October 2021

Gladys Berejiklian.

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 from?

Regardless. 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.

I also suggest that (like USA "Grand Juries") perhaps ICAC should not be permitted to reveal what it is investigating. Investigations 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.

Upfront I 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.

1) Professor 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 in greenhouses?

And the other fears? 

3) Dangerous 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.

No. Al Gore wasn't a scientist.  He was a politician.

Story: Fantasy policies promise a fairytale outcome

MAIL TO barvennon@hotmail.com