UK

Dear Mr Speaker

How is it that Speaker of the UK House of Commons, John Bercow, was seen in Brussels negotiating with the new European Parliament President David Sassoli to prevent a no deal Brexit? Isn’t the speaker’s job to be impartial? Isn’t he supposed to be strictly non-partisan and give up any current or future affiliation to any political party? Isn’t he only supposed to cast a tie break vote and even then, one which follows Speaker Denison rules which advocate pushing it for further debate?

It is no surprise where Bercow’s bias lies. Maybe his wife didn’t affix a ‘Remain’ sticker on the family car afterall…?

XR in Cornwall push a narrative that sea level could rise 70 metres then meltdown

Climate alarmists, Extinction Rebellion in Cornwall (XRiC), were pushing an article from Cornwall Live that suggested sea levels could rise 70 metres. It noted,

According to geologist Edmond Mathez of the American Museum of Natural History, if all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, the sea level would rise 70 metres and cover all coastal cities.”

When digging a bit deeper, it turns out a curator in the Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences answered this question from Hannah in Year 6.

Will the world ever be all underwater because of all the ice melting?

Mathez replied,

Dear Hannah,

Thank you for your question. The simple answer is no. The whole world will never be underwater. But our coastlines would be very different.

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly. But many cities, such as Denver, would survive.

However, all the ice is not going to melt. The Antarctic ice cap, where most of the ice exists, has survived much warmer times.

The concern is that portions of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps may disappear. We do not know how much or how quickly this could happen, because we do not know exactly how it will happen.

That’s because the ice doesn’t just melt. Ice actually flows down valleys like rivers of water . The problem is that we do not completely understand the factors that control how rapidly the ice flows and thus enters the ocean.

One way to approach the problem of not understanding the process is to study how sea level changed in the past. Earth is nearly as warm now as it was during the last interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago. At that time, sea level was 4 to 6 meters (13-20 feet) higher. It seems that this higher sea level was due to the melting Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps.

Perhaps a similar sea-level rise is our future. We don’t know. We also don’t know how rapidly sea level could rise. Will a 4-meter (13-foot) increase take 200, 500, or even 1,000 years? This is a question that a number of scientists are now trying to answer by studying how ice moves.

So Extinction Rebellion Cornwall (XRiC) took umbrage at CM’s insistence they were chasing pagan gods and hadn’t bothered to read beyond the Cornwall Live article. Some XRiC respondents came back with the idea some are suffering psychological issues by living in fear of these prophecies. CM pointed them toward the IPCC survey conducted in 2010 on the processes and procedures in the formulation of the climate bibles.

The collected answers to the questionnaire are contained in 678 pages.

Here are some direct quotes:

some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.” (p.16)

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.

CM also pointed out that the same Cornwall Live website posted,

The data shows the most expensive postcode in Cornwall is PL29 3, which covers Port Isaac, where an average price of £383,750 was recorded last year. This is up 10% compared to 2017.”

It would seem that the people of Cornwall aren’t fleeing the coastline in panic.

XRiC has deleted the post. Melting snowflakes?

Eco-warriors worried more about tailpipe emissions than the depleted uranium coming from the pipe at the front

Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler“…remember the old ‘Dad’s Army‘ tune? Well, it seems that the UK military believes in order to recruit the next generation of soldiers it must take a new approach to appeal to the eco-credentials of those graduating. It is a touch odd to believe that any prospective new squaddies might hold grave concerns about what comes out of the tailpipe of their tank rather than the depleted uranium shells they might fire from the 120mm pipe at the front.

General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said that “the challenge and genuine commercial opportunity is to aim high and lead the world in the development of military equipment which is not only battle-winning but also environmentally sustainable.”

Truth be told is that is unlikely that young, fresh out of school eco-warriors would be the types that would enlist in the first place.

CM is sure that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will be clamouring to follow the UK’s lead and invest in the next generation of solar-powered wafer-thin armoured tanks and carbon-free balloons which will drop virtue signalling leaflets printed in soy ink on recycled paper encouraging our enemy to embrace love, compassion, diversity and inclusion.

Was the CIA too white at the time of 9/11?

Central Intelligence Agency

According to the BBC, it was. The UK taxpayer-funded broadcaster is buying into this hypothesis that the CIA may have been too “white” and not diverse enough to spot the terrorist activity around September 11, 2001. Weren’t the whites that founded the agency in 1947 the same thinkers who had the nous to use “diversity” (Navaho Native Americans) to devastating effect to transmit sensitive information during WWII? That was 54 years prior to the 9/11 attacks.

What a spectacular own goal. How could the BBC be so careless? It should be completely down to the CIA’s white supremacist backgrounds that led to an agency completely driven by irrational fear to facilitate any old excuse to bomb the crap out of shithole nations. Does CM need to do the BBC’s work for them?

Passing the CIA aptitude tests are bound to be pretty tough in the intelligence areas. The day the CIA starts to prioritise skin tones, sexual proclivity and what is between the legs of candidates as opposed to what is between their ears one should expect even more misses to result. It might be too late – find the CIA Diversity webpage here.

Diversity of thought is all that matters. The BBC would do well to seek introspection. If the CIA had been predominantly staffed by blacks and Hispanics, would this article have ever seen the light of day? Of course not. Good to know BBC practices racism. Or is the journalist gunning for a position on the NY Times editorial board alongside the sweet #cancelwhitepeople Sarah Jeong?

Our education is the problem, not the climate

You know things have got to be bad when Zali Steggall OAM MP is launching The Australia Institute’s (TAI) ‘Climate of the Nation 2019‘ report which claims 81% of Aussies are concerned that climate change will impact droughts and flooding. Huh? The IPCC has already admitted, “available climate data do not show any increasing trend in extreme weather events (e.g. extreme precipitation, extreme drought, thunderstorms, winter blizzards) in any part of the world.”

Did TAI conduct the survey at the Australian Medical Association (AMA) which is now trying to dictate climate policy? Between the RBA, APRA and the AMA, we might need a beauty contest to see which of them takes over at the Department of Environment & Energy. CM is surprised that the AMA hasn’t demanded to take over the organization of the Royal Easter Show from the Royal Agricultural Society now they are experts in food security!

Why do people get so embroiled in talking about the “science being settled”. OK, let’s assume it is. We use all of the well publicized and peer-reviewed data scrapes from the IPCC reports, the EU’s in house statistics bureau, Eurostat, and the EIA.

We only need a basic Year 7 grasp of elementary mathematics to educate on the facts. The IPCC claim that CO2, as a proportion of the atmosphere, is 0.0415%. It also tells us that human-made CO2 is 3% of the total. 97% is natural. Australia for its sins is 1.08% of human-made global CO2 emissions.

So, 0.0415% x 3% x 1.08% = 0.00001345%. Let’s forget the science and say it was the interest earned on a 20-year compounding deposit of $10,000. If you doubled or halved the above percentage across that deposit you’d get virtually the exact same result in all three scenarios.

Farting cows are no different. Methane is an even smaller part of the atmosphere. 722 parts per billion. Animals (in total) make up 13% of the methane produced meaning that 0.00000939% of the atmosphere is down to animals. Angela Merkel was imploring Chinese don’t grow a meat habit so she can save the planet (aka justify a meat tax increase at home). By the way, Australia has 26mn cattle out of a total of 1 billion worldwide. So Australia is 2.6% of global head of cattle. So 2.6% x 0.00000939% = 0.00000024%. That is a disingenuous number because it doesn’t factor horses, ducks, sheep, household pets and budgies. Perhaps Africans need to educate lions to move to plant-based meat substitutes and leave water buffalo alone.

Do people realize that rice paddies account for more methane than cows? Where are the environmentalists and climate alarmists demanding that Asian nations, 40% of the global population, must cease eating rice? Better tell Mother Nature that she creates 45% of the methane out there through peat bogs and tundras.

How ironic that Zali Steggall, the Member for Warringah (home to the Northern Beaches Council (NBC)) is TAI’s champion. Did she read that NBC declared a climate emergency after having a sermon delivered by Tim Flannery, who has made countless dud predictions leading to the waste of billions of spending in desal plants?

In the  2017/18  NBC annual report it states the council saved 293 tons of CO2. Given that Australia produces around 561m tons, this amazing effort has meant a reduction of 0.0000522% of Australia’s total. Put it against Australia’s CO2 impact vs the entire atmosphere means that Northern Beaches have hammered home a mammoth 0.000000000699857% saving! Yes, 9 zeroes. C’mon Zali, you should be citing this impactless tokenism in your address. By the way, we’re still waiting for wind farms on Balmoral Beach.

The range of claims made in the TAI report speaks to little more than agenda based data gathering with leading questions.

For instance, if Labor was destroyed in the federal election over Adani, how could 73% of Queenslanders possibly want Australia’s coal-fired power stations phased out as soon as possible or gradually? Did the pollsters mistakenly manage to interview Bob Brown’s anti-Adani convoy which skewed the findings? If you want to get answers to questions that effectively make claims (climate change already causing) it is easy if it is written as though it is a fact to begin with,

“Melting of the Polar ice caps” (51%) – IPCC has already climbed down from such claims
“More heatwaves and extreme hot days” (48%) – no consistent data on this. 
“Destruction of the Great Barrier Reef” (44%) – it isn’t happening – just ask Peter Ridd or the Vice-Chancellor at James Cook University
“More droughts affecting crop production & food supply” (42%) – global crop yields growing
“More Bushfires” (36%) – fallen over time
“Water Shortages in the Cities” (30%) – haven’t experienced one 

Taking bushfires as an example. Facts from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) show that 85% of bushfires are either deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit. The AIC sees that while the data is somewhat sketchy that the most common profile of arsonists was “white male, mid-20s, patchy employment record, often above average intelligence, but poor academic achievement and poor social development skills…56% of convicted structural arsonists and 37% of bushfire arsonists in NSW had a prior conviction for a previous offence. ”

In the US those figures are around 90%. A study in the journal Science determined the global burnt area from fires, rather than growing, had declined by roughly 25% from 1999 to 2017.

So do the stats support global warming or successful mainstream media coverage sensationalising the truth to feed narratives? Don’t get started on the Amazon fires. CM wrote about it here.

Energy source rank went Wind (76%), Solar (58%) & Hydro (39%) although nuclear power ranked above coal and gas. Surprise, surprise.  (p.11).

Apparently, 64% of Aussies want to be net-zero emissions by 2050. To do that we’d need to stop all mining, end farming and phase out all fossil-fuel power from transport to power generation. Just think of the UK’s plan to do this. Going to be a bit hard when 85% of British households rely on gas to heat their homes. Will the power grid hold up to a switch to electric heating?

On p.25, TAI makes reference to the Icelandic glacier, Ok, that lost its status 5 years ago. According to the UN Chronicle, “The sudden surging of glaciers is not related to climatic fluctuations, and surges can take place even at times when glaciers retreat. This is the usual behaviour of some glaciers and can not be evidence of an impending surge… unfortunately, direct observations of a change in the movement of a glacier at the onset of a surge are still very rare, and the causes for surges are not yet clear…It should be emphasized that the problem of climate change is extremely difficult to understand, and it has still not been possible to know what factors in the past decades — natural or anthropogenic — have caused the warming. There are still many uncertainties in solving this problem. IPCC estimates are rather wide in their range of accuracy and, therefore, cannot predict with confidence…at least not in the coming decades and centuries.”

Maybe we just need to accept that China produces more GHG in two weeks than we do in a year. At the rate it is going, by 2030 it will likely be closer to one week. Once again folks, education seems a bigger problem than climate change. Basic fractions are more valuable than deep knowledge of climate science. Even using numbers supplied by the organisations they constantly espouse as the oracle, the minuscule impacts we can have are never mentioned. Tokenism is somehow virtuous.

Banker Buster?

Banks.png

Before the GFC in 2008, bank shares across the globe were flying. Financial engineering promised a new paradigm of wealth creation and abundant profitability. They were unstoppable.

However 12 years later, many banks look mere shadows of their former selves. We are told by our political class to believe that our economies are robust and that a low-interest rate environment will keep things tickety-boo indefinitely. After all the wheels of the economy have always been greased by the financial sector.

If that were true, why does Europe’s largest economy have two of its major banks more than 90% off the peak? Commerz has shrunk so far that it has been thrown out of the DAX. Surely, Japan’s banks should be prospering under Abenomics so why are the shares between 65% and 80% below 2007 levels?

Ahh, but take a look at those Aussie beauties! How is it they have bucked the global trend? How can Commonwealth Bank be worth 6x Deutsche Bank?

Although we shouldn’t look at the Aussie banks with rose-tinted glasses they have mortgage debt up to the eyeballs. Mortgages to total loans exceed 62% in Australia. The next is daylight, followed by Norway at 40%. Japanese banks, before the bubble collapsed, were in the 40% range. CM wrote a comparo here. There is a real risk that these Aussie banks will require bailouts if the housing market craps out. It carries so many similarities to Japan and when anyone ever mentions stress tests – start running for the hills.

If you own Aussie banks in your superannuation portfolio, it is high time you dumped them. Franked dividends might be an ample reason to hold them, but things in finance turn on a dime and this time Australia doesn’t have a China to rescue us like it did in 2008-09. More details contained in the link in the paragraph above.

In closing, Milton Friedman said it best with respect to the ability of central banks to control outcomes,

“… we are in danger of assigning to monetary policy a larger role than it can perform, in danger of asking it to accomplish tasks that it cannot achieve, and as a result, in danger of preventing it from making the contribution that it is capable of making.

 

Despite all the problems at the gates of Elysee Palace, Macron torches 10 Downing St instead

Related image

As the German 6th Army marched on Paris on June 14th, 1940 civil servants of Britain and France drafted a proposal for a Franco-British Union in the ensuing 48 hours. It wasn’t to be a mere military pact but essentially merging two countries. The document stated clearly,

At this most fateful moment in the history of the modern world, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union and unyielding resolution in their common defence of justice and freedom against subjection to a system which reduces mankind to a life of robots and slaves.

Churchill was surprised by the eagerness of the French. Charles de Gaulle embraced the idea of wanting immediate execution. However, the French quickly became disillusioned and disappointed when the British were pulling troops from Dunkirk. The deal collapsed.

Then PM Paul Reynaud wrote in his memoirs that, “Those who rose in indignation at the idea of union with our ally were the same individuals who were getting ready to bow and scrape to Hitler.

So it was a No Deal outcome. The British accepted it.

The British didn’t give up and abandon the French but vowed to liberate them regardless of failing to reach a ‘mutual’ deal. Surviving the Battle of Britain, the Blitz and U-boats destroying merchant shipping, the British, with allied help, played an instrumental role in defeating Hitler. We can soundly argue that Britain had little choice but to do as she did, but the liberation of France was a welcome by-product, not lost on the French in August 1944.

The sacrifices made by Great Britain to drive out those evil occupiers are not lost on the British either. So to have Macron issue an ultimatum is ignoring history. Perhaps Macron should ask his wife, who grew up soon after the war, about French attitudes of the time – how they deeply appreciated and embraced Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

However, all credit must be given to French President Emmanuel Macron for conveniently forgetting the past and embracing double standards to try to railroad and back the very foreign democracy – that essentially assured he was able to attain the position he has – into a corner. That is the EU operating to type.

As CM has mentioned multiple times, the negative impacts on the UK economy are effectively zero if common sense between nations prevails.

Looking at the latest trade stats between the EU and Britain it is simple. EU members make up 7 of the Top 10 British export markets accounting for 37.4% of all trade. Top 10 accounts for 65.9% of trade. Trump accounts for £54.9bn vs £36.5bn from Merkel.

On the Import side, the UK matters much more to the likes of Germany £68bn. The Dutch at £42bn and France at £28bn.

In short of the UK ‘s Top 10 importing nations, 8 are EU members. The Top 10 account for 65.7% of the total. Those 8 EU nations make up 48.1% of all British imports. 7.13% of Germany’s exports end up in Blighty. One might argue that 10% of UK exports ending up in Germany is reason enough to back down. Yet why would either seek to make their position worse off? Germany is the UK’s #1 importer and Germany is the #2 destination for British exports. For Germany, the UK ranks #11 importer and #3 export nation.

Will Angela Merkel really work to ruin a trading relationship with the UK where the trade surplus alone is worth 1% of German GDP? Especially as the German economy is contracting?

Macron has once again revealed the EU’s utter contempt for sovereign state democracy. Ironic coming from a man who has seen his popularity collapse at home. If he can’t fix the will of those very constituents he represents at his own doorstep (yellow vest protests haven’t ended), what place does he have soiling the doormat at 10 Downing St? It reads like Aesop’s “Dog in the Manger.

In closing, wasn’t the whole point of establishing the EU to prevent tyranny from ever happening again?