Let’s have a climate change royal commission in Australia

Let’s have a climate change royal commission in Australia, by Alan Kohler. Gosh, isn’t climate making a comeback in the news recently?

As a follow-up to the “climate strike” that kicked off on Friday, we need a royal commission into climate change. Before you have me arrested, consider the banking royal commission.

The government and sections of the media denied the existence of a serious problem in banking and financial services from the moment former National Party senator John “Wacka” Williams started calling for a royal commission in 2013, after the Commonwealth Bank financial planning scandals were first uncovered. A Senate committee recommended it in 2014 and the Labor Party made it a policy in 2016. …

Once the Hayne royal commission eventually began, plainly exposing the corruption in financial services in a judicial setting, under oath, the resistance melted away. The government is now filled with crusaders against banking corruption, implementing all of Hayne’s recommendations, while the banks themselves are pillars of rectitude, diligently sweeping out the stables.

We’re in the midst of a similar process with climate change, and now need a final, believable, public debate where the issue can be tested judicially and agreement reached.

It’s far more important that there’s a national consensus that global warming is real and on what Australia should do about it, than on the need for reform in financial services. …

So that’s why I’m suggesting a review of the evidence in which everyone is required to tell the truth. The main purpose of it would be not so much to find a way to prevent climate change — that’s all pretty well known and anyway, it’s too late — but to develop a consensus and strategy for dealing with its consequences.

And really, for that to happen certain people need to be grabbed by the shoulders and confronted with reality, in such a way that they can’t fall back on “belief”, as if global warming is a matter of religion or ideology rather than science. And if they do believe it’s crap, then they have nothing to fear from an inquiry.

Hear hear. Brilliant idea Alan. Alan is a believer in the carbon dioxide theory, and thinks a review of the evidence would show he’ s right. He is honorably consistent.

If there was a royal commission, would I be allowed to present evidence that the models  are wrong? Would they let me give them chapter and verse on exactly where the error is, and how it led to the exaggeration of the effect of increasing carbon dioxide? It is taken me a couple of years to isolate and describe the error and how it works, because the models and the error are not simple by the standards of intellectual matters in the public domain. It might take a couple of days of evidence. Then more time to explain to the royal commissioners how the climate models actually work.

Do you think I would be given a fair hearing, to prove the theory wrong? Alan would give me a hearing, but there are a lot of others who wouldn’t.