Government has no idea how much renewables cost – Clean Energy Regulator

, ,

This government already funnels billions of dollars into renewable energy projects. As huge as that cost is, there is an even bigger silent one: the cost of complying with green regulation.

I was shocked that the Clean Energy Regulator, with a $75 million budget, has never made an estimate of just how much that cost is to business and Australians.

Transcript

Senator. So Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for attending tonight. First of all, what’s clean energy?

[David Parker] Senator, as the Clean Energy Regulator, we have a range of legislation that we’re entrusted to administer and the relevant bits of clean energy are defined in that legislation.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what are they?

[David Parker] Oh, there’s a range. Charlene, would you like to have a go at that?

[Charlene Thompson] Charlene Thompson, Executive General Manager, Scheme Operations Division. So Senator, as part of our administration of various legislative schemes, we are entrusted with looking after the two aspects of the renewable energy target. Which includes the large scale renewable energy target and the smaller scale target. And I believe the eligible technologies under that Act include solar, PV, wind power, I think there’s some bio methane in there as well. So, those things are essentially eligible activities or technologies that attract the incentive provided by the renewable energy target.

[David Parker] So there’s one other, which is heat pump hot water.

[Charlene Thompson] That’s right, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?

[David Parker] Heat pump hot water. So, it’s the new hot water systems. Rather than having, you know, electricity go through a resistive heater or a gas heater. You have a heat pump on like a reverse air conditioner, which puts heat into the water. They’re more efficient, use less electricity.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s defined as clean, is defined in the regulations, which you have to enforce?

[David Parker] Well, for our purposes, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. The purpose of the agency is listed as being accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. I think that means carbon dioxide. Any such goal must be tempered by the costs this entails. The Regulator administers a range of programmes, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Renewable Energy Target, and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The Regulator has a budget of about $75 million. Is that about right?

[David Parker] That’s about right, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s generally recognised that the costs imposed on business by regulations is considerably in excess of the direct costs of the Regulator itself. So, more than your $75 million. Have you estimated the cost of compliance by businesses as required by the government’s regulation review guidelines?

[David Parker] Well, in terms of our existing regular regulation, no, we haven’t done a survey, but let me say, as a matter of culture, we take it as one of our duties to reduce the cost impact of the legislation that we administer. And I think it would be fair to say that we have a good record in that.

[Malcolm Roberts] How do you do that? And what kind of examples can you give me?

[David Parker] Yeah, Okay. So I can give you a range of examples. So, let me take one in the small scale renewable energy space.

[Malcolm Roberts] Small scale?

[David Parker] Small scale. So, this is solar panels on roofs, for example. When that scheme was originally conceived it involved people filling out lots of forms. The forms were shooting out all over the place and eventually winding up at the Regulator. Then we’d have people look at the forms, that would take some time, obviously filling in forms and moving information around the various parties in the industry would have a cost. As one of the innovations that was co-developed with industry, we now have a process called the Solar Panel Validation Arrangements. I won’t go into all of the details, because that will take some time, but broad broadly speaking, what it means is that the installer takes out their telephone. There’s an app on that telephone. They take a photo of the panels, where they’ve been installed. Before and after, so that you can see that it’s been done. That’s an Andy Ford measure. Takes a photograph of the relevant barcodes on the panel. So we know what panels are there. And then, you know, essentially you press submit information. So, it goes through the network, the web, to the various people involved, and it quickly ends up in our shop, for the purposes of validating the install and providing the Renewable Energy Certificates. That data essentially just goes directly into our systems and doesn’t require very much human intervention at all. And so that reduces the time taken to do this. And I could give you a range of other suggestions, like that.

[Malcolm Roberts] So a new scheme is coming in, the Corporate Emissions Reduction Transparency Report.

[David Parker] Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it seeks to gather and codify information from all companies rather than the 2,500 presently covered in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The scheme was open to public comment until 19th of March, 2021 in a government media release of 19 February. At 28 days, seems a bit short. Was this part of the regulation impact statement procedure required by the government? And have you estimated the paper burden costs of the scheme?

[David Parker] Well, let me just correct some of the facts that you stated. It’s not a requirement to all companies. It’s a requirement for us to set up a framework, which we’ve done. It’s a voluntary arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] It’s an opt-in.

[Malcolm Roberts] Strictly speaking, it’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] Well, whether you call it strictly speaking or want to go to the issues about companies who’d want to opt in and why, it’s formally an opt in arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is this scheme proceeding?

[David Parker]A scheme is still in the process of development. You told quickly the story of the proposal being put out for consultation, we’ve got quite a substantial amount of feedback from industry about that. In essence, if you like, the scheme is about moving reporting from and this is itself, a simplification, moving reporting under the search process to the extent that companies opt in, moving that from gross emissions. Which is the arrangement under the so-called NGERS Reporting, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System over to a net story, if companies wish to opt in. And companies, as part of that, will be able to tell their story about how they’re proposing to reduce their net emissions position.

[Malcolm Roberts] So when you talk about emissions, you’re talking about carbon dioxide?

[David Parker] Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, methane. You’re not talking about nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate or any of the real pollutants.

[David Parker] Well, nitrous oxide is a relevant gas that’s covered. So, anything that anything that’s covered, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it covers real pollutants too? Now it is an opt in programme, as you said. Yet it’s likely, it seems, that green activist organisations will use it to target those companies that initially choose to opt out. To not opt in.

[David Parker] Well, look, I think that remains to be seen. I wouldn’t speculate on how we will use, who might opt in at this stage. I mean, it’s very early in the process. I mean, it’s quite clear that the way climate change issues are being thought about has moved quite clearly into the net space as opposed to the grey space. And so, what this report does is intended to align with that shift.

[Chair] Roberts again, I’d like to hand the court over to Senator Davidson. You can ask two more questions, if you’d like. Then we’ll pass it over.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you offer information regarding the compliance costs for business?

[David Parker] Look, it’s difficult to say. It will depend on how a company chooses to opt in, on what basis. Whether that’s an equity basis or a basis that comes directly out of the NGERS arrangement. So it’s one of these things, which is quite difficult to say at this point in time.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, last question, if the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, and I’m told that we have achieved it, why is there a positive price to the renewable energy target subsidy target itself? When any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers to incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve already achieved it, why are we driving more subsidies to achieve even more?

[David Parker] Well, the price of Large Scale Generation Certificate, so let’s just focus on that, for the purposes of discussing the question. So, the legislation sets a statutory target of 33,000 gigawatt hours. And a couple of things to observe. So there was a statutory target through time, but also a mechanism embedded in the legislation to permit, in technical terms, arbitration. Not arbitration, but arbitrage between the years, pardon me. And there is still some obligation that remains to be met, should a company wish to, right? They’ve taken so-called default arrangement out of that. They could redeem those payments for a certificate. So there’s some sort of old demand. And the other point is that that target is not the only demand that’s there in the market. So, it’s possible for people to voluntarily surrender certificates if they wish. And there are some schemes which also connect into the scheme, such as Green Power. Where, if people wish, they can sort of tick the box, I’m using term somewhat pejorative, but choose to purchase low emissions energy from the energy retailers. And I won’t go into all the details, but that also flows through into an LGC demand on top of the statutory target. So prices are hitting down. We expect them to hit down further, but in terms of where they go over time, as some of those things that I’ve explained with them work themselves out. Where the price heads over time, there there’s a range of views about that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

/by

People don’t want wind turbines in their backyard – Senate Estimates

, ,

I questioned the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner at Senate Estimates. This is one the dozens of climate related agencies that the government pays for in their never-ending pursuit of renewables.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Dyer, for being here with us.

[Mr. Dyer] My pleasure.

[Malcolm Roberts] The data shows the large project subsidy is around $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide and that’s close to $40 per megawatt hour. If the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, which is what we’re told why is there a positive price to the renewable energy targets, certificates effectively subsidy when any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve achieved the target, why is it still there?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s a fantastic good question, but it’s not my area of expertise overall or roles I’m the ombudsman effectively for renewable energy and transmission. So it’s not, one I can comment on

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s formerly the National Wind Farm Commissioner.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah the National Wind Farm Commissioner, okay. So the history of manufacturing, the history of farming, the history of just about any service if it’s dealt with closely and evaluated closely then managing a process is most productive and efficient when variation is minimised. So what we’ve got now is an increase in variation of supply from electricity, and that’s the most crucial sector. So the sector that determines our manufacturing success, our agricultural success, our processing success, the quality of life, the affordability of energy is now being driven by increasing variability through wind and solar which have notoriously variable, energy supplies. Is there any thought been given to that? That’s inherently more expensive.

[Mr. Dyer] Senator, my role is to help work with communities and proponents and governments to help the rolled out of projects to occur in the country around the country. I don’t set the policy about what should be put out there on a pathway to help resolve concerns.

[Malcolm Roberts] Do you have any concerns from citizens as I do from our constituents that we’re supposed to be doing all of this stuff, transitioning to unreliable energy because of climate yet, we’re transitioning to the two things that are make us even more dependent on weather and climate variability, seems insane to me. Do you have any constituents as I do who are complaining about that?

[Mr. Dyer] Most constituents, the complaint to us, very supportive of renewable energy, but just don’t want one in their backyard.

[Malcolm Roberts] Why is that?

[Mr. Dyer] Because of the perceived impacts of the visual amenity noise, property values, of fire risk and a whole range of things that might to be tabled to our attention.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s low vibes, low frequency vibrations in particular?

[Mr. Dyer] Yes. There have been a body of complaints about what’s called infrasound.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. Yeah. I’ve heard them of people in severe pain, trauma almost due to it. Has any study being done on the impact of wind turbines on energy and Earth’s atmosphere and the effects of that wind turbines taking energy out of the atmosphere.

[Mr. Dyer] Not to my knowledge.

[Malcolm Roberts] It might seem very minuscule but then you see labor’s carbon dioxide tax was introduced to cut the number of carbon dioxide molecules in air from one in 5.7 million produced by humans to one in 6 million. So that seems very minuscule too but we’ve got a whole industry and the decimation of other industries based on a theory that when in reality nature is shown to control the level of carbon dioxide in the air. So no studies have been done looking at the effect of taking energy out of earth’s atmosphere and out of the earth’s winds that you’re aware of. I’m not aware of any either.

[Mr. Dyer] No, there’s been theories around that. Wind turbines might cause frost because they take the wind out of the sail, so to speak. And the top here that might protect vineyard from causing frost could be at risk. But when we’ve dug into those research matters there hasn’t been any substance to them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So wind sources of power are not reliable. They’re unreliable, they’re costly inherently so because they’re very low density energy they’re unstable in terms of they’re being asynchronous. When they’re added to the grid, they increase instability. They’re scattered, which increases transmission costs. They have limited life sometimes as short as 10 to 15 years then I have an environmental legacy with massive burials in Wyoming for example. I don’t know what’s going to happen in Australia. Is anyone talking about those issues?

[Mr. Dyer] Decommissioning is certainly a big topic at the moment as we come to end of life of many wind farms around the country and who pays, who is accountable, what is the disposal, disposal mechanism for things their blades is a hot topic. Thank you very much Mr. Dyer.

/by

CO2 is not the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef – Senate Estimates GBRMPA

, ,

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority makes very scary claims that CO2 is destroying the reef. They do this even though they cannot provide the specific effect of human carbon dioxide on climate factors like air or ocean temperature.

The greens are always rattled when I start to pick apart these claims and you can hear them try to smear me throughout the video.

Transcript

[Chair] Thank you for attending today.

[Malcolm Roberts] First question is: what empirical scientific evidence does the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect, and specifically proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut to save the Reef? GBRMPA has said a lot about that. And I’d like to know what evidence in specific.

[Joshua Thomas] I’ll ask my chief scientist to address that, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr Thomas.

[David Wachenfeld], Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not our direct business. There are thousands of scientists all over the world who do research into climate and the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Those, the work of those scientists is synthesised and summarised in the assessment reports of the IPCC. We don’t independently assess evidence for the effects of carbon dioxide on atmosphere and climate. And that’s a global issue, not a Great Barrier Reef issue.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand… I’ve forgotten your name, I’m sorry.

[David Wachenfeld] David Wachenfeld.

[Malcolm Roberts] Mr. Wachenfeld. I understand that…

[Whish-Wilson] Doctor.

[Malcolm Roberts] Doctor. Thanks. I understand that… GBRMPA. Do we have any advance on David? Okay. I understand that GBRMPA has echoed those claims and spread those claims that carbon dioxide needs to be cut to save the Barrier Reef. Is that correct?

[David Wachenfeld] So the Authority’s position is well set out in that Climate Change Position Statement, and yes-

[Malcolm Roberts] What is that?

[Joshua Thomas] So we have a position statement that articulates quite clearly that we see climate change as the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. And that all action should be taken to reduce emissions over time at a global, national and local scale.

[Malcolm Roberts] So according to Dr. Wachenfeld, the evidence for that is in the IPCC.

[Joshua Thomas] No, Senator. The evidence for that is in probably thousands of scientific papers by scientists-

[Malcolm Roberts] You can’t point to where it is specifically for the basis of that policy?

[David Wachenfeld] Well, Senator, there is… I’m trying to summarise here a vast body of global research conducted by scientists all over the world that is probably most authoritatively summarised in the IPCC reports. The specific consequences of climate change for the Great Barrier Reef are also covered by the work of many scientists through many institutions. That work is summarised in our Outlook Report, which we produce every five years.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for repeating it again. Mr. Thomas has just told me, your position statement says it’s carbon dioxide from human activity is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Now I want to know what specifically you rely on. Pinpointed. Where’s the specific scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves human carbon dioxide affects the Barrier Reef. And here’s the quote, Mr. Thomas: “the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef.”

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, as Dr. Wachenfeld is trying to explain, there are thousands of sources that we can-

[Malcolm Roberts] I just want one.

[Joshua Thomas] That we consider and digest. And we’d be very happy to provide you a summary or a list of some of those sources that we rely on heavily.

[Malcolm Roberts] What I would like and make very clear is the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect that specifically states the link between carbon dioxide and various climate factors, such as water temperature, ocean temperature, air temperature, rainfall, droughts, winds, currents, ocean alkalinity. That’s what I would like. Until you have that, it’s no basis for policy, no basis for your statement.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, we do have that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good. I’d like to see it.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, it’s in the Outlook Report, is the short answer.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the page, please.

[Joshua Thomas] Sorry?

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the specific page of the specific effect of carbon dioxide? To make a policy and a statement on a position statement such as Mr. Thomas has made, we need the specific link between amount of carbon dioxide and impact on those various climate factors. I want to know where it is.

[Joshua Thomas] So, Senator, that’s not one piece of work. The impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect that they have warming our atmosphere, obviously that’s global research. As the atmosphere warms, the ocean warms. That means the Great Barrier Reef warms. The Great Barrier Reef is approximately 0.9 of a degree warmer than it was about a century ago.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the human cause. I want to see the link, the quantified link. Because until you provide that, there’s no basis for Dr. Thomas’s position statement. I want to know the link.

[Joshua Thomas] Yes, Senator, there is a basis for that position statement.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to see it then.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, it’s present in a vast body of global science summarised by-

[Malcolm Roberts] So you can’t give me a specific link to that policy?

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator.

[David Wachenfeld] The policy, yes, Senator. I’ve got it right here.

[Malcolm Roberts] Specific quantified link stating carbon dioxide from human activity.

[Joshua Thomas] Dr. Wachenfeld has tried to answer your question. The Outlook Report is our best digest of the information available to us about the pressures on the Great Barrier Reef, of which we see climate change as being the greatest. That report has some 1400 citations in it. We’d be very happy to point them out to you here this evening in the back of that document, or separately provide them on notice to you.

[Malcolm Roberts] I just want the specific, I just want the specific interest.

[Whish-Wilson] This is the elbow we’re talking about. It might be very different than Senator Roberts’s ward.

[Roberts] So what-

[Chair] Senator. Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Whish-Wilson. You do not have the call. Can I suggest that you do take that on notice? I think what Senator Roberts is after, is a worked example of one of those pieces of work that demonstrates the linkage he’s talking about. Could I ask you perhaps to take that on notice if that answers your question?

[Malcolm Roberts] Sure. And I’ll make the comment, Chair, that when people align or smear, it indicates they don’t have the evidence. So that’s… Not accusing you of doing that by the way.

[Joshua Thomas] I rest my case.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are you aware that Liberal, Labor and National Party MPs have told me that they have never seen such evidence for the Reef nor for climate generally? Are you aware?

[Joshua Thomas] No. Senator, I’m not aware of what other politicians have told you. Sorry.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson government introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector, stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s gear of protocols, and was the first major party to introduce a carbon dioxide tax?

[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson.

[Whish-Wilson] You live in-

[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson. Interjections are disorderly. And Senator Roberts, can I ask you to come to the point on relevant questions that the officials can answer without long preambles. The hour is late and we have another two sections to get through.

[Malcolm Roberts] So on notice you’re gonna provide the evidence. What I highlight, is that I need the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide production and climate factors, including air temperature, ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, winds, and currents. Is that clear?

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, I should just point out here. We will provide that information to you. We may need to consult other portfolios-

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to hear that.

[Joshua Thomas] And other experts who have the Commonwealth lead on climate policy.

[Chair] Thank you, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much, Chair.

/by

What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology

, ,

The temperature data supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology is relied on by many climate agencies to support claims of climate change. Some of this data however has been modified. If BOM has been getting it wrong, how can we trust that they are now getting it right? I asked them last night at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] I draw your attention to your State of the Climate reports, 2016 and 2018, and specifically the two graphs of Australian surface air temperatures. One in State of the Climate 2016 on page four and the other in State of the Climate 2018 on page two. Are you familiar with those reports?

[Dr. Johnson] I’m familiar with the reports, but I confess, you know, I haven’t committed those pages to memory.

[Senator Roberts] I can understand that.

[Dr. Johnson] No, I am familiar with the reports, yeah.

[Senator Roberts] One of our research scientists, in updating his records, compared your 2016 graph on page four and your 2018 graph on page two. He then obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology the actual temperatures used in producing those two graphs. He found the two graphs very different for the dates from 1910 to 2016 yet surely the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 should be the same for both graphs, shouldn’t they?

[Dr. Johnson] I believe so, but again, I’d need to check exactly what you’re referring to ’cause they may, Dr. Stone has the report, I think, in front of him. Are you able to shed any light on this?

[Dr. Stone] I’ve got the more recent one. I’m sorry. And like Dr. Johnson, I haven’t committed.

[Dr. Johnson] I’m happy to take these-

[Dr. Stone] It might be easier just to- So we’re comparing apples with apples, Senator, and happy to answer your question.

[Senator Roberts] So let me get to the core point, then. The only changes to produce the 2018 graph should have been, as we see it, the addition of data from 2017 to 2018 on top of the 2016 graph, yet the actual data shows that in the 2018 graph, temperatures after about 1970, looking at the graph, from your perspective, are inflated and progressively increased. And the temperatures before 1970 have been progressively decreased with the effect of increasing the slope of the temperature graph, exaggerating the warming. So I’d like to know what is the reason, on notice, what is the reason for this when temperatures of historical records end up records up to and including 2016 should not have changed at all, let alone systematically changed one way after 1970 and the other way before 1970 to exaggerate the warming. I’d like to know that answer.

[Dr. Johnson] I think we’re happy to take that on notice to make sure we’re answering your question accurately, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] On notice, what basis, on what basis were the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 changed to produce the 2018 graph for the years 1910 to 2016. And has the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian temperature record been wrong every year until 2018? Can you guarantee that the 2018 record would not turn out to be wrong in 2024? Or is the Australian temperature record anything that BOM says it is? That’s what I need to answer.

[Dr. Johnson] Take those questions on notice, chair, if that’s alright.

/1 Comment/by

Debate me on climate – Challenge ignored for 602 days

,

The one thing we have never had in the Senate is empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut.

I have repeatedly challenged the greens to debate me on climate change. They refuse to because they don’t have the facts.

Transcript

So far we’ve had a global warming emergency, then a climate change emergency, then a climate catastrophe emergency. Now we’ve got a climate collapse emergency. One thing we’ve never had is any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. I first challenged Senator Waters to debate me and to provide the scientific evidence 10½ years ago. She immediately declined. She declined again in 2016 and again 602 days ago in the Senate. There has been nothing since, because there is no such evidence justifying the collapse of our electricity sector. What is threatened with extinction here is not our planet; it is our civilisation and it is science.

/by

There is no “Climate Collapse”

,

First it was the hole in the ozone layer, then global warming, then it was climate change, now it’s climate collapse.

Alarmists keep moving the goalposts because their claims are simply not true. I spoke to this in the Senate last week.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’ll discuss collapses already underway, and none of them involves a climate collapse—firstly, the economic collapse. In the name of unsubstantiated climate alarm, the Howard-Anderson Liberal-Nationals government, starting in 1996, colluded with the states to deceitfully bypass the Constitution to steal farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. It concocted Australia’s first major party emissions trading scheme, a carbon dioxide tax to comply with UN dictates. It introduced the Renewable Energy Target, which has grown to now cost Australians an additional $13 billion each year, every year in their electricity costs, again to comply with UN dictates. In the name of climate, our electricity prices have risen artificially from the world’s lowest to now be the world’s highest. Manufacturing has collapsed. We no longer make cars; we make fewer household appliances; and we make no manufacturing tools, which are crucial for our security. Agriculture is being hammered. The Liberal-National energy minister, Angus Taylor, openly states he has fears for electricity prices, reliability and grid stability. Under this budget’s dreamy forecast, bets on hydrogen and continued subsidisation of expensive unreliables like wind and solar, we’re enduring a manufacturing collapse and we face economic collapse.

The second collapse is the collapse of science. Here are some facts. Firstly, on Monday 26 September 2016 the CSIRO confirmed that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and said it never will. So why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments enacted policies over 2½ decades for economic collapse? Secondly, on Wednesday 10 May 2017, in this building, the CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. That means we didn’t cause the current mild cyclical warming that ended around 1995. So why did the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments for 2½ decades driven economic collapse? According to NASA satellites, global atmospheric temperatures have been essentially flat with no warming for more than a quarter of a century. Despite China, despite India, despite America, despite Europe and despite Russia producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, higher human production of carbon dioxide has not increased temperatures. So why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments driven for the last 2½ decades economic collapse?

Following the global financial crisis, most nations were in recession during 2009. In 2020, as a result of government COVID restrictions around the world, nations were again in recession. In both recession years, the use of hydrocarbon fuels fell and human carbon dioxide production fell, yet in both recession years atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued increasing. Nature alone controls the carbon dioxide levels, so why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal, Nationals and Labor governments driven economic collapse for the last 2½ decades? The Bureau of Meteorology data on cyclones in Australia show no trend in cyclone frequency, severity or duration. There’s no climate catastrophe. The most severe drought in the last 120 years was the 1920s to 1940s drought. The next worst was the Federation drought in 1901. There is no climate catastrophe. Floods, bushfires, snowfall and every other climate factor show no change, just natural cyclical variation. There is no climate catastrophe. It’s been 601 days since my latest challenge to the Greens to present the data on which they base this nonsense and to debate me on the climate science and the corruption of climate science.

Finally, there’s no unprecedented global warming. There’s no climate change. There’s no climate catastrophe. There’s no climate collapse; instead, we have a collapse of science. The collapse of science led to an energy collapse that caused an economic collapse. Welcome to the Greens nightmare that is now the Liberals, Nationals and Labor nightmare. This is what happens when data is ignored and, instead, governance is based on unfounded opinions, personal and party political agendas, cronies, headlines, fear, emotions, UN policies, party donations and serving vested interests. And who pays for this atrocious governance and for these climate lies? We the people pay.

/1 Comment/by

Confronting Extinction Rebellion Protestors – Paul Murray Live

Extinction Rebellion protestors blocked off roads to Parliament House yesterday by chaining themselves to trucks to call for action on the “Climate Emergency”. We all know the “climate emergency” is hogwash, but I rarely see climate alarmists held accountable for their false claims.

So I decided I better go down to their protest and have a ‘friendly’ chat. Paul Murray had me on his program last night to discuss.

/by

Budget: Government has abandoned the next generation

, , , ,

The Liberal/National government has handed down a budget that the Labor party would be proud of. The Government is increasing borrowing to respond to a phoney climate emergency. Our ports and much of our power grid are in the hands of malicious foreign owners, and yet there is nothing in the budget to buy back these vital strategic assets.

Defence funding is being spent on wasteful white elephant programs like the attack class submarines instead of caring for our diggers and making sure they have the equipment they need. There is no vision or care for the future in this budget. Only One Nation has the vision to fix the country.

Transcript

As servant to the people of Queensland & Australia I remind the senate and all Australians that 24 years ago Pauline Hanson warned that Australia was heading to a place that we would not recognise as Australia.

The Media devoted much attention to the immigration aspects of her comments, and completely missed the substance.

Today we have arrived at the place Pauline warned us about.

Australians are living with restrictions on association, on speech, on movement, on protest and we even have mandatory face coverings.

Our federation has broken apart, we have seen border checkpoints between States.

The phrase ‘papers please’ which has defined tyrants throughout history, is now life for everyday Australians.

Our police are arresting law-abiding citizens in their own homes for the crime of organising a peaceful protest.

Our police are forcefully arresting a journalist for the crime of reporting that protest.

Dictators have been overthrown for less than this!

In the famous words traced to French, English and American philosophers Montaigne, Bacon and Thoreau, our leaders had “nothing to fear but fear itself”, and they chose fear!

The Premiers and the Prime Minster have surrendered power to ‘unelected bureaucrats with medical degrees’ who have shown themselves incapable of seeing the big picture.

While social media are calling the COVID restrictions on businesses a war on Capitalism, it’s much more sinister.

Corporate Australia have record sales, record profits and have paid themselves higher dividends and bonuses.

The Liberal National Government sent JobKeeper to these same companies who used the money to pay themselves yet more dividends and bonuses.

Now with this budget the Company Tax clawback has been extended to 2023/24. Companies making a loss in 23/24 can claim that loss against tax paid in 2018/18 and the Government will give a refund.

Let me explain the concept of taxation to the Treasurer. The Government is not supposed to take the tax paid by corporate Australia… and give it back to them.

This money was supposed to pay for the things that define Australia as a caring society – Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, childhood education and social security.

The Treasurer cannot give corporate tax back and then borrow the money to pay for recurring expenditure.

Yet that is exactly what this budget does.

Debt, debt and more debt to pay for profligate spending seemingly with no thought to the next generation that will be left to pay for it.

This is a budget of which Labor would be proud.

When I talk about the Lib Lab duopoly, even their budgets are looking the same.

As a result of coronavirus measures the world’s 400 richest people have increased their wealth by over 1 trillion dollars. We do not need to add to their wealth accumulation.

Much of this wealth is money that was once spent in local communities, in local hardware stores, community supermarkets, gift stores and greengrocers. Now many of those have been forced to close.

Online growth has gone to Amazon whose owner is the world’s richest man.

The real outcome from coronavirus measures has been the largest transference of wealth, from small business to the elites in Australian history.

We expect this sort of thing from the Liberal Party and their sell-out sidekicks the Nationals.

But Labor has embraced the politics of fear and cronyism in Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria.

Shame on you.

Only One Nation is committed to restoring a fair go for working Australians.

As our motion today on the National Curriculum and last sitting on de-gendered language shows, One Nation will continue to defend Australia as a faith-based nation committed to family and community.

One Nation continues to champion the natural environment. We continue to fight for clean air, for clean water, for clean food and for clean medicines.

We leave worshipping of the sky god of warming to Labor, the Greens and sadly now, in their final act of surrender, the Liberal-National Party with their policies contradicting science, common sense and nature.

With this budget the Government is borrowing money to increase funding for a fake climate emergency. There’s no climate emergency and a gutless pandering to the bed wetters on the left is not in the best interests of Australians.

This budget has a black armband view of Australia’s future. The projections for the contribution to GDP from agriculture are based on the assumption that lower rainfall will return and agricultural output and exports will decline.

According to the Government’s own research a drought like this last one has happened 10 times in the last 1000 years. It was not climate change 1000 years ago and it is not climate change now.

Cold weather has overtaken the northern hemisphere with widespread crop failures, reduced harvests and higher prices. This will not change over forward estimates.

Natural climate cycles have given our farmers a wonderful opportunity to grow our agricultural sector and exports.

Foreign influence and ownership in Australia has reached crisis levels and this budget has not done anything about it.

Our ports in Darwin, Melbourne and Newcastle and much of our power grid are now in the hands of a hostile foreign power. Those owners have publicly professed their loyalty not to Australia but to the Chinese Communist party.

This budget makes no provision for the cost of buying these contracts back so one can assume the Government does not intend to act to restore Australian sovereignty over our strategic assets.

Our armed forces are incapable of waging war against any serious challengers. Our subs are in pieces, only 1 sub is combat ready at this moment.

One.

The budget continues the new subs project despite the cost rising to an estimated $200 billion and delivery pushing out past 2030.

On the bright side Mr President, Australia is advancing our space capability.

Later this year an Australian designed and manufactured satellite will be launched into orbit from an Australian designed and manufactured rocket, using an Australian launch facility.

How amazing is that?

This is proof that it is time to get the government out of people’s lives and let free enterprise and Aussie ingenuity fix this mess.

Starting with withdrawing from the United Nations and their sovereignty-sapping, wealth-sucking, industry-killing conventions that make Australia less not more.

One Nation’s alternative budget will recover the freedoms, opportunities and living standards that Australians once enjoyed.

One Nation will cancel the submarine contract and purchase nuclear powered submarines off the shelf to expedite delivery and recover our defensive capability.

One Nation will terminate the clean energy fund and the Department of Climate change while honouring agreements already in place.

Every year Liberal-Labor-Nationals climate and energy policies cost Australians an ADDITIONAL $B13. The Liberal Energy Minister admits he is afraid for future electricity prices and terrified of losing reliability and stability.

Rightly so thanks to Liberal-Labor-Nationals policies starting with John Howard in 1996.

One Nation will abolish all energy subsidies for fossil fuel (except the diesel fuel rebate) and renewables so that free enterprise can build reliable, baseload power of whichever type they consider the most efficient.

This will restore our productive capacity by breathing life into our devastated industries.

One Nation will allow doctors to prescribe Australian medical cannabis to anyone with a medical need.

One Nation calls for a national taxation summit to reach agreement on how our taxation system is failing everyday Australians and destroying our country and to arrive at solutions based on proven principles.

This budget increases the number of public servants by 5000 over the next 12 months.

One Nation will freeze employment numbers in the Federal public service and re-allocate staff away from virtue signalling and pork barrelling projects into productive pursuits.

One Nation will reduce immigration such that our net population growth becomes zero. This will allow infrastructure like roads, hospitals, schools and housing to catch up with the avalanche of migrants that Labor/Greens and Liberal/Nationals have let in over the last 20 years.

A net zero population policy will actually allow around 80,000 migrants to still come in each year to replace the 80,000 who leave each year. We would expect 10,000 of those will be refugees.

This contrasts with a peak arrival rate of 275,000 new migrants annually pre COVID – 3 & ½ times our stable number.

The reduction in demand will take the heat out of the housing market and allow everyday Australians some relief from the extreme inflation we are seeing in housing, education, aged care, child care and medical expenses.

One Nation is preparing a plan that will turn Northern Australia into a growth engine for the whole country, offering a new future for Australia based on agriculture, mining, value adding.

More importantly, based on community.

/3 Comments/by

Farmers and Regional Towns are struggling

, , ,

With water availability, labour prices and government all against the farmer, it is too hard for smaller farms to survive and even the large farms are struggling.

If our farms fallover, regional towns will quickly follow and then the rest of the country will be in big trouble. Governments at every level need to help our regions be building cheap, reliable electricity and secure supplies of water.

Decades of government dropping the ball on these issues has left us in a scary position. I talk about this in my new segment, Our Nation Today, with farmer Trevor Cross and Mike Ryan.

Let me know what you think.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Regional Queensland literally feeds and clothes us, Yet so many short-sighted government policy decisions will hit these regions first and hit the regions hardest. Travelling around Queensland, I’m constantly reminded that the one-size-fits-all policies just don’t meet the needs of rural and regional centres. We’re talking about the fundamentals that urban areas take for granted. Affordable, secure, and reliable water, energy, and food. Reasonable insurance premiums and freight rates, roads, and rail fit for purpose. Access to health and education that gives people the confidence to settle in the regions. There’s nothing more fundamental than food.

A prosperous agricultural sector is essential for supplying Australia’s food needs and the needs of the rest of the world. In the financial year 2021, the gross value of agricultural production is estimated at $66 billion, a staggering figure. And it’s easy to forget that being a farmer is a tough gig because even in good years it’s 24/7 and the balancing acts of risks within a farmer’s control, and those beyond never stops. There’s been a lot of talk about an agriculture-led recovery after the COVID restrictions that smashed our economy and the need for confidence to pick up the pieces and to keep going. Many in our farming community have sustained shattering losses with ready to pick food being ploughed back in and a major reduction in the planting of next year’s crop, simply due to worker shortages.

I see a role for government in creating the right environment for businesses to flourish. Part of that is to help mitigate unnecessary risks, such as having strategically placed dams and a well-connected water infrastructure grid which should have happened years ago. So instead of the Queensland government spending $10 million to cart water for Stanthorpe when the town ran out, it would have been better spent on a longer term solution such as more town weirs to hold more water. We know that our water reserves and existing dams are not keeping up with population growth. Government should aim to minimise its unnecessary intrusions and yet any farmer will tell you that excessive regulations such as the reef regulations and vegetation management laws create an impossible business environment for farmers.

Layer upon layer upon layer of stupid and destructive rules and regulation leaves the farmer with ever-decreasing profits. And yet we expect farmers to just saddle up and continue to make it work. Today Mike Ryan talks with Trevor Cross, a successful Queensland horticultural grower based in Bundaberg. I first met Trevor in 2017 at his farm and was impressed with his passion for farming, his business savvy and the hard work that he and his team do everyday to put many veggies such as tomatoes, capsicums and zucchinis into our supermarkets.

[Mike Ryan] Trevor, thanks for joining us.

[Trevor Cross] Thanks Mike, good to meet you.

[Mike Ryan] Now, tell us about your farming business, the size of your holdings, where you’re located, what you grow and what you export.

[Trevor Cross] We’re in Bundaberg in Queensland, we farm about two and a half thousand acres of small crops. So we grow tomatoes, gourmet roma’s and cherry tomato. And then zucchinis, capsicums, chilies, melon, pumpkin, a few cucumber, snow peas, and sugar snaps, and just a few beans, so we spread that over about a nine-month period in the Bundaberg region. So most of our stuff actually goes Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne a little bit to Adelaide. And this year in New Zealand, it’ll open its exports again, it’s been out for 12 months with this virus. So it’s supposed to open up again this year, so hopefully that’ll be good for the industry.

[Mike Ryan] I can really empathise with what you do. I mean, my dad will probably kill me for this being from the land. I recall he actually decided to go into rockies and do rock melons and large acreage. Anyway, the bottom fell out of the market. And I recall he got a cheque from the bank for, I think it would have been something like sixpence in those days. And I’m thinking, why would you ever want to do this? And then he decided to go into avocados and citrus and stuff. And that’s just as terrifying. It’s a really hard business, isn’t it?

[Trevor Cross] Yeah. The biggest problem with farming it’s actually almost like an addiction. You go out and start growing something, it’s very, very hard to stop it. It’s not so much about money, I don’t think, when you’re a farmer. It’s about just seeing a crop planted, seeing the crop grow and getting it picked. But the biggest problem is there needs to be some rewards on the way through.

[Mike Ryan] What’s the greatest challenge, say, to business such as yours on the land?

[Trevor Cross] In our industry it’s, because it’s a high-labor industry, it’s probably, at the moment, getting enough people to actually harvest crops. Because when we’re in peak-season we have about 350 people here, so… And there is going to be a shortage. I’m not quite sure how far we’ll be down, whether it’s going to be 10- or 20-percent down. So that’s probably one of the hardest parts. Water supply’s another major component to our operation, and just general costing. The costs keep going up and up and up and the end prices doesn’t really reflect what it’s costing to do business, anymore.

[Mike Ryan] So you have two and a half thousand acres, which is a very large, large piece of land. Do you think the days of the smaller farmer, for example, 20 or 30 acres are gone, and that you need to have, just to accommodate your cost and make sure you get a decent return, that you’ve got to have a large business instead of those, not micro, but the smaller businesses used to be.

[Trevor Cross] It’s volume now, whereas before it was just a family, a family could actually survive on a hundred acres and live fairly comfortable, now a hundred acres unless you’re doing really niche market product, you would never, ever survive. So everything’s been turned into bigger farms. We’d be one of the largest, freehold personal farms in town now, there’s probably a couple other families about our size that are just doing it, and the rest is a lot of consolidated money from investment companies, and they’re now are doing nut trees, mainly.

[Mike Ryan] What’s greatest impact on your business when it comes to costs? Which ones are the ones that stand out? Is it labour?

[Trevor Cross] Yeah, Labour used to run about 33- to 35-percent we’d work on for labour, and the way it’s going, last year I think hit early forties, about 42-, 44-percent, and this year, unless there’s a big market change I think it’ll go 50%.

[Mike Ryan] Wow. That’s incredible, isn’t it? How do you survive?

[Trevor Cross] Well, I just hope that there’s actually money paid at the other end. At the point of sale, at the first point of sale at the marketplace, most stuff is fairly cheap. At the last point of sale, it could be three… between two and four times what it’s paid for. So, that’s what the average customer doesn’t think, They think if it’s dearer in the shop, the farmer’s making the money.

[Mike Ryan] I was talking to Senator Malcolm Roberts, and he was saying, just talking about how the consumer in the major metropolitan areas, they all think that the produce that they see almost is manufactured in the supermarket, but, you know, prior to that, you’ve got so many factors. I mean, from the farmer to the chain. Farmer, to the, what do you call it?

The grower. Not grower, the buyer who buys up for the land and then they on-sell it to someone else. And then it’s sold to the supermarket. You think from the farmer to the actual supermarket, ’cause my dad used to always say, he would love to be able to take out a shotgun with some pellets and get rid of those middlemen. Is it still the same headache and pain in the backside?

[Trevor Cross] The biggest problem is with the whole system, if you actually get out of the place what’s supposed to set the right price how do we know what the right price is? And I think the days when people were actually stealing at the first point of sale, I don’t think it’s there anymore because everyone’s fighting for a dollar. So they’re getting screwed down more and more. All the grower actually needs is probably about 20- 30-cents a kilo more and they become very sustainable. And that’s not a lot.

It’s only 2 to 3 dollars a box on average, and everyone’s paying bills, because the Ag industry, and this is not just what we do, It’s every Ag industry, there’s a lot of people get employed before it even gets to the farm. And then after it leaves the farm there’s a lot of people employed from transport, through to your retailers, your wholesalers, and then the processors… there’s many, many people relying on the farming industry.

[Mike Ryan]What are your thoughts of the future of farming, say, in Australia?

[Trevor Cross] Well, I know if we keep going down this track we can’t last much longer. Even our business now we’ve actually got 400 acres of nut trees, and we’ll probably continue to change over just because of the labour price and for our small profits we’re making out of employing all the people, we may as well not have them. We may as well just go to where it’s all mechanical.

So, I don’t know if my boys will actually take over and do what I do, ’cause it’s a seven-day-a-week job. You’ve got to be in amongst the people and see what’s happening. I actually think, even in this area around Bundaberg, there won’t be too much of this industry left within probably four or five years. I think the majors will be all gone.

[Mike Ryan] That’s just terrible, too, because once you have less growers like yourself then you’ve got this monopoly and the monopolies are not what we want. I mean, look at the US and you’ve got these multi-billion-dollar corporations that control the price of produce, although you go to a supermarket and they do the same thing there too, they screw down the grower, although the grower being a lot bigger than what they’ve dealt with, they’ve got their sort of, at least it’s coming up to almost 50-50 between the grower and the actual supermarket chain.

It’s a really, really tough life. What do you think is the most important thing in keeping our farming sector successful and growing? What do we actually need to do besides revise wages, for example, on the land. You can’t keep paying out 50%. You’re going to make no money.

[Trevor Cross] Yeah. Everyone’s entitled to money, Mike. The wage earner is entitled to money, and they all want to lead a good life, but we’ve just got to get a share of that sale price at the end. Basically, I think all growers need just a little bit more money, and it’s not a lot, a couple dollars a box, as I say, it’s not a lot of money. And then everyone’s happy because I don’t think any man who’s been on the land for all his life deserves to actually have the bank come and sell him up, because of the poor market prices. I think everyone can work together.

If capsicums or zucchinis or whatever, ’cause we’re only seasonal, we do about eight months a year in Bundaberg, and then the South is just finishing up now, they would have had the most horrible year in their life. And people have been on the land all their life and next minute they gotta sell their farms because of poor prices. It’s only a couple of dollars a box, they wouldn’t have needed much more and they’d be still viable.

[Mike Ryan] So what do you do, though? If you weren’t on the land, what would you do?

[Trevor Cross] I don’t really know what I would actually do cause I’m not much into fishing, I don’t like doing anything else. And so that’s what I call it, a hobby.

[Mike Ryan] An expensive hobby though, isn’t it?

[Trevor Cross] Yeah but most… a lot of farmers grow because they’re addicted to growing. That’s what they’ve been bred to do. They grow. And they show up nearly every day. So it’s a challenge because you’re challenged against the weather, challenged against people and you become a plumber an accountant, you know, almost doctor, sometimes. So there’s nothing you can’t actually do. A good farmer can do just about anything there is to do.

[Mike Ryan] If somebody was wanting to find out more about what you do, do you actually have a website we could go to and have a look, just to get an idea and appreciation what it’s all about.

[Trevor Cross] No, I would say I keep pretty well under cover but we could actually have a bit of a look at doing something if there’s people interested and actually do something.

[Mike Ryan] Yeah. We must do that. I’m sure you’ll handle the technology as well as my dad.

[Trevor Cross] I have to get someone to help me, yeah.

[Mike Ryan] Trevor, great chatting with you. All the best. Thanks for giving us your time today, and also say thank you to your wife in the background, she’s done a wonderful job.

[Trevor Cross] No worries. Thanks, Michael.

[Malcolm Roberts] The harsh reality is that we, as a nation, will either flourish or decline with our regional centres and with Australian farmers. Our farmers must make a profit to make their livelihoods sustainable. And that, after all, is where we get our food. Our rural and regional communities have unique challenges and need a different set of solutions to ensure fair and equitable access to basic services and to grow viable communities. Thank you for joining me Senator Malcolm Roberts on Our Nation Today.

/by

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

, ,

Senate Estimates is a great chance for me to grill these climate agencies and get very specific about the evidence that they base their policies on.

This year, we saw yet again that they love to duck and weave, but won’t actually provide me with the evidence. I talked about this on Marcus Paul last week.

Senate Estimates Sessions: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/category/senate-estimates/march-2021/

Transcript

[Announcer] Now on “Marcus Paul in the Morning” Senator Malcolm Roberts.

[Marcus] All right, 17 minutes away from eight o’clock. Good day, Malcolm. How are you, mate?

[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Good, good, good. Now I see, you’ve got the Bureau of Meteorology, and also Malcolm Turnbull, and also the CSIRO in your sights this morning. Who do you want to pick on first?

[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.

[Marcus] All right. What do you have to say about them? Of course, this argument about renewables costing us, what, 13 billion bucks a year or $1,300 per household.

[Malcolm] That’s in addition to the electricity bill, that’s the additional cost per household, $1,300. Marcus, there’s some really simple figures to understand. The median income in Australia is $49,000, so after tax, what’s that, 30 something?

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The chief executive of the CSIRO is paid a total per year, every year of $1,049,000.

[Marcus] Not bad.

[Malcolm] The group executive in charge of overseeing the climate area, the climate research, is on $613,000, more than the Prime Minister of Australia.

[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.

[Malcolm] I put to them very basic questions about their so-called science, they refused to answer. These were the first time that I had asked questions about these pieces of information that they gave to me last Senate estimates. I’ve never had an opportunity to ask them questions before about this. This is the first time. They refused to answer. The basic things were that they gave me five new references, in senate estimates in October, I asked them questions about this.

They refused to answer. They refused to answer a representative of the people. And the papers that they provided to me, Kaufman 2020, for example, this is the sort of crap that CSIRO dishes up, when the authors of that paper input their data on climate into their calculations, they omitted the first data point and put it in in reverse order, complete false. The second reference they gave me directly contradicts the claims that the CSIRO says that it’s supposed to be supporting.

The third reference said they made conclusions on one data point, and they took it out of context and went against the CSIRO’s own advice to me last October. So what I’m saying to you is we are paying someone $1,049,000 a year, we’re paying someone else $613,000 a year, people in Australia cannot afford this nonsense, and now we’ve got no evidence whatsoever.

The CSIRO has admitted that they have never said to any politician that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to our planet. That’s what politicians are saying. Why is this, Marcus, people are paying dearly for destroying manufacturing all because of this rubbish?

[Marcus] All right, now tell me about the Bureau of Meteorology.

[Malcolm] Well, here we go again, another government bureaucracy that’s claiming about climate. When they measure data, temperature, rainfall, et cetera, at a weather station, they also have metadata about the weather station that tells you, for example, how many times a station has been moved, because when it moves, it can have an effect on temperature and other recording devices. Townsville has been moved eight times.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s metadata says it’s been moved once. Metadata as well at Rockhampton moved four times, the Bureau says it’s been moved once. Cairns moved six times, the Bureau says it’s been moved twice. Charleville been moved four times, the Bureau says twice. The Bureau of Meteorology and its own peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these glaring inaccuracies.

How can we rely on the Bureau of Meteorology which says temperatures are increasing, but they haven’t increased since 1995 globally, which is about almost 30 years, and our temperatures today are lower than in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia. I mean, we’re being fed this nonsense, people are paying for it, it’s destroying our manufacturing capacity all because of atrocious governments and people won’t hold these people accountable.

[Marcus] Well, there are some grave consequences, as you say, for these glaring errors and policies devised on numbers that are given by the Bureau of Meteorology, along with the CSIRO. So there we go, I’m glad we got you there asking these hard questions, Malcolm, but you don’t seem to get much support from those that are in power.

[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.

[Marcus] Why don’t you?

[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.

[Marcus] Yes.

[Malcolm] He admits now, two or three weeks ago he admitted that he is afraid, he’s scared of what’s happening, with our reliability of power supply, security of power supply, the cost of power. He’s admitted all this. I know for a fact, in conversations with Angus Taylor, that he’s a sceptic about us affecting the climate, but he is peddling this nonsense.

Mark Butler, the former spokesman from the Labour Party, I’ve challenged him to a debate, ran away from me. I challenged The Greens 10 and a half years ago, and every day since I’ve been in the Senate, sorry, almost weekly since I’ve been in the Senate this time they’ve failed to provide the evidence.

There’s just a whole lot of groupthink. I wrote to about 20 MPS in senior positions, Labour, Liberal, National, and Greens, not one of them was able to provide me with any evidence that we have to have these policies, not one.

[Marcus] Now let’s move to Malcolm Turnbull. Hang on, there, Malcolm Turnbull, of course, former Prime Minister of Australia, claims that the demand for coal is declining, but no one has told Africa they’re building 1,250 more coal plants by the year 2030. Mines are devastating the landscape in the Hunter Valley. Well, is that true?

Reportedly more about his opposition perhaps to the Mount Pleasant coal mine and the extension plan for it which happens to be near Malcolm Turnbull’s own interest including a grazing property. The mining industry is shortening lives by reducing air quality, and taxpayers, of course, you say are left with huge environmental remediation bills covered by mining bonds. Now last week, I don’t know what was going on in the New South Wales government with the Liberals and Nationals appointing Malcolm Turnbull to this role.

You know, zero net emissions by 2050, we had Matt Kean at the centre of it all, and for some reason, somehow both John Barilaro and the Premier of New South Wales went along with this. There were a couple of dissenting voices, but Malcolm was apparently tipped to take this job. Then there was a massive back flip whether it came from pressure from the media or from One Nation’s Mark Latham. I’m not sure. I think it’s a mix of all of those.

[Malcolm] I think you’re right. Malcolm Turnbull has a lot of personal interests, of benefit to him and his family, from pushing their renewables bandwagon. He’s got no evidence, never has had any evidence for pushing their renewables. He’s got no evidence for having to shut down coal mines. And he himself attributed the dumping of his new job to Mark Latham and the right-wing media, but you know, that’s typical Malcolm Turnbull. He can’t look at his own policy and he can’t look at himself, and he’s become a pariah.

[Marcus] Yeah, look, I understand what you’re saying, I get that, but let’s be honest, he’s half right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, until people down the road from us 2GB and the Telegraph and a few others started jumping up and down about it this was gonna go through. I mean, I would tend to think that unless there was a by-election just around the corner in the upper Hunter, perhaps this bloke, Malcolm Turnbull, might’ve gone on.

[Malcolm] Well, I’m not gonna argue with that, I think that you’re making some pretty good comments, but Malcolm Turnbull himself blamed Mark Latham for standing up and speaking the truth. That’s the pressure that Mark brings. Mark’s a very good speaker, he gets his facts and he went straight into bat. Barilaro and Berejiklian are the ones. How could they possibly sign off on this man, Turnbull, being put in this position? But think about this, Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] Australia’s total electricity coal-fired power station capacity in this country was 25.2 gigawatts in 2017. So it’s less than that now with the closure of a couple of coal-fired power stations in Victoria, it’s less than that. China alone opened 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired plants last year alone, so almost double what our total capacity is. The world has opened up 50.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity last year alone. India is opening up on average around 17 gigawatts. India itself and China are opening up combined about three times our total capacity of coal-fired power stations.

[Marcus] And the argument, of course, is, Malcolm, I do need to go, the argument, of course, is that if they don’t get our coal, they’ll get it from elsewhere.

[Malcolm] Correct.

[Marcus] Yeah, all right, mate, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.

[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.

[Marcus] Talk soon.

[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.

[Marcus] See you, mate. Bye-bye. There he is, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Of course, David Lazell…

/by