Climate Change RC is necessary

Originally posted by kingpins: ↑

Due to the disruption that the Climate Change adherents are causing to our way of life and economic viability isn't it about time there was a proper Australian investigation into the claims

We have heard all the stories about how a group of people who are labelled as climate experts have all come out with dire warnings about the dangers we face and that the planet will be destroyed within 20 years surely such a fantastic claim needs a proper investigation

If we were told that an asteroid was heading towards us with unerring accuracy and was going to obliterate the planet in the next 20 years people would want to investigate the claims prior to a mass suicide throughout the population

Manufacturing is almost non existent, jobs are drying up, power costs have risen dramatically with some commercial owners quoting a 300% increase
The elderly have to choose between eating at the ever increasing food costs or paying for power to stay warm or cool

The government has been spending huge sums (Including to Saudi billionaires) for solar farms without any regard to the maintenance and future viability to produce power for about 6 hours a day, and the wind turbines which like all manufactured products have a limited life span, both of these items also have very real chance of being environmental disasters when de-commissioned

There is obviously big money behind this renewable energy push, it does take a very concerted effort and good planning for commercial interests to basically brain wash (mostly the young) a huge proportion of the population with subliminal advertising and spreading fear of an apocalypse or the end of life as we know it in such a very short space of time which to me sounds more like a cash flow budget than anything to do with the environment.

Is it coincidence that Allan Jones (Being in Melb I do not listen to him) was taken off the air just after he demanded a RC into the Climate Change campaign

Expand

A Royal Commission?

Alan Kohler, in an opinion piece in thepretend Murdoch ‘newspaper’ The Australian, has called for a Royal Commissioninto climate change and uses, as an analogy, the banking Royal Commission¹.The latter was something that the government tried to avoid, such that it hadto be dragged kicking and screaming to actually convene it, when some of thegovernment’s own backbenchers started kicking up a stink. To cover themselves,the government got the banks to ask for it. The banks and the government triedto limit the damage by abbreviating the length of the inquiry, but CommissionerHayne was too astute for them and uncovered malfeasance on an industrial scale.His disgust with the government was obvious when he had to present his findingsto Josh Frydenberg, in front of the cameras, and refused to shake hands withhim.
Kohler says “we’re in the midst of asimilar process with climate change and now need a final believable, publicdebate where the issue can be tested judicially and agreement reached.” I haverarely heard something so silly. We do not need an enquiry into the veracity ofclimate change. That was sorted out 30 years ago when the first IPCC reportcame out².
The problem with Kohler’s use of this analogyis that there was evidence of malfeasance long before the Banking RoyalCommission. You have a Royal Commission to investigate wrongdoing, not science.Having a Royal Commission into climate change is not analogous to the bankingRC. The banking RC investigated the perpetrators, not the whistle-blowers andcomplainants. There are still some nutters out there who do not believe in evolution,spheroidal earth³, gravity or heliocentricity. While these weresorted out by scientists many years or even millennia in the past, there arestill a few fruitcakes around who won’t have a bar of them. Using Kohler’slogic, we should have a Royal Commission into all these facts too, solelybecause of the ridiculous beliefs of those nutters (some of whom are inparliament).
Kohler does make the point that the governmentseems incapable of doing their job with regard to climate change, even to theextent that they have attacked big business (notably BHP Billiton) for havingthe gall to take account of climate change in its future planning. The onlybenefit of having a Royal Commission will be for the government; they will beable to use it as an excuse to change tack, and to kick the far-right climatechange deniers in its ranks in the goolies, but given that the government hasbeen taken over by them, it is unlikely. It will also allow the government toplead ignorance and give them at least a chance of avoiding justice, whether itbe at the International Criminal Court or something much, much worse.
What we do need a Royal Commission into, isthe climate change denial industry. That would be interesting, and wouldprovide many more names for the list of those to face justice. Just imagine thegovernment, assorted mining organisations, media organisations and lobbyists havingto reveal why they have taken their stance against the science, what moneychanged hands when, and where it came from^4,5,6. That would be thebeginning of some sort of justice.
Sources
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/lets-have-a-climate-change-royal-commission/news-story/180af54d5cb85b12c7df0848aa41b560
http://www.blotreport.com/australian-politics/stating-the-obvious-30-years-too-late-2/
http://www.blotreport.com/science/scientists-never-thought-earth-flat/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-groups
https://www.australianethical.com.au/news/understanding-climate-change-denial/
http://www.blotreport.com/2019/09/22/a-royal-commission/

Raider