$34,000 in school fees buys an activist indoctrination, not an education


CM went to a private school in Sydney. In CM’s day, we were taught respect. To give up seats on the bus if adults got on. To open doors for others. To say thank you. You know, simple manners so devoid of the headphone-wearing, iPhone gazing secondary students today, completely oblivious to pregnant women or the elderly with walking sticks forced to stand on the bus or train.

To hear that Newington College and SCEGGS Darlinghurst are allowing kids to go on the school climate strike tomorrow is an utter farce. How is it that a school that charges up to $34,000 in fees, is prepared to allow kids (with parental permission) to strike? Where is the standard of one set of rules that all must adhere to? Where is the discipline?  At what point will such activism be acceptable to other pet grievances of brain-washed kids, undoubtedly at the behest of teachers pushing their own agendas? Why not teach kids that they can’t just get their way if they protest enough?

One can understand the school respecting and observing long-standing religious days for kids of certain faiths but all this action suggests is that there is a cabal of staff who are activists in the classroom espousing their own political agendas. The headmaster has apparently caved to a bunch of Yr 11 students because climate change must be a religion in and of itself. 

Newington’s own motto, ‘in fide scientam’ (in the faith of all knowledge), suggests the school now no longer adheres to its core values. To allow this simply says that teachers are getting away with brainwashing. Where is the balance? Wouldn’t the majority of parents hope the $34,000 to help provide their kids with a jump start instead of an idiots guide to civil disobedience? Why not dispense with the uniform or replace the blazer emblem with one from Extinction Rebellion?

So what of the stats? For national ATAR scores, Newington’s rank has slipped from 78th in 2013 to 99th in 2018. SCEGGS Darlinghurst has gone from 23rd to 25th over the same period.

Over recent years, Australia’s global education standards have been slipping – in science, maths and English. What a surprise when our academic institutions fold to trendy left-wing causes. Perhaps if they focused on “education” as opposed to “indoctrination” that the long-term prospects for these kids would rise appreciably.

Australia’s future looks grim – not so much for the planet but for the prospects of the coming generations who have been completely misled as to what is actually important and relevant out there in the real world.

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.

AOC is at it again with feelings over facts

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is at again. She thinks she can put solar panels on 25% of Rikers Island and dispense with every toxic (presumably fossil fuel) power plant in New York built in the last two decades.

It takes around 32 acres of solar to power 1,000 homes. 25% of Rikers Island works out at 103 acres so by the maths it could power 3,000 homes.

Given that New York gets 42.3% of its power mix from evil natural gas that might be a problem for some of the 3.159mn households if she closes them down. Although taking out gas power leaves her to look after the 1.34m households (42.3%).

Expanding it out she would need to think the following equation

25% Rikers Island x 4 x (1,336,000 / 3000) =

To carry out her plan she’d need at least 445 entire Rikers Islands to meet that demand. Or 1,781 times her initial plan.

Even if she were to look after the 503,000 households in the Bronx her plan would still be only 0.15% of the way there.

Perhaps she should pave solar panels to Hawaii in order that we won’t have to fly there…