Jennifer Marohasy has written one of the best blogs that is anti the warming alarmist narrative.

OK.  So nobody can deny that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.  Glass permits high frequency (4,000 to 7000 Angstrom units, aka visible light) to pass through it and permit photosynthesis.  However it is opaque to infra red (aka heat) of less than 4,000 Angstrom units.   That's why it's the material of a greenhouse. Similarly is Carbon Dioxide a transmitter of visible light, but not of heat.
But just how much heating Carbon Dioxide causes is open to question.  And that answer is determined experimentally, by comparing global temperatures to Carbon Dioxide concentration.  And there is a question being raised by Jennifer (above)


As for the cause of bushfires, I quote from Roger Underwood in "The Australian of 20th December 2019, who claims 60 years experience in bushfire management..

The “climate change is causing bushfires” position has two killer flaws. It takes no account of fuels. And it prescribes no practical actions that will help with the immediate bushfire threat. Ignoring fuel is an error of astonishing magnitude. In Bushfire 101 we learned about the fire triangle. A bushfire can occur only if three things are present: oxygen (in the air), fuel (to burn) and heat (a source of ignition to get the fire started).

If any one of the three is missing, no fire.

Nothing can be done to remove the air and the oxygen it contains. Nothing can be done to stop bushfires starting. They will be lit by lightning strikes or started by humans, deliberately or accidentally.

....In my opinion, the intervention from the “fire chiefs” is political, based on the “take action on climate change” agenda rather than the “fix the bushfire crisis now” agenda.

As a kid we did burnoffs out at Condobolin.  I read with amazement that it is now illegal ($1,000,000 fine) for farmers to collect fallen dead branches from national parks adjoining their properties.


Brexit is an illustration of the difference between an "democratic" culture solving issues and a non democratic culture.  Another example is Russia, which allowed territories in eastern Europe to leave the USSR.  Also Sudan and Singapore.

In all the above, a sub group disagreed with the route being followed by a majority, and were permitted to vote on whether to leave that majority.

If a significant group of people want to leave a community, they should be allowed to vote on the issue.

The following are groups worldwide who want to leave the nation of which they are a sub group.

  • Basque (Spain)
  • Crimea, East Ukraine  (Ukraine)
  • Hong Kong, Tibet, Sin Kiang (China)
  • West Kalimantan (Indonesia)
  • Kurds (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria)

I have probably left quite a few off this list, an issue I will update as I become aware.

If you have suggestions, please email them.