Because of a
press release by ICAC, Gladys has just
advised that as soon as a successor is
found she will resign as the highly
popular and successful premier of NSW.
ICAC is a
collection of lawyers who were
appointed to stop corruption.
They have advised that they are
investigating why Gladys provided Mr
McGuire, the member for Wagga for the
past 20 years with grants to chosen
local clubs which apparently allowed
him to profit.
Gladys has not
been accused of corruptly gaining
financial benefit. Apparently
the issue is that she provided Mr
McGuire with grants in return for
sex. One wonders whether there
were other members she obtained sex
She has not been found guilty, but has
said that she will resign at cabinet's
pleasure. (i.e. when a replacement
Premier is selected.)
I do not think
that most reasonable NSW voters would
feel that she has committed a
heinously corrupt action. Making
grants to various clubs to
assist/reward re-election is a fairly
standard practice in Australia.
Doing it to help a sex partner seems
entirely reasonable. It probably
happens throughout the business world,
and Bill Clinton did not get removed
from office for similar peccadillos.
I urge our NSW parliament not to appoint a replacement before ICAC releases a finding that results at the very least with a corruption charge.
suggest that (like USA "Grand
Juries") perhaps ICAC should not
be permitted to reveal what it is
should be concealed unless they
result in a criminal prosecution.
Below is an edited comment I made in "The Australian" recently. The Murdoch Press deleted it.
As a matter of
interest. Does any scientist who
even tries to challenge "Climate
Catastrophe" in the public media get
the same treatment? How would we
know???? We do know what
happened to Peter Ridd.
admit, carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas. Which means, in
scientific terms, that it is
transparent to visible light, but
opaque to infra red.
So visible light arrives at the earth's surface, is absorbed and re radiated as infra red by the surface, and captured by carbon dioxide before it is radiated to space.
But this effect is (see Arrhenius) logarithmic. If going from 0.028% to 0.042% (a 50% increase) caused a 1C rise, then science says we would need to raise the carbon dioxide to reach 0.063% to get a 2C degree rise, and science says we would need to reach about 0.1% to get a 3C rise.
And remember, it took about 300 years to raise carbon dioxide from 0.028% to 0.042%.
And the real issue is, warming is not bad.
Peter Ridd proved it was not
damaging the reef.
2) Any weather person would have to admit that a warmer world means increased evaporation hence increased worldwide precipitation (aka "rainfall"). Maybe the Sahara and central Australia will become fertile farmland, and the Mediterranean & France will become deserts?
So just grow
the food where it grows best. Maybe
And the other fears?
storms. Yes. So build houses to
withstand cyclones. That has been
done for centuries in central USA.
4) Rising sea levels? At best, the evidence is not solid that there is any serious increase. On current trends the rise will be about 30 centimetres by 2,100AD. So learn from the Dutch. Build Dykes.
Lets face it. Global warming (oops. Climate change) is a scam. Presidential loser Al Gore started the scam.
Gore wasn't a scientist. He
was a politician.
Story: Fantasy policies promise a fairytale outcome