Group Think

The growing dangers of the Sanctimonious Society

IMG_0820.JPG

Welcome to the sanctimonious society. Social media has taken this to new levels. Given the superficiality of much of today’s internet posts, memes and rants, what it has done is destroy the need for serious debate over contentious issues. Before discussing the likes of Twitter or Facebook censoring certain bloggers, the discourse is self-evident. How often do you read a credible rebuttal to a topical post? Hardly ever is the answer. Usually the criticism is laced with sanctimony, expletives and ridicule. The aim of trolling is none other than to shut down debate and make fun of the person who makes the statement. The intensity of cyber-bullying is chronic. In some respects it is none too surprising we are dealing with words like snowflake, trigger warnings and safe spaces these days.

Take cyber bullying stats from the Association of Psychological Science in the US. In 2015 more than 16,000 young people were absent from school daily because of bullying. 83% of young people say cyber bullying has a negative impact on their self-esteem. 30% of young people have gone on to self-harm as a result of cyberbullying. 10% of young people have attempted to commit suicide as a result of cyberbullying. People who have been bullied are at greatest risk for health problems in adulthood, over six times more likely to be diagnosed with a serious illness, smoke regularly, or develop a psychiatric disorder compared to those not involved in bullying. In the US alone, suicides per 100,000 head of population since 2000 are up 38% according to WHO.

However the WiFi world is quickly escalating unreasoned stupidity in the real world. The internet is awash with so much ill-considered social media activity that if one chooses to breathe for 10 minutes the story will likely have changed 180 degrees from the initial knee jerk. Take the terrible events of Charlottesville this week. The driver that plowed into the crowd was initially reported as a white supremacist before other media reported he was Antifa. Regardless of his affiliation his actions were repugnant. Anyone with common decency can see that. Trying to justify the legitimacy of masked Antifa (many who were carrying baseball bats) staging a ‘peaceful’ protest was somehow morally superior to alt-right torch bearers or vice versa is almost like trying to say watering your lawn with gasoline is less harmful than diesel to kill off weeds.

While the tragedies of the lost lives and depraved acts of violence from both sides is impossible to ignore, the (social and mainstream) media was awash with one sided views. There was no debate and balanced reasoning was next to non existent. One could argue the media has always been biased and to some extent that is true however in the social media world clickbait means revenue and the more sensational and less accurate the reporting the higher the likely ‘hits’ which only exacerbates the problem. We only need to look at CNN’s admission that the ‘Russiagate’ story has been a fabrication for ratings. Integrity be damned. Sadly that is becoming almost an all too common thread of today’s society. Selfish, narcissistic and insensitive bullying.

The other problem nowadays is that almost everyone carries a video camera. It is as if many think they are behind the safety of their own computer screens, oblivious to what is going on. Only a few months ago, an armed SWAT team boarded a Malaysian Airlines flight to suppress a crazed passenger. Despite the screams to get down, multiple people could be seen standing as tall as possible trying to improve the angle of the altercation on their iPhones. There is a sick surrealism to it. Yet if we take this clickbait of someone’s footage at Charlottesville, disseminated to an audience already prejudiced, it only adds to the hysteria. The instant it hits the mobs’ feed it can lead to incorrect assumptions to what is actually going on, even worse hampering emergency services efficacy in controlling the situation. Yet, 10 minutes later, the unedited version of the same scene or one shot from a different angle can completely undermine that biased view. It might show how the violence really escalated rather than the deliberately cut version showing the evil of the unhinged. If we managed to get all of the collective footage from 1,000s of smartphones and objectively analyzed it all it wouldn’t be surprising to see both sides fueling the violence in different areas. Yet because it fits the picture of the ‘divided’ country narrative no attempts are made to seek balance which only fires up the misinformation.

Did Trump take too long to condemn the KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacists? Perhaps. Was he waiting for a full debrief on what went on? Perhaps. Are all 63 million odd Trump voters that don’t openly condemn these acts of violence guilty of being white-supremacists by association? No. Are all Democrats responsible for what Antifa does? No. Internet trolls seem less intent on getting tacit admissions of guilt from their enemy. Think of the campaign which has identified some of the torch bearers leading several to get fired by their employers. Where was the campaign to identify the baseball bat wielding Antifa thugs? Was it because they were masked? Some might cynically claim they don’t have jobs to be fired from. However this idea that only one side is guilty serves no purpose and risks further division.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Both extremes are so caught up in their own views there is little scope for reasoning much less any desire to consider the alternative argument. This idea that Trump is all of a sudden responsible for unleashing this division is preposterous. Hate doesn’t surface in 6 months. It brews over longer periods of time. If anything Trump is a catalyst to it. His caustic manner is tipping an apple cart of decades of political correctness and walking on eggshells legislation that has sought in many cases to promote victimhood. The President’s actions now threaten many of these altruistic views and socialist ideals. They are upset. This isn’t to debate the rights and wrongs of policy set by previous administrations, rather seek to identify why this scourge is happening. It doesn’t justify any forms of violence but it highlights how tightly sprung things are. Just think of why a p*$$y grabbing vulgarian was able to defy all the odds in the election? Could it be that the underbelly of division has existed in America for so long? It finally reached breaking point and delivered him to the White House? The idea he has created this division is a complete falsehood. One might argue his tweets are stirring this hornet’s nest but the sad fact of the matter is that the problems have been brewing way before his inauguration. Ask yourself why hasn’t the mainstream media worked out the best way to cripple Trump is to ignore him? 18 months on since he won the GOP ticket they have not stopped hyperventilating which gives him more airtime than he deserves and ultimately makes them look foolish.

This bullying behaviour is only likely to get worse. The ever worsening cesspit of social media will only exacerbate the problem. Behind a keyboard, people feel they can afford to be 10 feet tall but seldom do they realize their actions could carry (un)intended negative reactions.

More laws are being created to clamp down on what is called ‘hate speech’ or discriminatory language. However we are witnessing more countries shut down free speech and innocent people are having their lives destroyed for expressing points of view that are completely acceptable and not even the slightest bit racist or bigoted (Australians will know the secret trial held by the AHRC of several QUT students expressing a fact). Seeking prescriptive measures to shut people up will invite exactly the sort of behaviour it seeks to prevent. One can call former EDL leader Tommy Robinson a bigot but he has two best selling books in the UK. Could it be there are more people in the UK that share his views than politicians are willing to admit because political correctness is easier for them to dodge discussing pertinent issues? Whether Tommy is right or wrong in his analysis is beside the point. He obviously represents a larger mindshare of the community. Shutting them up forces the movement underground. Do we ban his book? It doesn’t seek to address the problem which in his case is Islam. In some cases he has a point. The exposure of predominantly Bangladeshi/Pakistani rape gangs who have groomed 100s of innocent women across 18 British cities is an issue. Listening to Newcastle City Mayor Nick Forbes, one of the places impacted by this depravity, spent an entire interview dodging the question of these grooming gangs not wanting to discuss the M word. All it does is alienate more people against an optically biased system.

One can debate till the cows come home about whether the M word is the main factor but if it is not openly debated, it is not hard to see why some will grow prejudiced. It is hardly desirable. It doesn’t mean the thinking is right rather a growing number of people feel ignored. It doesn’t automatically make them racists or bigots. Some feel politicians are hiding from speaking openly of jihadi attacks on home soil, dismissing them as lone wolf attacks or the community’s fault for forcing them to commit such atrocious acts. If indeed the left leaning media is so assured of bigotry by Anglo Saxon Brits why not show the other side of the debate and broadcast hours of footage showing Muslim clerics speaking out against these attacks, everyday Muslims integrating with their non-Muslim communities and how they are actively working with authorities to weed the radicals that are demonizing their faith? No, it’s easier to point fingers at bigoted Brits who see no comfort offered by their elected leaders in what they see happening to their community. Once again bullying people for expressing what they perceive as legitimate concerns doesn’t solve the problem.

To put the shoe on the other foot, Robinson posted a video link of the start of an Oldham (a borough of Manchester) Council meeting. It showed the majority of Anglo-Saxon councillors with their heads bowed as the elected Muslim Mayor requested his imam to say prayers. Of course it easy to see why some might draw conclusions to the decline of centuries of British culture however looking deeper into the matter yielded interesting findings. Voter turnout at the last election in the 25% Muslim borough was around 30%. It was a fairly held election. Democracy. Whether local politics is too petty for some, if the residents of Oldham are so incensed by the idea of an imam saying prayers in Arabic and English after following the Serjeant at Arms carrying a mace bearing a Christian cross it is hard to have sympathy. If one is truly in fear of the cultural upheaval, why not use their democracy to change it? Expressing outrage at something that is controllable seems ridiculous.

Australia is in the midst of bullying as well. Same sex marriage (SSM) is on the table. A postal plebiscite is set to occur. Many argue that parliamentarians should vote on it and get it over with. Indeed there are far more pressing economic issues to deal with. Yet the Turnbull government lacks any moral authority and is beholden to so many internal factions to be able to pass so called marriage equality.

Still regardless of one’s views on SSM, the bullying is in full effect. Musician Nick Minchin created one of his hallmark curse-ladened parodies of a Peter Allen song called, “I still call Australia homophobic”. Sadly he is part of the problem, not the solution. One doesn’t have to be homophobic to be against SSM. Yet Minchin thinks it is ok to call these people ‘bigoted c*nts’. Such words have all the same traits of ridiculing Trump or Brexit voters in the lead up to the vote. It has the opposite impact at the polling booth.

A Tasmanian archbishop is being hauled before a tribunal for expressing his anti-SSM views on the grounds of spreading hate. Are his views old fashioned or just part of millennia of religion? A hotel was forced to cancel a lawful gathering of anti-SSM campaigners through intimidation. Is this the sort of behaviour (albeit at the fringe) that unites a nation on a subject?

Some argue it is a waste of $122mn to hold a SSM plebiscite for a government in a $750bn hole. Maybe it is but to many out there, they want a democratic vote to take place. Some feel lobby groups that ignore their concerns (however backward, ancient or stiff) on issues they hold dearly are the exact reason why a vote should be held. It doesn’t matter to them whether a Catholic country like Ireland passed gay marriage, these people don’t want to be brow beaten, attacked or pilloried for expressing an alternative view. I am quite certain that should ‘Yes’ get up in the plebiscite people will have had their say. Shouting down the views of others is wrong. Let their voices be heard and allow the marketplace for free speech settle the differences. Sadly this is not the case. Any polling done by Get Up which shows an emphatic victory should be discounted. Indeed if they are so sure of a ‘Yes’ outcome then they should be over the moon to let democracy back its findings. Secretly they think otherwise. What they view as a waste of money won’t be to others.

Some people fear (again we’re not debating the rights and wrongs of it) that should lobby group bullying win the fight for SSM by an act of parliament then what comes next? We only need to look at the Safe Schools Programme in Victoria which is nothing more than a way to enforce gender indoctrination under the guise of anti-bullying. Cross dressing/role playing, whichever bathrooms and other ‘progressive’ programs are not necessary for 6 year olds. Boys playing with Tonka trucks and Matchbox cars or girls playing with Barbie dolls is not something that requires the school system to enforce boys and girls to reverse toy box selections. When I was a baby my mother recalled I had a love for cars. Even from my pram I knew more car names than English words. I’m sure she wasn’t wheeling me around the Warringah Mall car park trying to force me to do male things. By the same token my daughters weren’t chained to the Bratz corner of Toys’R’us in order to force them to be girls. Seeing her mother apply makeup was something she wanted to do.

What this all boils down to is society’s growing intolerance for free and open debate. We do not lack the ability to talk but we’re incapable of listening. That alternative views must be mocked or banned. There are some with such inability to accept alternative views who suggest prison sentences for climate skepticism. Are the arguments for climate change so weak that alarmists believe the only way to force the end game is to legally ban freedom of opinion?

One imagines that if we put an Antifa and a KKK supporter in the same room unbeknownst to them both and asked a standard questions on a variety of topics they probably would agree on more than they would if within their representative groups. These experiments have been conducted before where complete strangers meet and by the end when identities are revealed there is an awakening. It isn’t forced but occurs naturally through cordial conversation.

I make no apology for my conservative views. One friend is an unabashed socialist. We debate intensely on a variety of issues we have polar views on. I recently wrote to him privately to thank him for broadening my understanding of his views. While I might disagree with him I certainly respect his right to debate his points, which he often does insightfully. Some points are indeed valid and on certain issues we see eye to eye. Others less so. However we listen.

Sadly sanctimony is becoming ever more firmly entrenched into our culture and it can have nothing but bad outcomes. Perhaps to end with a Jewish proverb – “slander slays three people: the spoken by, the spoken to and the spoken of”

 

What do we really want from an army?

IMG_0811.JPG

It is a serious question. What do we really want from our armed forces? We pay billions in taxes to hopefully arm them to the teeth with the best technology, skills, training and capabilities to win wars should we ever find ourselves in one. Victory is the only choice in war. The ideal scenario is to make the enemy fear you enough such as you won’t end up in battle. However the military should never be a place that is used to test social experiments.

Then why the push for making the military or any other emergency service anything other than the best? Gender balance and diversity are irrelevant. News has resurfaced that the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are being set gender recruitment targets. It is insanity. Merit should be the only criteria. If 100% of them happen to be women based on merit then so be it but setting gender targets as a slated goal is obtuse. If more women wish to join the armed forces through desire, hunger and passion than men then that is expressing a clear will.

Eligibility standards are being lowered to help hit diversity targets. You can see the standards difference in these two charts posted by the ADF.

IMG_0812IMG_0813

Recruiters at the ADF have been told they must hire women or face relocation if they don’t comply. The recruiters say there are no jobs available for men in the in the infantry as a rifleman or artilleryman. But these positions are marked as ‘recruit immediately’ if a female applies. If a 50kg woman is in the artillery a 43.2kg M-107 shell is over 80% of her weight. An 80kg man would be lifting the same shells at around half of his weight. This is basic physics.

The West Australian newspaper reported one recruiter who said, “This is political correctness gone mad. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman – I just want to get the best person for the job.”

Yet the political correctness is promoted from the top. Defence chief, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, stressed the importance of diversity for the ADF. “A diverse workforce is all about capability. The greater our diversity, the greater the range of ideas and insights to challenge the accepted norm, assess the risks, see them from a different perspective, and develop creative solutions.”

Let us not confuse diversity with skills. In WW2, the US Army employed Native American Indians to work in intelligence. The idea that their native tongue was next to impossible to decode if transmissions were intercepted by the enemy. The US military wasn’t making a diversity play to even out race, gender or religion. It was employing a clear tactical advantage to help win a war. Such intelligence is vital in planning battles and tactics. The enemy wants to know our plans in advance such they can ambush or counter. The Navaho language meant the Japanese intelligence forces were completely flummoxed and suffered huge losses as a result. The merit was the rarity of the Navaho language, a skill no one else had. Think of how hard the British worked at breaking the codes of the German Enigma machines at Bletchley Park. Skill is is the defining factor.

It gets more ridiculous. One senior retired military contact has said that those who are recruited are now allowed to raise a red card in protest if a drill-sergeant is offending their sensitivities. Seriously? Surely an army is as strong as its weakest link and if leaders can’t drill discipline into his or her troops what hope have they in battle? Perhaps they can just disobey orders and avoid a court martial because they deployed a red card on the battlefield. Surely no one joins the army expecting it to be a life of late morning lie-ins, frequent recreation and late nights at the bar.

The military should never be a social experiment. It is off limits. This is not to say women should not have a chance to join it. In fact the desire to serve one’s country is indeed an excellent trait to have but putting in place a system that excludes Victor, a fitness freak with a black belt in martial arts from joining the infantry, for Victoria, a lady with a BMI of 30 makes no sense. If Victoria is the black-belted gym junkie and Victor is a slob then of course it makes sense to recruit her.

At the end of the day with bullets whizzing around and artillery shells exploding around them it is not hard to envisage that every soldier looks to the person to the left or right of them wondering only about their capability to do the job, not celebrating the army’s pro-diversity drive. Anything that potentially damages morale should be avoided at all costs. Dropping standards for both genders is fraught with long term risks and turning the ADF into an organization that puts more emphasis on feeling warm and cuddly versus a gung-ho group of steely-eyed effective combat troops lowers our capability to defend.

We must move on from this politically correct nonsense because in the end it will literally kill us. Then again we are getting our submarines built in Australia, not because they will be better built but because our defence capability took a back seat to buying votes. Don’t think our enemies aren’t always keeping on top of our (growing lack of ) capabilities.

China data leaves warmists in the cold

IMG_0747.PNG

As far as curioisity on any subject goes if 19 out of 20 agreed and one dissented wouldn’t you wish to work out why the lone body thought that way? Is he or she mad? On what grounds? Do we simply suck up the consensus and accept it? That’s worked well over time. Well the Chinese Meteorogical Administration has dropped a bombshell on the warmists confirming there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998. The CMA put forward the following analysis,

“In preparing the new database…the CMA say they addressed a number of problems with other surface temperature databases, in particular the relatively poor coverage of stations across Antarctica, Africa, South America, and Asia. They note that the IPCC AR5 report concluded that the warming trends in these regions are associated with a lower confidence level. They also improved the absence of early period stations, especially before 1940….The researchers find very clear evidence for the recent warming hiatus. Their results show linear trends of 0.104 °C per decade, 0.247 °C per decade and 0.098 °C per decade for the three periods, respectively. The trends were statistically significant except for the period 1998–2014, the period that is also known as the ‘‘warming hiatus”.

I would imagine Premier Xi will listen to his internal CMA over others when setting climate abatement policy. Maybe 2030 becomes 2040 or later…so why are so many governments engaged in group think where they clearly fail to heed reality? Perhaps they are so knee deep in their own poor policy decision making that they don’t want to admit they’ve acted in haste. South Australia and Tesla anyone?

3 maps which explain a lot

IMG_0743The chart above shows the average % change in housing prices in the US by county today vs that in 2000 according to a Harvard study. The following maps show the results of the 2008 and 2016 election by county. Could this be yet another basic concept showing why the US voted the way they did last election?

2008 – a hope for change

IMG_0744

2016 – the last 8 years didn’t help – time to vote for wholesale change

IMG_0745.PNG

Feel free to draw your own conclusions. These three maps to me voice the disgruntled who remain destitute after all this time.

Do you ever wonder why…

IMG_0741.PNG

…the majority would believe words like “demolished” from the press when the subject in question is a video driven by The Guardian pushing the even more Trump-hating journalism of Australia’s taxpayer funded ABC? Despite the ABC being controlled by a charter that says it mustn’t show political bias, it knows only one drum beat – join every Trump derangement cause without exception. It isn’t just this but whenever you see the words “demolished, destroyed, smashed” in a headline, discount its value by half then deduct another 75%. That will be about the extent of how “powerful” the report is. Viral? More like a bad bout of gastroenteritis. The walls of Washington were most likely reverberating with uncontrolled laughter.

Uhlmann can argue that Trump is the biggest threat to the West and he’s accelerating the decline of the US but it was 8 years under the Obama administration where Russia and China could run amuck with little fear of anything more than a hashtag in retaliation. It is more obvious that on foreign policy, the US is in a revival phase and her foes are sitting up and taking notice. Surely that hasn’t come about by chance.

Who cares if Merkel, Trudeau or Macron voice disapproval of the current US president? It isn’t new. Australian PM Turnbull is utterly mesmerized by Trump. While the mutual affection society of the ABC and its former minister Turnbull continue to mock POTUS he was the first to jump at the chance catch a ride in the Beast . That when he alighted spoke of how much he respects Trump and how much in common the two have (ppffft). The Aussie PM is petrified of DT in person. Turnbull loved Obama but never feared him.

The job of POTUS is not to join a chorus. True leadership is often doing things that aren’t popular. Dumping the Paris Climate Accord isn’t popular but it’s the right thing to do according to Americans and surveys in the US say as much. When one objectively studies the realities of the non-binding document it is clear the agreement is an empty one when countries like France & Germany step up to make up for the 75% of emitters that refuse to get on board.

Trump’s actions surrounding North Korea have the Chinese scurrying around looking for a solution that keeps the US from potentially influencing “the” border to its north. Isn’t that ‘leading the world’ by trying to get those that have the most to lose by suggesting the US will take control of the Korean Peninsula if they dither anymore? Notice B1-B Lancer bombers have been strafing the border on the 38th parallel with precision dummy bomb drills?  They aren’t for North Korea’s delectation but a message to China – stop messing about! Obama would have been dropping leaflets of peace, harmony and Hershey bars.

Under Obama’s watch China willfully built man made military bases in the South China Sea in contested waters taking advantage of his weakness. Xi knows there is a new sheriff in town and realizes he has to resort to another chapter in Sun Tzu.

The BBC – of all news channels – had a body language expert revealing that the alpha male show off in Hamburg between POTUS and Putin, had the former dominant over the latter. Putin is a master of bullying. Remember he had his intelligence arm find out Merkel was petrified of big dogs and made sure he had a monster canine wander around during their chat when she visited Russia? Doesn’t strike me that Trump is weak, unfit and out of his depth if Putin was nervous.

As more media coverage shows Trump as isolated and going it alone it isn’t the 1/20 being left out in the cold but the 19/20 who can’t get any edge on him.

As Uhlmann makes clear, he is just as clueless as so many other journalists because he makes no attempt to give context and perspective on the starting point. To think Obama led a period of American exceptionalism in foreign policy is preposterous. If Trump actually gets a positive outcome on North Korea or ISIS will Uhlmann issue an apology for his oversight? Let me give you a hint – not on your life.

I’ll happily admit when Trump does questionable things but I’ll make no apologies trying to address the ridiculous bias in the media against him. That bias remains so prevalent that it drowns out any noise that may actually be relevant to the Trump lovers who see no wrong.

Is there any dignity at CNN?

IMG_0278.JPG

Is CNN channeling the Gestapo? Threatening to release the name of an individual who made fun of the network’s own self inflicted stupidity. While it seems ratings haven’t suffered so badly post the Russiagate saga, surely the “we reserve the right to publish his identity” is an unbridled threat. How does taking down a video that has gone viral and been shared eliminate the problem? All that trying to ban soemthing does is exacerbate the problem.

One has to wonder whether the person that posted the video lampooning the network is “truly remorseful” or whether he was intimidated under a spotlight, pumped full of sodium Pentothal while staring at CNN’s legal goons in tight leather gloves. Talk about drawing bad attention to itself.

Perhaps if CNN really wanted to avoid such ridicule, it might decide to focus on quality journalism not stir up a hornet’s nest of lies for ratings. Doesn’t the satisfaction of winning from hard work and dedication trump free riding? Like drug cheats in sport perhaps if one lies to oneself enough they are every bit the winner as those legitimate athletes.

There can be no sympathy for a network that gets pilloried for engaging in what amounts to doxxing individuals. The Trump video in its initial form has been around for ages yet no complaints were had because everyone knows WWF is stage cast. The majority of those that saw the CNN spoof version would see it for what it is – ridicule.

For CNN to turn it into a “inciting violence against journalists” is plain nonsense. Should Trump have sent it on Twitter? No. Was it presidential? No. Was CNN in the wrong for inventing stories to try to remove him? Yes. Are journalists’ lives in danger from the President when they line up at a White House press conference? No.

As the ancient Chinese proverb states, “before setting out on revenge, first dig two graves.”

It only takes one to prove me wrong

IMG_0261.JPG

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Einstein

Einstein meant that all the consensus in the world won’t mean he’s correct. It only takes one person to prove him wrong. It wasn’t surprising to see social media share Stephen Hawking’s prognosis on Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accord. More tellingly most overlooked the zany assumptions made in Hawking’s comments (250 degrees C temps and climate like Venus) and focused on who he was attacking. Seriously do you honestly believe that the earth’s temperatures will reach that if you relied on your own logic on this planet?As the coldest temperature in 110 years was recorded in rural NSW Australia overnight no one said boo. Had it been the hottest temperature in 110 years the media would be spewing global warming stories all week.

Last week we had former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres warn that the next three years will be crucial to stopping the worst effects of global warming. Let’s not forget that climate change is so critical to Figueres that she thinks gender inequality should be tackled at the same time and she openly discussed discrimination against males when it came to hiring in her department. Still talking of the climate alarmist letter she co-signed warning of catastrophe why don’t they analyze the “ground breaking” Paris Climate Accord they all laud when those responsible for 75% of the world’s CO2 emissions aren’t taking urgent action? China won’t peak out on CO2 until 2030, India has dozens of coal fired power on the drawing board over coming decades and Russia’s 4-page commitment is worthless. “Ah yes but they are signatories!” I heard many chant in response to the Paris Climate Accord. They might as well have signed a whiteboard in a non marking pen for what it is truly worth.

The Paris Climate Accord is essentially a system which makes as much sense as you quitting smoking on my behalf. How do I benefit exactly? Paying for air I can’t breathe. The Paris Climate Accord is nothing but a mechanism for wealth distribution controlled by a bloated UN which wishes to add more to its ridiculous budget and offices despite claims it is slimming down!

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations.[10] Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74 percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).[11] Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

However what did Hawking say that makes his words credible? That is like saying Fed Chair Janet Yellen should be believed for saying we won’t see another financial crisis in our lifetimes. Let’s just accept it because many don’t know better. I haven’t seen the most rabid climate alarmists make a 250 degree claim. 98% of climate models to date have drastically over-predicted the extent of warming. The UNIPCC has been embroiled in so many scandals, climb downs and corrections that it can’t be relied on as a credible body. Many of the lead authors in the UN Climate bible have little experience in their fields and an investigation showed that  gender and minority status were given priority over ability in the investigative teams on each chapter. This is openly admitted by the UNIPCC as Donna La Framboise’s Delinquent Teenager’ highlighted,

IMG_0262.PNG

So if an internal survey that has been written up by the IPCC itself criticizing the process how can anyone put any validity in the argument?

Ahh but NOAA has told us that warming is getting worse. How could NASA lie? Oh the same NOAA that was subpoenaed after refusing to turn over emails related to an internal whistleblower who claimed the data had been homogenized (aka manipulated).

As argued many times before, human consumption patterns do not reflect the fear. SUV sales continue to grow as a % of sales, air travel is predicted to double by 2030 and sales of Tesla’s in HK or Norway fall off a cliff if generous tax incentives aren’t given to the wealthy to subsidize their virtue signaling.  This isn’t to doubt Hawking’s intelligence but Yellen, Greenspan, Bernanke, Kuroda and Draghi aren’t dummies either but it doesn’t preclude them from making mistakes and being wrong.

Oh, and for those that believe Hawking’s claims of rising sea levels the price of beachfront properties in a Sydney is preposterously high and even in Mauritius homes prices are still buoyant. Actions not words. Then we can always believe the immortal words of Australia’s former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery who warned us that the waves would lap the 8th story of apartment blocks on the coast. He lives in a waterfront property himself. Actions not words.

IMG_0263.JPG