The Australian government website asks these questions:
Q.1 What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.
Q2. What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
Australia would be more competitive economically by removing unnecessary restrictions on CO2. As the largest driest continent with vast arid zones, both our farmers and arid conservation areas benefit from extra atmospheric CO2.
Q3 We need to get the science right before we take any more expensive action.
For the sake of the environment, town-planning, and agriculture, the first and most important priority needs to be an accurate understanding of our climate so predictions start to be useful.
For thirty years climate scientists have failed to narrow the estimates of climate sensitivity, nor produce models that work on decadal, short term, global, or continental scales. No further investments should be made to mitigate “Climate change” until we understand the climate, and predictions are useful, and models validated. Australia should invest in broad ranging, creative research, seriously investigating potential natural cause of climate change. This research should be undertaken preferably with scientists from specialties with a proven track record of scientific achievement (ie. outside the current climate science specialty.)
Many problems are evident with the Australian BOM data sets. Like all important national financial and economic data, these need independent replication.
If it can’t be replicated — it isn’t science.
In medicine and the economy, independent audit and replication is standard.
It’s more funding for climate research — but better targeted than the current unproductive allocation.
The replication must be independent (not hand-picked, private forums by the BOM). Another whitewash will harden views rather than resolve them. Replication is a mere technical exercise, it works or it doesn’t; so why not get skeptics to do the replication? Then there will be no doubts about whether the independent auditors were really independent.
We also need better study of our historic records from the late 1800s. Stevenson screens were introduced across Australia during the twenty years before the BoM was formed (ahttp://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/the-mysterious-bom-disinterest-in-hot-historic-australian-stevenson-screen-temperatures/) . Why aren’t these records used in all the cities and sites that they can be? Surely we need to understand long term Australian climate variability to be able to predict and plan for the future.
Q4 Do you wish to contribute any further information or ideas?
Australia should take a leading role in resolving the impasse and polarization of the scientific debate.
For the last twenty years, the IPCC and supporters have spent millions inundating the population with full gloss, flash adverts and catchy bumper stickers. The Rudd government spent $13.9 million on one advertising campaign “Think Climate, Think Change”. Despite this, the number of skeptics is growing — fully 53% of Australians are skeptical (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/australia-more-skeptics-than-believers-and-few-really-care-about-climate-change/). The debate is more polarised than ever, and the skeptics are often blamed for slowing action. Namecalling is rampant, and the use of “denier” is unscientific, inflammatory and baseless. It is an abuse of English. We need polite debate instead. Resolving the impasse, the stalemate, is the highest priority for the planet.
More advertising won’t change the trend, the issue has been marketed to death. What hasn’t been tried is the old fashioned, hard but honest way to resolve an issue — real public debate.
For links and information: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/the-simple-trick-to-solve-the-impasse-in-the-climate-debate-have-one-tell-the-australian-govt/
A trial without a defence is a sham.
Business without competition is a monopoly.
Science without debate is propaganda.