Australians – Please Sign the Petition for a Royal Commission into Climate Science

Guest announcement by Mike Jonas,

The petition can be signed online at:

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

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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
High Treason
February 19, 2020 1:05 am

Remember to reply to the email, otherwise it will not be valid.

February 19, 2020 1:16 am

Wishing you guys well.

Sceptical lefty
February 19, 2020 1:26 am

Be careful what you wish for!
This could well be a total waste of time, or even counterproductive. A Royal Commission can only be as good as its terms of reference. With input from Warmists, the terms of reference may make the ‘right’ verdict inevitable. This is one of those times when a scientific issue should be left for the scientific community to resolve — however imperfectly the issue is presently being addressed.

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
February 19, 2020 2:30 am

Yes I thought about that, as I’m sure did Jo Nova. The scientists aren’t doing too well so far. There are good scientists doing good work, and even able to get a few good papers past the gatekeepers, but the media[*] take no notice. They would have to take notice of a Royal Commission. If the RC looks like getting up, there will be a LOT of pressure within the government to set it up fairly. Fingers crossed (a peer-reviewed effective process).

[*] Things are changing in Australia. At least two major newspapers and one TV channel regularly present aspects from the sceptical side.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 19, 2020 2:45 am

Oh dear. You can’t expect scientists to give evidence under oath, that would impinge their treasured “academic freedom” to lie and mislead everyone ( for the greater good ).

How can scientists be expected to be “effective” is the Schneider sense, if they are not allowed to lie and exaggerate, make scary, alarming scenarios and avoid discussing uncertainty?

Mind you, you are going to need some top barrister types cross-examining the scientists, no feeding them slow-ball questions as a platform for their propaganda.

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
February 19, 2020 5:19 am

Agree.. Scam to legitimise the continuation of leftist policies. Careful indeed.

February 19, 2020 1:54 am

I have already signed the Petition via Jo Nova’s site.
As a retired senior lawyer I have considerable experience with Australian Royal Commissions, including cross examination of participants.
As earlier commented , the Terms of Reference will be critical as will be the list of witnesses.
The right of audience given to interested parties will also be a prime consideration.
The attitude of the Commissioner and the Counsel assisting the Commission can make or break the outcome.
As long as entities such as the conservative IPA and others get audience as against Greenpeace, WWF, Extinction Rébellion (?) etc.there could be a positive result.
It would be useful if the Chief Scientist is a prime witness. He has already conceded that if Australian emissions were reduced to zero tomorrow ,the effect on the world’s temperature by centuries end would be “virtually nothing”.
All this assumes the Government accepts the Petition.

Reply to  Herbert
February 19, 2020 2:48 am

Greenpeace, WWF, etc have no place as witnesses in such a process.

Reply to  Greg
February 19, 2020 3:09 am

Neither does the IPA.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
February 19, 2020 3:12 am

India Pale Ale? I’ll have a pint thank you!

Reply to  Herbert
February 19, 2020 5:52 am

I don’t see the point we already have a system for people to decide it’s called an election.
The greens and left can barely cobble 10% together what is your target 0%?
They are smashed and beaten and in deep depression as is. Do you really want to spend medicare dollars when you have to treat them all. Leave the poor babies alone.

I was just watching the opposition leader Albo talk about coal being good along with the Adani mine because he needs votes in Queensland and I am sure green heads in Melbourne exploded. Loydo is probably organizing the lynch party as we speak.

Reply to  LdB
February 19, 2020 7:25 am

The problem is that as long as neither major party can break the 50% level reliably, then 10% can end up controlling everybody.

Reply to  MarkW
February 19, 2020 7:41 am

Only until they do something stupid to really make people vote against them. Like when Julia did a partnership with the greens for a carbon tax and we didn’t even get to vote her out Labor knifed her because she was unelectable. I don’t think any party in Australia will be partnering up with radical green policies for a long time after that fallout.

Reply to  LdB
February 21, 2020 3:19 am

I agree that the Greens Party is clearly toxic.

But it’s not the radical policies in their party platform that constitute the problem.

It is the perceived need within the two major parties to be “seen to be green-ish” because of the risk of a hung or hostile Senate.

Reply to  LdB
February 21, 2020 9:33 pm

and yet somehow, LdB, we have a carbon trading regime.

Reply to  Herbert
February 19, 2020 8:09 am

Signed via JoNova’s site today, for all the good it will do.

February 19, 2020 1:57 am

Happy to sign it but it will never ever happen.

The alarmists dont want an objective , fact based, open to challenge review of anything.

The will be a superior , high moral ground, “why waste time arguing the obvious” response.

They know, they would be very very exposed.

Peter D
February 19, 2020 2:21 am

Happy to sign, but the petition website is down. Tried to get in from here and Jo Nova’s site. Please keep this story on top for a day.

Heads Up, Jo Nova’s website has an update on the South Australian electricity market. As stated, this is not appearing in the Australian Media.

February 19, 2020 2:26 am

“Only an Australian resident or citizen can sign”

It seems that all you have to do is click the button that says “i declare that i am a citizen or resident of australia”.

Reply to  chaamjamal
February 19, 2020 2:39 am

Tempting, but please play with a straight bat. (If you don’t know what I mean, then you probably shouldn’t click that button).

Reply to  chaamjamal
February 19, 2020 7:26 am

If they record your IP address, that can indicate where you are signing from.

Reply to  MarkW
February 19, 2020 3:12 pm



Reply to  MarkW
February 20, 2020 6:52 am

What if you are running a VPN? I think VPN is popular these days!

February 19, 2020 2:33 am

It would be very be revealing if the alarmists try to block any investigation/commission into AGW.

February 19, 2020 2:42 am

I ain’t signing. When politicks, not truth to data, is the game, likely you’re gettin’ yr Stalin Show Trials

Cam, Canberra Australia
February 19, 2020 2:54 am

I get the feeling this will be a ‘show trial’, especially if one of the ‘ABConistas’ is behind the push? This is classic ABC – stack the panel (a la Q&A) claim that the audience is 50:50 (which is absolute bunkum when you listen to the applause (maybe its canned?) and then get the discussion to fit the pre-meditated conclusion. Can’t see myself signing, because that is what I feel it will be. It will be stacked with selected hysterics from academic and self-serving consultants and business owners in the ‘carbon’ arena. It will not be a balanced inquiry.

Reply to  Cam, Canberra Australia
February 19, 2020 4:10 am

when it was first posted i read the form there was an error in phrasing that made it gibberish
I hope theyve sorted that?
and I doubt it would get legs as the decks well stacked and terms of ref being fair would be VERY doubtful
wed probably do better to get petition stes going to try n get the silent majority to finally speak out
but then most arent ‘connected”
the old agmates site was great for that but then the infiltrators ruined that
dunno if theres anything not greentinged setup after that?

Patrick MJD
February 19, 2020 3:10 am

Hummm…an Australia “Royal Commission”? I am not convinced. We have had dozens since the 1930’s about bushfires, literally dozens, nothing gets done. Nothing changes. What makes you think this will do any better? My guess is a whole lot of nothing UNLESS it get’s a bit of media coverage (Which it won’t. Hey I now work for an Australian media company).

Tim Spence
February 19, 2020 3:21 am

Oh dear. This is just an extension of the XR citizens assembly.

So then they’ll have 97% of scientists, all the worlds scientific acadamies, the Pope’s climate encyclical, all the governments of the world and a Royal Commission, to boot.

My scam detector just overloaded.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Tim Spence
February 19, 2020 4:32 am

I had to do a little “space management” on my sc@m detector, the result is heading out to the Tasman sea.

February 19, 2020 3:22 am

I dont think this is wise
The warmists will get control and that will be the end of it
Look at climategate inquiries. Anyone who has read those emails has no doubts about what was going on but
They all got off scott-free because of various issues of influence, control and conflicts of interest
We would never be able to debate again if they hoodwinked which they will. It will end debate
Its better we get people speaking up and trying to get legislation to protect them and encourage funds to go to non activist scientists to provide am alternate view and continue to educate the public on the IPCC and Un agenda

Clarky of Oz
February 19, 2020 3:23 am

Rules of Royal Commissions.
1 Design your “Frame of Reference” to lean towards your desired outcome.
2 Select your Commissioner very carefully in order to fit with Rule 1.
3 Promise to implement only the recommendations you agree with.
4 Place the majority of 3 in the bottom drawer and never act upon them.

Cynical? Well, yes.

However I will still sign the petition, if only to see a certain Mr Cook given the wire brush and turpentine treatment by a belligerent QC.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
February 19, 2020 3:52 am

Spot on Sir!

Reply to  Clarky of Oz
February 19, 2020 4:13 am

i remember that joke;))))
oh if only he would get that treatement.
anyone got the most CONCISE expaliner of the 97% fallacy to hand linkwise etc???
I want to get it in print in my local paper if possible

February 19, 2020 4:17 am

Climate change propaganda is based on the theory most of all global warming has been caused by humans emissions of greenhouse gasses ,mostly CO2 and methane .
Until this can be proven otherwise this will remain .
Climate sceptics are guilty until proven innocent .

John Gorter
February 19, 2020 4:24 am

Whatever the result it will never be reported truthfully by the partisan press. Unless, of course, its exactly the answer they want.



February 19, 2020 6:09 am

Given Prince Charles’ pontificating on climate change, a Royal commission would have a predetermined outcome.

February 19, 2020 6:36 am

If this Commission is created, it will be essential that it is utterly transparent and all documentary evidence be revealed. Governments cannot be trusted to do things honestly.

Peter the old fossil
February 19, 2020 7:13 am

As originally posted at Catallaxy Files:

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.

Citizen Smith
February 19, 2020 7:32 am

How incredibly naive and idealistic. Who qualifies as a scientist? What are the consequences for not telling the truth? What if they are wrong in their opinion? The truth is already out there. It’s just obscured by the 97% of bs. And the biggest problem of all is there is no proof available, only models and theory. I would never defer my own understanding of the truth to a “royal commission”. Debate on. The truth will eventually become evident.

Reply to  Citizen Smith
February 19, 2020 7:45 am

Yes, but children are the future and they are being comprehensively brainwashed.

Plus it would be nice to retain an economy and affordable reliable power grid, and not spend half a trillion on nothing, and sign over our souls to the lying scumbags at the UN, in the interim.

Reply to  WXcycles
February 19, 2020 9:03 pm

true, I remember about 18 years ago thinking that this global warming bs would all end with that hockey stick graph and how pathetic the whole alarmist community was at the time, but no! it continued on. then the emails etc and once again I thought, well there must be some reaction to this, but NO!

point is that schools have been punching this propaganda into kids faces for that length of time, and now we have non critical thinkers everywhere. robots reciting green propaganda without a thought, and they are already working age and soon to be in positions of power everywhere.

February 19, 2020 8:13 am

Do any of you have a copy of the petition? I’m not from Oz, so I can’t (won’t) sign in.

February 19, 2020 8:47 am

Beware of agw / media / activists (eg Kohler) promoting any sort of government-conducted inquiries.

There is a well-worn adage in Aussie politics –
“never commission any inquiry that you don’t already know the outcome of”

Steven Mosher
February 19, 2020 9:44 am

at the end of the commission nothing will change
1. C02 will still be GHG
2. GHGs will still warm the planet
3. Man will still be causing climate change.

commissions dont change science

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 19, 2020 10:27 am

That’s not what needs to be questioned. For all three of your points, the real question is “How much?” And a fourth question: “How much impact does this have on human-kind and is it net negative or positive?” That’s where the disagreements are are, but thanks for your strawman offering anyway (even though it was pretty thin this time).

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 19, 2020 11:54 am

Steve seems to believe that his 3 points actually amount to something relevant.

So what if man is causing a small portion of the warming that humanity has enjoyed over the last 150 years?

He appears to be one of those religious zealots who believes that any change, if it’s caused by man, must be bad and must be fought.

We still have 3 to 5C to go before we get back to what the planet enjoyed over most of the last 10,000 years. Your pathetic little list does not demonstrate that this warming is bad, that’s your spin on it.

Not a single bad thing can be demonstrated as being caused by the warming of the last 150 years and many many good things can.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 19, 2020 12:36 pm

“1. “C02 will still be GHG”

Bad science from the start.. it is a radiative gas. “greenhouse gas” is a fake terminology

“2. GHGs will still warm the planet”

You have absolutely zero empirical evidence of that.

“3. Man will still be causing climate change.”

Altering and fabricating the data is NOT actual real climate change.

You have zero empirical evidence of man affecting the actual global climate

February 19, 2020 11:07 am

The Sword of Damacles hangs over the head of any scientist who’d break ranks. Maybe it’s time for a new poll of scientists, accurately worded, about the PERCENTAGE of warming caused by fossil fuels, and the “exact estimate” ( hey, this is climate science ) of warming since 1900. I’m sure the result would not be 97%.

Reply to  Wharfplank
February 19, 2020 12:51 pm

You may be interested in this paper that has been picked up by P Gosselin at Notrickszone :
It is a peer reviewed paper from Nature Climate Change :
To quote part of the summary in NTZ :
-“Using 10 climate models, the researchers calculated the global and Arctic temperature development, once with CFCs in the atmosphere and once without.
According to these models, from 1955 to 2005, global temperatures increase by 0.59 °C with CFCs and by 0.39 °C without CFCs. One third of the warming is therefore not caused by CO2 but by the CFCs.
If the remaining warming for CO2 is converted over the five decades, an average warming of 0.08 °C per decade remains. Not exactly a lot. CFCs have a 19000-23000 times stronger forcing than CO2.”-

However what may interest you particularly is that 2 revewers insisted on a modification of the numerical conclusions to a general “significant contribution ” or “substantial contribution” to global and arctic warming by ODS (ozone depleting substances)- thus hoping I suppose for a lessening of the imapct. Details of the modification , and the names of the requesters are contained in the addendum to the article . (The whole article itself is paywalled, but there is a complete list of references for anyone who wishes to explore further a somewhat startling piece of research and details of code ) .

Paul in uk
February 19, 2020 11:43 am

I think the most important, urgent, first task the whole world needs to do is properly analyse two questions: Q1) what are the consequences if climate science has it wrong? Q2) why should we believe their data, analysis, conclusions? This before we even review the actual science. As sceptics this should be our priority; getting the rest of science, MSM, decision makers and the rest of the human race to realise why that is so important, urgent and how to start doing it.

If we think how we deal with this in other areas where we have to learn from disastrous mistakes perhaps people can start to realise how and why; that mistakes happen that seemed impossible despite an apparent consensus of experts; so consensus of experts is not a valid answer to Q2. That these mistakes can have disastrous consequences. That we learn from those mistakes, e.g. aircrash investigations. That we implement changes, procedures, independent audit, certifications. Presumably we wouldn’t board a plane today unless these processes were happening. We know even if you have the most skilled pilots it is not safe without the correct procedures etc.

From what I can make out currently their short answer to Q2 is consensus of experts, precautionary principle, improvements in vehicle reliability. But isn’t the latter engineering, not science? What processes improving vehicle reliability are applicable to climate science? What if they have it wrong and therefore we don’t understand longrange weather and climate and therefore could be in an equally dangerous situation wasting valuable time and resources, making bad decisions, blissfully unaware of a different change unfolding that we struggle to cope with?

i.e. we need to ask them how they do their science, their procedures, how do they and the system they work in compare with other areas such as engineering. This is like a product in engineering, the consequences of it being right or wrong are both massive for all of us, so is it being treated, checked, audited as we do in other such areas?

Clay Sanborn
February 19, 2020 12:51 pm

Climate Alarmism will not stop until Climate Research money stops. Alarmism is fed by climate research money. No political commission will stop it. Follow the money.

Michael F
February 19, 2020 2:55 pm

Signed the petition. There are now 965 signatures. Too few to have it taken seriously. Come on sign if you are an Aussie.

Reply to  Michael F
February 19, 2020 4:33 pm

I emailed Alan Kohler (actually an assistant according to the website I found) asking him to sign the petition and to use his influence to get as many others as he could to sign. But the email failed to deliver, and I can’t find any other contact email. Does anyone know where I can contact him??

February 19, 2020 3:33 pm

Bad idea. A Royal Commisssion is not the right place to decide scientific matters. The terms of reference and the commission itself will be hijacked by the warmunists.
It’s a trap.
Kohler is dedicated warmunist and renewable energy spruiker and does a short satirical business segment on the ABC news every night (or used to ). I don’t know because I’ve given up watching that left wing propaganda.
I’m not signing.
“To Serve Man”
“It’s a Cookbook!”

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
February 19, 2020 5:05 pm

I’m with you. (see my comment below)

There’s not as chance in hell this will let actual science be brought to the public or even the Commissioner.

Michael F
Reply to  Mike Borgelt
February 19, 2020 8:41 pm

Are you seriously suggesting that Jo Nova (where this petition started) would surrender any ground to the alarmists??

February 19, 2020 5:03 pm

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

Does anyone imagine sceptics will get a chance to design the questions and/or format of such a RC? Does anyone think ANY sceptical scientist (yeah, I know, a tautology) will even get an invite?

Does anyone think it will make a difference? After all, we’ve all seen how many bankers got charged with fraud and malpractice from the Banking RC right?

Oh… Wait…

Keep waiting…

John Teisen
February 20, 2020 5:26 pm

It won’t work, no matter how many signatures are on the petition.

I asked my local MP for a Royal Commission into climate science. He said it will never happen. He told me the “War on Climate Change” has been lost. Funny that. I never noticed anyone in the Australian Government make any effort to actually fight a war on Climate Change. I know former Prime Minister Tony Abbott is alleged to have said “Climate change is crap!” – correct observation. He was crucified for that.

Sadly, those in positions of power in Australia and most other Western nations have no intention to “fight” the false Climate Change ideology. They know the entire population under 40 years has been brainwashed by the climate change propagandists.

It will take at least two or maybe three generations for society to realize it has been hoodwinked. Instead our governments will embark on useless, expensive carbon reduction schemes and make our respective nations go broke in a Green/Socialist agenda while China and India grow rich and powerful enough overwhelm us with their wealth and military power.

February 21, 2020 4:00 pm

Now stands at 1225. That’s pathetic and to quote Malcolm Roberts empirical evidence the vast majority of Aussies think you’re sad, impotent nutters. You couldn’t organize a shag in a whorehouse.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights