We need an open debate on climate change
At the launch of Ray Evans’ Thank God for Carbon in Adelaide yesterday, Senator Cory Bernardi argued that there needs to be an open debate about the cause and effect of climate change. Here is an extract from his speech:
Let me be frank here, the issue of our climate changing is not in question.
Historical evidence suggests the climate of our planet has continually evolved and changed and it always will.
I also accept that there is a large and very vocal group of people that demand governments across the world do something about it. But exactly what is causing climate change and what – if anything – should we be doing about it should remain the subject of debate.
I also want to be clear, that I am not here to debate the science. That is for those who are far more qualified to do so. But as a legislator, I must be prepared to consider all the available evidence and make decisions that are in Australia’s best interest.
But to make the best decisions, to make an informed decision, there needs to be an open debate about cause and effect.
We need the duelling scientists. We need to question the prevailing orthodoxy of belief, just in case we are experiencing another event (like so many throughout history) where mankind has been caught up in a mania of irrational belief.
And that is why I support the Lavoisier Group and their work. They are singularly focussed on providing a balance to the debate about the cause of climate change and what we can and should do to respond to it.
The publication, Thank God for Carbon is a key element of that debate.
It provides a concise and objective view about the role of carbon and its link to climate change.
Covering five main topics, Thank God for Carbon defends and reaffirms carbon’s role as an element vital for life and not the diabolical foe that carbonista’s would have us believe.
Ray Evans succinctly reveals the history of climate, carbon’s role in life and nature, the role of the sun, the IPCC and the politics played through the climate change debate.
Much of this debate has centred around the computer models that climate change activists have been using to predict our climate fate.
In my previous role as an investment manager, we also used computers to predict probability of profits and losses. Just as these models failed to predict the global financial meltdown we are currently experiencing, the carbonistas computer generated models have not been able to predict or explain the climate we have experienced over the past decade or so.
This of course has proved to be another inconvenient truth for the church of climate change and its disciples but they remain undeterred in their advocacy for radical action.
The challenge for Australia and the Australian parliament is to examine the facts about climate change and not just the opinion polls.
This includes the growing body of scientific opinion that conflicts with the previous work that has driven public awareness in recent years.
Whatever action we as a nation undertake in response to climate change needs to be carefully considered.
Any action we take needs to be based on a ‘no regrets’ policy. This means that if anthropogenic climate change is ultimately exposed as a falsehood, Australia will still derive long term benefit from prudent policy decisions.
We can only make these prudent policy decisions under the framework of an open and transparent debate about the implications of specific action and non-action.
Read the full text of Senator Bernadi’s speech.