Group Think

Don’t go changing to try and displease me XR loved you just the way you were

Image result for bbc bias

Extinction Rebellion (XR) posted this statement overnight as they protested outside BBC Broadcasting House:

After an on-site People’s Assembly, we have requested a BBC official to come down and speak to the people about declaring a Climate and Ecological emergency at the BBC.

The Police are helping organise for the official to come down, in order to move rebels from the building.

We are waiting…

We, the people, have decided to do the media’s job and Tell the Truth from the BBC Broadcasting House about where we’re headed if we don’t change course NOW: Social Collapse and the deaths of billions worldwide.

BBC: we hold you accountable for your criminal and corrupt complacency for totally marginalising the seriousness of the #PlanetaryEmergency. [note the language has shifted from #ClimateEmergency]

We hold you accountable for kidnapping our democracy as you do not inform the public. You prefer to keep us in the dark whilst the elite prepare for what is to come. #SystemChange

BBC: tell it how it is so that we can mitigate, avoid the worst and save billions of human lives and other living things.

BBC Your Silence Is Deadly – Why Aren’t My Children’s Futures Front Page News?

BBC: tell it how Greta and our youth are asking you to tell it.”

Wow! For once CM agrees with XR over the BBC. If only the BBC told the truth. The outstanding issue for CM is the difficulty that the climate alarmist BBC could ideologically shift further left.

Crowdfunding group ‘Stop BBC Bias’ raised c.£57,000 needed to seek a judicial review into the way the BBC meets its statutory obligation, i.e. to be impartial.

How ironic that the BBC admitted in September 2018 that, “we get climate change coverage wrong too often.”

Climate scientist Prof Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading, said: “This set of BBC guidelines is long overdue. There have been too many occasions when the BBC’s audience has been misled over the realities of climate change…The ‘editorial policy’ could be more explicit about what would constitute false balance in its coverage. In the past, too many inaccurate statements made about climate science have not been effectively challenged by the interviewer.

Seems like XR want the BBC to go back to misleading the audience more than it already does.

Once again XR is a gift that keeps giving. Every time the group opens its mouth, the lack of understanding of reality is self-evident.

Utterly clueless

Zion Lights, a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion (XR), is shown up by Andrew Neil for what the movement is – completely devoid of any sensible and rational knowledge of the subject they purport to know back to front.

Even the most extreme alarmist claims are treated with a level of high confidence and certainty. Lights doesn’t even accept the premise that the idea of billions dying is that far fetched. She simply deferred to the delusions of the lunatic scientists (highly questionable) who clearly made up such bogus claims as if it was a mathematical guarantee. She even thought banning aviation for a 0.03 degree temp change would be worth it.

When Neil suggested that most homes in Britain are heated by gas and/or use it for cooking, the idea that the UK be carbon neutral by 2025 was a long shot. Lights replied, “we put a man on the moon before we had mobile phones and the internet.” Sadly, it took the US more than 6 years to achieve that. Never mind, XR will demand billions are poured into research that will have no impact on the planet.

With that level of logic, we should definitely accelerate the idea of letting XR run our government with citizen’s assemblies. Utterly clueless, just like those councils and governments calling climate emergencies.

Zali wants to turn Warringah into a mini-California

No thanks. Before Zali Steggall OAM MP thinks too hastily about believing the residents of Warringah want to be a mini California, maybe she should consider how Californians view their state.

From ZeroHedge:

In the 1960s and 1970s, the possibility of moving to the west coast was “the California dream” for millions of young Americans, but now “the California dream” has turned into “the California nightmare”.  According to a brand new survey, 53 percent of those living in California are considering leaving the state, and there are certainly lots of reasons to hit the road and never look back.  The cities are massively overcrowded, California has the worst traffic in the western world, drug use and illegal immigration both fuel an astounding amount of crime, tax rates are horrendous and many of the state politicians appear to literally be insane.”

Other California issues

Rodents – According to a recent survey of California pest control companies, rat service requests are up “as much as 60% in the last 12 months”.

Homelessness – San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Rosa, and San Jose are four of the five cities with the highest amount of homelessness.

Public defecation – San Francisco authorities have decided to do something after thousands of feces complaints (during only one week in July, over 16,000 were recorded).

Public pension deficit – CalPERS has over $1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities at marked to market rates.

Illegal Immigrants – despite its status as a sanctuary city, the great irony is that a growing number of illegal immigrants are choosing to move OUT of sanctuary cities, including California. In 2007, 7.7mn (63.1%) lived in the 20 largest metros to 6.5mn (60.7%) in 2016 according to Pew. During that time 1.5m illegal immigrants were deported (12.2mn ->10.7mn).

While Zali might think that California is a great role model for Warringah to follow, a quick cruise down Military Road will soon convince her that it could take quite a while to coax the residents to switch from their Porsches, Astons, BMWs, Mercedes and Range Rovers to Nissan Leafs to help her head for a zero carbon target. Not forgetting wind farms on Balmoral and Manly Beach.

How ironic that she takes what kids say about climate change as a concern rather than focus on activist teachers filling their heads with this junk.

While Zali might have whacked some solar panels on her roof at home, she hasn’t bought an EV. How funny that she thinks that reducing the number of flights she takes to/from Canberra will have an impact. Doesn’t she realize the flight she would have boarded flew anyway meaning her actions had absolutely NO impact?

Can’t wait for the next election.

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.

Kavanaugh 2.0? Do texts tell anything?

CM will say this from the outset. If Trump is actually guilty of a crime that validates formal impeachment, then the law of the land must prevail, regardless of partisan bias.

Unfortunately, this impeachment process smacks of Kavanaugh 2.0. Don’t be surprised if more allegations come out of the woodwork. After Kavanaugh’s eventual confirmation, recall that many who came forward in the hearings suffered bouts of amnesia or flat out reversed the initial allegations made. The Democrats remain so deranged, that if not careful, this could create an ill wind that will blow back on them if not successful.

Luckily for the Democrats, having a compliant mainstream media which can think of nothing better than aiding and abetting an impeachment are salivating so as to recover self-inflicted slumping ratings. So much for objective journalism. How cute that they pass so little airtime over allegations that US politicians could have family members embroiled in corrupt activities while they were in office. Don’t Americans see that as worth knowing? Isn’t it odd that Hunter Biden, a man with no experience in a particular field, was given a $600k job to act as a director, 10x the average CEO salary in the country?

How they missed the allegation that the first whistleblower, failed to disclose his meeting with House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff to the Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Atkinson didn’t follow up because he had no knowledge until it came out. Never mind that according to 18 U.S. Code § 1001, anyone who “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” might be guilty of making a false statement. A felony?

Now that whistleblower #1’s credibility is looking even shakier (given his testimony was based on second-hand information), how surprising that whistleblower #2 has come out of the woodpile with supposedly first-hand information. He claims to have evidence supporting the first. What a surprise?

Will he/she also be found to be a registered Democrat? Will he have the same impartiality of FBI agent Peter “at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took” Strzok when the lead investigator of Hillary Clinton’s email saga and Trump’s alleged Russia collusion?

Now the media wolf pack is seizing on comments that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made supposedly about quid pro quo. He said,  “This is what we do. Nations work together and they say ‘Boy...if you can help me with X, we’ll help you achieve Y. This is what partnerships do. It’s win-win, it’s better for each of us.” If one looked at nearly every administration, countries look for mutual benefits. What is remotely odd about that? Does America give aid to countries that benefit it? Israel perhaps? If you help keep peace in the region, we’ll sell you state of the art equipment? Saudi Arabia? If you buy our fighter jets, we’ll buy your oil?

Zelenskiy said there was no quid pro quo. Australian PM Scott Morrison spoke of exactly the type of cooperation Australia and the US has had for decades. It isn’t a quid pro quo. It is mutual benefit. Sharing common values.

Officials taking part in the texts are Kurt Volker, former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine; William Taylor, who was interim chargé d’affaires in Kiev is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine; Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union; and Andrey Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskiy.

In an exchange dated Sept. 9, in a text Taylor sent to Sondland, the career diplomat wrote: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Sondland responds: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.

In a July 25 message between Volker and Yermak — the aide to Ukraine’s president Zelenskiy — which occurred just ahead of the Trump-Zelenskiy call, Volker wrote:

Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/’get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.

Weeks later, on Aug. 9, Sondland and Volker exchange texts as they try to establish a date for Zelenskiy’s visit:

Sondland: “Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms.”

Volker: “Excellent!! How did you sway him? 🙂

Sondland: “Not sure I did. I think POTUS really wants the deliverable

So the texts go to show there was no quid pro quo which involved “monies being withheld”, which is the real point of attack by Schiff et al.

Does Trump wanting to get to the bottom of the very collusion during the 2016 election that the Democrats had been screaming about for the better part of two years all of a sudden require impeachment because that it doesn’t suit their purposes? Do they want a president to wield a big stick or be a wallflower? 

Washington Post gave 4 out of 5 Pinocchio’s to Adam Schiff. How hard must have that been? Pelosi removed Jerry Nadler from the investigation. Surely she must think to remove him given the incompetence he has shown? Now Schiff has made himself part of the investigation. He is now a witness. A bit hard to chair an impeachment enquiry when he himself is part of it.

What a farce.

Those selfish evil banks?

As is the case with nearly every rate cut, the media stirs up the fact that most of the major Aussie banks haven’t passed on the full 0.25% rate cut. As one can see from the RBA chart above, net interest margins are at the lowest level in 20 years. The banks, as much money as they might be making, are doing it very tough. What people often overlook is the fact that Aussie banks are 40% funded by the wholesale markets, meaning they need the benevolence of foreign and domestic institutions to buy their paper to lend. With a softening Aussie dollar that puts added pressure on funding margins.

Banks

We’ve written about this in previous dispatches. Aussie banks are in a far more precarious situation than we are often told. Global banks have already felt it. We are getting to the stage where we follow them into the morass.

As much as bashing banks has become a sport after the Royal Commission, bullying them into cutting rates by the full extent is actually making their position even weaker. The last thing Australia needs, on top of the ridiculous regulation set to follow the RC, is to force them to operate to the rule of the mob. Personal responsibility is what governments should be drumming home, not saddling the banks with more hoops. If people don’t like their bank that lent them millions for a home loan, switch banks! It is your choice.

SBS impartiality & Amanda McKenzie’s colossal clumsiness

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Good to see the SBS has made sure it has an impartial position on topics such as climate change remains steadfastly in line with its charter. It not only avoided enlargening the font in bold of certain choice words spoken by Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie but it also refrained from putting a picture of the broadcaster’s ultimate boss holding a lump of coal. The irony is that the Climate Council guru’s facts were, unfortunately, wrong.

PM Scott Morrison’s facts were by and large correct. Never mind that they disagreed with McKenzie’s narrative. Good to see that SBS followed up with a rigorous line of questioning to get her to point out exactly where the PM was out of line. Sadly, that was a bridge too far for the alarmist journalists.

Presumably “colossal bullshit” should have been evidence enough. The Climate Council did release a statement but instead of countering fact, it just produced its own interpretation of what it wanted to hear, rather than point out where Morrison had blatantly told porky pies.

For instance the Climate Council stated:

Morrison statement: “Australia is responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. Australia is doing our bit on climate change and we reject any suggestion to the contrary.”

Fact-check: Australia is the 17th largest polluter in the world, bigger than 175 countries.  We are the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. 

CM: It is irrelevant. Australia’s GHG as measured by the IPCC, IEA and Eurostat are 1.3% of human-made CO2. It is the truth from sources that align with the Climate Council. It only shows that the previous 16 countries absolutely dwarf us by comparison. China is 29.3% on its own.

Furthermore to make statements that our coal exports should be counted in our emissions number is the same argument as saying that every imported passenger car, transport truck and commercial jet should have emissions docked against America, Japan, Korea and the EU.  That would be consistent

Morrison statement: “And our Great Barrier Reef remains one of the world’s most pristine areas of natural beauty. Feel free to visit it. Our reef is vibrant and resilient and protected under the world’s most comprehensive reef management plan.”

Fact-check: In 2016 and 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was severely damaged through back-to-back bleaching events which killed half of all corals on the planet’s largest living structure. Australia’s current goal, if followed by other countries, would sign the death warrant of the Great Barrier Reef. 

CM: Maybe she should speak to Professor Peter Ridd and question why the James Cook University faculty lost (although still not completely settled due to an appeal) all aspects of the unfair dismissal case against it for Ridd’s refusal to buckle to the cabal’s orthodoxy. The reef is not dying. It is thriving. So much so that Greenpeace needed to use a picture of bleached coral in The Philippines to distort the truth because the GBR presented no such photographic opportunities.

Morrison statement: “Our latest estimates show both emissions per person and the emissions intensity of the economy are at their lowest levels in 29 years.”

Fact-check:  Australia has the highest emissions per capita in the developed world. It is true that Australia’s emissions per capita have fallen more than most countries [is that colossal bullshit?], but this is from an extraordinarily high baseline [so what?] and has largely been driven by rapid population growth. Even with this drop, we still have the highest per capita emissions in the developed world. Our emissions per capita are higher than Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its action on climate change. Ultimately, our international targets are not based on per capita emissions. 

CM: Australia’s CO2 emissions per unit of GDP since 1990 have fallen 33.9%. Wrong Amanda, Canada has higher emissions per capita at 16.85 vs our 16.45. Unless under Justin Trudeau Canada has lost developed nation status which is highly possible! Saudi Arabia is 19.39. So, in fact, your comments are incorrect.

We could go on. So if Amanda McKenzie wants to throw the PM under the bus with profanity it helps if she actually provided accurate figures.

Perhaps the most colossal bullshit to come from McKenzie was this,

Over the winter we saw bushfires burning across Australia while the Amazon rainforest and the Arctic were on fire. A major new report shows that suburbs in Sydney, Perth and Melbourne could experience serious sea level disasters every year on our current trajectory.

It would appear that the Australian seaside property prices aren’t at (excuse the pun) fire-sale prices and that the bushfires in the Amazon, Australia and the Arctic are not related to climate change. The truth is that the acreage lost to bushfires have fallen 24% over the last 18 years. Unless NASA is lying.  Maybe the Climate Council has been channelling the Sierra Club CEO Aaron Mair?