Stats are deceptive, and I couldn't even find direct reference to them in the IGR.

Quote from the speech: "Way back, way back in the year 1900 92% was a magic number for female humans. A baby girl had a 92% probability of reaching 1 year of age, 12 months. Today there is a 92% chance that a baby girl will live to at least 67 years of age, not 1, 67!!!. And by 2055, the life expectancy at birth is projected to be 97 for women." The exclamation marks are Karl's, not mine. The key words are "reach" and "live to". He is comparing completely different statistics. The only thing these two statistics have in common is that they are arbitrarily matched on the number 92%.

The actual female life expectancy at birth in 1900 was around 60 years of age.(http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Mar+2011).

Yes, the infant mortality rate (death by 1 year of age) in 1900 was about 10%. "The infant mortality rate is the number of deaths in a calendar year of children aged under one year per 1,000 live births in the same calendar year." But that means about 90% of females lived PAST one year of age, NOT ONLY TO one year of age. (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/d37892d01d1832c3ca2570ec000ace6e!OpenDocument)

I'm guessing the truth wouldn't sound as impressive. In the audience response section below (http://challengeofchange.gov.au/) the semi-hipster (source: saw racing bicycle and surfboard in interview background) genius entrepreneur Brad Smith shows that he fell for this: "The one fact was in the 1900's, 92% of females were expected to live and celebrate their first birthday. Then in 2055 it's expected that 92% of females are going to celebrate their 97th birthday."

Anyone with half an interest in the truth and 5 minutes on Google can verify the facts.

This speech was scripted to deceive, and was very well performed by one hell of a nice guy.