@greencate

How Dare You

My message is that we’ll be watching you. This is all wrong, I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.

4 words – “Go to you room”

If CM had spoken to his parents like that, it would not have impressed them. Not one bit.

Sadly Greta Thunberg’s abuse continues with accelerating momentum. The adults that direct her care not one bit. They enjoy her emboldened demagoguery. So much so that she is believing her own sanctimony.

How dare they. And yes Greta, you should be at school rather than taking a year off to embark on this ridiculous crusade.

Perhaps she should ask her overseers why coal fired power producing nations are banned from speaking at the conference. Is that how mature adults behave by bullying and shaming those that disagree?

Further proof and justification for Trump and Morrison’s to turn down the conference. They’ll still demand their billions in any event.

Spectacular own goal scored by our elitist academics

Image result for marxist university poster

The beauty of those that wrote this open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion throws up some very enlightening facts. Read it and weep. Not the letter – the stats.

Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter is Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields.

Yet, why couldn’t they sign up a majority of scientists in the profession of the very climate change emergency they wish to sanctimoniously lecture us on? And we are paying billions to these schools to educate us? Hmmm.

Many of the woke academia come from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender, racism…are you catching the drift of those supporting XR? Even Monash University’s Campus Operations Manager and Telephony Application Administrator signed it! Wonderful individuals but should we hold our educators to such high standards when anyone’s opinion will do?

Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science. Which means, why weren’t the scientists in these universities willing to commit their names to a cause that fits their ideology? Who needs them when one faculty member from Monash University deals with ‘Imaginative Education‘?

61% of the signatories were from universities situated in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria. Within that, 65 (more than all those that signed from NSW universities = 63) of those 164 names from Victoria were from RMIT, the school where the lecturer offered bonus points for sending selfies from the school climate strike. Precious little free thought one imagines.  Monash had 44. So two universities in Melbourne made up 109 of the 268 Add La Trobe University and half of the signatories are from Victoria. Premier Dan Andrews must be proud.

Tinonee Pym, a research assistant at the Swinburne University of Technology in NSW helped pen,

C’mon, no one wants a dick pic’: exploring the cultural framings of the ‘dick pic’ in contemporary online publics

Undoubtedly this research has only certified climate science credentials at Swinburne University to convince sceptics of the validity of XR.

Southern Cross University was the only group of signatories where the majority had a connection to a faculty related to climate science.

On reflection we should be exceptionally happy these woke academics have opened themselves up to how empty their rhetoric is. The overwhelming majority of signatories are from liberal arts backgrounds. Surely with the aggregate IQ of 268 people they could have realized the flaw in pushing a cause where the qualified people that can prosecute the argument for them are conspicuously absent.

We need a Royal Commission on our education system. The gaping holes in standards are self-evident. This is an unmitigated clown show.

Open letter to the Hon. Cate Faehrmann MLC

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann MLC,

The public wishes at all times for politicians to represent them. However, a member of parliament should refrain from full-blown activism. No one questions reasoned conviction. There is a difference.

However, is it right for you to openly support rallying protestors to potentially disrupt law enforcement in the neighbouring state of Queensland over Adani? To then claim Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk’s government was out of line to “silence climate and anti-Adani activists” who were disrupting a public that overwhelmingly voted in favour of Adani going ahead. Perhaps you might reflect on what some may view as a double standard of silencing those that criticize you for failing to prosecute arguments on your own social media pages?

Do you represent the people of NSW or Queensland? Because if it is the latter you should be running for office there. We have no business meddling in their politics as much as they have no say in how ours is run. That’s how democracy should behave.

In what should have been an important speech you made about women’s rights on abortion, you had to drag it into irrelevant mudslinging surrounding the gender pay gap (illegal), identity politics (feminism) and treating domestic violence as a one-way street.

According to a UK study on domestic violence,

“Male victims  (39%) are over three times as likely than women (12%) not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.

The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has increased sevenfold since 2004/05. From 806 in 2004/05 to 5,641 in 2015/16…In 2015, 119,000 men reported to English and Welsh police forces stating they were a victim of domestic abuse. 22% of all victims who report to the police are male. In 2012, 73,524 men did…

Men don’t leave abusive relationships for various reasons – the top reasons being: concern about the children (89%), marriage for life (81%), love (71%), the fear of never seeing their children again (68%), a belief she will change (56%), not enough money(53%), nowhere to go (52%), embarrassment (52%), not wanting to take kids away from their mother (46%), threats that she will kill herself (28%) and fears she will kill him (24%). 

Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer from partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.

Let’s be clear – domestic violence is abhorrent on every level, but it is disingenuous to suggest it is a one-way street because it is simply not. Thank God for those toxic males who took out a knife-wielding perpetrator in Sydney’s CBD recently. You may note that Gillette has now flipped its ‘woke’ advertising campaign to champion what it recently censured to the cost of US$8bn in destroyed market value.

You even took the liberty in your speech to have another swipe at Alan Jones AO in what one can only deduce in the hope he loses his job. You went as far as highlighting ‘male’ and ‘female’ in bold font when referring to him. To what aim?

Unfortunately for you, his career is a matter for his employers, not for a NSW MLC with an axe to grind. He broke no laws. If this speech was truly about abortion, why the need to attack a radio presenter for holding different beliefs to you? He admitted he crossed a line and apologized for it sincerely and publicly, including a letter to PM Ardern who gracefully taunted him back with a sledge over the likely outcome in the Bledisloe Cup. Touché. Two adults who made peace between the only parties concerned.

Since when is it your business, or anyone else’s, to barrack for his dismissal? If you support free speech then you should support it even when those views clash with your own, including Alan Jones. People can make their own minds up about him. He has been put on notice by his employer. It has been sickening to witness those utterly spineless advertisers hiding behind self-censorship post the Ardern event.

If we looked at the ratio of men Jones has pilloried on his radio program over the years it would far outweigh any misogynistic narratives you secretly must wish to be true. It would be safe to assume you are not a regular 2GB listener in the mornings. Perhaps you might ask Peta Credlin if she believes he is the misogynist you charge him to be to cohost a Sky news program with her? For your speech on abortion could be equally interpreted as misandry, given the one-sided stance it took.

Yet on the subject of abortion, it might help to delve into all of the facts.

It is an absolute necessity to ensure safe hospital/clinic-based abortions are made available where it is warranted and necessary. It should never be seen as a way to sacrifice those on the altar of convenience, especially where some cultures choose to do so on the basis of gender, usually at the expense of females. So much for feminism.

Do you think this is only a traumatic thing for women? Is it possible that some fathers of the fetus can suffer considerable anguish with regards to termination? Should they wish to raise by themselves, should they be denied that right, no matter how small the probability of such a scenario?

1,000 women may die from unsafe abortions in The Philippines. It is terrible. Your speech made reference to the WHO and the five million women hospitalised from abortion-related complications. 47,000 die. Another awful statistic.

Perhaps you might look at the even more ghastly stats on abortion.

c.700,000 fetuses are terminated in America each year. Down from 1.4 million in 1990. Hardly stats to cheer about. Of course, the arguments for a woman’s right to choose will always be thrown at pro-lifers. Yet allowing termination until birth in places like New York, a city that lit up monuments in celebration of being able to terminate right up to the point of delivery rightly raises concerns about infanticide.

Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, some 56 million abortions occur annually. Every. Single. Year. To think that WWII saw 50 million deaths in 6 years of conflict with the widespread use of lethal weapons. So abortions kill at a far higher rate than global conflict. What a sobering thought.

Now even the religious “far-right”, as you call them, can distinguish between medical need and the irresponsibility of couples to engage in sexual activity. RU-486 was supposed to be the miracle cure that ended abortion for good but the numbers remain so high. It is tragic. We should all reflect on how to improve the choice set made available.

You claim that a mother might not be positioned to give the best start in life to a child. Is that the only out? What might the fetus say? Unfortunately, the fetus doesn’t get any rights and this is what some “far-right” people question. You might argue it is just a clump of pre-formed cells. What if that tissue turned into the next Einstein or Mother Teresa? You would actually find more pro-life advocates support alternatives to abortion, including far more robust adoption facilities to give the unborn the right to life. At the moment the current rushed debate in NSW Parliament is purely binary.

With respect to Planned Parenthood (PP), only 3% of its patients are abortion-related in number. Most of it is related to pap smears, health checks, birth control and other consultations. Yet in its latest annual filing, every single division saw a decline in business activity except abortion and guess what? Total revenues rose appreciably. Which essentially means that abortion is the highest margin service offered by PP.

Which begs the question, why is there a pressing need to rush abortion legislation in NSW? People are free to travel to Queensland or Victoria to have it conducted as much as someone in Alabama can travel to New York to have a procedure.

That is not a valid reason to prevent an update to abortion legislation in NSW but it has been so ill-considered and done under unnecessary pressure without balanced and reasonable debate or due process. It deserves nothing less, even if it includes dragging those from the stone-age kicking and screaming. No wonder the Premier has had to back down. It was poorly executed from the start.

You’ll find the “far-right” less of a menace by allowing reasoned legislation based on common sense and civil discourse.

As far as forcing doctors to conduct abortions against their conscience, that is something that has no place in any legislation. There will undoubtedly be enough medical practitioners who do not carry guilt in conducting abortions yet the state has no place forcing the will on those who don’t. Surely the marketplace in our digital world can quickly separate those who will and won’t terminate fetuses purely based on gender selection.

If you truly wish to advance the cause of women’s rights, engage all sides of the debate. Your opinions are as valid as those on the other side of the coin. They should be weighed by the market of free speech.

The power of listening to all perspectives is what is needed more than ever in politics. Instead of defending your own, defend those of others. If your arguments are compelling then they will stand on their own merit.

Yours sincerely,

M. Newman

Climate change – as should be taught to school kids

Image result for climate strike school

Thank you SMcK.

“Attention, students. Because so many of you missed Friday’s classes, what with your little climate party and all, today I’m assigning extra work.

Let’s begin with mathematics. 558,400,000 is a really big number. Can anyone here tell me what it might represent? No?

Well, that’s the amount in tonnes of carbon dioxide that Australia emitted last year.

I’ll just pause here for a minute until Samantha stops crying. By the way, Samantha, your sign at the climate rally needed a possessive apostrophe and “planet” was spelt incorrectly, so I’m putting you back in remedial English again.

Where were we? Oh, yes. 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Let’s see how we can reduce that number. Ban coal mining? That’ll knock off a big chunk.

Ban petrol-powered vehicles? Good call. That’s another slab of emissions gone.

Does the class believe we should ban all mining? You do. Interesting. For your homework tonight, I want you all to design batteries that contain no nickel or cadmium.
Good luck getting to school in electric cars without those.

And there’ll be no more steel wind turbines once the iron ore mines are closed. It’s just the price we’ll have to pay, I suppose.

Even with all those bans, however, Australia will still be churning out carbon dioxide by the magical solar-powered truckload. Cuts need to go much further.

More people means more human activity which means more carbon dioxide, so let’s permanently ban immigration. Is the class agreed?

Hmmm. You’re not quite so enthusiastic about that one. Come on, students. Sacrifices must be made.

Speaking of which, how many of you have grandparents? Not any more you don’t.
And Samantha is crying again. Can someone please take her to the school safe space and let her “process some emotions”, or whatever the hell it is you kids do in there? Thank you.

Sing along with Kim Carnes: “All the world knows of her charms/She’s got/Stop Adani arms”

Who agrees we need to simplify our lives in order to reduce emissions? Returning to earlier times, when emissions were much lower, might help save our earth.

So goodbye to air travel, the internet and your cell phones. People got by without them in the past and they’ll survive without them in our sustainable future.

Still, those emissions will be way too high. Just for fun, let’s ban Australia and see what happens.

All factories, houses, streets, farms – gone. All people gone. Every atom of human presence on this land mass, completely erased.

At that point we’ll have finally cut our emissions to nothing. We’ve subtracted an annual 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Congratulations, children. By eliminating Australia, you’ve just reduced the world’s yearly generation of carbon dioxide from 37,100,000,000 tonnes to just … 36,541,600,000 tonnes.

Still, every tiny reduction helps, right? Maybe not. Let’s have a quick geography lesson. Tyler, please point out China on this map. No; that’s Luxembourg. China is a bit bigger. Try over here. There you go.

Here’s the thing about China. How long will it take for China to produce the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that we’ve slashed by vanishing Australia? One year? Two years? Five years?

Not quite. Start the carbon dioxide clock on China right now, and that one enormous nation will have matched our annual output in 20 days, for China adds a whole Australia to the global emissions total in that time.

For that matter, China will have added another 1,190,953 tonnes by the end of this one-hour class.

Even a tiny increase in China’s output puts Australia in the shade. Various experts last year estimated that China was on course for a five per cent carbon dioxide boost.
This would mean an extra 521,637,550 tonnes – or basically what Australia generates. Our total is the same as China’s gentle upswing.

So maybe your protest was in the wrong country. Here’s another assignment: write letters to the Chinese government demanding it stops dragging people out of poverty.
Make sure you include your full name and address, because the Chinese government is kind of big on keeping records. Send a photograph of yourself standing in front of your parents’ house.

You might repeat this process in India. In fact, rather than going to Europe for your next big family holiday, prevail upon your parents to visit India instead. The tiny village of Salaidih would be the perfect place to tell slum-dwelling residents they shouldn’t have electricity.

They’ll probably thank you for it. Or they should, if they aren’t stupid climate deniers. Indian paupers must avoid making the same tragic affluence mistakes as us, so we must keep their carbon footprints as tiny as possible.

Can you imagine how terrible is would be for the earth if all of India’s one billion-plus population owned cars and air-conditioners? It really doesn’t bear thinking about.
One further assignment: tonight, locate a clean, green alternative source for $66 billion in exports. That’s how much was raised last year by the Australian coal industry.
Working it out won’t be too much of a challenge, I’m sure. After all, you know science and stuff. About half of your signs on Friday claimed you know more about all these things than does the Prime Minister.

Show him how advanced your brains are by devising a brand-new multi-billion export bonanza.

Hey, look who’s back! Feeling better, Samantha? That’s nice. Feelings are the most important thing of all.”

BoM strikes again

BoM

Jo Nova has an interesting piece which describes the shameless behaviour of our Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). She notes,

The Streaky Bay information (site 018079) tells us it opened in 1865 but the site only has monthly data from 1926 and daily data from an even shorter period. The rest presumably hasn’t been digitized yet. As best as I can tell, the station metadata appear to mark this site as being at the post office from 1865 to 2018, and record the ground cover as becoming asphalt in July 1987. That means for 31 years the Australian Bureau of Meteorology knew the site was sitting on hot bitumen and couldn’t be bothered to move it? The BOM gets more than a million dollars a day, and claims there’s a dire crisis running, and they don’t even care enough to measure climate change properly? They’re not even trying.

If you click on the Streaky Bay information site link above you’ll be directed to a “page not found.”

Jo Nova demands a Royal Commission (RC) into the BoM. CM agrees. If they have nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. People might claim it is a waste of money to host a RC on the BoM but the savings of that investment would far outweigh the billions spent on poorly derived data-driven expenditure on renewables.

Cate Faehrmann plays investor for a day

Investment managers have difficult jobs. They have to forecast a whole plethora of variables from global economic growth, currencies, commodity prices and micro level corporate industries. If governments can provide ironclad policy certainty, investment choices become relatively easier. Unfortunately, perfect information detracts from performance because things get priced almost instantaneously.

It might be nice that 415 funds all call for a ratification of Paris Climate Accord (which means nothing in practice as the US isn’t a signatory and its emissions have fallen while China is a signatory and emissions continue to rise) but truth be told,  it sounds what is commonly termed in financial circles as “talking one’s book.” NSW Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann pretends to understand finance in her latest piece.

While these 415 firms might represent $32 trillion in assets under management (AUM), the truth is not all of those funds are spoken for in terms of climate-related investments. Investment advisors by their very nature have very diverse client bases. They cover basic low-risk pension (i.e. stable income) funds all the way to riskier return profiles for clients that want more exposure to certain themes or countries. If clients aren’t interested in buying climate funds, the asset managers don’t gather fees. Pretty simple.

Much of the fund industry has focused on ESG (environment, social responsibility & governance) since its inception in 2005. ESG represents around $20 trillion of global AUM, or 25% of total professionally managed funds. Therefore the other 75% of monies are deployed without this in mind. In reality, this is done because investment managers must hunt for the best returns, not those which sacrifice profitability for virtue. If NAB offered you a 10% 1-yr deposit and no solar panels on the HQ roof and Westpac offered a 1% 1-yr deposit because it did, would you invest in the latter based on its ecomentalism?

Let’s take the world’s largest public pension fund (2 million members), California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) which is a cosignatory to this demand for climate action. Apart from the fact that this $380bn fund has been so poorly managed (marked to market unfunded liabilities are c.US$1 trillion), its portfolio consists of widespread ownership of met coal, petroleum and other mining assets. It owns bonds in fossil-fuel producing nations such as Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well as highly environmentally unfriendly aluminium smelters in the world’s biggest polluter, China. So there goes the rhetoric of “demanding” Paris is ratified, that we shift to a low carbon economy and we force companies to report their carbon commitments.

It is frightening that some members of our political class believe that investment managers which collaborate in groupthink are worthy of listening to. On the contrary, the performance of many must be sub par. It is a sad reality that 80% of large-cap fund managers fail to outperform the index on a regular basis. So praying for governments to backstop investments they deployed capital into shows more desperation than innovation.

Maybe we should think of Adani as a classic example of investment at work. While Annastacia Palaszczuk’s government is backflipping on the Adani Carmichael coal mine after the electoral drubbing handed out to federal colleagues, the voluntary infrastructure tax is a cynical way to try to make the project less financially viable. After 8 years of ridiculous and onerous environmental approvals, Adani probably think it only needs to wait til October 2020 when an election will wipe out Queensland Labor from government and the infrastructure tax will be repealed soon after.

CM has long held that the non-ESG names are the place to invest. Most of the auto-pilot, brain dead, virtue signalling group think money has been poured into ESG. All non-ESG companies care about is profitability, not focusing on all the soft cuddly things they do displayed on the corporate lobby TV screens on a loop. Sadly when markets inevitably implode, investors always seek safe havens to limit the damage. As so much money is collectively invested together, so the bigger the stampede to the relatively attractive values provided by the stocks that have been cast aside by “woke” investors.