Posts

Data vs. Dogma: My Session with Dr Karl

,

Just wrapped up another two days of public hearings in Canberra on the Greens-Labor inquiry into “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy”.

This is my session with Dr Karl. What do you think of his behaviour?

He asked me whether I thought the past 10 years have been the hottest on record globally I replied directly “No, I don’t”. He responded with mockery and ridicule, then shifted the topic to what he claimed is a “99.999% consensus.”

By the way, consensus is a political tool. Instead, science is decided using data. I replied with actual data.

Later Dr Karl admitted science is “never settled” – when it suited his Newton/Einstein analogies. Yet he refused to acknowledge the actual historical climate records from our own 1880s.

It seems that he’s more interested in “elitist” condescension than hard facts. Notice how he has many tricks for avoiding answering questions or changing the topic.

Real integrity requires debate, not evasiveness and dismissiveness.

– Public Hearing | 16 February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: I might go to Senator Roberts.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Senator Roberts, good afternoon.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Dr Karl. Can I call you Dr Karl?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Or Karl; it doesn’t have ‘Dr’ on the birth certificate. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll call you Dr Karl. You may remember that I issued a challenge to debate, and you were the only person who took it up. Then we met on South Bank because you wanted to explain to me why you were going to pull out of that debate. We spent about three-quarters of an hour together, back on Sunday 26 March in 2017. Can you recall that in South Bank?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: I remember the event; I didn’t keep a record of the date. My memory is not that I was trying to explain where I was coming from or why I didn’t want to do a debate. My memory is quite different. I wanted to understand where you were coming from, and you explained it to me and we had that talk, off the record, so I’m not at liberty to reveal what you told me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s talk about science—  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: and some definitions. I just want to get your confirmation or otherwise. When done properly in accordance with the scientific method, science uses rational thought and logic to investigate and explain our physical world—is that correct?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Ish. When you’re talking quantum mechanics, which is real, it doesn’t work. But that’s a good mark 1 definition, sure, as a first approximation. Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is the systematic, objective, rational study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the empirical data.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: What’s that word ’empirical’? I’ve noticed that you love that word ’empirical’ to pieces.  

Senator ROBERTS: I sure do.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define it for me, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define the word ’empirical’ for me, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. It’s measured or observed data.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: But, if you’re saying ’empirical data’, it’s just like saying ‘data data’. Okay. Go on. 

Senator ROBERTS: Empirical data is measured or observed. There are many other things in social sciences which are not.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Well, come on. We’re talking physics here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. So you agree.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no, but go on. Mostly. That sounds like a good start, except for the word ’empirical’, but go on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Scientific proof involves using solid data as evidence in logical scientific points to prove cause and effect. So it’s not only having physical data; it’s putting it within a logical scientific point that proves cause and effect.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Are you building a little assembly where you’ll suddenly say, ‘And therefore climate change isn’t real,’ and I’ll fall over unconscious?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you think that?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: You’re laying out a boilerplate set of logical debating steps. Hit me with the next one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you agree or not?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Overwhelmingly yes, depending on the data, because it doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m assuming the data is accurate—data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Let’s see if we can agree on something. Do you agree that the climate records show that the last 10 years have been the hottest on record worldwide?  

Senator ROBERTS: The last 10 years in Australia have been cooler than the 1880s and 1890s in Australia.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on—worldwide. Do you agree that the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record worldwide?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: I feel like I’m talking to a schoolchild who says seven times two is not 14 but instead seven times two is a bicycle divided by the square root of a banana.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s one way of making out that I’m a fool.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: No, but all the scientists disagree with you; 99.999 per cent of the scientists disagree with you.  

Senator ROBERTS: So now you’re into consensus, which is a political tool. Let’s continue.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on. Consensus is a political tool?  

CHAIR: Scientific consensus is not a political tool.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this correct: scientific proof is—  

Dr Kruszelnicki: So, if all the scientists agree that seven times two is 14, that’s a political tool?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s obviously a stupid comment, in my opinion. Einstein said it takes one person to prove him wrong, even if 100 agree with him.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: He’s dead right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Scientific proof is the basis for understanding nature and the physical world. Is that correct or not?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Pretty correct, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is never settled; it’s always enhanced in the future as new knowledge is unearthed and science is debated. A key point of science is debate.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no. With regard to gravity, the big step forward was Newton. Newton finally understood what was going on, but his theory of gravity could not explain why the closest point of approach of the planet Mercury to the Sun would tick around slowly over the decades. They measured this, and they couldn’t work out why. They had to hypothesise a planet. It was Einstein’s theory of gravity that then explained what was going on. So Newton was not disproved, but he was a small subset of a bigger, more comprehensive theory. In the same way, with Einstein, his theory may well also become a small subset of a bigger theory. You don’t go back. There’s no way we’re going to disprove Newton’s rule that the force between two bodies equals G times m1 times m2 all over r squared. There’s no way that’s going to get disproved. 

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true, though, that, some hundreds of years ago, people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth? That was the science.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Some did; some did not.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then it was proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so science is always advancing.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: And do you know why?  

CHAIR: That was before there were 40,000 climate scientists studying climate sciences.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: It’s because they were able to get optical instruments to look at the phases of the Sun upon Venus, and Venus had phases, if you know what that is—so sometimes there’s more of it on one side than the other—and the only way to explain that was by a central sun.  

Senator ROBERTS: We could have a long, long talk about the intricacies, but those are the only questions I had.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Excellent. Can I ask you a question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you just refresh for me: thinking of the atmosphere as a one-kilometre line with nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres and oxygen making up roughly 200 metres, can you take me through where carbon dioxide sits in that line, by your estimation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Carbon dioxide is 0.04 per cent of Earth’s atmosphere.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: So how much of that line—one kilometre long—does carbon dioxide roughly make?  

Senator ROBERTS: My maths doesn’t come to—is it a kilometre or a mile?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: We’re going for a kilometre.  

Senator ROBERTS: A kilometre—0.04 per cent.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: There’s a million millimetres. I seem to remember you once saying, firstly, with the carbon dioxide bit of that one-kilometre line—with oxygen making up roughly 200 metres and nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres—that the carbon dioxide was so small that you could barely see it with the naked eye. The supposed addition, you said rather poetically, was kind of like how, if you rubbed your fingernail against some concrete, the little bit that rubbed off would be the addition of carbon dioxide that has been measured. Is my memory incorrect?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that last bit?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Is my memory incorrect?  

Senator ROBERTS: What did you say that I said?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: My memory is that you said the carbon dioxide level was so small you could barely see it with the naked eye—  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t see carbon dioxide, it’s colourless. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Correct, but on that one-kilometre line, what length? My bad—you said the length was so small, it was barely visible to the naked eye, whereas, for example, the length of nitrogen was roughly 800 metres—easily visible. Is that correct, or is my memory wrong?  

Senator ROBERTS: What was that about a fingernail?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Then you said that the additional carbon dioxide that has been added was roughly equivalent to getting a fingernail and rubbing it on concrete, and the little bit of fingernail that came off was that one-kilometre line, or the extra bit of carbon dioxide.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that wasn’t me. I don’t know who said that.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: No worries. Thank you for clearing that up. 

/6 Comments/by

Scientific Proof or UN Propaganda?

,

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”

The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.

It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.

To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.

We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.

I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

— Public Hearing | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.

Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?

Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.

Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.

Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?

Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.

CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.

CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?

CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—

Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.

CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?

Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.

Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.

CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.

CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?

Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.

Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.

Ms Scaddan: That is noted.

CHAIR: It’s noted.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Scaddan.

/3 Comments/by

Betraying the Food Bowl

,

The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.

Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.

I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”

While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.

My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?

Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.

In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.

Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.

Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?

Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?

Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.

Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.

Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?

Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?

Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—

Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?

Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?

Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.

Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?

Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.

Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.

Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?

Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?

Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?

Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?

Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?

Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?

Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.

Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.

Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?

Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?

Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.

Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?

Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?

Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?

Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?

Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?

Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.

Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.

Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?

Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.

Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?

Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.

Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.

Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.

Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.

Mr Lowe: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?

Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.

Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?

Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.

Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?

Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?

Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.

Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?

Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?

Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.

Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.

Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?

Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?

Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.

Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?

Mr Lowe: Not actively.

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?

Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.

CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?

Senator ROBERTS: No, thank you.

/1 Comment/by

The Data is Missing — and They Know It

,

During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence.

I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some controversial aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background.

I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing “drier and warmer” summers — where is the specific data to back that up?

Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a “conspiracy” and claimed I simply “refuse to believe” the experts.

If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it?

I won’t be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve.

We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, following on from my last question, I will quote from a news report. Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor at the University of New South Wales and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, said: The fact that they commissioned— that’s your government— the Briggs review, have yet to release it, and are still making appointments through this outdated, opaque, and problematic process is particularly concerning … hugely corrosive. Even if the individual is the right or the best or a good person for the job, it just smells of jobs for mates, it smells of cronyism, and it smells of a conflict of interest. These are the types of issues that undermine public trust in government. In my experience, both public servants and private sector employees are usually wonderful. What is the impact of this appointment of Mr Kaiser on morale in your department?  

Senator Watt: I have absolute confidence in Mr Kaiser’s ability to do the job, and that’s certainly being borne out—  

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I asked for your opinion of the effect of his appointment on the morale of the people in the department.  

Senator Watt: I’ve seen no evidence that it’s had a negative impact on morale.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can I ask a second question?  

Senator Watt: You are making an imputation or implication in relation to Mr Kaiser, and I’d repeat the point—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting what an independent person said.  

Senator Watt: Mr Kaiser comes to this job having been the director-general of the premier’s department in Queensland, the director-general of the state development department in Queensland and the director-general of the resources department in Queensland, on top of a lengthy private-sector career. With that kind of background, I’m not surprised that he’s doing a very good job as the secretary.  

Senator ROBERTS: You omitted some of the controversial aspects. Moving on to my second question, you said in your opening statement, Minister, that we’re facing drier and warmer summers. Can you give me the source of that data, please—the specific location? No quips about ‘hard to convince’.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I thought we’d get into climate conspiracies by about 4 pm; I didn’t think we’d get there by six minutes to 10.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re avoiding the question. Could you give me the specific location, please?  
 
Senator Watt: You and I have had many conversations in estimates hearings—  

Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to have them.  

Senator Watt: about whether climate change is real or not. I have failed to persuade you that climate change is real. The Bureau of Meteorology has failed to convince you that climate change is real. CSIRO has failed to convince you that climate change is real. What you see on your TV has failed to convince you that climate change is real. I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is your forecast of drier and warmer summers cyclical; is it a change in climate? Can you give me the specific location? I will keep raising this until you give me the specific location of variables.  

Senator Watt: I have no doubt that you will keep raising it.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has provided it.  

Senator Watt: Many witnesses at estimates hearings have presented the evidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it?  

Senator Watt: You’ve just chosen not to believe them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it? 

/by

The Climate Alphabet Soup

,

There are numerous government organisations dedicated to implementing United Nations climate policies, making life increasingly harder for Australians. It’s hard to keep track of them all. One such organisation is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It incurs $537 million in annual expenses and has $7.3 billion of taxpayers money tied up in assets. The wage bill for their top 15 employees is $7.4 million a year.

Ian Learmonth, featured in this video and head of the CEFC, received a $614,000 bonus last year, taking his total remuneration for the year to $1 million dollars or 1.7 times the salary of the Prime Minister.

It’s no surprise he didn’t want to disclose this when I asked.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an alphabet soup of agencies and government departments involved in the energy transition. As simply and as specifically as possible, what do you do at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, what are your basic accountabilities and what are the unique qualities you bring?

Mr Learmonth: The object of the CEFC, as per the act, is to facilitate the flows of capital funds into the clean energy sector and to deliver on the government’s climate targets. We’re using a significant amount of capital deployed out there in the Australian economy, effectively, to decarbonise Australia. That’s really what we’re doing. We have 165 people, most of whom are very skilled at going out into the marketplace and finding places that we can use this catalytic capital to drive emissions reduction.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees? Do you have any casuals and contractors or are they all full-time permanents?

Mr Learmonth: We just tabled our annual report that has all that information in there. If you’d like any further details that aren’t obvious or available in the annual report, I’m very happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: There have been no changes since the annual report was released?

Mr Learmonth: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total budget for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Learmonth: Do you mean over the forward estimates? What time period?

Senator ROBERTS: This current financial year and if you want to bring it into the forward estimates, that would be handy, too.

Mr Learmonth: Once again, I will take that on notice. It’s probably best that we do it that way. My CFO might be able to dig that number up for you. We’ve certainly got what’s in the budget papers.

Senator ROBERTS: Just getting in the chairperson’s good books, last question: what is the total salary package of everyone at the desk here who is attending right now?

Mr Learmonth: Once again, it is in the annual report. Certainly, Andrew and I are explicitly there on page 215 of the annual report. If you’d like any further information about that, we can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: Why the reluctance not to share it?

Mr Learmonth: It’s there and there’s a whole raft of different short-term incentives.

Senator ROBERTS: If it doesn’t meet our needs, we can send a letter to you and get the details? Is that right?

Mr Learmonth: I would be positioning it the other way. If there’s anything that’s not in that public document around the remuneration of the CFO and myself, we could provide it to you on notice.

2023-24 Annual ReportDownload

/2 Comments/by

Study Reveals Carbon Credits are a Scam!

,

A reputable study says that 70-80% of carbon credits “are devoid of integrity”. This is a market that is costing Australia roughly $5.5 billion based on carbon credit units that even the Greens agree is a scam. This is driving up prices even higher in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

It’s time to stop the corruption and cancel these ridiculous net-zero policies.

Transcript

Carbon dioxide credits are a scam and an absolute fraud, and the Greens agree with One Nation on this. Yes, you heard that correctly. It’s difficult to believe. Australians may wonder what we agree on Granted, the Greens and One Nation have come to the same conclusion for very different reasons. Nonetheless, we share the conclusion that carbon dioxide credits are a scam. They are rife with opportunities for fraud. 

The Clean Energy Regulator has issued 140 million carbon dioxide credits. At the current spot price of $35 each, this represents a racket potentially worth $4.9 billion. That’s expected to grow by 20 million credits, or $700 million, this year alone, making it $5.6 million. 

The Greens and One Nation aren’t the only ones to criticise Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs. In 2022 Professor Andrew Macintosh, environmental law expert at the Australian National University, and his colleagues published a series of papers absolutely tearing apart the ACCU system. Keep in mind that this is a $5.5 billion market that’s being fabricated, in part to give the UN income, ultimately. As usual, they enlist parasites who benefit while pushing UN policy for them. For example, the major banks. Rothschild Australia, the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch had on their advisory boards in this country at the time the CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark—a conflict of interest? 

Back to the study of ACCU carbon dioxide credits. The study was done under Professor Andrew Macintosh, who said: 

The available data suggests 70 to 80 per cent of the ACCUs issued to … projects are devoid of integrity … 

So 20 to 30 per cent may have some integrity. Remember, this is a $5.5 billion market. Here’s another quote: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment … 

‘A fraud on the environment’, I say to the Greens. This is what Dr Macintosh said: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers— 

Australian taxpayers— 

and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs … 

In response to these revelations, the government commissioned what they call the Chubb review. The government should just have been honest and called it what it really was: a whitewash, a distortion and misinformation. Actually, the Chubb review is disinformation. In the past, when Professor Chubb has been requested to provide empirical scientific data within a logical scientific point backing up claims of climate change due to human carbon dioxide, he has repeatedly failed to produce it. He has never produced it, yet he’s often advocated for it. He’s part of the climate fraud industry and has received a lot of money to push climate fraud. He has been heavily rewarded by both Liberal-National and Labor Party governments. The Chubb review, in this case, addressed nothing of substance and provided no evidence for its claims that problems have been fixed, yet the government held the report up as proof that everything’s fine. As Professor Macintosh and his colleagues outlined in their response to the Chubb review, it spent less than six pages discussing the ACCU rules, which relate to a $5.5 billion market. They say: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions … 

I’ll say that again: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme’s rules. 

What use was that? This is ‘a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs’. Here is another quote: 

Bewilderingly— 

I don’t find it bewildering; it’s straightforward, as I’ve been watching this scam unfold for years– 

in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a review it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science … The academy … found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. 

There were ‘numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes’. This is so typical of this government. It is so typical of the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor, pushing the climate fraud. Here is another quote: 

The— 

Chubb— 

review … acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says “it was also provided with evidence to the contrary”. Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists. 

Maybe the dog ate the evidence for breakfast. This is what the government says is assurance and integrity for taxpayer money. 

While the Greens, Professor Macintosh and I may agree on the integrity issues with carbon dioxide credits, here’s where I leave them behind: there is no reason to reduce our output of carbon dioxide or trade credits for it. Carbon dioxide credits can never have integrity because they are a scam designed to transfer wealth from the pockets of everyday Australians and their families and small businesses to the bank accounts of billionaire net zero scam artists and parasitic multinationals sucking on the financial payout from climate fraud and associated financial scams. I note some of these points. I won’t go into them in detail. The government that introduced the renewable energy target, a scam, and the national electricity market that is really a national electricity racket—it’s not a market; it’s a bureaucratic controlled entity—stole farmers’ property rights across the country so that they could comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. They put in place the first policy—not legislation—advocating for a carbon dioxide tax. It wasn’t Julia Gillard. It was the Howard government that did all these things. The Howard government laid the foundation for all of this. It went around the Constitution to steal farmers’ property rights around the country. Then, six years after being booted from office and after the Liberals and Nationals in the Howard government told us that it was all based on science, John Howard, in a major lecture to sceptic think tank in Londan said that on the topic of climate science, he was agnostic. He didn’t have the science, and now our electricity sector has been crippled because of the renewable energy target, the national electricity market and an alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies. 

There has never been—there never is—any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that human carbon dioxide is warming the planet. There is not any from the CSIRO—I’ve done freedom of information requests and held them accountable in the Senate—nor from their publications ever. There is not any from the Bureau of Meteorology. It’s the same deal. There is not any from the United Nations. It’s the same deal. There is also no policy basis. There is no documented effect per unit of human carbon dioxide on climate factors such as air temperature, rainfall, heat waves, drought severity and frequency or storm severity, frequency and duration—none at all. There is no basis for the policy on which the carbon dioxide credits are based. There’s been no cost benefit analysis. There’s been no business case. Ross Garnaut, who produced a report for the Rudd-Gillard government, said in his report on the science that there basically was no science and he was going on the consensus. Yet he is parasitically sucking on solar and wind subsidies, driving up electricity prices and putting Australians into poverty. Remember, the money that goes to the extra costs of electricity in this country is a highly regressive tax on the poor in our country. 

In 2009 and 2020 we had two global experiments showing that human carbon dioxide has no effect on carbon dioxide levels in the air. We had a major downturn with the global financial crisis in 2008. We then had a recession in 2009. COVID hit us. It arrived on our shores—it didn’t really hit us; the government hit us—in 2020, and then 2020 was almost a depression because of the restrictions and lockdowns. In both years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued rising unabated. Yet we’ve been told for decades now that by cutting back on human production of carbon dioxide we would see the levels in the atmosphere start decreasing and go down. We had a major reduction in industrial activity and a severe recession in 2009 and 2020. The production of carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbons, coal, oil and natural gas decreased dramatically, yet nothing happened. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere kept increasing. 

I asked the CSIRO why. They said that there is an inflection. I asked them for the details of that inflection, to characterise it statistically. They failed to do it. I asked the Bureau of Meteorology, and they said, ‘Senator Roberts, it would take years for that to come through.’ Here is the CSIRO saying that we’ve already seen it and the Bureau of Meteorology saying that we will see it eventually, but it will take a long while to come. You can’t make this stuff up! What the experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed is that the production of carbon dioxide from human activity will not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Once you understand Henry’s law—the quantities of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean are 50 to 70 times more than the entire atmospheric carbon dioxide—then you start to understand why that’s the case. But not content with climate science fraud, the CSIRO is perpetrating gen cost, which is energy fraud based on bogus assumptions that have been completely debunked. Aidan Morrison has done a marvellous job; others have done a marvellous job. 

There’s no basis for this scam, this fraud, but let’s return to the fraud. A report in the 2010s said Europol found 95 per cent of carbon dioxide trading credits were suspicious. That’s easy to believe because there’s no physical basis to the measurement of reductions to carbon dioxide produced. They’re all projections. They’re all based on guesses. They’re formulae based on estimations. They were never quantified and are still not quantified. China is producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, and so are Russia, Brazil, the United States and the European Union—Australia are a small player—yet temperatures are flat and have been flat since 1995. That’s almost 30 years of flat temperatures. I urge senators to establish this inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of how taxpayer money is being fraudulently abused. 

/3 Comments/by

Government Will Take Power from YOUR Solar Panels and EV

,

For years, the Government has subsidised rooftop solar and, more recently, wall batteries. This isn’t so you can have cheap power, it’s so they can have YOUR cheap power.

Half of Australia’s solar energy is generated from rooftop systems. During the morning and evening peak hours, when the sun isn’t shining and wind energy reduces by 90%, the government will take the charge from your wall battery and EV to keep the grid going. This is called “grid connectivity”. Under net zero policies, you will receive only as much electricity as the officials in Canberra decide you can have.

One Nation will end the net zero scam, build new high efficiency coal plants and restore wealth and prosperity to Australia.

Transcript

I thank Senator Van for this matter of public importance. Without criticising the science, cost and impracticability of net zero, which I did last night and will do again tomorrow, it’s certainly possible to talk about wasted capacity in the electricity sector. The ad hoc stance towards solar power in Australia has meant that a lot of people have fitted solar panels without battery storage. This is a distortion in the market as a result of government interference—subsidising solar panels early on while only subsidising wall batteries much later. In fact, the distortion in the energy market as a result of government interference is exactly why energy prices in Australia are out of control. In the most energy rich country in the world we should have the cheapest retail electricity in the world; it should not be amongst the dearest. 

Remember, though, that One Nation is the party of free enterprise. If an Australian homeowner, body corporate or business wants to spend their own money to install solar power, connect it to a battery and then use that investment to start trading in electricity, all power to you. In fact, homeowners organising themselves to direct the output of their solar panels into community batteries is a way of getting into the energy business.  

The government promised community batteries, and I know it has so far funded 370. Only one of the 370 grants went to a community organisation. The other 369 were to either government departments or energy companies. Why are we giving grants to energy companies to build big batteries when the proceeds of those big batteries will be sold back to the grid? Can’t they finance themselves? The Albanese government are handing out taxpayers’ money to their big business mates at a time that everyday Australians need the money for themselves.  

Electric vehicles are another area where energy trading could be an option. Modern EVs use a battery which can hold 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. If charged from the owner’s own solar panels during the day, selling that electricity into the grid during peak hour will help stave off blackouts. Instead, all of these measures fracture energy generation and make the task of maintaining the reliability of the grid harder and more expensive.  

There is a better solution. Modern clean-coal technology allows for the retrofitting of a device which captures all of the gas coming out of a coal fired plant and converts the gas into useful products like fertiliser, AdBlue and ethanol. In the language of the woke, that means zero emissions. This process costs less than $100 million per power station and works best using sea water. Instead of spending more than $1 trillion and up to $2 trillion to simply replace our electricity generation and convert to electrification, clean coal will achieve the same objective for a few hundred million dollars. Clean coal is the real wasted resource in the Australian energy market. Clean coal will reduce the cost of living under Labor. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hughes): The time for the discussion has expired.  

/1 Comment/by

BOM’s Climate Forecast Failure

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has consistently issued weather forecasts that align with their promotion of the climate change scam, which appears independent of likely weather outcomes.

In 2023, BOM came unstuck when they spent the year forecasting a hotter and drier summer, prompting farmers to reduce their cattle numbers and alter planting schedules. What actually occurred was a wet and cool summer. This inaccurate forecast by the BOM resulted in significant financial losses for farmers and graziers, and rural provider Elders saw a $300 million drop in their share price when earnings were announced last month.

Despite this, BOM and other media outlets claim that their forecasts were accurate and that Elders’ earnings reflected other issues as well.

Supporting Research

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive.shtml

EYCI Report | Meat & Livestock Australia (mla.com.au)

Archive – Climate outlook maps (bom.gov.au)

Read the Transcript HERE

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you to the bureau for appearing today. I’ve handed out some documents for circulation. They’re copies of BOM forecasts versus actual. I think you’ll be familiar with them, for sure. That’s a contradiction in terms, ‘think’ and ‘for sure’. Anyway, I’m sure you’ll be familiar with them.

On 19 September 2023 the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather forecast read, ‘Warmer and dryer conditions would be more likely over spring and summer,’ linking the Indian Ocean Dipole with El Nino using the words, ‘The last time this occurred was 2015,’ which was a very dry year, especially in Queensland. The bush listened to that, and a lot of other people did too—investors as well.

On 30 November the Bureau of Meteorology predicted ‘a high chance of warmer than usual days and nights across Australia, below average rainfall likely for much of the tropics’. The actual weather: northern Queensland was flooded in December—big floods—by Tropical Cyclone Jasper; inland Queensland was flooded in January by Tropical Cyclone Kirrily; South-East Queensland was flooded in December and January.

I’ve circulated your entire forecast for 2023 split into five periods. Each period forecast, except one, was for drier weather than occurred. One was about right. None predicted more rain than occurred, much less than I would have hoped. My question is simple: is your weather model fundamentally flawed?

Dr Johnson: No, Senator, it’s not.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s costing nearly $1 billion to upgrade your computer system, the ROBUST Program as it’s called. Is that still the cost, and can you provide an itemisation? It appears a ridiculous amount of money.

Dr Johnson: Firstly, as I’ve answered to senators in this chamber over many years, the costs associated with the ROBUST Program are cabinet in confidence; they’re not for publication. As I also answered—I think it was at the previous hearing or perhaps the one before—in response to a question from Senator Pocock, the upgrade of the Australis computer system is not part of the ROBUST Program; it is a separate program of work.

Senator ROBERTS:Could you explain the Australis versus the ROBUST, and which one is—

Dr Johnson: ROBUST is a complex program to upgrade the bureau’s ICT and observing systems, fundamental ICT—

Senator ROBERTS:What’s ICT?

Dr Johnson: Information and communications technology.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you.

Dr Johnson: It upgrades our underlying information and communications technology infrastructure, our observing networks—all sorts of things.

Senator ROBERTS:And recording devices?

Dr Johnson: I’ll get to that in a second. That includes radars, automatic weather stations, automatic balloon launchers—all sorts of things that observe the environment—as well as our underpinning technology infrastructure.

The ROBUST Program, again, has three dimensions. It has a security dimension—in other words, investment to improve the security of the bureau’s systems from threats from our country’s adversaries. There’s stability. Prior to the investment in ROBUST, many of the bureau’s systems were very old, many decades old, and we were experiencing challenges in keeping them stable and operational. And then there’s resilience so that, in the event of an outage, the capacity of the bureau to respond and have our systems back online is improved. So there are three dimensions to ROBUST: security, stability and resilience.

There is a supercomputer dimension to ROBUST, which is a second supercomputer, a disaster recovery machine. Prior to ROBUST, our disaster recovery functions were executed within a single machine in a single place. The arrangements going forward will be different. I’d rather not disclose those in detail, for security reasons, but the ROBUST program funded a second supercomputer for disaster recovery purposes. That is a different machine to the Australis machine, which has often been asked about in Senator Pocock’s questions. That was a separate program to Robust, Senator. You’re conflating two bits of technology uplift in two separate programs.

Senator ROBERTS:The total cost is a billion dollars for both?

Dr Johnson: No. As I said, I’m not going to speak about the cost of ROBUST. The cost of the Australis upgrade is roughly, I think, $44 million—something of that order.

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, you’re required to produce any information or documents that are requested to this committee. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this Senate committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. You’re protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that’s also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister. Can you please take on notice to produce that document to the committee and the cost—

Dr Johnson: Which document are you referring to, Senator?

Senator ROBERTS: The cost.

Dr Johnson: Of ROBUST?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Dr Johnson: The decision around the cost of ROBUST—

Senator McAllister: Just take it on notice.

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Minister. David Burton of Inigo Jones, long-term weather forecaster, uses sunspots and planetary cycles to correctly forecast weather decades in advance. He’s got a track record because he’s got investors who invest as a result of his successful forecast. He posted 12 months ago that the good rains would start after 20 November 2023. There was no El Nino, and cyclones were likely. David Burton has no computer models and uses a $20 calculator because he understands the cycles. He got the weather right; you got it wrong. Hayden Walker, another long-term weather forecaster, correctly forecasted severe storms in the areas where they did occur. Will you talk to these private forecasters to work out why their systems are right and yours was wrong? Theirs are actually history. Yours are models—aren’t they?

Dr Johnson: I reject the whole premise of your questions. Our forecasts, as I’ve indicated at the previous hearing on this subject, were remarkably accurate. I’m happy to go through them again. What we said is on the Hansard in terms of the seasonal outlook. We were very clear, as the year progressed, that we were moving out of a dry warming trend into a moistening trend. We were also very clear in our messaging that, irrespective of the ENSO status and the seasonal forecast, we know that in northern Australia, in particular, there is always the risk of severe weather—cyclones and floods—under any climatic situation. I don’t agree with the premise of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: This is not just northern Queensland, where we know that it’s prone to storms, but western Queensland and southern Queensland. We know that your bureau declares El Nino and positive Indian Ocean Dipole events. David Burton said there was no El Nino and cyclones were likely. David Burton quite often gets it right. He’s paid a considerable amount of money because David Burton’s, Hayden Walker’s and, prior to them, Inigo Jones’ and various other people’s methods have been in use for decades. Farmers, investors and businesses pay for their forecast. They have to go out into the market and sell.

Dr Johnson: I understand that, and millions of Australians rely on our forecasts every day, including farmers and folks in the business community. I just reaffirm to you, as I did at the previous estimates, just how remarkably accurate our forecasts were over the period. I’ve certainly said in previous hearings and in other forums that we acknowledge that some of the messaging that we gave during the previous spring and summer didn’t get through in a manner that we would like.

That’s not to blame the recipients of that messaging. It’s just a fact. People heard a message around an ENSO status and thought, ‘That’s it; it’s going to be hot and dry.’ We update our forecasts every week, and we regularly updated our outlooks, and those outlooks proved to be very accurate.

We also affirmed, in all those messages that, particularly during the summer and irrespective of the ENSO status, the risk in this country of thunderstorms, floods and tropical cyclones remains. In fact, at the national severe weather forum here in Canberra, I made that very clear in my own presentation: one thing that this country has taught us is that severe weather can occur at any time. We’re very clear in our messaging around that. I’m only going to comment on our forecasts and warnings. Others are welcome to comment on those made other parties, but I stand by the quality of our forecast. I did so at the previous hearing, and I’ll continue to do so.

Senator ROBERTS:Well I do agree with you—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS:I note that your own forecast—

Dr Johnson: I’d like to have a look at this—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s produced by you.

Dr Johnson: I know, but a very quick and cursory—and maybe it’s not helpful, Chair—is that you’re comparing two different measures of data there. One’s talking about chance of exceedance and another one talks about actuals. The two are fundamentally different concepts. Just because you have a map of Australia with colours doesn’t mean to say that the two datasets are comparable. Let me have a look at it. If you have a specific question, I’d be happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Your faulty forecast caused farmers to offload cattle. The benchmark Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator sat as high as 1,192 cents per kilogram of carcass weight in 2022, but by late 2023—after your forecast hit the streets—it had tumbled all the way to 349 cents per kilogram. That’s less than a third. Do you accept responsibility for that loss to the Australian capital market as graziers sold stock because they feared overstocking in the looming dry?

Dr Johnson: Let’s just get the data right here. The Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator was about 1,200 cents per kilogram in January 22, and less than 400 cents by October 23. We released our El Nino declaration on 18 September, so by 18 September that particular measure of cattle prices had dropped somewhere by around 80 per cent. To somehow draw a conclusion that because we issued that declaration on 18 September that resulted in a run on the cattle markets, is just not supported by the data.

As I said at my previous hearings on this matter—in response to, I think, a question from Senator Davey—there are a whole range of factors influencing the decisions of primary producers. I’ve talked to a lot of primary producers and absolutely our advice and our outlooks contribute to their decision-making. But to a person to a farm business that I’ve spoken to there are a whole range of other things that they take into account in making a decision to sell their cattle. So this notion that the bureau declaring an El Nino at 18 September can explain an 80 per cent drop of the cattle prices from January 22 to October 23 is just a nonsense, frankly.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Chair, can we come back?

— *** —

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, could you please repeat your dates and cattle prices? Eastern Young Cattle Indicator—

Dr Johnson: I’ll try if I can. Let me just find the brief that I have and the advice I have received. I’ve been advised of Rural Bank data that shows the Easten Young Cattle Indicator declined from approximately 1,200c a kilogram in January 2022 to less than 400c a kilogram by October 2023. As I said, we declared an El Nino on 18 September. So, just to reaffirm by that calculation, I’m advised that the cattle price had completed more than 80 per cent of its downward run by the time we declared that El Nino in September.

Senator ROBERTS:Great. Thank you very much.

Dr Johnson: That’s the advice I have.

Senator ROBERTS: The Financial Review blames the Bureau of Meteorology: ‘How the BOM’s big dry weather forecast cost millions’ and ‘Bureau of Meteorology’s botched weather call crushes Elders’ earnings’. There’s ‘BOM mistakes hit farmers but slash inflation’, and then we’ve got others there. Your botched prediction cost more than just farmers; it cost mum-and-dad investors in Elders millions, with the share price dropping 25 per cent. Do you accept that this was the fault of your forecast?

Dr Johnson: Again, I’ve already answered this question. We absolutely stand by our forecast. Our forecasts are remarkably accurate. As I’ve said at previous estimates hearings, commentary in the media, frankly, has been largely ill-informed and inaccurate, and we’ve sought to correct the record where we can. Take, for example, the Australian Financial Review article which asserted that our El Nino declaration had been linked to Elders’ earning advice. I’ve had a look at the Elders’ advice, and it was not stated or even implied in their earnings outlook. I don’t care what the Australian Financial Review reported. My reading of what Elders actually said was that it didn’t state or even imply that the bureau’s El Nino declaration affected earnings for the period 1 October to 30 September. There are lots of things written in the media. Again, we talked about this last time. If you actually have a look at the facts of what we said and when we said it, our forecasts were remarkably accurate given how complex it is and the sheer area that we’re seeking to provide forecasts for. The forecasts are not perfect; they will always contain uncertainty.

Also, the long-range forecasts can’t explicitly predict the emergence of cyclones—individual, specific events. There will be times when you’ll have an anomalous specific event, and hence why, in our public commentary, we seek to affirm to the public and to industry that there’s always the risk of severe weather in this country and there is always the risk of cyclones in the tropics and subtropics in this country. It is a forecast. It is an estimate of a point in time in the future based on the data at a particular point in time. We update it every week. I strongly encourage those who follow our services—and many millions of people do—to continue to check those updates. The situation changes all the time. We continued to update a point-in-time statement back in September as more information came to hand.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are going to wrap up, so can you please make this your last question.

Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of people who are saying that the Bureau of Meteorology colours its diagrams to make it look hot and dry but we actually see—and this is rainfall over 124 years—no pattern or trend, no declining trend or increasing trend, just natural variation. And that’s from the BOM. Why the doom and gloom? Why depress expectations for rural output, which also depresses investment, training and employment in the bush, reduces the standard of living and increases the cost of living?

Dr Johnson: I’m not sure I understand your question, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS:Why are you so negative and preaching fear and doom when there’s nothing to suggest that, and why do you use colours to exaggerate it?

Dr Johnson: I don’t agree with your statement that we are preaching doom and gloom. We’re simply reporting the observations we’re making of the environment around us, and we’re reporting, to the best of our ability, what our guidance is for the time ahead. We do that objectively, using world-class, internationally peer reviewed, highly regarded scientific methods, and we’ll continue to do so. I think we’re entirely objective in our pronunciations and our public statements.

/4 Comments/by

Power to the People – The National Rally Against Reckless Renewables

, , ,

Renewable energy is facing failure on a number of fronts, not least of which is merit. Engineers and energy regulators – even those who were once enthusiastic about solar panels, wind turbines and batteries – are showing signs of nervousness. The lights are flickering. The costs are mounting. And globally, raw materials are running short.

Read the full article here: Power to the people: the National Rally Against Reckless Renewables | The Spectator Australia

/4 Comments/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show with Steven Nowakowski

Steven Nowakowski, cartographer, author, nature photographer, environmentalist, and former pro-wind and solar advocate joins me on the Malcolm Roberts Show.

Steven was a Green activist until 5 years ago when he saw firsthand the impact of wind turbines on the natural environment at Mount Emerald, at a pristine plateau of remnant forest full of endangered flora and fauna. Steven’s eye witness experience of the sacrifice of mountain tops for wind factories changed his mind. Steven speaks from the heart. He has a genuine passion for biodiversity and wild places.

If you want to know more about what we’re not being told about the delusional Net Zero targets, this interview is eye-opening. Steven exposes the ‘renewable’ energy sector, its costly failure, and how its impacting the lives of communities and natural ecosystems.

/5 Comments/by