Yet Treasury's most senior officials have persistently claimed the opposite. In the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, Treasury said "these models are publicly available".
Asked "So, if Professor Ergas were to go with a cheque in hand it would be available to him?", Treasury's reply was unambiguous: "Yes, he would be able to receive these models."
Treasury's claims were false. For central in Treasury's work is a model called GTEM. That model was initially developed by ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences). Under the Howard government, GTEM's documentation and computer code were placed on ABARES' website. And in early 2007 ABARES moved to full commercial release of GTEM.But with Labor's election victory, the planned release was aborted. Since then, access to GTEM has been denied.
Henry goes on to argue that, contrary to what Treasury states, the certainty is that, by taxing our lowest cost power generators, "electricity prices will be higher with the tax than without it."
In the USA, Fox news reports:
Several Republican lawmakers are challenging the Obama administration's science czar over what they claim are repeat incidents of "scientific misconduct" among agencies, questioning whether officials who deal with everything from endangered species to nuclear waste are using "sound science."
"Specifically, we are concerned with data quality, integrity of methodologies and collection of information, agencies misrepresenting publicly the weight of scientific 'facts,' indefensible representations of scientific conclusions before our federal court system, and our fundamental notions of 'sound' science," they wrote. "We identify in this letter important examples of agency scientific misconduct."
For starters, some of the world's most experienced experts have been left out in the cold. In 2005 an atmospheric science professor from Colorado State University named William Gray told a US Senate Committee: Despite my 50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the [IPCC] reports.
Many environmental organizations employ people whose sole purpose is to raise awareness about global warming. The more effective these people are at convincing the public there's an urgent problem, the more money we're likely to contribute to their cause.
Since activists bring their own agenda to the table, and since agendas and science don't mix, environmentalists need to keep their distance from scientific endeavors. Data cannot be considered
scientifically reputable if it has been collected and analyzed by activists. Scientific conclusions - especially those involving judgment calls - cannot be trusted if activists have played a role.
US Climatologist Judith Curry writes: "Overall, Donna Laframboise is to be congratulated for writing an important book."
Interview by London Book review with Donna Laframboise HERE including:
I think the IPCC is steadily losing influence. By far the biggest reason is that many parts of the world currently face profound economic challenges. There isn't a lot of extra time, attention, or money to squander on hypothetical future problems. (Personally, I'm a big fan of the idea that the future will take care of itself. We now have tools, knowledge, and abilities that were undreamt of 30 years. Thirty years hence our children will be well equipped to cope with whatever the world throws at them.)
Toward the end of the writing of my book I began to understand quite clearly that IPCC reports are a means to an end for UN bureaucrats. From a UN bureaucrat's perspective these reports serve a particular purpose - they get everyone singing from the same hymn book so that an emissions treaty can be negotiated.
By pursuing such a treaty UN officials were attempting to expand their mandate and their funding. From the perspective of a bureaucrat this was perfectly normal - and thoroughly predictable - behaviour.
But since it seems less likely by the day that any global emissions treaty will be signed - or any large sources of funding will be forthcoming from national governments - I expect the IPCC will wither on the vine. When it becomes clear that all possibility of a treaty has evaporated, I think lots of people will lose interest in the IPCC. That organization reached its zenith back in 2007. It will never again be that admired or powerful.