Global warming based on poor data
The whole climate change debate was initiated by researchers at the University of East Anglia in England. The fake data they had been advertising was uncovered by hackers digging into department emails. This revealed a huge fraud in processing temperature data. There was also clearly an agenda that was an attempt to intimidate anyone who disagreed with the global-warming advocates. Huge sums of money are involved. The head of the department has since admitted that there is no statistical evidence that global warming is man-made.
Investigations of the way temperatures have risen were gathered in order to publish average temperatures that would support global warming. In Siberia, hundreds of stations simply went off- line. This elimination of Russia’s coldest temperatures meant that the average temperature for Russia was bound to be higher. Temperatures for California, in the Sierra, were also dropped, and temperatures for Los Angeles and San Francisco were left in the calculation of the average temperature for California.
Temperatures for cities all suffer from the “heat island” effect, meaning that they are always higher than surrounding areas and the countryside in general, because people use power for their cars, appliances and other machinery.
Global warming is a means to have the public on the side of those who push such agendas and whose real intent is to make billions of dollars for themselves. Over and over, these situations are concocted with blatant lies and to ensure a buy-in by U.S. citizens, including stealing more of their hard-earned tax dollars.
Roger K. Jarvis
Los Altos Hills
New civic center would prove a burden
Like a bad penny, the new Hillview Community Center proposal keeps coming up. Although a straw poll several years ago showed that residents do not favor a bond proposal, our city council keeps trying to push this onto us.
I understand that the current facilities were built in the 1950s. However, there is no reason they cannot be maintained and where necessary remodeled. My house was built in the 1950s, and I consider myself fortunate to have it.
It is not clear whom this expensive new facility would benefit. Certainly not senior citizens already struggling to pay their property taxes. Certainly not young families, most of whom cannot afford to live here anyway. Bottom line, this is an unnecessary extravagance and tax burden.