Letters To The Editor

Dear Editor, Great to see a local paper with an all-woman team and my compliments on the latest issue with a terrific wide range of articles on what’s happening in the community. I went to Primary School on Bribie and lived here for 14 years, now returning regularly to visit my mother. When I come back, I am reminded of the incredible natural beauty of the place and often discover something new. this time it was Bibimulya wetlands, the Indigenous walk near Cotterill Avenue and the shell midden at White Patch. So I have to ask, when there are so many wonderful photos that could be on the (Bribie Islander cover, why feature a glam power real estate couple with the confusing headline ‘Game Changing Real Estate Model - expansion for Growth’? I understand magazines need advertising money but I feel it’s inappropriate for a community paper to be such an obvious promotion for real estate and land development. The Moreton Bay region is already being threatened by over development and there is a real danger of this spoiling the reason why people want to live here in the first place… the gorgeous environment. Keep up the good work, but next time how about a photo of a pair of white bellied sea eagles or a jetty sunset on the cover? Kind regards Sherry Plant statistics used for the different viewpoints, since Statistics can be manipulated and misused! Since the beginning of industrialisation, we have pumped large amounts of pollution into the environment.... a wonderful cocktail which we breathe in every day. Common sense would tell us to reduce our pollution output. It would cost little to reduce the pollution. If the reduction would make no difference to our health, then nothing but a few dollars is lost, however, the benefits could be could huge. So why not err on the safe side and stop this illogical debate. Horst Schroeder

Your correspondent, H Beneke, conceded in her recent letter that ‘Almost everything that I had to say (on the likely causes of Climate Change) was true’. Yet she totally ignored these comments in her letter. In her view global warming is still all about man made emissions of Carbon Dioxide. By implication 1) all sources of natural CO2 are negligible, 2) effects of water vapour as a greenhouse gas is negligible and 3) well established cycles of variations in the sun’s output are negligible. I have often wondered why Climate Change adherents claim that the ‘science is settled’. Now I see. They just ignore the facts. We have never had an impartial debate. I wonder whether HB attended the recent public talk by Professor Ian Plimer that I organised last month. 140 Bribie Island residents enthusiastically received Professor Plimer’s message that there is no evidence that global warming is caused by mankind. The likely cost to Australia of banning the use of fossil fuels is enormous. Electricity prices are already rising as coal fired power stations are closed down. Nuclear power is also being ruled out by our Greens/ Left politicians. Climate is changing naturally. We have very little influence. Let us not be scared witless by climate change activists and the leftist media. Dr Michael Cavenor, PhD (Physics) Bongaree.

Dear Editor, I note, with increasing irritation, the number of letters supplied to your esteemed publication expressing the views of the contributor, "name and address supplied". No matter how sagacious or otherwise these views may be, surely, we have not reached the point when we dare not put our names to our opinions for fear of midnight visits by the equivalent of the KGB, leading to “disappearances" of an unmentionable kind. Nor am particularly interested in the opinions of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and his ilk, though at least these characters supply both baptismal and family names to their beliefs and reflections. Yours Truly, Whinging Pom.

Dear Editor I refer to the article in the 6 October issue of your magazine, titled, The Charles Eaton by Al Finegean. The author produced an interesting article concerning the fate of the Charles Eaton. The introduction though does need some added comment, just for the sake of accuracy. The statement that in the late 18th Century sailing ships returning to England had to pass through the Torres Strait is not accurate. From the earliest voyages of discovery and those that followed, sailing ships from England and Europe followed what was known as “The Great Circle Route”. In its simplest form, this meant the ships sailed south from England and Europe, between Africa and South America, until they reached the southern Latitudes, they picked up the strong trade winds known as the “Roaring Forties” and literally turned left, crossed the globe under Australia then sailed up the east coast, to their destination. On their return to England or Europe, their route led them east, again picking up the “Roaring Forties”, below New Zealand, then back around Cape Horn, then north between South America and Africa saving time and distance. Simply this route was a Great Circle of the globe. Sailing ships by definition, had to utilize prevailing winds, and owing to the limitations of early sea navigation, this route proved the best available. Of course, some sailing ships did travel different routes, especially to Asia. But by far the majority used the route described above. Things changed dramatically in 1869, with the opening of the Suez Canal, greatly reducing the distance between Britain and Australia as ships no longer needed to travel around southern Africa. An excellent example and description of this route may be found in Geoffrey Blainey’s book “The Tyranny of Distance”.