Did Monash miss out on sports funding?

How many of our sports clubs are feeling a little guilty given the so called ‘sports rorts’ affair that took place prior to the last election?

More to the point how many missed out on the largesse of the allocated money having spent hundreds of hours applying in the first place?

Monash is not a marginal electorate and as such our community has paid quite a price. All that effort and time volunteered for not much at all.

Surely our MP, Russell Broadbent, made representations on our behalf, but perhaps he couldn’t hold sway over the real decision makers in the government.

The Auditor General’s report was scathing and recent details have emerged that funding was allocated based on the government’s need to hold or win seats. Some applications were handed in up to six months after the closing date. Others were successful despite being a very low priority by Sports Australia.

I find it hard to understand, let alone countenance that our elected representatives, who are charged with spending public money on our behalf, spend it on ways that are designed to keep them in their jobs.

Accountability and ministerial codes of conduct are things of the past. To say that it was okay because the other side have done it, is both childish and deceitful.

Laws may not have been broken but they were bent to snapping point. Political ethics are on life support. We elect people to make decisions on our behalf, not theirs.

The opening line of a minister’s oath of office reads, “I do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia…” How meaningless those words now seem.

We spend billions on defence, education, health and other sectors, so the query may be, what does a meagre amount of $100 million matter? It matters because governments believe that they can simply use our money to buy votes. By my reckoning, that is undemocratic.

Greg Tuck, Warragul

In quoting my own experience of such dodginess, which Mr Duck found self-indulgent, my narrative was rendered less coherent in relation to the other two cases because of a crucial excision of the behaviour of one of my senior colleagues.

Anyone who cares to Google “Angovian” and access the full PDF of the relevant paper will see that I acknowledge the helpful input of two colleagues, one who went on to become Professor and founding Dean of a new Australian Medical School and the other who became Professor and Director of a Graduate School in China. I had wanted to thank a third senior colleague but he asked me to refrain in his case, explaining that our masters at the parent faculty would not like my paper and he needed to distance himself from it.

Even though my own experience is small beer compared to the other two, I fear that all three are typical of an academic world that is increasingly beholden to consensus-driven research funding and the necessary lowering of academic standards to attract and retain greater numbers of foreign students.

This is why I find Mr Peck’s challenge to 'climate deniers', a classification that is often perceived to include Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptics – to find a single institution among the world’s top 100 universities accommodating any such 'denial' or even AGW skepticism – so “powerfully instructive”.

Brian Chapman, Drouin constantly changing and has warmed 0.9 degrees since 1880.

The question is, what is causing the change? Is it man-made CO2 emissions or other factors? I am happy to be referred to as an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) sceptic because plenty of research has me questioning CO2 as the villain.

This does not make me an armchair expert or pretentious as some suggest. By researching what scientists say I become better informed.

Which leads to the next ill-informed viewpoint, that 97 per cent of scientists agree’, a ‘consensus of scientists’, ‘the science is settled’, or ‘there is no debate’.

Everyone who trots out these lines needs to do some research. There are thousands of scientists, including some of the most highly credentialled climate scientists in the world, who are AGW sceptics.

It is ridiculous to dismiss these people as ‘deniers’ and ignore their science. Debunk the science, not the scientist.

If you get your viewpoint only from Extinction Rebellion, Al Gore, The Guardian, or even our national broadcaster, then you are seriously illinformed.

Wouldn’t it be a good thing to move to a new, informed and researched debate in The Gazette rather than trotting out the same old propaganda constantly?

I will kick it off with this - one reason why I am an AGW sceptic.

If you look at a graph of Mean Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2010 you will notice that 40 per cent of the 0.9 degree of warming during that period occurred between 1910 and 1940 during which time CO2 emissions only increased by 10 per cent.

Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a cooling period while CO2 emissions increased further.

Does this not suggest that factors other than CO2 are influencing the warming and, that being the case, put into question recent warming being attributed solely to CO2 emissions?

Will Allgood, Jindivick

A huge bouquet to organisers of the eighth annual Longwarry/ Trafalgar heritage truck and vehicle display. Congratulations also to the senior and junior football display, Pete, Helen, Owen and all of the workers and sponsors. Well done also to Sylvia the raffle seller and the can man after all every empty can raises money for Royal Flying Doctor and cancer research. A great effort in the extreme heat, rain and then nice sunshine.

Bouquets to Casey\Cardinia Libraries on the investment made into the mobile libraries.