Yeah I hear Dennis Jensens call for an inquiry into the actual science that is behind alot of the scientists conclusion of climate change caused by man, now he is a WA liberal MP, Phd from Monash university, A masters of science from melbourne university, and has been a researcher for the CSIRO, and he has constantly challenged the whole climate change science.


========================================================


September 30, 2010

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?

Dr Dennis jensen

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

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/09/climate-royal-commission

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles

=======================================================


Better believe it,  :)

stryder wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” Vaclav Klaus Blue Planet in Green Shackles ======================================================= Better believe it,  :)

Good luck with that!

Labor & the Liberals avoided even talking about Peak Oil and given that Politicians want guarantees on the outcome of any enquiry, let alone a Royal Commision, before it starts, the likelihood of a Royal Commission on this topic would be rather slim!

But, you never know, perhaps we could engage one of Vaclav Klaus's
relations to assist?

Do you think Santa Klaus would help out?

Do you think Santa Klaus would help out?  by perceptions

========================================================

If you believe in santa clause, i guess you would go that far and believe in man made climate change, wouldn't you, be comfortably brainwashed,  :D

'santa clause'

Must be a legal term, eh!?

Come to think of it, those high court judges do dress up in bright red suits with fake hair...

http://images.ninemsn.com.au/resizer.aspx?url=http://currentaffairs.ninemsn.com.au/img/news_feeds/judgeBell15_400x300.jpg&width=310

http://currentaffairs.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=697124

Sure stryder, but would you support the outcome if it went against the answer you wanted??

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 9:48pm:

Sure stryder, but would you support the outcome if it went against the answer you wanted??

no offence smithy but what has supporting anything got to do with this..many people are in disbelief about humans controling our weather patterns..but that wont stop gillard and Co hitting them with higher cost of living and power bills from hell. this mob doesnt discriminate when it comes to passing the buck.. so I for one dont support any tripe that they come up with not by a long shot.. of course I cant prove anything just logic tells me mankind cant change a thing.but if stupid lefties think its cool good on em I wish they were the only ones to pick up the tab they might change their minds..

have you seen the state of our rivers by any chance.. all man made garbage as thick as anything..now every year they go out and pick up tonnes of garbage left by humans..year in  year out nothing changes... oh yes it does.. the garbage gets worse because no one cares today.I will drop it, someone else will pick it up eventually!!!. we cant even get the recycling bins right and how hard is that?..but yet we will reverse GW..ha,ha,

I think the parliament should put out a worldwide open invitation. Any scientist can rock up. Their qualifications would have to be checked. You can't let anyone turn up and claim to be a climate scientist. They need a degree from a credible university, they need to have worked in climate research or some sort of relevant field, the probably will need to have published something on the subject. But make it open to any scientist around the world and they can't be turned down unless they are unqualified. Disagreeing with the IPCC is not a disqualification.

So all these scientists rock up and present their research to the parliament. They are subjected to questioning. By parliamentarians and fellow scientists. And we get to the bottom of it. It's a worldwide open invitation. So if climate skeptics want to be involved they can be. They'll just have to understand they will be questioned and debated. But they'll have a few minutes to present their findings uninterrupted. So I expect scientists of all opinions to show up. And I would hope that all these scientists and politicians together and get to the bottom of what the research actual shows and what it all means for the future of the environment and humanity. But most importantly, if there anything we can do about it? Even if we caused it, can we reverse it. Or is that futile at this point and we should focus our efforts on adaption to a new climate if we can?

stryder wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 6:32pm:

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.

Don't tell me: A silver spooner cracking heads about how markets work!

 :o :o :o :o :o

FMonthecrackwhydon'tyas! Go back and ask Dad what he really said, dood!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 7:38pm:

stryder wrote on Oct 25th, 2010 at 6:32pm: 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. Don't tell me: A silver spooner cracking heads about how markets work!  :o :o :o :o :o FMonthecrackwhydon'tyas! Go back and ask Dad what he really said, dood!

Is that all you`ve got? No facts, all emotion?

If we are going to really get into this and try to get to a good understanding of the climate change issue, I also think some investigation needs to be done. Specifically into the funding of IPCC scientists and organizations. Look at how many pro-AGW scientists get government grants as opposed to anti-AGW scientists, and if there's any reason other than their findings on AGW that they do or don't receive government grants. If two scientific research centers with no difference other than their conclusions and findings on AGW are both applying for government grants, but only the scientists who believe in AGW get the grants, then that's cause for concern. Look at oil companies and other corporations who fund AGW skepticism too. Follow the money.

BobH wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 7:38pm:

I think the parliament should put out a worldwide open invitation. Any scientist can rock up. Their qualifications would have to be checked. You can't let anyone turn up and claim to be a climate scientist. They need a degree from a credible university, they need to have worked in climate research or some sort of relevant field, the probably will need to have published something on the subject. But make it open to any scientist around the world and they can't be turned down unless they are unqualified. Disagreeing with the IPCC is not a disqualification. So all these scientists rock up and present their research to the parliament. They are subjected to questioning. By parliamentarians and fellow scientists. And we get to the bottom of it. It's a worldwide open invitation. So if climate skeptics want to be involved they can be. They'll just have to understand they will be questioned and debated. But they'll have a few minutes to present their findings uninterrupted. So I expect scientists of all opinions to show up. And I would hope that all these scientists and politicians together and get to the bottom of what the research actual shows and what it all means for the future of the environment and humanity. But most importantly, if there anything we can do about it? Even if we caused it, can we reverse it. Or is that futile at this point and we should focus our efforts on adaption to a new climate if we can?

Well, there goes Lord Munckton!

BobH wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 7:44pm:

If we are going to really get into this and try to get to a good understanding of the climate change issue, I also think some investigation needs to be done. Specifically into the funding of IPCC scientists and organizations. Look at how many pro-AGW scientists get government grants as opposed to anti-AGW scientists, and if there's any reason other than their findings on AGW that they do or don't receive government grants. If two scientific research centers with no difference other than their conclusions and findings on AGW are both applying for government grants, but only the scientists who believe in AGW get the grants, then that's cause for concern. Look at oil companies and other corporations who fund AGW skepticism too. Follow the money.

Good luck to you, but the chances of getting any open ended enquiry agreed to, is a little slim.

Mellie, you and your socks will eventually suffocate this place.  It is no mere coincidence that the Mods have vanished.

Aussie wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 9:39pm:

Mellie, you and your socks will eventually suffocate this place.  It is no mere coincidence that the Mods have vanished.

Huh?

codswal wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 6:44pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 25th, 2010 at 9:48pm: Sure stryder, but would you support the outcome if it went against the answer you wanted?? no offence smithy but what has supporting anything got to do with this..many people are in disbelief about humans controling our weather patterns..but that wont stop gillard and Co hitting them with higher cost of living and power bills from hell. this mob doesnt discriminate when it comes to passing the buck.. so I for one dont support any tripe that they come up with not by a long shot.. of course I cant prove anything just logic tells me mankind cant change a thing.but if stupid lefties think its cool good on em I wish they were the only ones to pick up the tab they might change their minds.. have you seen the state of our rivers by any chance.. all man made garbage as thick as anything..now every year they go out and pick up tonnes of garbage left by humans..year in  year out nothing changes... oh yes it does.. the garbage gets worse because no one cares today.I will drop it, someone else will pick it up eventually!!!. we cant even get the recycling bins right and how hard is that?..but yet we will reverse GW..ha,ha,

No offence taken Cods as I know none was intended.
A few points you raise:

Quote:

many people are in disbelief about humans controling our weather patterns.

No one has said or believes humans can control weather patterns, thats not what CC is about it is about pollution in the upper atmosphere acting as the glass roof in a greenhouse does by trapping and amphifing heat that would normally be reflected back into space.

Quote:

but that wont stop gillard and Co hitting them with higher cost of living and power bills from hell.

Gillard so far has added no cost to your electricity bill, your bills are rising due to 20+ years of no investment in maintinance or new power stations being built by successive state governments of both ilks.
Tonight it was reported over all the electricity generators will need to invest 43 billion in the network and we as consumers will pay.No ETS or carbon price has been implemented or even set as yet so therefore Gillard has not cost you a cent as I say, Yet.

Quote:

logic tells me mankind cant change a thing.

Mankind has been changing things since we first started farming by the selection of specific animals and plants and now we are changing things on a celluar level.
Your paragraph on rivers disproves this statement the rivers were fine until we started sucking them dry, diverting flows and of course the pollution you mention.

I don't know how much our emmissions are effecting the climate or whether we can do anything about it but I find the argument to do nothing and stick with what we know is a dirty way to produce power using a finite reasource is a regression.Mankind has, since the first day strived to improve our lot and make the world(even just the place we live) better for our children so why now are we suddenly refusing to invest in a better way in both cost and pollution to power our cities?
If renewable reasearch was funded by half of what we give to the vested interests we could have virtually free power from a reasource that is endless, and that Cods is the reason for such verment opposition to them, no one after installation will have a gravy train to live off.