Climate Royal Commission

We need a Royal Commission into the science of climate change, not Julia Gillard's one-sided climate change committee, writes Dr Dennis Jensen MP.

Admission to the Gillard government’s climate change committee is very similar to admission to the former Soviet Union’s parliament, only people of one view need apply! In the case of the Soviet Parliament, in order to stand for election, you needed to be a member of the Communist Party (perhaps this is why the premise for the committee has so much appeal to Gillard, given her previous membership of the Socialist Alliance – a group who were essentially communist in outlook). In order to get onto the climate change committee, not only do you need to be a signed on anthropogenic global warming believer, but you also need to believe that the only way that you can address the problem is not only through abatement of carbon dioxide emissions, but you need to apply a price on carbon dioxide.

Let’s consider that human activity is causing global warming, and that carbon dioxide is the direct cause. Even under those circumstances, why is a price on carbon dioxide the only solution? Consider the introduction of nuclear power, for example. The Switkowski Report into nuclear power indicated that there would be a need for a price on carbon dioxide for nuclear to be competitive, but that factored in the then-current price of coal fired power. The more realistic cost of power and the fact that these power stations had effectively been subsidised when in government hands is now coming home to bite, with prices of electricity from coal fired power increasing such that nuclear would clearly be cost competitive. This confirms data from the USA and South Africa, both of which have abundant cheap coal and also nuclear power. This is clearly off the agenda for the Committee for Predetermined Outcomes.

Additionally, multiple other means have been discussed regarding mechanisms to, for example, reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation to “cool the planet”. These are clearly also off the table. Only putting a tax on the ubiquitous carbon dioxide will have any effect on the globes average temperature, it appears.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, in the first Question Time of the new Parliament made the Orwellian statement that the committee was to have a completely open mind. On what, pray tell, Prime Minister?

Clearly not on the questionable science of anthropogenic global warming! Julia Gillard, like her predecessor Kevin Rudd, has clearly demonstrated that she has no clue as to how scientific process actually works. Indeed, one needs only examine the Hansard of the Standing Committee on Science in the last Parliament, where we conducted hearings into the science of long range and seasonal weather forecasting to see those same scientists that make such unambiguous statements publicly are far more cautious when the evidence they produce, if found to be false or misleading can be found in contempt of Parliament. This is clear evidence for the need for a Royal Commission into the science of climate change, and particularly the parts played by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO.

The committee, as discussed before, will also not examine any mechanisms for “addressing” anthropogenic global warming (AGW) other than putting a price on carbon dioxide (note, not carbon, whose naturally occurring allotrope is graphite). This at a time when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is moving away from a price on carbon dioxide.

The simple fact is that the markets are actually, in a global sense, now not factoring in a price on carbon dioxide. Take the Chicago Carbon Exchange. After peaking at about $US7.50 per ton of carbon, it is now down to US5c, hardly a ringing endorsement of the argument that the market has factored in a price for carbon. Rather, the global market is factoring it out.

Then you get ignorant commentators like Bernard Keene on Crikey also stating that “The Coalition are also putting on some confected outrage that the committee is only open to members who believe in man-made climate change and support a carbon price. Reduced to basics, that means you have to be rational and economically-literate to participate”. In other words, according to Keene, you are only rational if you go along with the AGW dogma (so the likes of MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen, winner of a NASA prize Dr John Christy, amongst a host of others, are not “rational”), and you are only economically literate if you believe the “carbon price” and “action later is more costly” dogma, ruling out the likes of Prof Richard Tol and Prof Bjorn Lomborg. Sometimes you really need to wonder about intellectual pygmies criticising anyone who disagrees with their worldview.

In conclusion, I believe that there needs to be a review of the issue. The review needs to be rigorous, not some kludged up Committee of Predetermined Outcomes. A Royal Commission into the science is required.

Dr. Dennis Jensen is the Federal Member for Tangney.

Comments

[pk]

1.

"Clearly not on the questionable science of anthropogenic global warming! "

All science is up for questioning, that's what science is. However, the people who refuse to believe that the vast majority of the findings which point to man made climate change the world over, are not special beings to be fettered with royal commissions to try and convince them of something they'll never want to believe. They’d much rather place faith in the idea of media seeking, arrogant scientists, or lizard people trying to establish a world government from the UN. How can you reason with such people? Why should we pay good money to try to?

I’d have better luck spending money to convert a bunch of violent jihad Islamists to Modern humanist values- ain't. gonna. happen.

Everyone else has moved on. Get over it. Be constructive and for godssake - Stop whining!

PS- I still can't understand why you all aren't working feverishly to cash in on renewable, decentralised energy (BTW nuclear isn't renewable) boom heading our way.

[Louis Hissink]

2.

Pk, booms are created by governments and precede busts that inevitably occur after booms. Renewables?

The earth is host to a carbon based life form ranging from the subsurface deep hot biosphere feeding off hydrocarbons from the mantle, producing methane and adding a biogenic signature at the same time, which then upwells to the earth's surface where bacteria and continue to feed off the CH4 to produce CO2. That CO2 is then consumed by the plant kingdom which feeds some of the animal kingdom.

It's the complex carbon system which remains scientifically incomplete.

Taxing carbon is effectively taxing life itself for the crime of being alive, and anything we can do to delay, stifle, or wreck Lady Macbeth's Green unholy alliance is necessary.

I do sympathasise with your view that the ideologically committed are impossible to convert - even greater challenge is to convince the stupid that their stupidity will create a disaster, but when the stupid live in an alternate universe where anything goes, one could follow the sheeples and move on. Some of us, however, aren't that stupid.

[Grantley]

3.

I realise I'm on a hiding to nothing to here, and no doubt pk, along with others will see me as some kind of climate neanderthal. So be it.

Isn't the issue more about the "how" not the "why"?

By that I mean, "how" do we go about dealing with the issue of "global warming" or, as I would call it pollution? Today we even have international scientific bodies quietly stepping back from some of their claims (read The Australian) around global warming, again be that as it may.

Lets talk about the "how": I am yet to be convinced that puting a price on carbon will achieve anything more than puting up the price of what we consume daily.....and yes I hear pk screaming out "but that will lower consumption".....will it?
In some cases no doubt it will, in other cases it will just let the wealthy pay a bit more and go on doing exactly what they did yesterday with regard to emissions and feeling vindicated because they "paid" for it.....so please, humour me.....how does that achieve anything?

These people will be few in number, but what concerns me more & more is that this cost will be passed down to hapless consumer who is already struggling under the burden of just living day to day.....and these people are many in number and do not have too many alternatives left to them. Sure they can turn off the lights and huddle in a corner to keep warm, but is that the answer?

The call for reduced emissions is reasonable, but are the Chinese listening? Why is a diesel powered car so much more expensive in Australia than a petrol....do the numbers, it simply doesn't add up to buying a diesel ( I know, I am currently doing the exercise). So if diesel is so much better...why aren't we encouraging it? Manual gearboxes give a lot better fuel economy....but autos are still offered here (Europe has woken up a long time ago)

...so are we truly serious about emissions or are we just looking around for the next profit cow to milk and the hell with everyone else?

So, far from being 'over it', I am one sole individual who has strong concerns about the direction of this debate and has one eye fixed very firmly on the consequences.

What I am looking for out of this whole thing is a clear and concise plan on how "we" (Australians) are going to reduce emissions without going broke and still being able to afford electricity/gas/water, and as to how we integrate into what the rest of the planet does to achieve the same, which includes China & India, without surrendering our standard of living to the lowest common denominator or our sovereignty.

Ok, rant over..... rip into me.

[Pip from Melbourne]

4.

Grantley,

Far from ripping into you I think you are absolutely right. Business wants certainty in order to shut down all coal fired power stations, knowing they will either be compensated directly or be given a bundle of carbon trading permits with which to compensate themselves by trading. The demise of coal fired power stations will lead to their replacement with gas or dare I even say Nuclear power stations.

I think we need to maintain the rage on this.

China may not wish to sign up to a treaty, but under American guidance it is actually walking the walk and talking the talk with many initiatives, showcasing every non-renewable power generation method known to mankind. These may very well be proto-types for the rest of the world, trialing them off Broadway so to speak

For us, with 80% of our power coming from the cheapest method, coal fired generation; we need to fight every fight to the bitter, or ugly but beautiful end. There is no need to be first cab off the rank, it is better to buy into any success stories later. Do we want to end up a basket case like Spain, just to be first?

Julia Gillard may well have established her grubby little secret committee but we have all the International bodies, softening their AGW rhetoric and heading our way into the light of sanity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/the-royal-societys-toned-down-climate-stance/#more-25613

The IPCC is still headed by Rajendra Pachauri. Until his demise the IPCC will continue to be a laughing stock. Bob Carter is launching his new book, “The counter-consensus”, this week.
http://australianconservative.com/2010/09/bob-carter-book-launch-climate-the-counter-consensus-with-the-hon-rodney-hide/

As long as we maintain the fight, we will win.

[Hugh]

5.

In the past, scientific theories were evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, then checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations.

The fact that so many of today's vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not any more reflect real world practice.

In the real world it looks like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status.

To state that the theory of Climate Change is phony, and always was phony, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality invites scorn and labels like "denier", "sceptic", or dismissal as someone regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication.

The reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney climate theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) have a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart.

Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda. Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science.

How else could you explain the mass deception that's been perpetrated on the general public in the name of "saving the planet"?

[Pip from Melbourne]

6.

I just came here to post but after reading your thoughtful piece I remembered the interview with Frannie who made the 10:10 Advertisement called "No Pressure".

See it at Green Dream by Tim Blair.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/green_dream/

It's the third video down.

Its not just that there is a Capitalist logic to the performance of zombie science, there is equally an enthusiastic audience for it.

Frannie describes herself as being totally alienated by the shallow lack of meaning, integrity and authenticity in modern capitalist culture in her past. She feels now, more authentic, socially included and infact even, existentially challenged by the possibility of the imminent destruction of the planet. This environmental/alarmist movement is giving her life more meaning than she ever felt before this social phenomenon came into her life.

This movement was built purposefully out of the alienation of the 1960's youth culture. It was known it would create a buzz for youth.
Youth have been as readily co-opted into this as the scientists, who are on the bandwagon.

The designers of the movement know that in creating the next level of industrial progress it will create new frontiers for new people and niches for people spearheading the movement for a while.

[Pip]

7.

A Climate Royal commission:
I seem to remember the maxim “Never set up a Royal Commission into anything, unless you already know the answer it will come up with”.

Whilst the Gillard Government is swinging in the wind, holding onto power by the tips of Julia’s square nails, it would be ill advised to have one. The Royal Commission under Gillard would be populated by Professor Garnaut, Will Steffen and a gaggle of AGW alarmist scientists. It would no doubt produce something similar to the 10:10 campaign adverticement; No Pressure. Only joking?

Greg Combet has the measure of this issue and is smart enough to change the language, he is mindful of the threat to regions depending on coal. We will watch with interest the new “conversation”.

One thing that the centre right has to understand, as a given, is that the AGW alarmist/ environmentalists have the numbers, they are at tipping point because they have the youth vote, indoctrinated at school by UNESCO programs etc. It’s simply not cool to be a conservative these days. Why else do you think Tony Abbott is so cautious about depicting himself, as not really aligned on the Climate issue?

However, this article discussed on the ABC RN Counterpoint program, “Why Conservatives should read Marx” got me thinking.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/3020307.htm

It is true that the Conservatives set great store in extant institutions but by equally supporting Capitalism it is somewhat of a paradox since as Karl Marx claims, capitalism relentlessly bulldozes old institutions:

“All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned”

It would seem that Conservatives or Libertarians in their support of Freidrich von Hayek, maybe even Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein, that great supporter of Ilya Prigogine, Nobel prize winner for Chemistry for dissipative structures, complex systems, and irreversibility are the true heirs of modern science and chaos theory. For it is the Left progressives who move in massive blocks, rigidly insist on universal verities, want human rights codified in unchanging “Bills of Rights” and cannot accept natural changes in climate as a creative source of adaptation.

It is the Conservatives who move fluidly, will examine individual complaints on their merits and in some instances accept that Institutions must mould and change with the times and accept that climate is a naturally changing phenomenon, for which mankind has always adapted.

Sure immutability of religious institutions is the sticking point for many Conservatives, but many can accept relativism and context. They can accept that meaningful verities need not be codified into a set of all encompassing practices set in concrete forever.

So, Conservatives are the true “Moderns” at least heirs to a future that need not founder on the rocks of tyranny and totalitarianism. In many respects, Conservatives are savvier than so called progressives with their absolutist tendencies for herding the masses with fire and brimstone ie confected AGW alarmism. Remember, it was the American Democrats who were the Klu Klux Clan. The progressives have not woken up to the fact that merely dismantling nationalisms by creating multi-racial countries is not sufficient to guard against the totalitarianism of the 1930’s. It is already present in their philosophical adherence to absolutism, level playing fields and in the need for secret committees; paying lip service to democracy but imposing collectivist solutions from above.

Conservatism can be cool if its linkages with the indeterminate, spontaneous, fluidity of coalescent, dissipative structures were taught in schools and the metaphors drawn.

Finally, free market Libertarians need also to learn to be less in thrall to the scientism of the market. The natural ebb and flow of markets can be just as indifferent and destructive as tsunami’s and volcano’s.

[Hugh]

8.

So what you are saying, Pip, is that the impressionable young and vulnerable among us in society are looking for a cause, a cult if you will, that provides them with a purpose and feeling of belonging that overcomes their sense of alienation.

They feel (in your own words) more "authentic and socially inclusive" by aligning themselves with a cause, however misguided, than taking an adult approach and searching for the truth, however mundane, unthreatening and non-destructive.

We are truly living in an age of mass manipulation and deception. Instead of an age of increasing enlightenment, we seem to be moving back into a world of fantasy and fable.

And as you point out, this is being carefully orchestrated by the designers of this movement to achieve their own aims for their own purposes.

Where does this leave rational thinkers who just want the world to behave reasonably and sanely without the massive disruption promised by these doomsayer cultists?

[Grantley]

9.

A lot of what Pip says comes from the young being taught to question everything and to seek out 'better' ways of doing 'it'.

Thats fine and commendable but I think the thing that really pees them off is the getting of wisdom bit. As always these things come down to balance, but when your young and gungho you dont always slow down enough to consider all the alternatives.
Yep, been there done that.

Well said Pip & Hugh.

[PeterMax]

10.

I strongly agree with your article including about intellectual pygmies who in my view fit well with those who are so dumb they think they are more clever than anyone else.

[Pip]

11.

Hugh, Grantley,

>>taking an adult approach and searching for the truth, however mundane, nonthreatening and non-destructive.

Perhaps as Grantley says it is a learning curve that all youth are on and it has ever been so but never as exploited as in our own time...however taking an adult approach is very, very unpopular in this age of hype.

How many adults are prepared to step outside the mainstream view. The mainstream view was radical when they were young, what happened to this demographic when they grew up, nothing?

I read that in Ken Wyatt's maiden speech to Parliament, his motive for taking on politics is to make climate change as potent as financial news. He's a Liberal! Seems like another Oakshott who wound up in the wrong party by mistake?

Of course, climate change is used mistakenly and synonomously with caring about the environment by some people.

What can you do?

I personally felt so alienated and experienced so much discomfort in watching Sophie Mirabella being so out numbered by panelists of the mainstream complexion on Q & A last week that I can barely force myself to watch again.

Christopher Pyne acquitted himself quite well the previous week but now I learn he has been mercilessly lampooned by the mainstream, withdrawn I see, but not without damage.

The Coalitions line up of talent is so thread bare when you consider all the ratbags in their ranks. Time to fold tents and head for the hills I'm thinking.

[Vikas Nayak]

12.

You want lawyers looking at "The Science of Climate Change"?

Sure, i suppose we'll have engineers examining you the next time you go to the hospital too.

Any debate on the "Science of Climate Change"...wont happen in the media or in government. It's in the hands of...well...nature itself.

I'd rather any royal commission focus on holding legislators accountable in where money spent on "Green Australia" goes. Clearly fudiciary interests are a no no.

[Tony of Brissy]

13.

Every one should join a new face book group, it's called "class action V the ranga PM', the originator says if he gets enough people in his group he'll sue the PM.