Sign the Petition: Alan Kohler wants a Royal Commission into Climate Science (to convince the skeptics)
Alan Kohler 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. Ove
r 50% of Australians are skeptical of the IPCC explanations (think that’s changed?
See the last election). Over
60% don’t want to pay even $10 a month. So lay it out. We want a Royal Commission based on scientific evidence, not “scientific opinion”. It’s not enough to show the climate’s changed, we expect to see 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? — 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.”. . . .
[/FONT]
