Alan Kohler (ABC economics guru) thinks there is so much overwhelming evidence that a Royal Commission would persuade the skeptics. Skeptics say, yes please, lets do the due diligence that’s never been done. Go on convince us.
Over 50% of Australians are skeptical of the IPCC explanations (think that’s changed? See the last election results). Over 60% don’t want to pay even $10 a month. So lay it out. We want a Royal Commission, some kind of public debate, based on scientific evidence, not “scientific opinion”. It’s not enough to show the climate’s changed, we expect to see evidence about cause and effect. Let’s get all the uncertainties laid bare, not buried behind models and hidden by indignant namecalling. What are they afraid of?
If you worry, like I do — that any institutionalized forum can be another waste of money — captured by the swamp — then view this as a play in the only court that matters, the court of public opinion. Let Alan Kohler know there are lots of skeptics and we want a debate. Ask why the ABC won’t tell the world that there are tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, including NASA stars, meteorologists, Nobel Prize winners, and men who went to the moon, and they are willing to speak out even though the ABC likens them to pedophiles and tobacco profiteers and calls them denier scum.
If the science were settled the ABC wouldn’t be so afraid of phoning up Buzz Aldrin or Harrison Schmitt to ask politely “Why are you a skeptic?”
— Jo Nova
Sign Parliamentary Petition EN1231
Don A reminds Australians who sign the petition that they MUST confirm they’re not a robot, and tick the relevant boxes AND respond to a subsequent email. Make it count!
The PRESS RELEASE:
_________________________________
Cool Futures Funds Management
Climate and Energy Policies – Due Diligence Initiative
We support Alan Kohler’s call for an Australian Royal Commission and the related House of Representatives e-Petition EN1231 to review the evidence on our Climate and Energy Policies.
If the Government is genuinely interested in dispassionately resolving the polarized climate and energy debate, it should welcome this Royal Commission.
No one among the public, the policy-making ministers, the bureaucrats, the corporate and management class, the public intellectuals, or indeed our journalists, has ever seen or understood the empirical evidence in support of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). Why do the climate scientists believe in CAGW? Is there any empirical evidence? Can we see this evidence? What due diligence has been done so far?
This Royal Commission, as Alan Kohler suggests, will fill a critical need.
“… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth.”
The Australian Sept 21, 2019
Alan is alluding to those who are sceptical of CAGW. He wants to convince everyone the evidence on ‘climate change’ demands a ‘carbon’ emissions drop. Policies are supposed to be “science based” and “evidence based,” so we all need to know precisely what the relevant terms mean and what the evidence is. The public only ever hear or see people, including scientists, giving their opinions on climate change. But opinions are not evidence.
Climate & energy policy due diligence – not only has to be done – but has to be seen to be done.
Dr David Evans, who built Australia’s forestry and agricultural carbon accounting system (FullCAM):
The reasons for believing CAGW are purely theoretical. CAGW is a theory based on basic physics models and large computerized models. That’s why there is no empirical evidence for it, and why we cannot simply point to some evidence and convince everyone that it is true. Because it is theoretical belief, that belief cannot be falsified in the eyes of the modelers with empirical evidence.”
Chris Dawson, Cool Futures Funds Management – Climate and Energy Due Diligence Initiative:
Quality due diligence is essential for an informed market, and for the body politic to function optimally. Similarly, guidelines on director’s fiduciary obligations on climate and energy are ambiguous, bureaucratic and disturbing. For example, the terms ‘climate’, ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘climate science’ are not defined; and the relevant scientific literature is not cited. This lack of definition and information leads to a climate of uncertainty and fear for many company directors and public officers.
___________________________________________________________________