What a waste of our money.
The science is settled as 95% of climate scientists support AGW.
This is an attempt to waste time and do nothing in the mean time.
Typical of denialist

Re: 'consensus science': as physicist Lubos Motl has commented, 'how many silly people at an institute controlled by cranks raise their hand is absolutely irrelevant'.

excellent post; a Royal Commission is the only way to get the truth and see what else has been hidden, exagerated or fabricated by the well funded, and ever so left-leaning climate 'scientists'

An excellent post.

I seem to recall that almost all other scientists believed that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was rubbish until it was borne out by actual observations.

Science is always developing and what might be "popular" among scientists at the moment is not definitively right. Scepticism is healthy and assists the development of new explanations.

A Royal Commission is certainly needed.

Great post Dr Dennis Jensen. Thanks for explaining this to me. You make a good deal of sense. I’m just sorry the left loves to censor politically-incorrect voices that embarrass their “activist science.” To deny millions of years of natural climate changes, has always sounded suspect in my view.

Denis Jensen says nothing new, and much of what he says is political spin. Scientist do not claim that “the science is settled”, except insofar as there is a high probability (more than 90%) that human activities do influence climate. This is enough for researchers to move on, and to refine the measurements and observations on which the science is based. Meanwhile, there is robust debate within the climate science community as more evidence is gathered, from satellites, ocean buoys, balloons, earth observation, phenology, and so on. Science is never settled, but levels of confidence can fluctuate. If Jensen were genuine, he would join the debate, adding his own observations, data and conclusions.

Jensen asserts that the IPCC “assumed anthropogenic factors” as the cause of climate change. He should do his homework. The IPCC went to considerable lengths to define risks, and to define levels of risk, based on a global survey of the most current climate science.

Jensen is also sparing with the truth in his quotations. For example the recent (characteristically cautious) statement by the Royal Society concluded (par.57):
“There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are
likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.”

Jensen’s call for a Royal Commission is another diversion from the urgent need to address the problems of adaptation and mitigation. Climate change is probable, and probably not in humanity’s favour. We insure our houses, belongings and indeed lives, against a much lower risk.