return to letters list

Independent Inquiry Must Precede ETS
letter published in The Australian Financial Review, 3 Dec 2008

You report the Government will announce on 15 December the final design of an emissions trading scheme and a 2020 emissions target ("Emissions details closer", November 29). But it must surely also announce simultaneously that it will not start any emission reduction program until an independent inquiry has been undertaken into the science used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The need for such an inquiry is demonstrated by the growing realisation that no satisfactory answers are being given to the increasing questioning of the validity of that science.

At two well-attended (but unreported) functions in Melbourne in the past two weeks major questions raised by highly qualified sceptics (and others) were not answered by "expert" IPCC proselytisers and a majority of attendees was left seriously concerned that the Government is unnecessarily rushing into a scheme with potentially severe adverse economic effects.

There are also indications that, despite endorsements by some business organisations, those organisations are now misrepresenting an increasing proportion of their members on this issue.

Consider some questions challenging the very heart of the IPCC science. From the now thousands of highly qualified sceptical scientists (and other analysts) have emerged analyses suggesting, inter alia, that:

• The warming effects from increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere diminish progressively as concentrations grow and that even a doubling of such concentrations between now and 2100 would increase temperatures by only about 0.5 of a degree.
• The cooling effects from evaporation are vastly understated in IPCC models, indicating greatly overstated projections of temperature increases of up to 4.5 degrees by 2100.
• The IPCC models of various possible influences on temperatures produce such a wide range of outcomes that the resultant estimates of contributions could scarcely provide a credible basis for policy action.
• No meaningful explanation has been given of why the two major periods of falling temperatures since 1880, plus the marked falls over recent years, have occurred at the same time as emissions continued to grow.

Attempted answers by expert (and other) supporters of IPCC science have been unconvincing and arrogant claims implying that only IPCC scientists’ views count are not only wrong but suggest a defensive cliquey attitude inconsistent with what science is all about.

There is a long history of wrong analyses by scientists of alleged problems facing the world and the IPCC analysis will almost certainly fall into that category.

Australia should avoid such a grave fall.

Des Moore
Director, Institute for Private Enterprise
South Yarra, Vic

return to letters list