We need to look more closely at the science behind climate

Many scientists believe that, although the earth has been in a natural warming phase for the past 150 years, it has not heated as much as Government archives claim. The precise trend figure is extremely important, as it forms the sole basis of the claim that human activities are the dominant cause of the warming.

The Federal Government must review its position along with the climate scientists of the world. If it continues down the path of carbon tax, history will judge this solution as unscientific and financially unviable.

An assessment of some of the history of physics demonstrates how dangerous it can be to assume that you have all the answers. In the late 17^th century probably the greatest physicist- mathematician of all time, Isaac Newton, derived laws for motion and gravitation. These laws were accepted as the definitive solution for a period of two centuries and the term "laws" was applied to his work rather than "theories". This was despite some exceptions such as the orbit of Mercury that could not be explained using these laws.

Einstein, with his Special and General Theories of Relativity provided a far more complete understanding of mechanics and gravitation but Relativity is still called a "theory". It was realised that Newton's Laws in fact represented a special case of more generalised theories. When Einstein won the Nobel Prize for Physics, it was not for Relativity, a theory that overturned centuries of "accepted fact". Rather it was for the Photoelectric Effect, a far less confronting discovery for the scientific establishment.

If you had asked astrophysicists only 20 years ago whether the rate of expansion of the universe was speeding up or slowing down, they would have said slowing down. Imagine the surprise when it was discovered that the rate of expansion was increasing. This overturned decades of fundamental forces understanding; gravitation, electromagnetic, nuclear strong and nuclear weak forces. To attempt to explain this, we now have the concept of "dark energy" to accompany "dark matter", both of which were unknown 40 years ago.

The fact is in terms of complexity, mechanics, gravitation and astrophysics have nothing on the dynamics of the climate system.

So why are we so comfortable with "the science is settled" argument?

Why do journalists such as Jon Faine see themselves and the "consensus science" as so omnipotent that they refuse to engage with sceptics or countenance scepticism?

When "accepted science" has massive implications for the welfare of a nation, there needs to be a very thorough audit of the science.

This is why I am calling for a Royal Commission into the science of climate change and the roles played by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.

Australia's climate change policies must be based on our best understanding of the latest scientific research coupled with assessment of the relevant economics impacts.

As The International Climate Science Coalition notes: