A petition for a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone would be required (under oath) to tell the truth

From Watts Up With That?: Australians – Please Sign the Petition for a Royal Commission into Climate Science.

Guest announcement by Mike Jonas,

The petition can be signed online at: https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1231

Only an Australian resident or citizen can sign. Note that signing is a multi-step process, ending with an email signature confirmation.

Alan Kohler (read on) has called for a royal commission to ‘review the evidence’ on Climate and Energy Policies to conduct:

… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth.

Alan Kohler is an honourable high profile journalist, investment guru and businessman who believes the evidence of the “97% of scientists” (without questioning truth to power?).

Alan and WUWT readers may differ on what we believe will be revealed in such a Royal Commission, but we do agree that we all need to see the evidence, the impact and the timing, so we can have a better idea of what we all need to do, first for the people of Australia, and for the people of the world.

Please bring this Media Release below to your friends’ and family’s and social media’s attention and if they happen to be Australian – urge them to sign this e-petition.

It could be that a strange and unlikely alliance of alarmists and realists can line up in the same direction, with a common purpose – to have a Royal Commission to get at the truth.

Imagine what this would mean for the CAGW hypothesis if we can get this Royal Commission up.

Imagine the 97% and the 3% of scientists all telling the truth under oath to give everyone assurance that quality due diligence is applied to underlying science-based assumptions, data collection, technological developments and evidence based public policies.

Australians: Please read and sign House of Representatives e-Petition EN1231:


Please note: This post is from a comment by Chris Dawson a few days ago, edited and upgraded to a full post. The original comment is at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/11/climate-science-does-an-about-face-dials-back-the-worst-case-scenario/#comment-2914552

Jo Nova has put up the petition on her blog: Petition: Alan Kohler wants a Royal Commission …

There are only a few more than 500 signatures so far. A lot more are needed. Please send this on to everyone you know, alarmists and realists alike.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to A petition for a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone would be required (under oath) to tell the truth

  1. Phill

    Signed. Now up to 817 signatures.

  2. jupes

    Be careful what you wish for. All they need is an alarmist royal commissioner and bingo! Climate change is proven. We have seen what these legal types can do with zero evidence in the Pell case.

    I’m not signing.

  3. Enoch Root

    My thoughts exactly. This will be based on opinions under oath. Not facts. Can’t see a good outcome from it.

  4. Peter the old fossil

    I swore I would never comment on this forum again, but some things are more important than pride. Alan Kohler took over as the MSM’s chief mouthpiece and disseminater of misinformation when Laurie Oakes retired back in 2015.

    Kohler’s first major foray into misinformation peddling was when he did an article claiming the Senate had passed a bill in secret just before Christmas 2015, allowing the introduction of a defacto emissions trading scheme (ETS) which would skyrocket our power bills. It was much discussed here, at Jo Nova, and elsewhere at the time.

    It was nearly all BS to hide the true details. There was no “bill” and no vote. There was a regulation incorporated into Tony Abbott’s Carbon Tax Repeal legislation that quietly, and without announcement, allowed for the introduction of an ETS once “sufficient” countries had signed the Paris Accord, which was being negotiated at the time.

    Abbott signed that regulation into force in September 2015 – the last thing he did as PM. He got ousted a couple of days later. The regulation, and hence the ETS, came into effect as of July 1, 2016. It has been powering electricity costs ever since.

    Stop being led around by the nose, peoples. This “Royal Commission” is being set up to “prove” once and for all, the evil threat of so called climate change. And if you sign this petition you are simply pumping fuel into the bad guy’s gas tank.

  5. Jannie

    The Green Left will do everything it can to set up the Commission with their own committed Warmists, and will parade an endless procession of academics, SJWs, bureaucrats, grifters, as witnesses with strong opinions, authoritative names, and little factual evidence. They will tell the RC that the end of the world will occur in ten years if Australia and the West does not cease usage of fossil fuels etc.

    Generally the rules of RCs taking and assessing evidence are sound, opinion is not fact, and a couple of decent lawyers will demolish the side that does not use factual proof. But it may boil down to how the Commissioner and Investigators are chosen, and who gets the gig.

    I cant think of any other mechanism that could deal fairly and intelligently with the issue, by and large Royal Commissions have record of getting down to hidden facts, even when the evidence does not support prosecution.

    I am going to support it, its the best chance of a fair assessment that we have.

  6. Tom


    CAGW is junk science that does not bear expert scrutiny. Its enemy is sunlight. Let there be sunlight.

  7. Nob

    RCs are heavensent opportunities for leftists.

    Name one that has delivered anything else.

  8. This would end up like any bushfire Royal Commission, which does little to address the primary cause of bushfire severity (sits usually towards the bottom of every other recommendation) and babbles on about things of no consequence.

    As other have noted, the first thing that came to mind is that such a Royal Commission will put the stamp of approval on ‘climate change’ for the warming worriers. I’m surprised that they have jumped on the band wagon yet and signed up in droves.

  9. Iampeter

    A petition for a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone would be required (under oath) to tell the truth

    While this would be fun, what would be the next step?
    How is it going to explain away that conservatives are responsible for some of the biggest green bureaucracies on earth?
    How will it provide a basis for what governments should do?

    Discussing the science of climate change is interesting, it’s just not going to make a difference to politics, even if the alarmists were 100% right.

    There’s no evading the fact that what’s actually needed is understanding of political philosophical.

  10. H B Bear

    A golden opportunity for those who say The Science is settled.

    No thanks.

  11. Ben

    An inquiry into ‘the science’ is a misdirection – a Trojan horse.

    Regardless of The Science, Australian emissions are too small to affect the result.

    There was a recent nuclear inquiry – we don’t have a result.

    If the government cared about The Science, they’d grill the CSIRO and BOM and get to the bottom of it.

  12. Ian of Brisbane

    They’ll just put Flannery in charge.

  13. Tel

    The RET is the thing that operates as both a defacto emissions trading scheme, and a subsidy for solar and wind. The RET has been going for decades. That’s part of what is driving up the power costs. The other big cost is the slice of profit going to the power distribution networks, where each on operates an uncompetitive monopoly, and have been able to capture an excellent gain because if their position. Power generation is a competitive market, power retail is a competitive market but distribution networks can do what they like because you can’t change.

    No idea if this RC is going to do any good … they could just say, “Hey the IPCC wants 1.5C as an arbitrary limit and we defer to those guys. Da Sciency Fing!”

  14. struth

    Under oath….that’ll fuck ’em………………………………………..?

  15. Chris M

    Alan Kohler is an honourable high profile journalist

    I’m trying to process that line, it might take a while. Don’t know the guy BTW.

  16. Quite frankly, what the government should do, which would be way cheaper and easier to manage, is to hold a formal televised debate inviting both sides to discuss the ‘science’. The fact that the warming worriers would refuse to enter into the debate would be most telling.

  17. Never set up a (royal) commission unless you know the outcome in advance.

  18. Eyrie

    A Royal Commission is not the right place for a scientific matter. It is a trap. Do not sign.

  19. I_am_not_a_robot

    Alan Kohler is a strong advocate for renewables.

    “Never hold an inquiry unless you know the outcome” (variously credited).

  20. old bloke

    A petition for a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy)

    I have way too many concerns with this, in particular, linking climate change and energy. The climate changes, always has, always will, and energy is altogether a different matter.

    If the petition was re-worded to read “A petition for a review of the evidence of the existence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” I could be encouraged to sign, but with some provisos. These would include an exhaustive audit of the BoM temperature records, their records have been too doctored to be of use in determining any long term trends. This has to be done first to have a firm, factual basis from which any review could be started.

  21. struth

    Signing up for something operated by corrupt government that wants global warmening to be man made and unquestioned………………………whaddaya reckon would be the outcome?
    They won’t argue with sceptics in front of the people, yet are willing to have a rroyal commission????????

  22. old bloke

    Peter the old fossil
    #3329159, posted on February 20, 2020 at 1:44 am

    Abbott signed that regulation into force in September 2015 – the last thing he did as PM.

    Not so. The last thing Abbott did was to order an audit of the BoM temperature records, he was sacked the next day and the first action of the Turnbull government was to immediately shutdown the audit.

    Greg Hunt announced that the audit was cancelled to “restore public confidence in our institutions” (or words to that effect.)

  23. Kneel

    There is a reason to sign this, regardless of whether or not you think it will be “stacked” one way or another – to show how many of us plebs have some doubts about said “science”.
    That is, if no-one signed it, Gov would think “see? no-one disbelieves – onward to oblivion”, while if 20 million signed, Gov would think “Holy crap! lotsa people voters have doubts – better have a good look”

  24. Peter the old fossil

    Not so. The last thing Abbott did was to order an audit of the BoM temperature records, he was sacked the next day and the first action of the Turnbull government was to immediately shutdown the audit.

    Not going to bother arguing with you Old Bloke, since this was covered extensively, with links, right here on the Cat, back at the beginning of 2016 when I obtained the details of the passage of the regulation from Cory Bernardi’s office. All posted here at the time.

  25. Tim Neilson

    #3329201, posted on February 20, 2020 at 6:17 am

    This is exactly correct!

    If voters can be persuaded to accept Ayn Rand dogmatism as a political theory, then it won’t matter if they continue to believe that “the planet” is in imminent danger unless we “do something”- they’ll much rather face (supposed) planetary obliteration than continue to live on a functioning planet with an overreaching government.

    You KNOW it makes sense!!!!!

  26. Cynic of Ayr

    Not a bad idea, but if anything the Royal Commission into Unions, proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, it is that lying under oath is both common, and impossible to prove and prosecute.
    In fact, there are those, like Kitching, who were rewarded for lying under oath.
    From the original post – in which everyone would be required (under oath) to tell the truth
    No. No one is required to tell the truth under oath. All one is required to do is tell facts that are indisputable. And that requirement is based entirely on the threat of Perjury, not the threat from God.
    There are those fine people who are God fearing, and will comply with their oath. What I am saying is that they are in the minority.
    Like all crimes, Perjury has to be proven to get a conviction. It came about when people were a tad fearful of the Bible, and the consequences from God, if one lied.
    Take, for example,
    Prosecutor, “Do you have the goods, or know where they are?”
    Witness, “No.”
    What the hell does that prove? The only way the prosecutor can prove the witness was lying, is to produce the goods! And, how can he look for, let alone find, the goods when they might, or might not exist? Dig up the Witness’ yard? There is an effort/result ratio there to be considered.
    The other thing which is a certainty, is that the Climate Change mob will lie! They cannot but! They do so now on a daily basis. How can you prove someone is lying, when it is merely their belief or opinion?
    Note that 99.9% of catastrophic warnings are full of “might”, “could”, “may be” etc.
    Prosecutor, “Is the Planet going to heat up?”
    Witness, “It could!”
    Where the hell is the perjury in that?
    Prosecutor, “Is the Planet not going to heat up?”
    Witness, “It might not.”
    Where the hell is the perjury in that?
    People, I fear this is a fool’s errand. Are you all under the assumption that the Climate
    Change crowd are going to completely reverse their thinking and their statements, merely because they swore they would?
    All we can continue to do is point out what did not happen, that someone said might happen.

  27. Tim Neilson

    Cynic of Ayr
    #3329644, posted on February 20, 2020 at 3:38 pm

    I’ll give one example of something useful which might happen. (I am assuming the RC wouldn’t be totally rigged, I admit.)

    A BoM ponce was testifying to the Senate shortly before Abbott was rolled, and was asked why the temperatures from Rutherglen for the first several decades of the 20th century that the BoM used for its scary graphs were 1.7 or 1.8 degrees cooler than the meticulously maintained handwritten records kept at Rutherglen.

    He said that the BoM thought that the station “might have” been moved.

    The obvious follow up questions are:
    (a) from where does the BoM think the “Rutherglen” station might have been moved?
    (b) what’s so different about the location where it “might have” been moved from to the current location that “adjustments” of that magnitude are justified?

    (Also, what grounds does the BoM have for thinking there “might have” been such a move?)

    Have an RC and demand answers on oath to specific questions like that.

  28. Lee

    Be careful what you wish for.

    If a RC finds against the alarmists and the climate carpetbaggers they will just ignore it.

    If the RC goes along with the alarmists and the climate carpetbaggers then they will say it vindicates them, and “the science is settled.”

    And the MSM and the left generally will only support a RC they approve of; remember the failed RC into union corruption several years ago?

    In any case swearing under oath is meaningless, as many AGW promoters couldn’t lie straight in bed.

  29. Louis

    And name the government or Minster who will push for prosecuting some warmist for lying under oath at this commission? NONE. NOT A ONE.

    They will lie blatantly and the ABC will come to their defence if anyone dares question their truthfulness.

  30. Professor Fred Lenin

    They wont hold it , too dangerous for the carpetbaggers , might expose their theft and corruption in an accidental way , ,smother it and let the money keep pouring in , the peasants dont need to know .

  31. John A

    At 2156 Friday night the site for e-petitions is inaccessible.

    When I click on the link, I get

    Server Error in ‘/’ Application.
    Runtime Error

    Description: An exception occurred while processing your request. Additionally, another exception occurred while executing the custom error page for the first exception. The request has been terminated.

Comments are closed.