education. We teach kids that lying is bad and there are consequences for doing so. Shouldn’t teachers be put on the naughty step for doing the same?

CM worries about their future indeed. Oh and it won’t be global warming that kills them. Their dreams have a far higher risk of being killed off through the activism peddled by their teachers. Say, have the teachers told the kids about those alarmists warning childbirth as a cause for future warming?

Karl Marx would be proud.

Does the data show Donald in the dumpster?

Midterm

This is a simple schematic of first term presidents and the results at the ballot box of their first mid term. Since 1910, the incumbent parties have invariably lost ground. More interestingly, Democrats had control of either/both House of Reps and Senate during Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr – all Republicans. Republican Presidents Taft, Harding, Hoover, Eisenhower and Trump lost the House at the midterms. Truman, Clinton and Obama suffered the same fate for the Democrats.

Trump achieved the highest number of Senate seats taken by a first term Republican president for over 100 years. George W Bush achieved rising numbers for HoR/Senate  post 9/11 but only Democrats have achieved the feat – Woodrow Wilson, FDR and JFK. Perhaps the irrelevance of the outcomes in the mid-terms is that despite the floggings Wilson, Truman, Ike, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama all were comfortably reelected for a second term.

Given the headwinds Trump was facing from the mainstream media, his unorthodox outbursts, twitter tirades and so forth, the electorate didn’t grant the Democrats a huge gift  they were expecting. Even worse they gave Trump a bigger authority to appoint SC justices should an opportunity arise by bumping his numbers in the Senate. Not surprising given the shocking gutter level political theatre over Justice Kavanaugh, vindicated by  victims confessing they had lied.

The Democrats should still be concerned that the $70mn spent on Beto O’Rourke came to nothing.  Beyonce also endorsed Beto. Oprah endorsed Abrams in Georgia – who is likely to lose. Taylor Swift endorsed Bredesen – who also lost. All four candidates openly supported by Obama lost. So much for celebrity power swaying electorates. It probably had a counter effect.

Even worse, in Nevada a brothel owner and reality TV star won his race despite dying last month. It is hard to work out what is the bigger tragedy. Voting for someone dead or being the competing Democrat to lose to a dead person. A Republican is to be appointed to the seat by county officials.

We shouldn’t forget that the Republicans had the highest number of sitting member retirements at a first midterm in the House of Representatives for 88 years. 25 seats had a new face. Republicans won re-election as governors in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Maryland – three of them deep blue states. Where was the mainstream media on that?

Midterm VT.png

Turnout was good (for a mid term). 48.1% voted in 2018. In the last 100 years the average has been 41%. Only in 1966, did the first midterm of LBJ exceed this level at 48.7%. So much for either party causing a red or blue wave. Less than half of eligible voters showed up on November 6th 2018. More cared, but not enough.

Felons make for an interesting outlier subset. While it is hard to know their exact voting intentions, for the Gubernatorial in Georgia, would 219,431 felons have made a difference for Abrams? She trails Kemp by just under 100,000 votes. So if 55% of felons (the Georgia midterm turnout ratio) voted, 120,687 votes were up for grabs. Were it legal for Georgian state felons to vote, she would have been wise to campaign there.

Felons

Now that the Democrats have the lower house, one wonders why they have put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House? This is possibly to be contested. Up to fifty Democrat congressmen might oppose her for Speaker. Trump couldn’t wish for a better adversary as her litany of gaffes will undoubtedly embarrass her party. Pelosi represents pretty much everything Americans have come to despise about the Democrats.

More worryingly, Maxine Waters is being put in charge of the Financial Services Committee. At a point in the cycle where financial acumen is probably most required, this is an embarrassment, made worse by her open calls for payback.

The Democrats need fresh faces. Ones that will look for bipartisan support. If the Democrats embark upon a cocktail of revenge politics and look to push for investigation after investigation in order to impeach Trump but end up with nothing they will be seen for what they are – a party completely self-absorbed with petty vendettas. The toxic Senate debacle should have given them warning enough that voters won’t tolerate more political roadkill like that going forward.  Yet Pelosi will likely use her subpoena powers to drag everything through the gutter instead of working to improve things for Americans. Failure here will only lead the electorate to conclude they wasted two years and gift wrap 2020 for Trump.

This mid-term election was anything but a slam dunk. Put aside personal hatred of Trump, look at the data and see that Americans did not write him off as many pundits predicted. It should be more scary to realise that he is probably more Teflon-Don than he was in 2016. Second biggest mid-term turnout in history, highest net gain of seats in the Senate in 100 years for a first term GOP president, record dollars thrown at Democrat candidates backed by Trump-hating billionaires. At the end of the day folks, this is just the data talking.

Mid Term Turnout.png

This Brazilian won by more than a whisker

A5D46AB5-979A-42BE-91E8-2AE800333609.jpeg

Known as the Brazilan Trump, Jair Bolsonaro is set to become the next Brazilian president with a 10mn vote lead. Bolsonaro has been criticized for making denigrating remarks about women, gays and blacks. Despite this, more Brazilians seemingly prefer to break away from decades of establishment corruption.

There in lies the argument. How bad does an opposition have to be to lose to a person who says these unnecessary things? Once again pocket books, jobs, feeding families and dumping crooked self serving incumbents supersedes several incidences of off coloured and unnecessary remarks.

Exactly the same issues Americans faced in the 2016 US election which the mainstream media ignored. Those living in hardship didn’t buy rosy government stats saying how great things were. They weren’t living them. Record levels on food stamps and working multiple jobs wasn’t their idea of the American dream.

Isn’t this also telling from the Brazilian President-elect?

Bolsonaro said, “The people saw the truth, despite the media. A big part of the media put me on a shaming position…Thank you all for your prayers and confidence. Lets together change Brazil’s destiny. We knew where Brazil was headed and now we know where we want to go…We couldn’t continue to flirt with communism and socialism…All pledges will be fulfilled, the  mission of rescuing Brazil will be accomplished.”

Whether he achieves this or not is besides the point. Clearly more Brazilians have had enough of the incompetence to date and are willing to give a left (right?)-field leader a chance to revive their fortunes. A Molotov cocktail to blow up the system.

In recent years Brazil’s currency has fallen 40% in value vs US$ and the GDP growth rate has averaged 0.58% from 1996 until 2018. In the last quarter reported, it was 0.2% with the previous quarter revised down 0.1% in part due to nationwide trucker strikes. 

Switch to the media in the US which thinks Trump’s umbrella event is newsworthy. They just don’t get that he gets even more press coverage this way. It has the opposite effect and only lifts the likelihood of more Americans tuning out of this Trump Derangement Syndrome and voting for him not against. Keep up the good work!

Trump mid term victory more probable than not

C27350F7-4128-4E8D-A6F8-B0344439675B.jpeg

Actions not words. Forget all of one’s personal opinions (hatred) of Trump and analyze the facts.  This is a picture of Obama trying to rally Democrats in Nevada this week. Despite the small audience, Obama mentioned himself 92 times in 38 minutes as opposed to talking up the candidate he was there to support. Sounded like a desperate attempt to save his own legacy. The following pictures are of Trump’s rally for Ted Cruz in Houston, Texas.

5A036C5A-98F8-4D38-8A32-2B183C6CF08E.jpeg

Conventional wisdom tells us that the party in opposition tends to get the House in the mid terms. Politics is in such a funk, why would we for one second believe that consensus should be the default in November 2018? How did that work out on 2016?

Ahh yes, but the Democrats have learned from treating the prior election as a coronation for Hillary Clinton. They’ll be out in droves. No doubt they will but after the Kavanaugh debacle in the Senate and over 10,000 strong Honduran caravan surging to the US southern border (the Dems have been eerily quiet over this) it only plays to Trump’s domestic agenda. What many overlook is that ICE records indicate there are  474,000 illegal immigrants still in the queue for processing. Four hundred and seventy four thousand. Think of the costs to process that.

So to the polls? They were wildly inaccurate at the 2016 election. Largely because they are telephone polls to 1,000 people with landlines. Hardly an accurate assessment. Only old folk have landlines now don’t they?

A MSN (left leaning) online poll conducted last month showed 76% of 73,000 would lean Republican in the mid terms. How valuable are polls? Let’s be honest, a Fox poll leaning to conservatives and and a CNN poll swaying to liberals Shouldnt shock anyone. It is the anomaly that should cause us to question a mood as this MSN poll did. Are 73,000 people representative of the 250mn eligible to vote? More than 1,000 would be that is for sure.

BF50D40B-1A47-4464-A148-1AA4B0AFAB20.jpeg

Once again, forget personal dislikes for Trump. If a p*ssy grabbing, racist, xenophobic, bigoted, nationalist silver back Nazi orange buffoon as he is often referred to as can get this many people to a gathering imagine if he had none of the baggage? Potentially less people because there is not as much shock value.

CM has said for ages that the mainstream media is his best ally. The constant one-eyed bias against him only gives more air time. He is a showman. The White House has become  a reality TV program. All the MSM does is feed his exposure. Sadly ratings reflect that he is winning. The media can only tell the public that Trump is the antithesis of the establishment so many times before it wears thin and people tune out.

Then again perhaps it is more telling that the average American doesn’t look to him as a spiritual leader. Or put that another way, the mid terms will be a measure of how successful he has been to date (even if blasted Russian bots meddling in the voting machines are behind it).

If he has genuinely helped put Americans on a better financial footing in their minds that is all that matters to them. Call Stormy ‘Horseface’, slag off Blasey-Ford for her amnesia and bash CNN at a rally for “fake news”. None of it matters. It appears Americans are less likely to be intimidated by thuggery (chasing Republicans out of restaurants or shooting them) of the left than to join their ranks as the #WalkAway campaign has demonstrated.

Trump is the most left field curve ball President in US history.  So unconventional in his diplomacy. He has shown that pushing back can get results. Whether smashing NATO members for failing to execute on  their own self imposed military spending targets, stopping Rocketman testing nukes or getting Juncker to sign an FTA a week after he stumbled blind drunk at a NATO summit there is some method to the madness.

In two weeks time we’ll get a result which will reflect the mood of America. The observation of CM is that the Dems are playing all the same party tricks as the 2016 election albeit at 11.

CM may be well off the reservation on this but those same vibes from Nov 2015 suggest Trump may well upset decades of history. Fake views? Allie Stuckey did a rather amusing parody of the Democrats here.

We’ll know soon enough.

The scariest part of the IPCC’s 2030 forecast isn’t actually the science

06503F53-DA2A-4426-8ECD-7F7794A84E6B.jpeg

Before we read into the validity about how we’re doomed before 2030 if we do not strictly adhere to the preachings of the UNIPCC’s latest gloomy climate bible, this is far more compelling

The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.”

Other issues she uncovers go as far as to say that approximately 1/3rd of the sources for the IPCC come from magazines, press releases and unpublished scientific papers. It also tables corruption, scandals, and conflicts of interest. The Summary for Policy Makers (i.e. our leaders) is compiled by bureaucrats not scientists and often completed before the articles they actually summarise are made available.

She writes:

Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author. Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts…

Or

Nor is he an isolated case. Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.

Or this

Sari Kovats, currently a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is an even more egregious example. She didn’t earn her PhD until 2010. Yet back in 1994 – 16 years prior to that event and three years before her first academic paper was published – Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. In total, Kovats has been an IPCC lead author twice and a contributing author once – all long before she’d completed her PhD.

One of CM’s favourite passages though is when one of the expert reviewers noticed “in a particular section of the report, the IPCC was basing its arguments on two research papers that hadn’t yet been published. In itself, this should ring alarm bells. Since the wider scientific community had been given no opportunity to scrutinize them, it was surely premature to consider.”

So we are expected to fork over billions of dollars to defend this junk science?The biggest battle the scientific community faces is the damage done by the fraudulent data manipulation. The scandals are too numerous to mention. If a fInancial industry pundit missed 98% of the time they’d be fired.

Maybe the trick is to make regulations that will lead to fines, jail sentences and stripping of credentials (such as the finance industry) should scientists be caught fiddling the books. Afterall isn’t inappropriately wasting taxpayers money through junk research just as bad as  torching investors’ hard earned cash via insider trading?

Were such laws passed we would soon see alarmism paint a far less hysterical position.  As it stands the UN shows once again why it needs defunding. Afterall they thought Robert Mugabe would make a good ambassador for WHO. With judgement like that who’d doubt their credibility?

If we’re so keen to stick to Paris should we feel guilty about nuclear power?

48888D43-D417-4FC9-A72B-C56549CD4EA4

Australia seems keen to stick to the Paris Accord. Despite knowing whatever we do on saving the planet through following the politics of Paris will result in no palpable change in world temperatures at considerable economic cost to overstretched taxpayers. If we seem so keen to do our bit for tokenism, why not copy so many signatories and build nuclear plants? After all if we don’t want to be censured for abandoning the accord should we feel any sense of guilt if we adopt the very same CO2 limiting measures of others? Safety in numbers – literally.

CM was privy to a meeting with a former US Navy officer who was speaking about how negative PR can create false narratives. Nuclear power was one of them. He argued that the US & Japan were losing the PR war hence technological leadership on civilian nuclear power. The likes of Toshiba-Westinghouse are now shrinking minnows whose dwindling order book looks like the victim of a sunset industry when in reality it has been terrible program management. However why should it?

Nuclear power is set to be 14% of global electricity generation by 2040 from 11% today. Emerging Asia get the practicalities of nuclear power. Affordable and sustainable baseload with virtually no emissions.

Of course the horrible outcomes of poorly managed nuclear plants has come at great financial cost as experienced most recently  with Fukushima but the safety record of nuclear power is astonishingly good. Quantum levels more people die in coal mine accidents every year than the combined deaths from radiation from Chernobyl or Fukushima meltdowns since either occurred.

The misplaced fear of Fukushima was so high at the time that Americans across the Pacific were stocking up on radiation masks and Geiger counters in preparation of impending irradiation. It seemed the further one got away from the reactor the more hysteric people became. Deaths in the US as a result of the Fukushima meltdown? Zero!

As it stands, the US has two nuclear plants under construction at present which are saddled with delays and costly overruns based on incompetent execution. The Chinese have twenty in the build phase. India 7. Korea and the UAE 4 each. Russia 3. Even Bangladesh & Pakistan have two in the pipeline using technologies outside of the US/Japan.

There are about 150 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 160GWe on order with about 300 more proposed. Where are the former world leaders in power technology? Next to nowhere. Cowering in a corner and allowing themselves to be beaten up senseless over false statistics. Where is the PR reporting reality? It’s as if they’ve given up. Where is the media lambasting China, India and other nations for putting our lives at risk? That’s right – nowhere.

What probably escapes many people is that for all the negative news cycle around nuclear power and the thirst for renewable alternatives, many Americans are already surrounded by active nuclear plants. While they visit a zoo or the beach they are blissfully unaware that at all the naval ports dotted around the mainland (e.g. California, Connecticut, NY, Florida, DC, Texas, South Carolina etc) and islands (e.g. Hawaii, Japan) there are 100s of nuclear reactors sitting safely in close proximity to millions of civilians. Yet where is the outrage? Not a peep.

Shout from the hilltops at the efficiency of renewables all you want. Then explain why those with higher levels of renewables as baseload power end up with the highest incidents of blackouts and steepest prices.

South Australia is the case in point. Australia is home to the cheapest materials (gas, coal and uranium) to make affordable electricity but we have caved to the green madness and saddled ourselves with punitive power prices to meet goals based on unproven and often whistle blown manipulated science. If climate scientists were subject to the same punitive damages that players in the financial industry are then it is likely the “targets” leading to our ecological disaster would be pared back to such a degree we’d just keep calm and carry on. Yet because there is no risk of jail sentences the tax dollars get misappropriated, funding an industry whose survival and growth depends on fear. Talk about a lack of ethics.

Even worse we want to double down on this inefficient renewable technology (where claims are often made on 100% capacity rather than the 20% they truly operate on) despite having empirical evidence of its all too obvious shortcomings. Virtue signaling actions such as blowing up old coal fired power stations has ironically proven the stupidest of moves in that all the while demand hasn’t changed reductions in reliable baseload supply makes us vulnerable.

Throw on the desire to electrify the automobile  and we already know that existing base load won’t cope with the increased demands. Take a look at Britain as an example. Apart from the risks of losing massive fuel tax levies (around 5% of total government revenue) the power industry’s current projections of new electricity generation additions can’t meet the expected demand if we all plug our EV in overnight.

So Australia should quit worrying about what others think and act in its own best interests. Maybe Canberra needs a PR agency more than the nuclear industry does. High time to look at real data and sustainability.