I found this comment on a page of "The Australian" online.

At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the delegates sat until after midnight before agreeing on a statement which would have allowed for unbiased research into the drivers of changing climate. Overnight, climate "scientist" and activist Ben Santer redrafted the statement to assert that humans were causing warming and to focus science on demonstrating that. The delegates reconvened briefly to vote on what they had agreed on hours before and signed off and headed to the airport without, in most cases, realising that the motion had been significantly changed. From then on, the "science" was directed at demonstrating human causation rather than better understanding the very complex system of the Earth's climate.

And, increasingly, the UN process became an avenue for transferring funds from the wealthy countries to the poorer ones rather than genuine science. The doomster apocalyptic warnings have not come true, actual warming has not followed the script, so increasingly dire warnings and absurd so-called "deadlines for action" have been used to avoid serious scrutiny. It has never been demonstrated that any further warming will be net harmful, and warming so far has had some benefits - satellite surveys show that the Earth is greener than it has ever been, plants thrive on higher CO2 levels and require less water.

The only thing we know for certain about the future is that it will surprise us. Whether or not warming resumes, and whether or not it proves net harmful, reducing our capacity to deal with whatever future befalls through damaging and futile emissions-reduction programs has never made sense. The optimal policies are those which increase our capacity and resilience, through enterprise, innovation, self-reliance etc - all of which depend on smaller, less intrusive government, the reverse of what is happening in response to this non-threat.

Ben Santer does exist, and was in a position to do what was alleged.

I decided to ask the Internet if it was true that 97% of  climate scientists had established that warming was a fact.  The Guardian found that the paper that stated the 97% figure had the following mistakes..

Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.



There have been some bushfires in California.  Hundreds killed. Thousands missing.

California is a "greenie" state.  Like parts of Australia, burn off is prohibited.  In Australia, our farmers are not even allowed to feed mulga scrub to starving stock.

Not burning off in winter means there is a huge amount of fuel lying around, ready to feed any fire that may start in summer.

Perhaps we should fund a village in the outback where people who love nature & think burning off is evil can live.


The people of the world are moving from rural in to cities.  This means that those scraps of nature we call parks become more valuable.  When I visited New York I found many magnificent parks. Not just Central, but Union Square and others.  No politician in NY would dare to take away one inch of park.

In Sydney our government is flat out selling parks and other public land to developers.  Some of them have gotten quite rich.

Right now they are grabbing Centennial parkland and Moore park land for a tramway and for a parking area for sports events.

If it's so important, why don't the government take out a loan, buy land back from it's owners, and charge parking fees instead of stealing our public park land?