Scientists call for Royal Commission into Climate Change Science

Scientists call for Royal Commission into Climate Change Science

Via Jo Nova, July 3, 2009

Released today. Four independent scientists respond in detail to the evidence that government scientists claim shows that carbon dioxide causes significant global warming. The real debate continues. After the return fire from the skeptical experts, there was not a single point left standing. ..

“Our conclusions are:

1. that whilst recent increases in greenhouse gases play a minor radiative role in global climate, no strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous global warming;
2. that it is unwise for government environmental policy to be set based upon monopoly advice, and especially so when what monopoly is represented by an international political (not scientific) agency; and
3. that the results of implementing emissions trading legislation will be so costly, troublingly regressive, socially divisive and environmentally ineffective that Parliament should defer consideration of the CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate.
4. We add, with respect to point 3 that the scientific community is now so polarized on the controversial issue of dangerous global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under strict rules of evidence.”…

This is the question of the day: who audits the IPCC?

Can we rely on the peer review process by anonymous unpaid ‘peers’, who are often colleagues on Team-AGW, and who share the same financial incentives as the authors to find that carbon dioxide is the culprit? Can we expect a system that heavily funds scientists to ‘find a link’ between two factors to quickly and efficiently come to a counter conclusion if there is only an insignificant link?

Fossil fuels give human civilization around 85% of all our energy. We have depended on carbon based fuels almost exclusively since someone rubbed two sticks together, even before Homo Sapien became ’sapien’. If fossil fuel emissions causes major environmental problems, yes, of course, we must act, with major force and substantial effort. But to undertake such a massive shift at such major cost based only on the opinion of an unaccountable, unaudited international committee would be negligent.

The Rudd Government must find a way to assess the science. Is a Royal Commission the answer? Is there a better way to independently cross check the analysis, and get a second opinion? What steps can we take to ensure that we actively foster competition between scientific theories?

A patient would ‘get a second opinion’, the Australian Reserve Bank would do it’s own economic analysis before it recommended a major change, so why would our government adopt UN-IPCC dictates without question?

Read the rest here