Don't miss it: Strassel: The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com

The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign.

Scientists call for Royal Commission* into Climate Change Science | JoNova

This is the question of the day: who audits the IPCC?

Can we rely on the peer review process by anonymous unpaid ‘peers’, who are often colleagues on Team-AGW, and who share the same financial incentives as the authors to find that carbon dioxide is the culprit? Can we expect a system that heavily funds scientists to ‘find a link’ between two factors to quickly and efficiently come to a counter conclusion if there is only an insignificant link?
...
The Rudd Government must find a way to assess the science. Is a Royal Commission the answer? Is there a better way to independently cross check the analysis, and get a second opinion? What steps can we take to ensure that we actively foster competition between scientific theories?

A patient would ‘get a second opinion’, the Australian Reserve Bank would do it’s own economic analysis before it recommended a major change, so why would our government adopt UN-IPCC dictates without question?

The Rudd government likes to paint itself as a world leader—but on climate change the only ‘leading’ they threaten to do is to be the first in the queue of lap-dogs rushing to adopt the wish list of an unelected and unaudited committee.