The Australian Department of Treasury website states that extreme weather events are expected to occur with increased frequency and severity. I asked in the recent senate estimates what sources Treasury had based this prediction. I was informed that it was consistent with the government-stated position on climate change and climate action.
Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6th Assessment Report on the Science says there have been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. It summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters and finds no change in signals for weather-related events, including river flood, rain in terms of heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire, wind speed, tropical cyclone, relative, sea level, coastal flood and marine heat wave.
The Minister was not prepared to take my question on notice regarding their source of empirical scientific data.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: The next one is fairly straightforward. A statement on the Treasury website states that ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased severity and frequency’. On what are you basing that statement?
Ms Kelley: We worked with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the AOFM in terms of the statement, and the statement is consistent with the government’s stated position on climate change and climate action. The statement uses publicly available information from the 2023-24 budget and the Annual Climate Change Statement.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure it’s consistent with lots of things, because you just told me where the sources of it are. I’ll go back to the quote: ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased frequency and severity’. I’ll direct you to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report on the science, chapter 12, table 12.12. That summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters. I’ll run through some of the types of disasters where the United Nations says there’s been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters: frost; river flood; rain, measured in terms of heavy precipitation or mean precipitation; landslide; drought; fire weather; wind speed; windstorm; tropical cyclone; dust storm; heavy snowfall; hail; relative sea level; coastal flood; and marine heatwave. There’s been no change in signal for any of these events according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So I’m wondering what type of weather event this increased risk you are claiming is going to come from. What type of natural disaster are you talking about?
Ms Kelley: That’s probably not my area within the department, so—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you think I should take it up with the department that you copied your policy from?
Ms Kelley: Yes, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is probably the most appropriate department.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve taken their material and just placed it on your website? You’ve trusted them.
Ms Kelley: We have been wholly consistent with government policy in terms of the statement. It’s informed by a range of different pieces of evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you very much.
Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Senator ROBERTS: No, we don’t have to agree to disagree. We just have to get the data. Perhaps you could take it on notice, Minister, to get me that data.
CHAIR: Thank you very much—
Ms Kelley: Sorry, could I just add to the question about—
Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it, Senator Gallagher.
Senator Gallagher: Eh?
Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it.
Senator Gallagher: No, well, this comes up a lot—
Senator ROBERTS: This is costing this country trillions. This is costing our country trillions of dollars.
Senator Gallagher: I think, fundamentally, we have a different—
Senator ROBERTS: Mine’s informed by the data.
Senator Gallagher: You strongly object to climate science. We don’t.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t reject it. That’s a false statement. I don’t reject the climate science; I follow the climate science.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, thank you. Ms Kelley would like to make a final remark.
Ms Kelley: I just want to answer your question about the costs. I’ve got some clarification. We’ve borne our own costs, and Ms O’Donnell is bearing hers. There are no other decisions to be made about costs.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I just make the point that the minister is not willing to provide me with a source for that advice to the government. You’re a senior member of the government.
Senator Gallagher: I think at a number of estimates hearings, on a number of questions on notice, that information has been provided, Senator Roberts. If there’s anything further we can provide, I’m happy to add—
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Gallagher, I need to correct you. The logical scientific points, with the empirical scientific data, have never been provided to me by anyone.
CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, I’m just going to make the decision that there’s a repetition to your line of questioning. Thank you very much for your brevity in general.
Hi Senator, again we are subjected to a barrage of tripe coming from quarters of the government that have no connection with the subject matter in question. I am very grateful that you, Sir, take the time to expose these charlatans and it’s a great pity that the press does not give more time to revealing the true facts relating to climate science.
Keep up the good work sir.
It would be interesting to see where they think they are getting that data from. Global warming is real and is mostly caused by subsea volcanoes (ocean rifting). The major navies of the world, and some of the secondary ones, would have the data on this. Ocean temperature profiles are an essential input to undersea warfare operations and strategy. Likewise, ocean ambient noise data (which would give an indication of new volcanic activity) is a key input into sonar performance prediction modelling.
The BOM is about 2 for 26 in forecasting the next quarter so not much chance of getting better especially when they admit to altering 400 million records a years.
Id like to see their chiefs have to come before a senate committee each quarter with both how accurate they were and how they intend to get better each time.
These Parasites are “UNREAL” Totally unaccountable, they live in a computer fantasy world, Do “NOTHING” Help NO0ONE, just a total waste of space, the “ONLY” guy holding their feet to the fire is Malcolm, Thanks mate, can we the PEOPLE SACK THEM ?
This interchange says it all – no basis of fact/science but “government policy”. Thank you Senator Roberts once again for trying to reveal the truth. But we must be able to get this information out to the public!
Thank you Senator, I have followed your questions to various politicians, ministers and heads of departments etc and have always appreciated your probing and insightful knowledge of the areas you ‘interrogate’. From the early Michael Mann ‘Hocky Stick’ rubbish to the Q&A set-ups etc. you have always displayed thorough knowledge of your topic which you express in a informed and succinct manner. I still remember when the Professor Brian Cox embarrassed himself by holding up a small A3 piece of paper showing Michael Manns silly chart and claiming this was the final proof of anthropogenic climate change, what a donkey! Please continue to be the voice of reason. Regards Tony