A royal commission into climate alarmism

World leaders have gathered in Paris for the Global Climate Conference, which is strangely similar to the Monty Python 'Dead Parrot' sketch – with salesmen trying hard to convince the world that the extreme global warming narrative is still alive and well.

The climate alarmism marketing campaign must be one of most successful global campaigns ever run. They have been able to consistently roll out a frightening story almost every week. Each story has an element of truth woven through the alarmist narrative, added to by emotional pleas from high profile advocates.

The scare stories back in the 1970's were all about extreme global cooling. The warming agenda got going in the 1980's. Since then the United Nations agency UNEP falsely claimed in 2005 there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, and the IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. Prince Charles has linked climate change to the war in Syria. The 40 year veteran of the ABC science show, Robyn Williams, suggested there could be 100 metre sea level rises, other reports claim warming will even cause infertility in men.

The central claim of those promoting the climate change action agenda is that if we do not take dramatic action to stop the increase of CO2 emissions, then the global temperature will go beyond a 2% increase and cause a range of catastrophic global events and an irreversible acceleration of global warming.

What about the science? If the underlying assumptions don't match the evidence measured over time, then surely a responsible scientist would review the assumptions. There were 114 different climate models predicting varying rates of temperature increases due to CO2 emissions. 111 of those climate models are wrong, due to the lack of any real warming over the past 18 years.

Further, there have been increasing yields for grains globally, not less as claimed. Rainfall has increased and dams have filled, not decreased as claimed. There have been less severe weather events and cyclone activity, not more as claimed. The vast majority of islands in the Pacific are stable or growing, not shrinking as claimed. The Great Barrier Reef is resilient, and doesn't face irreversible damage as claimed. Antarctica is growing, not shrinking as claimed. The Polar Bear population is stable, not declining as claimed. When will scientists review the underlying assumptions and biases on which their climate change theories and models rely?

What about the national interest? The Turnbull government has taken an emissions cut of 26 – 28% to the Paris Conference, which will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and make us less competitive. The Labor Party is pushing a 45% emissions reduction target, a move that will greatly damage the economy, increase power costs and create job losses, hurting the very people that they say they support. The Greens want 90% of our electricity generated by renewables within 15 years. They have received remarkably little criticism for a policy that will push thousands of miners out of work and drive more manufacturing and jobs offshore, while also pushing electricity prices through the roof. Meanwhile economies like India and China rub their hands as they plan to increase their emissions output over the coming years and expand their economies.

There is a need for a Royal Commission into the Climate Change Movement, with terms of reference that would examine:

• The broad range of scientific data and arguments on the major points of contention
• Whether the BOM and CSIRO have allowed political agendas to compromise scientific rigor and process integrity
• Whether there was a distorting of scientific enquiry due to government research grant funding application processes
• Whether the national broadcaster failed to adequately explore and present the full range of scientific arguments in the climate debate
• Whether global warming campaigning organisations with tax deductibility status in Australia have acted against the national interest

Restoring the balance to the climate debate is critical. Debate has become unhinged and appears to be driven by a religious fanaticism more than science and common sense. Every Australian wants less choking pollutants going into our atmosphere and our waterways. Environmental spending should be focused on reducing the real toxic pollutants and not on some CO2 scapegoat. We cannot allow fear or misinformation to drive public policy, undermine our sovereignty, or harm the economy. A Royal Commission would shine a light onto a contentious issue and help restore the balance to a debate that long ago ran off the rails.