#AMA

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.

Which Doctors or Witch Doctors? AMA needs to remove its head from its own backside

Ideology and medicine shouldn’t mix. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has taken on the role of a tribal witch doctor. It is more worrying that the very people we are supposed to put our faith in on the operating table have such ridiculously unfounded views in a field that is off their patch. Moreover, its assessment is flatly wrong.

Have they got hard evidence to back the claims? Not even the cheerleaders among alarmists back their claims. Yet watch the media fall into line with this utter garbage.

Here are some of the AMA’s reasons below.

“Climate change will cause higher mortality and morbidity from heat stress.”

– The reality is that more people die from cold weather events than hot. According to a 2014 study by the CDC, approximately 1,300 deaths per year from 2006 to 2010 were coded as resulting from extreme cold exposure, and 670 deaths per year from extreme heat. FAIL.

“Climate change will cause injury and mortality from increasingly severe weather events.”

The ‘Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas induced climate change report of 2000 notes, that,

“A causal and unequivocal link between mean surface temperature increase and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas increase has not yet been established. The most probable cause of the mean surface temperature increase is considered to be a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources. Significant uncertainty still exists relating the total (direct plus indirect) radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols (e.g. sulfate, black carbon, dust etc.). Recent studies suggest that the negative total radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols may offset the positive forcing by the greenhouse gases. Precipitation trends in different regions of the world do not present conclusive evidence about the intensification of the hydrologic cycle of the atmospheric-ocean system. There is still uncertainty relating trends in storm (tropical as well as extratropical) frequency in different parts of the world. 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.FAIL

“Climate change will cause increases in the transmission of vector-borne diseases.”

A 2016 NIH report titled,  ‘Climate change effects on airborne pathogenic bioaerosol concentrations: a scenario analysis‘ noted,

The single receptor results showed that modelled concentrations were modified (on average decreased) several percentage points on average as a result of climate change. In general, the variables wind speed and global radiation were of most importance, by influencing atmospheric particle dilution. An increase in global radiation (and temperature) enhances vertical atmospheric mixing and thus results in lower surface concentrations. An increase in wind speed enhances horizontal spread, and thus, the concentration at a receptor point at the plume axis (as in our study) decreases. From our spatial analysis, we concluded that distribution of the area at risk, however, changed: in some areas, the seasonal-averaged concentrations decreased (up to 20 %)

…Given the fact that most human infections occurred in spring, the 2009 concentrations were not exceptional...”

We concluded that for four out of five scenarios the concentrations generally decrease as a result of increased global radiation, temperature and increased wind speeds, whereas for one scenario the concentrations generally increase. Nevertheless, the differences between and especially within seasons are large. Since coincidence of emission and specific meteorological conditions largely determines the actual exposure, additional investigations are required to further quantify the change in predicted concentrations of airborne pathogenic bioaerosolsby taking into account pathogen inactivation and more detailed probability functions on precipitation, snow and large-scale circulation.” FAIL

“Climate change will cause food insecurity resulting from declines in agricultural outputs.”

The IPCC Synthesis Report (i.e. summary) states: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.”  This is properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2, which says:  “In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period” (Agoumi, 2003).

Agoumi study wasn’t a peer-reviewed document.

It is noteworthy that chapter 9.4 continued with “However, there is the possibility that adaptation could reduce these negative effects (Benhin, 2006)…not all changes in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for irrigated and, especially, dryland farms.” 

The same goes for chocolate…

Half of the world’s chocolate is currently sourced from just two African countries: Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. According to the IPCC, rising temperatures and a relative reduction in rainfall could make it less suitable for cocoa production in the future. The research highlighted in the IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability report indicate that, under a “business as usual” scenario, those countries will experience a 3.8°F (2.1°C) increase in temperature by 2050 which could seriously impact cocoa production.

Claims that changes to the climate are also pushing cocoa-growing regions to higher altitudes in some parts of the world, which can make some crops unsustainable…production has more than doubled in the past 3 decades. FAIL

“Climate change will cause a higher incidence of mental ill-health.”

By opening its mouth the AMA would seemingly be assisting the business fortunes of psychologists. Perhaps the AMA should check into its own facilities.

Honestly, we must conclude that climate alarmism is in the final throes. With all these local councils declaring climate emergencies and now the AMA joining the RBA and APRA on climate activism, we should start to discount their opinions on their core subjects. Utterly pathetic.

Perhaps the AMA should demand that all of our hospitals are run off renewables with no baseload back up power. Gotta practice what it preaches!

Gillette – from toxic masculinity to transgender & morbid obesity

Gillette is free to advertise how it wishes. After the monster backlash against the toxic masculinity campaign which wiped 6% in value from the brand and caused a 22% fall in the following quarter’s profits, it is hard to see how the radical social justice warriors in the marketing department have not been fired. To shareholders, it was a massive fail. A YouGov poll of household grooming products before the campaign saw Gillette fall from 7th out of 45 brands to dead last after it. Yet the company has chosen to bet the house on more virtue signalling hoping it will eventually cut through to the masses. Get woke, go broke.

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a transgender kid shaving for the first time, most will likely see this ad as nothing more than Gillette doubling down on the roulette wheel of “identity politics”. What point is Gillette trying to prove? The bulk of society is growing tired of being told how to think and what to say.

Yes, there are serious transgender issues in America. 130 transgender people have been murdered since 2013. It is a damning statistic. However, it is unlikely that anyone small minded enough to commit such a heinous crime will be swayed by a Gillette ad featuring a trans actor. Why does Gillette seek to force feed its version of socially acceptable behaviours on the 99.9% of its clientele that does not require it? It is patronising in the extreme. It is like attacking NRA members as murderers.

The only company in the world that can treat its customers with disdain is Ferrari. It wields so much power that it selects customers if they are deemed worthy of owning some of its limited edition offerings. Sadly Gillette is not Ferrari.

Gillette is rife with double standards. It has brazenly sponsored a Dutch racing car series with the brand embossed across the backsides of supermodels.

Chick-fil-A, on the other hand, was established on its Southern Baptist principles. It has never hijacked a social movement to boost sales.  That is why it has seen sales treble on a doubling of stores to become the third largest fast-food chain in America. It never rams its beliefs down the throats of others.

The toxic masculinity campaign should have been a big enough lesson for the marketing team to stay in its lane. The consumer spurned Gillette at the supermarket cash register. It would have been better coming out and apologizing and praising men for all the good things they do, like the Egard Watch company.

Virtually no customers will see that trans ad and think to buy Gillette razors out of a sense of moral guilt at the treatment of this minority. Consumers buy razors to groom – period. When will the company get it?

Related image

It wasn’t so long ago that Gillette promoted a morbidly obese woman to push female shaving products. There is a difference between standing against fat-shaming and being realistic about the many chronic health issues and massive costs related to obesity.

The American Medical Association (AMA) wrote, “the nation’s obesity rate is approaching 40% after holding around 34–35% between 2005 and 2012, according to data in The State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America 2018. No state has had a statistically significant drop in its obesity rate in the past five years...the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) showed that 39.6% of adults and 18.5% of children ages 2 to 19 in America have obesity, the State of Obesity report noted that “these are the highest rates ever documented“…the AMA is working to prevent and control chronic diseases, many of which are associated with obesity…”

We covered obesity in the previous post. Obesity increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, sleep apnea, liver disease, kidney disease, gallbladder disease, and certain types of cancer yet Gillette wants to celebrate it as something to be proud of.

Corporations that pursue woke marketing risk alienating their customers. There is no upside to it. Consumers are not stupid and the more companies run campaigns that fly in the face of their intelligence, will only get a backlash at the point of sale.

Don’t forget that the toxic masculinity campaign had a 10:1 negative response ratio on the millions of views it had. One can be sure Gillette will try to massage a positive response on this latest campaign. Yet, like most polls, the most accurate measure is consumer response. If sales aren’t arrested, no matter how many positive clickbait statistics they can show their bosses internally, the sales and profit figures won’t lie. That is all that ultimately matters to P&G shareholders.

Obesity in America

The American Medical Association (AMA) has updated the latest State of Obesity 2019 report which tabulates a damning trend. West Virginia is the worst offender. It has seen obesity rates surge from 14% in the 1990s to 38.1% of the adult population.

The state has the highest rates of diabetes at 15.2% of the adult population, up from 6.7% in the 1990s. Of the 191,000 diabetes sufferers in WV, by 2030 there is expected to be over 282,000 with the disease.

Hypertension is also expected to surge from 24.2% in the 1990s to 43.5%. To that end heart disease is also forecast to jump from around 138,000 to over 659,000 people.

According to the most recent Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data, adult obesity rates now exceed 35% in seven states, 30% in 29 states and 25% in 48 states.

The AMA notes,

Race, ethnicity, gender, income, education levels and where an adult lives all make a difference in how likely he or she is to have obesity. For example, the report found that:

  • Obesity rates are higher among Latinos (47%) and blacks (46.8%) than among whites (37.9%).
  • Women are more likely to have obesity than men, 41.1%versus 37.9%.
  • Women are also more likely to have severe obesity, 9.7% versus 5.6%.
  • Adults in rural areas are more likely to have obesity than those in metro areas, 34.2% versus 28.7%.
  • College graduates are less likely to be obese than those with less than a high school education, 22.2% versus 35.5%.
  • Adults with higher incomes are less likely to be obese. The obesity rate is 29.7% among those making 400% or more above the federal poverty line; the rate is 42.6% for those at 100 to 199% of the federal poverty line.

None of this makes for pleasant reading but the AMA calculates $149bn in extra medical costs annually and $66bn in lost productivity.

According to the most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 18.5% of children and 39.6% of adults had obesity in 2015–2016. These are the highest rates ever documented by NHANES.

Obesity.png

The underlying causes of obesity are complex and interconnected, ranging from economic and policy dynamics to environmental influences, social norms, and individual and family factors.

High-calorie foods are less expensive and more available in some neighbourhoods; many communities lack safe, accessible places to walk, bike, and play; and children and adults are inundated by advertising for unhealthy foods and beverages.

Many Americans eat too few fruits and vegetables and consume too many calories in the form of highly processed foods, and fewer than half meet national guidelines for physical activity.

Obesity increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, sleep apnea, liver disease, kidney disease, gallbladder disease, and certain types of cancer.

ResMed.png

Seems like the pharmaceutical companies will continue to do well in America. Aussie company ResMed, which makes CPAP machines to treat sleep apnea is crushing it.