LETTERS News Weekly
, September 29, 2012
Global warming is real
News Weekly, which claims to be a news magazine, has recently published articles denying the actuality of climate change, specifically global warming, and quotes only one reference in support of this hypothesis.
Nowhere are the published findings of thousands of scientists knowledgeable in this field, and the evidence from which they draw their opinions, given credence or even quoted. Instead, News Weekly quotes the views of one or two dissenters, or publicises a prediction that has not yet come to fruition (but used in a derogatory manner to discredit all the science).
It is not just climate science that points unmistakably to global warming, but medical, botanical and zoological science.
The occurrence in temperate areas of vector-borne diseases known previously only in tropical climates, the movement to and survival at higher altitude (hence previously cooler climates) of a whole range of plants and animals, the earlier budding of spring plants — the list goes on.
And surely no-one can deny the retreat of the polar sea ice.
Keeping up with the information on such a broad area is difficult, but to simply seek out the opinions that agree with one’s own political or belief structure does a disservice to your readers.
Global warming is not a left-wing assault upon capitalism, as would seem to be the assumption of your articles; it is an evidence-based reality, the best explanation for which is the measured increase in greenhouse gases and other atmospherically active chemicals derived from human activities.
I highly recommend to your readers an article by Stefan Rahmstorf, entitled “If 2013 breaks heat record, how will deniers respond?”, in the New Scientist magazine (issue 2880, September 3, 2012). It explains the principles of what is occurring with the climate and challenges News Weekly’s claim about there being no temperature increase.
Kim L. Critchley,
Clarence Park, SA
Separation of powers?
Dr Hal Colebatch has left little for me to add to his thorough demolition of Mike Carlton’s thinking (see “Justice Mason’s role in the 1975 Whitlam dismissal”, News Weekly, September 15); but one claim by Carlton needs to be squashed.
Dr Colebatch quotes Carlton as having written “Mason seems to have had an odd notion of the Westminster doctrine of the separation of powers, understandable in a first-year law student but startling in a former federal solicitor-general.”
The “odd notion” belongs to Mike Carlton, not to Sir Anthony Mason. It is a common misconception that Australia is governed by a doctrine known as the separation of powers. There is no such thing as a “Westminster doctrine of the separation of powers”.
The Constitution of the United States provides for complete separation of the executive, legislative and judicial arms of government.
Britain and Australia follow the Westminster system of responsible government — that is to say, the executive government is drawn from and responsible to the parliament. There is no formal separation between them.
We do not speak of legal separation of the judiciary from government, but independence of the judiciary recognised by time-honoured convention.
Glen Waverley, Vic.
The writer is a retired Victorian Prosecutor for the Queen
The green agenda
Google “Agenda 21”, to which Australia is a signatory, and you will find it too complicated for most people to understand.
Within that website go to “The Green Agenda”, which is only about four pages, and you will find how we are committed to handing control of Australia to United Nations bureaucrats, who claim to know how to run our country better than we do.
You don’t have to be a scientist or an engineer to understand the implications of giving away control of this country.
Robert Brooks ASTC, FAusIMM, CPMin, MIEAust, CPEng, NM,