MATTERS OF INTEREST

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (15:22): I do not believe in human-induced climate change, in the same way that I do not believe in gravity or I do not believe in radio waves. These are all occurrences that science has observed and made predictions about. None of these are about beliefs or belief systems; they are about accepting the scientific consensus on observations in the natural world around us, not about beliefs.

I do not think it is plausible or justifiable to accept science in some areas and reject it in others. There seems to be two issues in climate change science: first, is the climate warming and, secondly, is human activity contributing to this warming? On the first question, it is pretty simple to look at the facts. All reliable measurements of global land/ocean temperatures show that the planet is in fact warming. The World Meteorological Organization says that observations show that the first decade of the 21^st century was the hottest ever recorded. The data unequivocally shows that our planet is warming.

On the second question—is human activity contributing to this warming—the science again is pretty settled. Surveys of research and of the scientists practising in this field so that between 97 and 98 per cent of climate scientists agree with the tenets of anthropogenic, or human caused, climate change. In fact, on the NASA website there is the helpful conclusion that:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Accepting human-caused climate change is not about beliefs: it is about whether you choose to accept or reject science. But there are many who want to play down or reject the findings of climate science.

Just last week, some in the media reported that a leaked draft report of the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change would show that the planet was not warming as much as had previously been predicted. Even if this were actually the case, it is just a great demonstration of how science corrects itself, but it turns out that those media reports got it absolutely and completely wrong. In fact, The Australian had to publish this correction:

A report in The Australian on Monday...said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had dramatically revised down the rate of global warming over the past 60 years. In fact, the new rate of 0.12ºC every decade is almost the same as the IPCC's 2007 figure of 0.13ºC every decade over the last 50 years to 2005.

So, the scientific predictions in this field turned out to almost exactly fit the observable data. However, there are some policymakers who reject the science. The new Prime Minister of Australia once famously rejected climate change as 'crap'. The Prime Minister's chief business advisor recently described climate change as 'a myth', a comment sensibly referred to by Australia's Chief Scientist as 'a silly comment'.

What would a Prime Minister who refused to accept science do? One of his first acts was to abolish the Climate Commission, an independent body established by the Australian government to communicate 'reliable and authoritative information'. But, in a stunning embarrassment to the new government, it looks like the commission will be relaunched as a community-based organisation funded from public donations.

The new government also plans to abolish the Climate Change Authority, the statutory authority that advises the government on setting carbon caps and meeting those targets. Targets the new Prime Minister is now having trouble even pretending he cares about. They are also planning to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which invests in projects to help meet carbon targets.

But what if that was not enough? What if you just did not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, but you did not trust science in general? You would make the biggest statement possible to the whole country. For the first time in 80 years what you do is not have a federal minister for science, and that is exactly what this arrogant new commonwealth government has done. It has sent the clearest possible message that it does not value science and that, in areas where it matters, policy will be based more on ideological zeal than on good science.

In the area of climate change the issues are too important to ignore or to consciously choose to do very little or nothing. Even if you form the view, contrary to all the evidence, that global warming is unlikely to be occurring, or we cannot influence it much, or the consequences will not be that devastating, surely it is worth taking action as insurance, just in case 97 per cent of climate scientists turned out to be right. It is time to accept the science and it is time to take action on climate change.

Time expired.