NOVEMBER
2018
BEN
SANTER
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.
So?
CALIFORNIA
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.
CITY PARKS
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?
MAIL
TO barvennon@hotmail.com