A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “the ANZIG Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).
Excerpt: We are all of the view that CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit not a threat to humans, and there is no need to launch a massive assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non problem. […] “The science is definitely not settled. Hundreds of qualified independent scientists around the world now question whether sufficient attention has been paid to the proven historical influence of natural solar cycles, and many other aspects of climate science. Since the scientific investigations for the IPCC fourth assessment report were completed 18 months ago, new research and new observations have cast serious doubt on many of the IPCC’s conclusions. “Everyone, from the highest government minister to the lowliest taxpaying consumer, must realise that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community, and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them. No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established. All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models. Governments have a duty to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. This can best be done by way of a Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Mr Forbes continued.
The full press release is reproduced below:
Thursday, 31 January 2008, 9:42 am
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
31 January 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(being released simultaneously in Australia and New Zealand)
Time for an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on Global Warming.
A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists today called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “the ANZIG Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).
The chairman of Australia’s Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that many groups and individuals in Australia and New Zealand had listened with alarm and disbelief to plans of both governments to saddle their people and industries with the burdens of carbon taxes and the risks of carbon trading which he described as “an open invitation to massive fraud”.
“We also fear the enormous costs of taxing and decimating our backbone industries of farming, mining, power generation, cement making, forestry, mineral processing and tourism and subsidising many expensive and ineffective alternate energy proposals. The very high costs to society of the actions being proposed require that we settle the science before forcing the whole ANZ community into a futile and expensive exercise to solve a problem that may not exist. ‘Do it just in case’ is not an option.
“The Australian Government has set up the Garnaut Review to look into the likely costs of various proposals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, we need a parallel independent inquiry into the science to determine whether any action at all is required.
“The science is definitely not settled. Hundreds of qualified independent scientists around the world now question whether sufficient attention has been paid to the proven historical influence of natural solar cycles, and many other aspects of climate science. Since the scientific investigations for the IPCC fourth assessment report were completed 18 months ago, new research and new observations have cast serious doubt on many of the IPCC’s conclusions.
“Everyone, from the highest government minister to the lowliest taxpaying consumer, must realise that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community, and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them. No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established. All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models. Governments have a duty to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. This can best be done by way of a Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Mr Forbes continued.
“Australia and New Zealand are both heavily dependent on primary production and world trade, neither have nuclear power, and both are leaders in science in the southern hemisphere. The whole hemisphere would be very damaged by the global warming extremism of Al Gore and old Europe. Al Gore is more motivated by extreme Green politics than scientific truth while Old Europe believes that their nuclear capacity protects them from the carbon costs they plan to impose on others.”
Mr Forbes said that this proposal is the joint initiative of The Carbon Sense Coalition based in Australia and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and is supported by individual scientists and industry representatives such as:
– Leon Ashby (Mt Gambier, SA), Chairman Landholders Institute, President Bushvision, and Centenary medal recipient for services to conservation and the environment.
– The Australian Beef Association, via its chairman Brad Bellinger (Ashford, NSW), director John Niven (Grenfell, NSW), director John Carter (Crookwell, NSW) and director, John Michelmore BAppSc(Chem), (Eyre, SA).
– Professor Bob Carter (QLD), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist, a research Professor at James Cook University (Qld) and University of Adelaide (SA).
– Howard Crozier (NSW), councillor of the NSW Farmers Federation and previously General Manager Finance and Administration of CSIRO.
– Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO, Former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor, Monash University. Past President, The Institution of Engineers, Australia (1980). Author, “A Voyage of Discovery”, a history of ideas about the earth (2005).
– Bryan Leyland MSc, FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer to the power industry and chairman of the Economics Panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
– Owen McShane, director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies in New Zealand, and chairman of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
– Dr Muriel Newman (NZ), proprietor of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.
“We are all of the view that CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit not a threat to humans, and there is no need to launch a massive assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non problem.
“We have four recommendations:
1. That the Australian and New Zealand governments commission a joint public inquiry to investigate and report on the science underlying the claims that man-made CO2 causes dangerous global warming. This enquiry must consider whether it is likely that human activity has had a significant effect on global warming and the extent to which the policies being proposed to cut man’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to affect global warming or any other aspects of climate.
2. That the inquiry be under the charge of at least three commissioners including at least one Australian and one New Zealander, preferably well qualified in science and able to take an objective, independent view of the IPCC process. The chairman should be skilled in obtaining and assessing evidence. (To ensure it has full jurisdiction in both countries, each government may appoint its own enquiry with one or two commissioners, and a common chairman, with meetings to be held concurrently, some in each country).
3. That the inquiry have the power and funding to initiate wide ranging scientific inquiries into all aspects of present knowledge on climate and to take and consider evidence on climate change and to analyse the likely effects of currently proposed policies on reducing carbon emissions.
4. That until such an inquiry has reported, no steps be taken to institute an emissions reduction programme of any kind in Australia or New Zealand.
Mr Forbes said that it is clear there is growing concern among the world scientific community about the conclusions being promoted by the IPCC.
“In contrast to the 2000 or so scientists who are claimed to have contributed to the IPCC (many of whom do not support the extremist political conclusions promoted by the IPCC) there are at least 20,000 scientists who have signed their names in public opposition to the IPCC. (See references below).
“In addition, many organisations, think tanks and business leaders have voiced opposition to the radical proposals from the IPCC, and many more are quietly dismayed. There is no consensus about the science, even if scientific questions could be decided by a show of hands. Scientific questions are determined by facts and evidence, and this is what a Royal Commission can discover and make public.
“In further support of this proposal we have appended links to various submissions made recently to the Garnaut Enquiry, and other relevant documents,” Mr Forbes concluded.
Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition,
comments: “An ANZ approach to this vital issue is a natural flow-on from close co-operation already existing between the two trans-Tasman neighbours. Australia and New Zealand have one of the most open economic and trade relationships of any two countries. This is based on a comprehensive set of trade and economic arrangements, collectively known as Closer Economic Relations (CER), which underpin substantial flows of merchandise trade, services, investment, labour and visitors between the two countries. Implemented in 1983, CER has already seen such joint official bodies as:
• ANZSFA, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Authority;
• JAS-ANZ covering classifications and standards in official statistics;
• Ensis, a joint venture of forestry R & D.
• Negotiations to form a joint Australia New Zealand Therapeutics Agency.
“In New Zealand, government advocates of a carbon emissions trading regime have referred to the desirability of harmonising with Australia. Surely, it is logical to first establish that there is scientific justification for the imposition of an economically burdensome carbon emissions scheme, before going down that costly track, whether together or separately. Two countries as close together as we are in so many official ways should have no difficulty in sorting out any jurisdictional complexities arising from the creation of a joint ANZAC Royal Commission to look at an issue that is so common to us both,” said Mr Dunleavy.
ENDS
1415 words
Authorised by:
Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
www.carbon-sense.com
Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
Secretary
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
New Zealand
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php
Dr Muriel Newman
Director
New Zealand Centre for Political Research
Whangarei.
New Zealand
http://www.nzcpr.com/About.htm
Brad Bellinger
Chairman
Australian Beef Association
NSW
Howard Crozier
Executive Councilor of NSW Farmers Association
Australia.
—
References:
1. Submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Garnaut Review:
Click to access garnaut-submission.pdf
2. Submission by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, calling for a Royal Commission: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=205&itemid=1
3. Submission by The Lavoisier Society to the Garnaut Review: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/GarnautFinalSubmission.pdf
4. Submission by Prof Bob Carter to the Garnaut Review:
5. Submission by Howard Cozier to the Garnaut Review: See Garnaut Review website.
6. Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made global warming: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
7. 20,000 scientists sign petition against global warming hysteria:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
8. Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is Futile:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
In 1997, fully 90% of US State Climatologists did NOT agree with the ADW Hypotheses (Quoted in Singer and Avery, 2007, 65-66)
9. Recent observations show that the world has not warmed since 1998, and 2007 is the coolest year since 2000:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641
1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA
10. Recent research shows the solar cycles, cosmic rays and clouds have a major effect on our climate:
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007. The Chilling Stars – a new theory of Climate Change, Icon Books. ISBN-10: 1-84046-815-7
11. It is generally agreed that if greenhouse warming was occurring, the strongest warming would be in the upper atmosphere above the tropics. Recent research shows this is not occurring, which indicates that warming is not being caused by greenhouse gases:
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
12. Australian Parliamentary Enquiry. Dissenting report on Geo-sequestration:
Click to access geosequestration-dissent.pdf
13. Prof David Henderson: Governments are Mishandling Climate Change Issues:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&itemid=1
14. Program for International Climate Change Conference in New York:
15. “Climate Change Re-examined”, Joel Kauffman, 2007:
16. Lance Endersbee reported that temperature readings from 27 rural ground stations in Australia showed no sign of global warming over the 110 years of temperature records (to 1990). (Endersbee, L, 2005 “A Voyage of Discovery”, Fig 142 , page 244).
Ivor Surveyor says
Agree. Joint Royal Commission will be able to objectively examine evidence.
gavin says
What a small body of thought.
Been thinking where this lot comes from and its quite a while since we got into bed with NZ over common standards for mutual agreements etc. I reckon we can say that’s where the rot started.
What’s missing from this body? Industry, transport, communications, education, health, banks. insurance, unions ….
Going back just a bit
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001353.html
“I assume this Coalition is self-appointed? If they are true democrats concerned with good government shouldn’t they contact all NZ climate scientists and set in place a democratic process to form such a coalition and/or a consensus process so that the body of NZ scientists can lobby the NZ government?” – Ian K
Let’s guess somebody needs another forum
bazza says
Authorised by five names including a sprinkling of some of the old hands representing the two Cs, cattle and coal. Too bad about the C for climate, they could surely use a climate scientist.
Jim says
A rational , reasonable and long overdue proposal which will never get off the ground.
A forum for the presentation of evidence including expert testimony before an independent Commissioner – just imagine!
” The debate is over ” crowd would never support it ; they don’t want a marketplace of ideas they want conformity and compulsion.
Skeptics might well shy away to – if it turns out that the weight of evidence DOES support the contention that we’re in the middle of a dangerous,unprecedented anthropogenicly inspired warming trend , then there’s nowhere else to go really.
Jim says
Oops sorry for the typo!
SJT says
Not the OISM petition again. The original internet hoax.
SJT says
Actually, it would be fun to see a Royal Commission take a look at the OISM petition.
Paul Williams says
Jim, I don’t believe skeptics would shy away if it turns out that the weight of evidence DOES support the contention that we’re in the middle of a dangerous,unprecedented anthropogenicly inspired warming trend. Provided the enquiry was truly a Royal Commission, and the proceedings were transparent. I certainly wouldn’t shy away.
Luke says
Don’t fall for it !
Keep the New Zealanders out. This is a thinly veiled attempt by New Zealanders to dominate our sheep industry – wide combs were just the start –
This is obvious by the Beef Industry reps on the advocates list. How utterly transparent. We’ve been infiltrated by anti-Aussie-lamb activists.
All this started when the UGA joined Agforce.
NZ with it’s lovely mild increasingly warmer climate with sweeter more productive pastures resulting in fewer methane emissions.
They just want the climate to warm further to further their quest for world domination of the lamb market with low emission produce.
Have a Aussie Royal Commission into NZ climate denialism and climate conspiracy – anyone with any relationship with New Zealand should be banned from attending. You simply can’t trust them.
Cordon off Bondi, block the Medicare payments, and implement a curfew.
Don’t be un-Australian. Say no to NZ climate control of our pastures.
A few degrees rise in temperature will devastate the viability of our northern industry ram semen. Sperm already living on the edge of extinction.
The NZ proposal would be Aussie geographic thermoclinic genocide.
Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security – take the “Z” out of the alliance. And don’t be caught fraternising with the flock.
John says
Trust Luke and SJT to never want the big scare examined in detail. They’d have nothing to whinge about or to quote others about if it was proved to by nonsense.
Have either of them got any qualifications in the relevant subject or even published a paper? I bet they are just two alarmist parasites who live off the statements of others and waste their employers’ time.
I don’t know why the moderators of this forum allow them to continue since they never present a substantial and credible ^posting.
(I wait now for their usual diatribes in response.)
Luke says
John are you from NZ too?
Jim says
Well if it goes ahead I’ll see you there Paul!
Luke says
Further proof of an NZ lead climate conspiracy.
NZ wine industry upbeat about global warming
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/14/2162844.htm
Global warming is threatening the viability of the drought-stricken wine industry in Australia, but it could be a boon for New Zealand, which is enjoying a growing reputation for its quality wines.
and they’re trying to kill off South Australian national park attractions too.
Drought killing wildlife: ‘never dry as this’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/15/2163446.htm
Years of very low rainfall in the northern Flinders Ranges of South Australia are being blamed for the death of wildlife and hundreds of trees.
“I’ve been here for 34 years continuously and I’ve never seen it as dry as this.”
Ian says
There are a cases where climate change issues have been presented before judges: In the US Supreme Court (Mass. vs EPA) the really interesting thing was that those opposed to emission restrictions didn’t present arguments about the reality of human-induced climate change. But some of the most prominant sceptics including John Christie and pat Michaels lodged a brief saying that ” the expected warming from such
increases [in greenhouse gases] then becomes 1.8 degrees for this century” http://www.cei.org/pdf/5572.pdf, page 7.
Ian says
In the previous post, the URL has picked up the comma. Also p7
refers to the pagination on the document. It is the 12th pdf page.
The other court case that I had in mind was in the UK concerning distribution of Al Gore’s movie to schools. There the judge found that overall, Gore’s science was sound, apart from not saying how fast the drastic rises in sea-level might happen.
chrisgo says
I see nothing sinister in a joint Royal Commission on Global Warming (as opposed to global warming).
However, if Australia wants to cut off an arm and a leg by introducing a carbon emission trading scheme (Gaia forbid) and New Zealand wants to harmonize its proposed scheme with it, beware.
When the sheep botherers express a desire to “harmonize” with Australia, you can assume there will be nothing in it for Australia.
James Mayeau says
Im sorry the whole concept of royalty puts me off.
It’s an American thing.
Hardy har har on you guys for paying lip service to King Arthur’s progeny.
Schiller Thurkettle says
Doing a NZ Royal Commission inquiry into global warming is not very bright, and a waste of taxpayer money.
Remember the NZ Royal Commission inquiry into GM crops? Most exhaustive work ever done. Did the freaks and the politicians who pay them with public money pay attention?
No.
They really don’t care.
Folks, don’t waste your money. The world knows NZ tried very well the first time around, and did an excellent job, but excellence doesn’t count with the freaks and the politicians who dole public money to the freaks.
My advice is to lay back, and think of England…
sunsettommy says
“Not the OISM petition again. The original internet hoax.
Posted by: SJT at February 14, 2008 03:48 PM”
Maybe you can tell everyone why you think it is a hoax.
Keep in mind that I have asked many people this question……….
I personally know of a few scientists who did in fact recieve the request to fill out the petition.They were given a paper to read and if they accept the papers conclusions.Fill out the petition.
Now I know the petitions drive has been vindicated by the fact that the apparently worthless Kyoto Treaty does not actually stop or even minimally slow down the PROJECTED warming in the next 50-100 years from now.
Almost all the nations of Europe are dismally failing to keep up with the mandated CO2 emissions reductions.