Virtue signaling

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.

XR Co-Leader hitches a free car ride to GMB studio

Wow, Extinction Rebellion (XR) is a gift that keeps giving. XR Co-Leader Skeena Rathor went on Good Morning Britain (GMB) and revealed the complete hypocrisy of the movement. None moreso than admitting to catching a lift to the studio in a car arranged by GMB. XR followers are clowns. Rathor couldn’t answer even the most simple questions but rattled off all of the garbage claims of societal collapse, food shortages and a dire future for kids, including not being able to feed them. She even invited other guests to talk to their “scientists.

If XR keep up media appearances it only assures its extinction. So CM implores XR to keep it up.

CM forgot to mention in Dion Lights interview with Andrew Neil, her claim that the scientists who compiled the latest IPCC research paper was flawed because they are focused on pre-industrial era data…hmmm…even though she broadly supported the 99% consensus of the IPCC report…so which is it? Just not alarmist enough. Noone with half a brain would ever believe that billions are at risk of dying in the next few decades.

We shouldn’t forget that yesterday, a blind paralympian, James Brown, decided to climb atop a British Airways plane at London City Airport. Despite the danger he put himself and other airport security officials, the judiciary should hand out a sentence ensure that he is charged with the total costs borne by British Airways shareholders and the airport for the inconvenience caused. Being a blind paralympian shouldn’t grant any special treatment of sympathy.

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.

Virtue Signaling Wallabies should look at their sponsors before lecturing the rest of us on climate change

Pocock.png

Wallabies flanker David Pocock, along with teammates Bernard Foley and Dane Haylett-Petty, have announced their partnership with a scheme that aims to compensate for the carbon emissions associated with travel. Woke.

Why aren’t they rushing straight to Wallabies CEO Raelene Castle and demanding that she jettison Qantas & Land Rover from the sponsorship list? Surely offsetting carbon emissions is best served by trying to get widespread media coverage to push legislation to ban petrol & diesel SUVs and restrict air travel.

Surely what better way to announce one’s true commitment to the climate emergency than refusing to endorse or play for a team where the very companies that violate the climate change movement’s goals are emblazoned on their sportswear? Sadly multi-million dollar contracts are clearly more important to these players to protect than saving the planet. Telling.

The Guardian noted, “musician Heidi Lenffer, from Australian band Cloud Control, launched FEAT. (Future Energy Artists), an initiative that would allow Australian musicians to invest in a solar farm in south-east Queensland…Lenffer was concerned about the carbon emissions generated by her group’s touring schedule and what she saw as her own contribution to the climate emergency.”

Notably, Lenffer had asked “climate scientists in the field, and connected with Dr Chris Dey from Areté Sustainability. Dey crunched the numbers for Cloud Control’s two-week tour, playing 15 clubs and theatres from Byron Bay to Perth…He found that it would produce about 28 tonnes of emissions.

28 tonnes of emissions in an Aussie context would equate to 0.00000509% of Australia’s emissions which are 0.00001345% of the earth’s atmosphere. So the global carbon footprint of her Byron to Perth tour would total 0.000000000068473%. Offsetting that will hardly be worth the efforts gone to working out the impact. None. She should double the scope of the tour and it would have no meaningful damage on the climate.

Carbon offsetting is such a wonderful idea. It essentially takes the form of commercialising hypocrisy. Effectively offsetting one’s emissions is like asking someone else to quit smoking on your behalf. How do you benefit? Don’t forget that Sir Elton John justified Meghan & Harry’s use of his private jet by offsetting on Carbon Offset which allowed him to technically pay for those emissions for the grand price of £8 return for the couple. Pocock’s trip to Japan would cost £38.70 return. That will be enough to pay for a sign to hang on the front of the FEAT solar plant.

Lenffer shouldn’t feel bad though. Climate alarmist, Bono of U2 once bragged that one of his global tours beat out The Rolling Stones in terms of trucks and 747s used to ferry all the equipment around because that’s how you measure a band’s popularity!

Maybe the players should strike in Japan and superglue themselves to a steel plant in Kobe. They best be careful, Japanese police can lock them up without charge for 21 days. They might risk missing the finals…surelythey wouldn’t want to put their careers behind their sanctimony.

If they still have pangs of guilt they can look up Extinction Rebellion’s guidelines for hypocrisy. Apparently it is justified in their view because they want the changes but have little choice but to consume in a fossil fuel world.

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.

A deadly problem: should we ban SUVs from our cities?

Activists, including one wearing a Angela Merkel mask, outside the Frankfurt International Auto, holding signs reading ‘gas guzzling vehicles off the road’ and ‘Stop petrol and diesel’.

More junk journalism from The Guardian. Why can’t the paper make sensible commentary on the auto industry? Essentially it pushes a narrative that we should ban SUVs, a long term growth market for automakers because they advertise the segment too much. Shame on trying to act in the interests of shareholders. The article encourages the movement to push for a ban of SUVs in cities. Why? The socialisation of transport!

The article makes the early assertion that passengers are 11% more likely to die in an SUV accident than a regular passenger car. Unfortunately, it cited an article written 15 years ago. In that time, SUVs have evolved leaps and bounds. A far greater proportion of SUVs are made using a monocoque chassis as opposed to the old ladder frames. Even those SUVs with ladder chassis hold 5-star safety NHTSA ratings in 2019:

2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 5 star (ladder) vs 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 3 star

2019 Ford Expedition – 5 star (ladder) – 2004 Ford Expedition – 5 star

2019 GMC Acadia – 5 star (ladder) – 2007 GMC Acadia – 4 star

2019 Toyota RAV4 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2004 Toyota RAV4 – 4 star

2019 Mazda CX-9 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2007 Mazda CX-9 – 4 star.

Some may recall in the early 2000s when the Ford Explorer/Firestone tyre rollover incident killed 261 people. Since then, carmakers have installed so many safety items – passive and active. Automatic braking, lane departure detection, forward collision warning, electronic brakeforce distribution (which prevents rollovers). SUVs are safer than ever, including pedestrian facing features.

Never mind the huge leap in safety. Let’s shame the automakers and buyers instead.

The Guardian noted, “In Germany, in 2018 they spent more on marketing SUVs than on any other segment; they actually spent as much as they spent on other segments together” says Stephan von Dassel, the district mayor of Berlin-Mitte. “This is not some accident that people suddenly are really into these cars, they are heavily pushed into the market.”

Wow, so carmakers actually made a sensible advertising budget allocations and convinced new buyers to voluntarily select their SUVs. Those wicked capitalists. They should be burnt at the stake for being in touch with their customers. Perhaps politicians could learn from the carmakers about being in touch with their constituents?

The Guardian then noted the following,

In Europe, sales of SUVs leapt from 7% of the market in 2009 to 36% in 2018. They are forecast to reach nearly 40% by 2021. While pedestrian deaths are falling across Europe, they are not falling as fast as deaths of those using other modes of transport.

So even though the sales of these vehicles have skyrocketed, pedestrian deaths are falling. Reading the paper published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, stated

“A total of 5,987 pedestrians were killed in crashes in 2016, accounting for 16 percent of all crash fatalities. The number of pedestrians killed each year has declined 20 percent since 1975…”

Surprisingly, The Guardian waits till the end to point the finger at the pet issue facing SUVs – emissions.

“Transport, primarily road transport, is responsible for 27% of Europe’s carbon emissions. A decade ago the EU passed a law with a target to reduce carbon emissions to 95g/km by 2021 but a recent report by campaign organisation Transport and Environment highlights what is calls it “pitiful progress”. “Sixteen months from before the target comes into force carmakers are less than halfway towards their goals,” the report adds. The car industry faces hefty fines in Europe of €34bn in a few months for failing to meet emissions targets.”

Related image

How is it that diesel engines, the increasingly preferred powerplant in SUVs, have had emissions cut 97% over the last 25 years? That is monumental progress.

Yet why have legislators tried to ban petrol and diesel cars and looking to force adoption of dirtier EVs which have done 150,000km equivalent CO2 emissions before leaving the showroom? Because ideology distorts reality. Even Schaeffler AG, an auto supplier, admitted it is almost impossible for automakers to comply with the different demands of over 200 cities in Europe with EV rules. No common standards and the quest of woke city councils trying to outdo each other on being climate-friendly. Then governments need to consider the 5% of total tax revenue that fill the coffers they would be giving up, although already in the US, Illinois is looking to impose a $1,000 a year EV tax.

Shouldn’t the EU and other countries face the realities that consumers (taxpayers) like the utility these SUVs provide for their individual needs over and above saving the planet? Shouldn’t politicians realise that consumers make conscious decisions when making the second largest purchase for the household?

One can absolutely bet that if some maker came out with a Hummer sized EV, these cities that want to ban SUVs from driving in them would grant the monster truck an exemption and special parking zones.

Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles and e-mobility at Transport and Environment, says regulators must step in to force car manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission and suitably sized vehicles, for example, small and light cars in urban areas.”

What if consumers don’t want to buy small and light cars? Force car makers to produce cars their customers don’t want? That is a winning strategy. If carmakers must sell zero-emission vehicles, why on God’s earth are politicians with absolutely no engineering pedigree dictating technology to the experts? Why not let necessity be the mother of invention? If carmakers can get fossil fuel-powered vehicles to be zero-emission and keep their brand DNA at the same time, imagine the billions that could be saved on reckless waste rolling out often unreliable charging infrastructure? Maybe then carmakers could build cars its customers wanted and make money to literally fuel the economy. Politicians would still be able to virtue signal! Win-win.

Maybe the modus operandi is to socialise transport. Poliscanova said, “Smart urban policies are also key to drive consumers towards clean and safe modes…Mayors should reduce space and parking spots for private cars and reallocate it to people and shared clean mobility services.

That is the ticket – force everyone off the road. That is a sure vote winner!

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?