Penny Sackett and Due Diligence

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth comments on Minister Wong’s Reply to Senator Fielding’s Three Questions on Climate Change – Due Diligence1

(From the pdf carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf)

Due Diligence would require the Chief Scientist to read this report. Did she?

We draw the following general conclusions:
• At the moment the planet is no longer warming; only time will tell whether the stasis and minor cooling trend will deepen significantly or will instead be succeeded by resumed warming. Both possibilities are plausible, based upon the well known pattern of natural multi‐decadal climate cycles.
• No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous global warming on top of natural, cyclic trends.
• It is unwise for government environmental policy to be set based upon monopoly advice and especially so when that monopoly is represented by an international political (not scientific) agency, viz. IPCC.
• Other authoritative, independent audits have recently reached similar conclusions to ours (Idso & Singer, 2009). As Carlin has recently concluded (2009; EPA internal document):
“As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data”.
• Accordingly Parliament should defer consideration of the current CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate.
The scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous
global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where
competent scientific witnesses are cross‐examined under oath and under the strictest rules of evidence.
(20 peer-reviewed papers followed)

At the end of the pdf there 6 pages of peer-reviewed reference papers.