This week Senator Malcolm Roberts revealed CSIRO’s complete lack of scientific justification for climate policies and CSIRO’s only response was to state their world ranking.
Senator Roberts said, “CSIRO’s response to my findings came before my report was even released, which reinforces the academic arrogance that comes from believing they are above questioning.
“We all know CSIRO is an iconic and esteemed Australian institution in many areas of research, which is why its track record on climate science is so worrying; it’s not up to standard.”
Three levels of government base expensive and far reaching climate policies on CSIRO’s advice, which largely comes from inadequate and unvalidated climate models.
“Rather than address the obvious flaws in their climate research, CSIRO chose instead to deflect to a lame appeal to authority, instead of citing credible science.”
The absence of a scientific response from CSIRO can only mean that they stand by the discredited and contradictory papers they cited and later withdrew, because the papers failed to prove their claim.
“Let me make this very clear, all politicians need to be seriously questioning the science that they glibly use to make climate policies, and Parliament must scrutinise the quality of this science.
“The CSIRO’s flawed climate models have not been validated, they contradict real world measurements and should not be used as the basis for spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money on damaging policies,” added Senator Roberts.
A team of 17 acclaimed climate scientists reviewed CSIRO’s evidence and were sadly disappointed with CSIRO’S lack of scientific rigour.
Senator Roberts will travel to Queensland’s major regional centres next week listening to people across many industries that poor science and damaging policy have ravaged.
“We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity that will scrutinise the science, protect scientists from politicisation and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just,” concluded Senator Roberts.
Today, Australia officially entered into the “COVID19 recession” with the economy contracting by 7% in the second quarter of 2020. This recession was avoidable if the Australian government, States and Territories had use the best available data and experience from around the world rather than reacting to models that predicted an armageddon.
In this speech to the Senate I discuss Taiwan which has dealt with the COVID19 heath issues properly because they maintained their economy. While Taiwan has a similar population to Australia, they have only had 7 deaths. I first talked about Taiwan in March, including writing to the Prime Minister asking him to look at the data from Taiwan and consider changing course.
He refused. And now we are in a recession with over 1 million people out of work.
Willie Soon claims CSIRO committed scientific malpractice. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and Geoscientist and researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
I spoke with Willie Soon about the CSIRO’s reliance on a paper called Marcott el al (2013) to prove that the Earth’s temperature today is unprecedented.
Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”.
It’s hard to fathom that the CSIRO presented a paper that has been discredited and discarded by the scientific community and yet are relying on their supposed stellar reputation as a defence. This is shameful, and I call am calling on the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, and executive Dr Peter Mayfield, to resign.
Both have been complicit in the economically destructive policies based on CSIRO’s misplaced climate research.
Willie Soon is an astrophysicist, a geoscientist and aerospace engineer and researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for astrophysics based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
He has co-authored the Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection with Steven Yaskell. He contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation and not human activity. Professor Soon is outspoken and clear. We’re going to have some fun and we’re going to have some really strong points raised, I’m sure of that.
[Willie Soon]
Yes. I have read your report and in it, I think you mentioned something that really puzzles me of course, in the sense that when you look for, you ask for evidence, they actually were trying to essentially, I will say it out loud and be fair, they were actually trying to bully you by let’s say, offering the evidence from a paper published in science magazine, supposedly prestigious journal.
And authored by a person named Sean Marcott with four or five authors, I mean the senior author’s a distinguished professor of course at Oregon State University in America. But Sean Marcott, well, during that time was actually doing his PhD thesis. And I was very, very shocked in the sense that you were talking to them during the time period of 2016 to 2017.
And this paper by Sean Marcott was published in 2013 roughly March. And if the average citizen do not know about some of these facts, I think they can be excused, but more so the professional scientists, knew that this piece of work who attempted to claim that over 10,000 years, okay, you have basically temperature from high warming from 10,000 years ago to roughly about 6,000 years, very, very warm.
This is called the mid Holocene warm optimum, and then cool a little bit down to let’s say, 20th century, and then they have this one line that they patch, what do you call the indirect data, hit the instrumental thermometer data to look like there’s a sharp hockey stick jumping up. Okay? And that is scientific malpractice.
There was no such thing in the actual paper, there was no such thing in Sean Marcott’s PhD thesis, in fact, the paper was completely fallen apart. Thanks to science and technology. Thanks to internet. It was completely fallen apart, two weeks after the publication. Because the authors, two of the senior authors, okay? Right?
One of the person is Shakun, Jeremy Shakun was at the Harvard postdoc at that time, and then Marcott was still a student. They both came out and said, “oh no, no, no. Our people didn’t say that, oh, our time resolution of our Holocene that was 300 years at best, which mean we dunno anything from every 300 years. So how can you talk about 100 years attaching to this, to show this crazy warming?”
What I’m trying to say is that it is a form of bullying because two weeks after publication, this whole paper was completely destroyed. And yet you have somebody as high as CSIRO and chief scientists of Australia, trying to say that this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, by the way that paper was cited. They came out in March.
They were somehow mentioned in the fifth assessment report-
[Malcolm Roberts]
On the United nations.
[Willie Soon]
which came out Yeah, United Nations report. The last report which… And used that to support that, an even more famous hockey stick, which is done by professor Michael Mann for the last 1000 years.
And this is the kind of a scientific malpractice that I felt very sorry for them because I do not know what gave them the audacity, but these are the facts. And then I felt very sorry for the average Australian, especially the taxpayer. Why are you paying for this kind of nonsense? It’s actually nonsense.
And these people just because they have some PhD degree under their name, it doesn’t mean that they are very sensible. In my humble opinion, these people are highly misguided and they are very, very wrong in doing that. They should not ought to be doing that. And I really thank you enormously because I have met many politicians myself, I mean, most of them do not have the courage or conviction.
In fact, I think they’re a bit lazy because they don’t want to learn science, science seems to be a bit too hard sometimes. People are all scared of science, but for us, science is a wonderful tool, is one of those tools to enhance and improve our knowledge, to find that kind of understanding about our natural world and our human world. It’s a wonderful thing.
CSIRO has misled parliament. Last night in the Senate I laid out my argument that the CSIRO has misled parliament by allowing the government to base climate policies on CSIRO’s advice which includes discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models.
The onus is now on parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. Until that is provided, the government must immediately halt all climate policies which are a multi-billion drag on our economy.
This report provides a summary of the discussions and transcripts from meetings with CSIRO. Additional links in the References section give an in-depth appreciation of analysis of the evidence provided by CSIRO. In the context of seeking CSIRO’s empirical evidence to justify climate policies, I know that CSIRO:
has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous.
admitted that temperatures today are not unprecedented.
withdrew discredited papers that it had cited as evidence of unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide supporting empirical evidence.
has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity.
relies upon unvalidated models that give unverified and erroneous projections as “evidence.”
relied on discredited and poor quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide.
admits to not doing due diligence on reports and data from external agencies.
revealed little understanding of papers it cited as evidence.
allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO science without correction.
misled parliament.
Seventeen internationally respected climate scientists from Australia and five other nations verified our conclusions about CSIRO. In conclusion, CSIRO’s science on the matter of climate for policy making, amounts to a gross misleading of Parliament. The onus of proof is now on Parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on climate policies.
Neither H2O (water) nor CO2 (carbon dioxide) are pollutants.
CO2, carbon dioxide:
Is essential for all life on earth;
Is just 0.04% of earth’s air – four one hundredths of a per cent;
Is scientifically classified as a trace gas because there is so little of it
Is non-toxic; not noxious;
Is highly beneficial to, and essential for, plants;
Is colourless, odourless, tasteless;
Natural – nature produces 97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on Earth;
Does not discolour the air;
Does not impair the quality of water or soil;
Does not create light, heat, noise or radioactivity;
Does not distort our senses.
Does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive;
Does not make land water or air dirty or unsafe to use;
Does not cause disease;
Does not harm ecosystems and is essential for ecosystems;
Does not harm plants &animals. Essential for plants and animals;
Does not cause discomfort, instability or disorder;
Does not accumulate;
Does not upset nature’s balance;
Remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, and natural accumulations;
Does not contaminate apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes from some volcanoes and then only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts far higher than anything humans can produce;
Is not a foreign substance;
In past more than 130 times higher in conc’, in air than today.
In some locations within nature other atoms can be included with hydrocarbons as impurities in the resource deposit. These can include for example, Sulphur (S) and Nitrogen (N) among others. When these are burned in oxygen they produce sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxides (NOx).
Along with particulates that are small particles of soot or smoke, these are real pollutants. Fortunately, real science has led to technology that removes virtually all such pollutants at the source or after combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel. This is why modern cities in developed countries have clean, healthy air.
CSIRO has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy, which is a multi-billion dollar drag on the economy.
Senator Roberts said, “This is shameful, and I call on the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, and executive Dr Peter Mayfield, to resign.
“Both have been complicit in the economically destructive policies based on CSIRO’s misplaced climate research.”
The controversial, but central claim, that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut, was the focus of Senator Roberts’ cross-examination of CSIRO.
When CSIRO was asked for evidence of anything unprecedented in climate due to human carbon dioxide, and despite nearly 50 years of climate research, it could only provide the discredited Marcott (2013) paper on temperatures and the discredited Harries (2001) paper on carbon dioxide.
Both papers wilted under scrutiny, with CSIRO representatives in agreement with the concerns raised, resulting in CSIRO withdrawing the papers.
Astrophysicist and Geoscientist Professor Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”.
Senator Roberts stated, “Robust science reflecting the highest standards of integrity and transparency should be the core business of CSIRO.
“How could it be that climate scientists were unaware that the evidence being used for significant policy-making was based on poor quality and discredited scientific papers.
“CSIRO’s lack of understanding of the papers they cited shows laziness and lack of intellectual rigor. Clearly, CSIRO cannot honestly claim that human activity is causing climate variability.”
When pressed further regarding the view of CO2 being dangerous, CSIRO were quick to point out that they never claimed CO2 was dangerous, rather that it was politicians that assigned the word danger to human CO2.
CSIRO also agreed that temperatures today are not unprecedented.
In a last ditch attempt CSIRO referenced the United Nations’ reports relying on unvalidated computer models, despite freely admitting CSIRO had not done due diligence on any UN work.
CSIRO also admitted it had not done due diligence on data from the Bureau of Meteorology.
Senator Roberts added, “In my discussions with eminent international scientists, Professor John Christie stated he has closely examined CSIRO’s Access Models and found them below par, as the projections simply do not match what we actually see in the real world.”
Professor Christie added, “Climate is so complex, our ignorance of the climate system is enormous, and the myriad of models have not even agreed on a key variable, CO2 sensitivities.
“The CSIRO models are running overly warm and this has been proven when comparing real data of the last 40 years with the climate model projections.”
Dr David Evans, one of the world’s top computer modellers, states, “CSIRO climate models should not be used for policy as they are not right yet.
“The performance of all climate models, including CSIRO’s, are not sufficiently validated and consistently overestimate warming.”
Senator Roberts added, “It is the duty and responsibility of politicians to base costly policies and economic structural change on robust scientific evidence, not discredited papers and deficient models.”
Senator Roberts calls for “a halt to all climate policies and spending until credible empirical evidence is provided to justify the spend, and for an Office of Scientific Integrity to scrutinize science used for policy.
“The onus is now on parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on vested interests riding the climate gravy train.”
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CSIRO-Press-Release.png?fit=2300%2C1294&ssl=112942300Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-31 06:00:002020-08-30 16:04:30Senator Roberts calls on CSIRO head to resign
Yesterday, Dr Alan Moran released a report I commissioned on the cost of climate policies and renewable subsidies have on Australians. Today I asked questions to Senator Birmingham representing the Minister for Energy.
Questions
I commissioned the highly respected economist Dr Alan Moran to review government economic and energy data and to calculate the true cost of climate policies and so-called renewable energy sources. He delivered his report to me last week and a copy has been sent to every member of federal parliament including Senator Birmingham and the Minister for Energy.
Dr Moran’s work cannot be sensibly refuted since he uses the government’s own data that used to be published in a consolidated form until the cost of intermittent solar and wind energy sources became so embarrassingly and devastatingly high. Is the Minister aware that the true cost of climate policies on household through electricity prices is a staggering $1,300 per year?
First Supplementary Question:
Is the Minister aware that the true cost of so-called climate policies and renewable energy on household electricity bills is not the reported 6.5%, but a whopping and devastating 39%.
Second Supplementary Question:
On average your government incentivises $8 billion of malinvestment in green energy projects which results in a net loss of jobs in the economy; analysis based on Spain’s experience indicates with every green subsidised job created, 2.2 jobs are lost. With over 1 million Australians losing their job and the unemployment numbers rising due to COVID19, shouldn’t the government be incentivising job creating rather than job losses.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Capture-3.png?fit=741%2C404&ssl=1404741Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-24 15:36:382020-08-24 15:36:49Government caught out not knowing cost of climate policies
Climate policies costing every household $1300 annually On Outsiders this morning, Dr Alan Moran release a report I commissioned which analysed the financial impact of climate policies and renewable subsidies on Australian households.
The report, ‘The Hidden Cost of Renewables on Electricity Prices’ uncovers blatant distortions and key facts that are excluded from reporting on the costs of climate policies. Here are the secrets the government has been hiding from you
Climate policies account for 39% of your electricity bills not 6.5% as reported.
Climate policies are costing you $13 billion a year through higher electricity prices
Renewable subsidies and policies cause a net loss of jobs in the economy, as every subsidised “green” job created, 2.2 jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy.
[SEN. ROBERTS] Let’s clear up some recent confusion about One Nation’s position on Acland mine continuing to operate and to reinstate three hundred vital local jobs and 2300 indirect regional jobs. We’ve criticised how a third party representative of Acland approached One Nation in the past.
Pauline reminded everyone of this recently and now that Acland has been willing to give us facts and data and the courts have fixed an injustice I’m pleased to support the mine. Affordable energy and export income is good for our country and Acland will be good for the local area.
I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland’s Stage 3. Let’s have a look at the timeline of the extension of the operating mine. The Bligh govt gazetted the Stage 3 extension in 2007, thirteen years ago. There was some local opposition.
The project then went to the Land Court where the adjudicator, whose official title is Member, rejected the mine’s application in 2016. One Nation accepted that decision. It then went on appeal to the Supreme Court, where Acland was successful. After that it went to on to the Court of Appeal which included the highly respected Justice Sofronoff and two other judges. Acland won that.
The Court of Appeal, our highest court in Queensland, ruled that the decision by the Land Court Member was affected by “apprehended bias” and was unsound. That means one Land Court Member showing apprehended bias ruled against the mine and hundreds of jobs AND four Supreme court Judges overruled him.
The courts have corrected an injustice within their own system.
[INTERVIEWER] What about the current appeal?
[SEN. ROBERTS] This decision is now on appeal to the High Court thanks to the Labor government continuing to give taxpayer money to The Environmental Defenders Office to interrupt development and jobs.
The Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development issued three advices in relation to Acland’s impact on groundwater over 2014, 2015 and 2016. The 2014 and 2015 reports criticised Acland. It’s 2016 report was positive and said that all matters raised had been addressed.
This report won Acland Federal environmental approval.We want to encourage businesses who are told they have a problem and fix it. This is what Acland did and got sign off from an independent, statutory scientific body that the courts said had access to the same information as any objector.
[INTERVIEWER] What about the evidence given in the Land Court?
[SEN. ROBERTS] Several witnesses on both sides gave evidence that had the appearance of being first-hand but was later shown to be based on hearsay. The Land Court Member in the first decision made no criticism of the objectors who gave such evidence yet was highly critical of one of Acland’s witnesses who did exactly the same [1].
The Land Court Member said that Acland had deliberately distorted the facts and eroded the confidence of the court. The Court of Appeal found that there was no basis to impute this [2]. The Court of Appeal found that at a certain point the Land Court Member was, quote: “animated by an extreme and irrational animus against Acland” [3].
Essentially, he the Member, had taken a negative attitude towards Acland. The court of appeal said at times the Member was combative, argumentative and sarcastic to Acland [4]. In the Supreme Court, it was found that there was no evidence to support the claim that Acland had engaged in pressure tactics [5].
The Court of Appeal found there was no basis for the Land Court Member’s conclusion that Acland had sought to portray objectors as bigoted individuals who were only interested in spreading misinformation [6]. The Land Court Member himself concluded that some of the objectors were ready to make assertions without evidence, make submissions that were scandalous and unsupported by any evidence and as to one witness, having an anti-Acland fixation that overflowed into her evidence [6].
The Court of Appeal found that the Land Court Member’s imputation that Acland had tried to hide relevant information in relation to groundwater impacts was “irrational” [7]. While the original Land Court Member’s decision rejected Acland, it’s obvious that was not sound.
[INTERVIEWER] There was a comment that Acland tried to influence a One Nation candidate?
[SEN. ROBERTS] There was an accusation, since retracted, that our local, grassroots candidate had been wined and dined by the mine. None of these are true. I want to acknowledge Alan Jones’ strength of character in correcting and apologising for the assertion about that candidate. I thank him for that.
[INTERVIEWER] What has led to your support for Acland?
[SEN. ROBERTS] I visited Acland 3 weeks ago and worked through my extensive checklist of things I think needed to be considered.
These include: Safety & health; Water underground; water overland; water usage & supply; land use rights; constitution; aboriginal land (none at Acland); rural land quality & use; farm produce type; environment – air quality, vibrations, reclamation, noise, past performance; town services & rates; jobs and local/regional economy; infrastructure impacts; social impact; bank support; owner’s flexibility and consideration of others’ needs; government fiscal responsibility/debt;
Acland meets all of them. In fact, Acland has extensively changed its mining plan at high cost to itself to meet locals’ needs. I listened to a small group of opponents to Acland.I listened to the local community, business owners and farmers who strongly support this project.
Coal is good for this country and Acland will be good for the local area. I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland.Let’s get government green tape, red tape and blue tape out of the way, and get shovels in the ground and dump trucks on the road.
In a state with $100 billion of debt thanks to the Liberal-Labor duopoly we need export income and affordable domestic energy for our economic recovery and to secure our state’s future.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Capture-1.png?fit=731%2C409&ssl=1409731Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-05 10:39:542020-08-05 11:21:52Why I support the Acland Mine Extension
