COMMUNITY
Dear Editor, There are a number of issues that I would like to raise in response to the article ‘Climate Change’ by Philip Williams. In his first sentence he states that ‘climate change science is settled’. It may well be if one inhabits an echo chamber in which only one side of the argument is aired and the views of the ‘sceptics’ denied time on TV or column-centimetres in the newspapers. To his credit Philip is prepared to admit that variations in the Earth’s temperature have occurred often in earlier times. However, now is different because of ‘the unprecedented rate of change of our Earth’s temperature’. This, he says is caused by the burning of fossil fuel. This increases the gas CO2 in the atmosphere which through the greenhouse effect gives rise to global warming. If we examine the data on which this hypothesis is based, we find a dilemma. In earlier times, before man burnt coal, swings in the Earth’s temperature were as rapid as those we see over the last 200 years. More importantly, we observe that the Earth’s temperature rises, followed some time later by an increase in atmospheric CO2. This suggests that increases in CO2 are caused by increases in the Earth’s temperature, not the other way round. As for the statement that tens of thousands of scientists can’t be wrong; had Philip been a Physics student he would have been well aware that many well-established theories get radically changed in the light of further studies. A case in point being Newton’s wave theory of light which reigned supreme for 250 years before being drastically modified in 1905 by Einstein. Furthermore, if I would 70
be allowed more columncentimetres I could address the ‘myths and misconceptions’ concerning CO2 being the primary greenhouse gas. Michael Cavenor- Bongaree Dear Editor, The article by Philip Williams in the July 15th issue deserves challenging: * Scepticism, constant questioning, is the basis of science. Denigrating those whose opinions differ is not evidence. * There is a concern in scientific circles that there is more and more acceptance based on consensus rather than on evidence. Williams’ article is full of this “bandwagon hypothesis." “Eminent people all believe” is not scientific evidence. Scientists who dispute the statistics are also highly qualified and knowledgeable. * As CO2 constitutes only 0.04% of the atmosphere it is difficult to accept that small changes around this figure have major effects even if the balance is delicate. The following points are not addressed in the article: * Electricity stored by batteries has to be produced by whatever power sources are in operation. * Can renewable energy sources satisfy the demand and at what cost? * The manufacture of steel and other material in wind turbines etc generates greenhouse emissions. * Wind turbines etc are not recyclable. There are concerns about the huge amount of landfill their disposal necessitates. * Apparently it may take something like 5 years for an electric car under normal use to save the amount of greenhouse emissions
www.thebribieislander.com.au
The Bribie Islander
produced by its manufacture. * Battery manufacture requires rare earths etc imported from “developing countries” which utilise child and other slave labour. * I have seen pictures of acres of abandoned electric cars, the cost of replacement batteries being uneconomic. * Australia produces 2% of the world’s emissions. Whatever difference there may be between Labor’s and the LNP’s policies won’t make a scrap of difference overall. So much for the validity of the recent election being decided on climate change policies. I don’t know the answers, but these points are needed to balance Philip Williams’ article. Best regards, (Dr) Peter Kraus Bellara Dear Editor, Voices 10th Anniversary: Following up on your coverage in the last issue: this is not just any choral group. Its performance in July was an afternoon of song, harmony, dance and acting - professionally presented with excellent sound and lighting. The costumes were great. Must mention the two young boys, Joe and Braydon, who dressed in period, and presented “Hamilton”. What a delight to have the young people wanting to join in and show their talents. Particular mention has been made of the sets. Hard not to pick just one or two for mention, but the Evita set was excellent. Hysterical presentation of “Stayin’ Alive”. Their shows are not to be missed. We have amazing talent on Bribie. Elizabeth Shepard Dear Editor, Ali King, queen of spin. Lots of money coming for roads health and education.
Unfortunately, it may all be Satellite Funding, years away, may not be appropriate, or reliable, or actually turn up. Despite massive budget deficits we still have reportedly the worst hospital system in Australia, education is in disarray. Over the last 10 years the government has added an extra 114,000 public servants to the payroll with no visible improvement in the services. We now have more bureaucrats than front line nurses. If you're going to have a heart attack on Bribie, probably best to book the ambulance 24 hours ahead, this will avoid the lifethreatening 8 hour wait for it to turn up. Education is no better, the children apparently have the shortest school year in Australia, and the worst results. The school leaver who wants to be a teacher may well need remedial education to cover the basics of English and maths so that they can get into university. But there's more, just recently, without any public consultation, the state government rezoned 100 ha of State Forest adjoining Banksia Beach to rural zoning. Down the track this wildlife habitat, that was going to be a renewable Carbon Capture area for generations to come, will be turned into a concrete and bitumen development. Increased congestion and the further loss of our Island lifestyle, please, no more spin. anonymous
