A look into Corporate fraud in Australia, Stranglehold of Monopolies, Telecommunications Oppression, Biased Law System, Corporate influence in politics, Industrial Relations disadvantaging workers, Outsourcing Australian Jobs, Offshore Banking, Petrochemical company domination, Invisibly Visible.
It's not what you see, it's what goes on behind the scenes.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (ABN: 122 104 616)
Australia's Prime Minister (CEO) Tony Abbott : "Australia is Open for Business"
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Lack of accountability clouding the climate change debate
The world's so-called authority on climate change engages in exaggerated science and has become a political tool.
Illustration: John Spooner.
We've recently seen comments about climate matters from
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory
Council, and David Karoly, professor of atmospheric science at the
University of Melbourne and a member of the Climate Change Authority.
Newman wasn't completely correct about the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and Karoly failed to mention some critical
issues about the IPCC's operation and function. The IPCC certainly has
faults and its publicity material doesn't always accord with the facts,
but the bigger issues are its narrow charter and how various bodies
encourage us to believe that the IPCC is an authority on all climate
Journalists are supposed to be sceptical about all claims on
all matters but that scepticism is usually absent when dealing with
The IPCC's charter from the outset has been ''to assess on a
comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific,
technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the
scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential
impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation''.
The IPCC's focus is therefore very specific - any human
influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of
climate change. IPCC assessment reports claim that the human influence
is significant but look closely and we find the claims are based on the
output of climate models that the IPCC admits are seriously flawed, that
the IPCC often asserts a level of certainty that the data cannot
sustain and that as ''Climategate'' showed us, a clique of scientists
has in the past sought to control the material cited by these reports.
What starts out being a scientific report becomes a political
instrument because after a hard-core group of IPCC supporters draft the
Summary for Policymakers, government representatives discuss, negotiate
and eventually agree on the wording of each sentence. The scientific
component of the report is then modified to better align it with the
thinking of government representatives.
If the IPCC reports were accepted for exactly what they are -
exaggerated science with a large dollop of politics - this would be the
end of the matter. Unfortunately, various bodies actively encourage us
to believe the reports are entirely scientific, accurate and completely
authoritative on all climate matters, this despite the IPCC's charter
and the political interference.
Foremost among those who imply that the IPCC has a wider
remit than it does is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). At its inaugural meeting in 1992 the UNFCCC declared
that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were causing significant and
dangerous climate change. This statement had no factual basis. It was
the IPCC's role to determine if this was correct. It certainly hadn't
done so by 1992 and despite its assertions it still hasn't produced
credible evidence to support that claim.
The UNFCCC's deceit continues via its annual conferences that
try to pressure countries into reducing carbon dioxide emissions
despite the absence of any clear evidence that warrants such action.
Each conference is wrapped in a publicity blitz before, during and after
the event, each time exaggerating the IPCC's findings and certainty,
staying mum about the influence of politics on IPCC reports and falsely
implying that the IPCC's investigative scope extends far beyond its
mandate. The executive secretary of the UNFCCC is appointed by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and reports to him, which
implies UNFCCC deceit is endorsed at the upper levels of the UN.
There is no higher authority to which one can complain.
Not far behind the UNFCCC we have government bodies, such as
the Department of Climate Change and now-privatised Climate Commission,
that ardently promote the IPCC view. In some cases these bodies were
created specifically for that purpose and in most cases their action is
to support government policy. As with the UNFCCC, these bodies falsely
imply the IPCC's remit covers all aspects of climate science.
Next are environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace and
WWF, others such as the sustainable energy industry that have vested
interests and push the IPCC view, implying it's the ultimate authority
on climate matters.
We should also not forget the scientists who publicly endorse
the IPCC view. Ascribing a specific motive to a large number of people
is futile, but among them are likely to be people holding various
levels of belief and of course people whose income and reputation rest
on the IPCC's position.
The public would hardly be aware of the statements made by
all of the above if it wasn't for the mainstream media. Journalists are
supposed to be sceptical about all claims on all matters but that
scepticism is usually absent when dealing with climate issues.
Whatever the cause, journalists appear unwilling to question claims,
unwilling to ask for the data so they might verify the findings and
unwilling to follow-up predictions to see if they were correct. The
silence on all these matters tacitly and falsely implies that the IPCC's
view is correct and it's an authority on all climate issues.
The reality is that the IPCC is in effect little more than a
UN-sponsored lobby group, created specifically to investigate and push
the ''man-made warming'' line. With no similar organisations to examine
other potential causes of climate change, it's only the IPCC voice that
is heard. But the IPCC's voice isn't heard in context and with all the
necessary caveats; it's distorted via the UNFCCC and others who imply
that the IPCC is the sole scientific authority on climate matters.
Of course those with vested interest support it, which
include governments, politicians, government bodies, ''green'' groups
and many scientists. Ultimately it's the unquestioning media, or
perhaps a media unwilling to admit that the UN and its agencies might be
dishonest or wrong, that misleads the public into believing the IPCC is
something it's not.
John McLean is the author of three peer-reviewed
papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report. He
is also a climate data analyst and a member of the International Climate
theage.com.au 3 Jan 2014
The policy in Australia called the 'Carbon (dioxide) Tax' punishes the masses for industry created so called greenhouse gasses.
Another fraud by government to line the pockets of politicians and their industrial 'brethren'.