Posts

Letter to Premier: Repeal the Reef Regulations

,

8 September 2020

Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk

Premier of Queensland

PO Box 15185

CITY EAST  QLD  4002

Dear Premier

Re: Repeal of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 2019

Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef is an immense treasure and multi-dimensional asset belonging to the people of Queensland.

Our beautiful reef is a spiritual asset connecting people with nature’s universal awe and wonder, an ecological asset and an enormous economic asset with vast unrealised potential value in tourism, fishing, research, healthcare, recreation and other activities.  It is a living part of Queensland, a renewable asset for generations to come.

I hope you agree that it is the duty of elected officials to work for the benefit of all citizens within their jurisdiction and that in our country governments have a duty to listen to, understand, work for, and serve the people.

On Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 July 2020 I took part in the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, held here in Brisbane.  I was amazed yet not surprised with the answers to fundamental questions that senators asked on behalf of all Queenslanders.  Among many facts the academics presented to us about the reef, we learned that what some groups say about the reef is incorrect.  Specifically, that:

  • “Cloudy water” affects only the inner reefs being three per cent of the reef and is natural.  Indeed, the portion adjacent to farm runoff is only half that, being 1.5 per cent with the other 1.5 per cent being off Cape York whose coastline is largely agriculturally undeveloped.  The cloudy water effect is natural with no effect from modern farming methods.
  • Targets for pesticides near the reef and on the reef are not being exceeded and results shows there is no need for your Labor government’s most recent reef regulations.
  • Middle and outer reefs are pristine and show no impact from farming.
  • There is no direct evidence that dissolved nitrogen is having any effect on inshore coral reefs and certainly no effect on the middle and outer reefs;
  • There have been no measurements of coral growth rate since 2005. That’s fifteen years with no data and the question this raises is – what is the basis for the Labor government’s regulations?
  • Over recent decades farmers have made massive changes to farming practice, yet academics say there has been no impact from these changes and that leads logically to the conclusion that farming is having no discernible impact on the reef. Thus, there is no need for the Queensland Labor government’s reef regulations.
  • The cost of the Queensland Labor government’s regulations to each farmer is or will be tens of thousands of dollars per family farm.  There is no benefit to the reef, and it will increase the price of the food we buy.

Secondly, it became clear during the inquiry that the Labor government is not meeting farmers’ needs to be heard and that agriculture seems to be a dirty word to your government.  Neither is your government meeting farmers’ and communities’ needs to be treated with respect and consideration. Farmers are understandably frustrated and angry and have lost confidence in your government because they have never been presented with the empirical scientific evidence needed to justify the changes your Labor government is imposing.

Thirdly, farmers today are environmentalists and not criminals. Farmers know that their main asset is their farm soil and they protect it. Farmers today know that the future productivity and value of their farm depends on the quality of the surrounding natural environment. Farmers know that productive farming and the natural environment have a mutually beneficial relationship, not as you portray, as being mutually exclusive.  Productive farming depends on a healthy natural environment and in turn the natural environment depends on healthy, economically productive farming communities.

These days farming must be internationally competitive, and farmers cannot afford to waste money applying fertilisers if those fertilisers run-off their farm.  Technology today places fertilisers where they are needed and no more.

In giving evidence under questioning, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, AIMS, admitted:

  • “There is lots we don’t know about the Great Barrier Reef”;
  • The term “Consensus Statement” may be misleading;
  • “Climate change is not connected to farming”.

Your Labor government and senior public service bureaucrats seem to operate under the spell of ideologically driven activists including the notorious WWF, who are pushing their agenda to destroy Queenslanders’ rights to use their land and to destroy basic freedoms. These few activists and your government pandering to people who lack understanding of the source of their food are demonising farmers, farming and food production. You and they are doing so in contradiction of the science and in conflict with common sense.

The inquiry was told that the 30 per cent nitrogen reduction target has been modelled to cost $110 million annually for sugar cane farmers and sugar millers. Yet the science shows that this is and will be for no environmental benefit.  That means that all this pain is for no gain.

I hope that you will support my recent call for an Office of Scientific Integrity to ensure the validity of science in making policies that are claimed to be based on science.

I enclose a copy of my report titled Restoring Scientific Integrity, together with a copy of Dr Alan Moran’s report titled The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables.  These show that your government’s destructive energy policies are costly mistakes for which the people of Queensland are paying heavily and for which you have no justifiable scientific basis.

I request that you reconsider your farming, climate and renewable energy policies.  Your Labor government’s reef regulations will destroy east coast farming and your energy policies will smash all industries across the state, destroy livelihoods, export jobs and place a frightful burden on all families and on people’s cost of living.

I look forward to your reply and request that your government holds an independent inquiry into the unfounded “science” underpinning its reef regulations, repeals the legislation and apologies to farmers across the state.

Yours sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

Photo by Daniel Pelaez Duque on Unsplash

/by

Policy development lacks scientific integrity

,

The timber industry in Queensland is being decimated by regulations that are not based on robust science. The Queensland Labor party has been captured by the Greens who have an ideological opposition to logging.

Even sustainable logging.In Maryborough, layer upon layer of red tape is choking the sustainable harvesting of timber leading to timber being sourced from overseas. The proposed Office of Scientific Integrity would ensure that policy development would be based on independent, empirically based scientific evidence rather than the loopy Greens.

Transcript

[Rosie]

A senator, a businessman, and a scientist claim this report will unearth lies about Australia’s climate change and renewable energy.

[Senator Roberts]

So over the last four years I’ve investigated the CSIRO, in fact, I’ve cross-examined them. I’ve asked them to present me with the evidence that we’re doing something with climate and we need to stop it.

[Rosie]

Senator Malcolm Roberts says common concepts that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to the climate and that today’s temperatures are unprecedented, were fabricated for political gain.

[Senator Roberts]

That’s shoddy. So as a result of that, we’ve been recognising that the corruption of science is right across the country.

[Rosie]

According to Tiaro local Curly Tatnell, the impacts of corrupt science is huge for the timber industry.

[Mr Curly Tatnell]

Country that we should normally be able to harvest and things like that being locked up, which means that we’ve got to produce smaller timber.

[Rosie]

He says farmers are harvesting their properties prematurely because of misinformation. It’s led the men to call for the establishment of an office of scientific integrity.

[Dr Peter Ridd]

To check the science that’s being used for making major public policy decisions, whether they’re state or federal.

[Rosie]

The state government is aware of the groups calls. Rosie O’Brien, 7 News.

/by

Properties of Carbon Dioxide

Neither H2O (water) nor CO2 (carbon dioxide) are pollutants.

CO2, carbon dioxide:

  • Is essential for all life on earth;
  • Is just 0.04% of earth’s air – four one hundredths of a per cent;
  • Is scientifically classified as a trace gas because there is so little of it
  • Is non-toxic; not noxious;
  • Is highly beneficial to, and essential for, plants;
  • Is colourless, odourless, tasteless;
  • Natural – nature produces 97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on Earth;
  • Does not discolour the air;
  • Does not impair the quality of water or soil;
  • Does not create light, heat, noise or radioactivity;
  • Does not distort our senses.
  • Does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive;
  • Does not make land water or air dirty or unsafe to use;
  • Does not cause disease;
  • Does not harm ecosystems and is essential for ecosystems;
  • Does not harm plants &animals. Essential for plants and animals;
  • Does not cause discomfort, instability or disorder;
  • Does not accumulate;
  • Does not upset nature’s balance;
  • Remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, and natural accumulations;
  • Does not contaminate apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes from some volcanoes and then only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts far higher than anything humans can produce;
  • Is not a foreign substance;
  • In past more than 130 times higher in conc’, in air than today.

In some locations within nature other atoms can be included with hydrocarbons as impurities in the resource deposit. These can include for example, Sulphur (S) and Nitrogen (N) among others. When these are burned in oxygen they produce sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxides (NOx).

Along with particulates that are small particles of soot or smoke, these are real pollutants. Fortunately, real science has led to technology that removes virtually all such pollutants at the source or after combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel.  This is why modern cities in developed countries have clean, healthy air.

/2 Comments/by

Opposing Antarctic research funding for Climate Science

,

This afternoon I opposed a motion from the Greens asking for more money for climate research for the Antarctic.

Transcript

[President]

Senator Roberts.

[Roberts]

Seek leave Mr president, to make a short statement.

[President]

Leave is granted for one minute.

[Roberts]

Thank you Mr.President. One Nation will not be supporting this motion. The antarctic is a largely untouched and entirely spectacular natural wonder which needs and deserves proper scientific investigation and research.

Every dollar wasted on research in claimed human caused climate change in the antarctic, steals research grants from genuine geologists, paleoclimatologists, biologists, glaciologists and other scientists doing real scientific investigations. This chamber is the house of review.

When will the Senate demand a review of the science into claims of human induced climate change that has tax payers funding billions of dollars a year with no environmental or economic benefits?

Today, Mr. President, is day 278, since I first challenged The Greens and Senators Di Natale and Waters to provide the empirical data and framework proving carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut and to debate me on climate science and on the corruption of climate science. Thank you Mr. President.

/by

Greens expert runs from giving evidence

,

This afternoon I had the opportunity to ask questions in the Senate Committee on “Lessons to be learned in relation to the Australian bushfire.”

I chose to ask my questions to Greg Mullins who is a Climate Councillor with the (Tim Flannery’s) Climate Council. Mr Mullins wasn’t too keen on answering my questions and took the name calling route rather than providing the evidence I asked for.

“I’m a retired person, I don’t have time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.” Mr Mullins is the person who the Greens rely on as their climate expert during the recent bushfires.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you chair, and thank you Mr. Mullins for attending today, and also thank you very much for your service over many years, in fact nearly half a century.

I’m very pleased that the opening sentence, in fact the opening line of your presentation, you used the word empirical, and when I first used that in the senate in 2016 and in the media a lot of journalists were running off getting their dictionaries and senators were giggling and carrying on. I am pleased to see that you have used that word empirical.

There is another part to that though that needs to be proven when it comes to cause and effect. It’s not just the word empirical, not just the empirical data, but also presenting that in a causal framework that establishes cause and effect, and you’re with me on that?

[Greg Mullins]

Uh, yes.

[Senator Roberts]

I’ve had to use data because I’ve had to manage people’s lives and make sure people stayed alive, so I always relied on empirical data and understood cause and effect especially investigating safety incidents to establish cause.

Now in your opening paragraph and in your recommendation one you state irrefutable empirical scientific data concerning warming climate proven to be caused by burning of coal, oil, and gas is resulting in worsening and more frequent extreme weather events that spawned the 2019 bush fires. Could you please tell me the specific source of your empirical scientific evidence within a logical structure proving cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate?

I’d like to know the specific title of the publication, I’d like to know the specific page numbers in which the data is presented, and in which the causal relationship is established.

Now I know you’ve used a lot of references from SBS, The Guardian, the Greens Party, The Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, the ABC, but I would like to know the specific location of the specific empirical data that scientifically proves cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Could you do that for me please either on notice or now?

[Greg Mullins]

Uh, senator or chair, do I have to answer this question? Senator, I’ve read your website, I’ve read, or tried to read, a lot of your stuff that you’ve published, and so I’ve read very widely for and against. I don’t think there would be any purpose served me trying to convince you of what thousands of scientists agreed on and the settled science, and it is settled science, and I’m at a loss to know how to deal with your assertion, I won’t call it a question.

[Chair]

Thanks Mr. Mullins, Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts]

Can you provide me with one title of empirical scientific evidence in a causal framework establishing cause and affect?. Not one?

[Greg Mullins]

Look I could provide many for you, but I’m a retired person.

[Senator Roberts]

One would do, just one.

[Greg Mullins]

I frankly don’t have the time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.

[Chair]

I think what I propose, thanks Senator Roberts.

[Greg Mullins]

That was not an admission, it was exasperation senator.

[Senator Roberts]

Now we have talked also about-

[Chair]

You’ve got one last question Senator Roberts if that’s okay, we are out of time.

[Senator Roberts]

Yeah one more question, that’d be fine. Are you aware, Mr. Mullins, that in my cross-examination of the CSIRO that the CSIRO’s acting head of climate change admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented and that the CSIRO admitted to me in an earlier presentation in Sydney that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger and they never will say it.

Are you aware that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented?

[Greg Mullins]

Senator, now that’s a very broad question. Are you talking about hundreds of millions of years when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth or when humans, and look I say again, I have read your material and the assertions made therein under the guise of being in scientific language, and I find it very concerning and quite muddled, and I’d be very surprised if the CSIRO said what you’ve just stated just as you said that I didn’t have any reference, it wasn’t true.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you very much chair.

[Chair]

Thanks senator Roberts,

/by