Posts

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

,

I questioned the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water (DCCEEW) about a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The report was critical of the department.

The report from ANAO on Governance of Climate Change Commitments states that the DCCEEW CANNOT demonstrate the extent to which specific policies and programs have contributed, or are expected to contribute towards emissions reduction.

We are turning our entire economy upside down to chase this net-zero lunacy and no one can even say if it’s going to do anything.

Even though it was reported that the department agreed with all five ANAO recommendations, the Minister and staff, in response to my estimates’ questioning, said that they do not agree with ANAO’s findings and read out a long list of projections and guestimates.

I asked again for evidence of human-induced climate change and was told the government is committed to the United Nations 2050 Net Zero. I will continue asking about a cost-benefit analysis on Net-Zero, which appears not to exist. And finally, I will request how much this new Labor Department for Climate Change is going to cost the Australian taxpayer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The Australian National Audit Office said in January—this is from its own report: 

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however is unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction. 

I find that incredible. We see that solar and wind have taken Australia from lowest cost electricity providers to amongst the highest. There are dramatic impacts on cost of living and adverse effects on inflation and grocery prices. Everything is impacted by energy and electricity, including security and international competitiveness. I’ve just come back from North Queensland, where I’ve seen massive destruction of the environment up there. Some of the large solar and wind projects in Western Victoria and in North Queensland are not even connected to the grid, but we’re paying for them. At your behest, the government is completely upending our entire economy. You are destroying the cheap power grid we had. You’re going to make it nearly impossible to buy a new Toyota Hilux. You’re trying to force everyone into electric vehicles. You’re spending $20 billion on Snowy 2 and you can’t tell anyone whether anything the government has done has actually made a difference. I think that is because it hasn’t made a difference. What quantifiable difference have these solar and wind and other so-called policies made? 

Mr Fredericks: Senator, if it’s okay with you, I might take up the ANAO issue. There was quite a detailed response from the department to that. If it is okay with you, I might ask Ms Evans to give you a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: A response to the ANAO findings. I would also like to know the quantifiable difference these policies have made to our country. 

Ms Evans: I will answer both. In the first part, the department disagrees with the finding that you read out from the ANAO report. We do, in fact, have quite a comprehensive way of reporting on policies and programs and what they contribute to our emissions reductions, which Ms Rowley will be able to take you through in a moment. With regard to the overall outcomes, you can see that—in fact, it is part of the same answer—in our annual national greenhouse gas inventory and all of the results that come from that there is a definite decline in Australia’s emissions over the period that we’ve been looking at. Again, Ms Rowley can give you the specific details on that. I think we are up to about 24 or 25 per cent below 2005 levels at this stage. All of those policies that you were referring to have contributed to those reductions in emissions, which are contributing to a global response to climate change. Ms Rowley will take you through the very substantial way in which we track our policies and programs. 

Ms Rowley: Thanks you, Ms Evans. The ANAO was essentially seeking measure by measure modelling and tracking the impact of every policy over time, which we consider is neither practical nor efficient given that different policies and measures interact, particularly as the policy mix changes over time. They are also impacted by structural changes in the economy. However, we evaluate the impact of policies and programs on emissions during their development. That is part of the public consultation on the design of the policies ex ante, so ahead of time. In general, we prioritise policies that are going to have a material impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That analysis then becomes part of the cost-benefit analysis to inform government decisions. 

In terms of reporting on progress, this occurs through a number of channels. The department and government report progress against the 2030 target transparently and independently through channels such as the Climate Change Authority’s annual progress report, the minister’s annual climate change statement to parliament and Australia’s annual emissions projection report. As Ms Evans said, we also report on Australia’s actual emissions over time each year through our national inventory report and every quarter through the quarterly update. Both the inventory— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just a minute. So what you’re saying, as I understand it, is that various other entities report on this? 

Ms Rowley: Other entities, including the independent Climate Change Authority and the department through its work on the national inventory and the annual projections. 

Senator ROBERTS: But they actually report on aspects of it—bits of it, not the whole lot? 

Ms Rowley: No. Particularly documents like the emissions projections, which are one of our signature reports— 

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions projections? 

Ms Rowley: Emissions projections. It’s an annual report. It tracks and projects Australia’s progress towards its 2030 target. I could use that as an example to illustrate how we look at the impact of specific policies. The 2023 projections, which were published in December last year, include detailed analysis of the abatement arising from some of the government’s key mitigation policies. For example, the safeguard mechanism reforms are estimated to deliver just over 50 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail, including the projected mix of onsite abatement and the use of credits over time as well as how that policy impact is distributed across the different sectors, which are covered by the safeguard mechanism. It also includes details of the Australian carbon credit unit scheme, estimating that it will grow from delivering 17 million tonnes of abatement last year, 2023, to 30 million tonnes in 2033. Again, the projections provide reports on the types of projects, price forecasts and the sectoral split of activity. 

With the additional measures scenario, which is also part of that 2023 projections report, there are reports on the potential impacts of some of the policies that are still under detailed design and development. For example, the government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target is supported by measures such as the capacity investment scheme and the Rewiring the Nation program, which is estimated to deliver 21 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail across the different electricity grids covered by that target. It also provides quantitative estimates for the fuel efficiency standard for new vehicles, which the government is currently consulting on. Whilst that was a relatively stylised analysis given that the policy is still being designed, we estimated that would deliver a net six million tonnes of abatement in 2030. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a lot of alphabet soup. Thank you. The point is, though, you have no evidence. The ANAO is not convinced you have any evidence. You can’t demonstrate how a specific policy has made any difference to the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. That is not me saying it; that is the ANAO. 

Ms Rowley: Senator Roberts, you will recall that Ms Evans noted that the department disagrees with that finding. As I outlined, there is a range of analytic work and public reports that the department and other entities across government conduct to ensure that there is a careful analysis of the emissions implications of key policy reforms that have a material impact on Australia’s emissions. I have given you some examples of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, Ms Rowley, Ms Evans or Minister McAllister, but no-one anywhere has been able to provide me with a quantified specific effect of cutting carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. What basis is there for tracking policy when there’s no fundamental foundation for it anyway? So is anyone able to tell me the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of the climate specifically in a quantified way? How are you able to track that when there’s no basis for it? 

Senator McAllister: There are two things. One is that this is a well-worn path between you and me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yet, Minister, I still haven’t seen that. 

Senator McAllister: Perhaps I can answer. It is a source of fundamental disagreement. You do not accept the science that human activities— 

Senator ROBERTS: Correction. I do accept the actual empirical scientific evidence. 

CHAIR: Okay. Let’s not cut across each other. 

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make sure the minister doesn’t— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there is a difference of opinion here, a difference of interpretation of which science is whose. Can we stick to asking the questions and listening to the answers? You can probe it as much as you like. Let’s keep it civilised here. 

Senator McAllister: To assist Senator Roberts, I will put my answer in different terms. This government does accept the science that human activities are inducing global warming. That presents a threat to human systems and the biodiversity that our human activities depend upon. I understand from comments you’ve made previously, Senator Roberts, that is not your position. But that is the government’s position. As a consequence, we are committed to reducing Australia’s contribution to anthropogenic emissions to 2050. That is a position that, as I understand it, is bipartisan. I believe that remains the position of the coalition as well. It is the basis on which we are also committed to that by way of our participation in the processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

Senator McAllister: The second point I wish to make is that this is not a feature of the ANAO’s assessment of the department. The question the ANAO sought to answer was whether the department is using its resources well to meet those emissions reduction targets. The evidence that has been provided to you by now Ms Evans and Ms Rowley goes to the way that the ANAO engaged with that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Can you tell me or anyone in the department, because you are driving this, the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decrease to our economy? What is the cost to individual Australians? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis or a business case for this ever. No-one has ever said that they’ve done that. 

Ms Evans: We might take on notice to put down a response that adequately reflects the costs and benefits of climate action in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Evans. Specifically I would like to know the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decreasing. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to rotate the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like to know your total annual budget, please. 

Mr Fredericks: Of the department? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Natural “Extreme” Weather IS NOT Climate Change!

Weather events bring destruction to Australian communities every year.

These severe weather events have been a part of Australia’s landscape for hundreds of years and a feature of this continent for millennia.  

Way back in 1908, Australian poet Dorothea Mackellar in her famous poem “I Love a Sunburnt Country” accurately described our country using the term “of droughts & flooding rains”.

The mouthpiece media has sold Australians a lie — that these weather events are “unprecedented”. They are not.

Great floods of 1852 and 1853 at Gundagai

The mouthpiece media is complicit in a worldwide con to claim there is a “climate catastrophe”. If they admit that severe weather events have happened in the past, this kills the fake “climate emergency” narrative they’re pushing.

The reality is weather events that were more severe can almost always be found in Australia’s weather records. Evidence of even worse weather events is available in weather records and news reports since the 1870’s and in stories or geological signs over the centuries prior to the 1870’s.

Credentialed scientists writing peer-reviewed journal articles have pointed out that severe weather events have not been increasing. For going against the “climate catastrophe” narrative with data and facts, they were hounded down, unjustly vilified and often censored and silenced.

The fact that these weather events aren’t increasing in severity or frequency doesn’t mean their effects are any less destructive. All weather is normal. Apart from areas of extensive clearing such as in Africa, humans have no effect on weather.

The sun and our solar system drives and determines weather. When short term narratives are employed, it appears abnormal (which is how the media scares people about “climate change”). When we look at the longer-term cycles we find Earth is repeating similar weather.

As a country, we can use minimisation and adaptation to ensure natural extreme weather events cause less destruction. For example, stop building more houses on floodplains.

Herbert River, Far North QLD

These real solutions to helping minimize destruction are not being talked about while the mainstream media continues to push their fake “climate catastrophe” narrative.

Well-meaning Australians are being caught up in these lies as the media claims almost every single weather event is due to “climate change” instead of the truth that it’s just natural variation.

On floods especially, One Nation’s policy of building more dams across the country will help mitigate the effects of future rain events and capture that water for productive agriculture and town use through drought periods that inevitably follow.

Solutions are available. We just need them to be focused on reality and common-sense incentives instead of fraudulent “climate change” narratives that only help the parasitic climate billionaires get richer.

/12 Comments/by

FOI Reveals Department of Climate Change Visual Disinformation Campaign

This mega wind factory was always going to be an eyesore for Illawarra. It’s the first in the world to be proposed on such a huge scale so close to a major residential area. It’s also a major recognised whale migration path and scientists are still studying the negative effects of offshore wind turbines.

Quite rightly, the residents are concerned about the future of their pristine coastline and marine life for a project owned by foreign interests.

These are official government illustrations of what a proposed off-shore wind facility, or minefield, would look like off the coast of Illawarra, NSW.

Freedom of Information (FOI) documents reveal the government department even added haze to the turbines in the original photos (these photos have had contrast added to account for this effect).

The Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water called local concerns about the visual effects “misinformation”.

Looking at the government’s official illustrations, those concerns seem valid to me.

Dr Neryhl East Speaking with Chris O’Keefe:

Scientists say many questions remain about impacts on the oceans and marine life …

As the US begins to build offshore wind farms, scientists say many questions remain about impacts on the oceans and marine life – USC News & Events | University of South Carolina

/7 Comments/by

Hands Off Our Coffee!

The elitists at Davos love to chat about restricting travel while comparing the private jets they flew in on. They push EVs, yet the Davos limos are fuel powered. The forum sessions openly plot to reduce animal farming and fishing, yet they dine on the finest steak and seafood.

Where do we draw the line?

Over coffee, these Davos speakers discussed guilt-tripping the masses about coffee’s CO2 emissions.

Would you let the WEF take away your coffee? It’s all part of the plan to make you feel guilty for existing and change purchases to products owned by the WEF-connected billionaires.

Reject the CO2 Climate scam. One Nation is hugely pro-human and anti-WEF.

/7 Comments/by

Electric Vehicles Not Good for Road Trips

If you want to get there cheaper and faster, it’s looking like petrol or diesel is just as good or better for a road trip. I’ll be keeping my diesel 4WD.

/6 Comments/by

Preview to the Documentary – The Transition to Extinction

Credit to Rainforest Reserves Australia (www.rainforestreserves.org.au)

These wind turbines will only make corporations wealthy, cost taxpayers and electricity users a lot of money, endanger wildlife, drive up energy prices even higher than they are now and will then require massive graveyards after they fail to produce the elitist pipe dream of “clean, sustainable energy”.

Laws require coal mines to rehabilitate the land after mining activities have ceased, yet there is no such legislation in place for wind and solar panel projects.

Irresponsible and dishonest politicians are literally killing the environment for no gain. And it will be the next generations that will be paying for it.

/8 Comments/by

Natural Carbon Dioxide Experiment Proves the Real Inconvenient Truth

In 2020 the world conducted one of the largest global experiments ever seen.

Countries across the globe completely shut down their economies, locked everyone in their houses and stopped industrial production on a scale never seen before (and we hope to never seen again).

This unprecedented reduction in human activity and the burning of hydrocarbons should have been a climate activist’s dream – none of that pesky carbon dioxide being put into the air!

Yet through one of the largest industrial shutdowns the world has ever seen, the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air kept going up. It didn’t even deviate at all.

The question has to be asked, if the response to COVID – shutting down almost everything – didn’t even make a dent in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what will?

The answer is that nothing the net-zero climate lunatics tell us to do will make a difference. Human production will not affect the level of CO2 in the air over and above natural variation.

Anyone trying to tell you differently is selling a scam.

/by

Bushfires a Threat Created by Greenies, Not Climate Change

Watch out for climate change scam artists claiming every bushfire is because of climate change.

As this summer shapes up to be dangerous (just like every other bushfire season for decades has been dangerous) the real threat are the pretend greenies that have stopped us doing reduction burns.

Any home lost to a bushfire is the fault of people that stopped reduction burns and has nothing to do with “climate change”.

/12 Comments/by

No Basis for Extreme Weather Predictions

The Australian Department of Treasury website states that extreme weather events are expected to occur with increased frequency and severity. I asked in the recent senate estimates what sources Treasury had based this prediction. I was informed that it was consistent with the government-stated position on climate change and climate action.

Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6th Assessment Report on the Science says there have been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. It summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters and finds no change in signals for weather-related events, including river flood, rain in terms of heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire, wind speed, tropical cyclone, relative, sea level, coastal flood and marine heat wave.

The Minister was not prepared to take my question on notice regarding their source of empirical scientific data.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The next one is fairly straightforward. A statement on the Treasury website states that ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased severity and frequency’. On what are you basing that statement?

Ms Kelley: We worked with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the AOFM in terms of the statement, and the statement is consistent with the government’s stated position on climate change and climate action. The statement uses publicly available information from the 2023-24 budget and the Annual Climate Change Statement.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure it’s consistent with lots of things, because you just told me where the sources of it are. I’ll go back to the quote: ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased frequency and severity’. I’ll direct you to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report on the science, chapter 12, table 12.12. That summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters. I’ll run through some of the types of disasters where the United Nations says there’s been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters: frost; river flood; rain, measured in terms of heavy precipitation or mean precipitation; landslide; drought; fire weather; wind speed; windstorm; tropical cyclone; dust storm; heavy snowfall; hail; relative sea level; coastal flood; and marine heatwave. There’s been no change in signal for any of these events according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So I’m wondering what type of weather event this increased risk you are claiming is going to come from. What type of natural disaster are you talking about?

Ms Kelley: That’s probably not my area within the department, so—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think I should take it up with the department that you copied your policy from?

Ms Kelley: Yes, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is probably the most appropriate department.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve taken their material and just placed it on your website? You’ve trusted them.

Ms Kelley: We have been wholly consistent with government policy in terms of the statement. It’s informed by a range of different pieces of evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you very much.

Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Senator ROBERTS: No, we don’t have to agree to disagree. We just have to get the data. Perhaps you could take it on notice, Minister, to get me that data.

CHAIR: Thank you very much—

Ms Kelley: Sorry, could I just add to the question about—

Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it, Senator Gallagher.

Senator Gallagher: Eh?

Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it.

Senator Gallagher: No, well, this comes up a lot—

Senator ROBERTS: This is costing this country trillions. This is costing our country trillions of dollars.

Senator Gallagher: I think, fundamentally, we have a different—

Senator ROBERTS: Mine’s informed by the data.

Senator Gallagher: You strongly object to climate science. We don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t reject it. That’s a false statement. I don’t reject the climate science; I follow the climate science.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, thank you. Ms Kelley would like to make a final remark.

Ms Kelley: I just want to answer your question about the costs. I’ve got some clarification. We’ve borne our own costs, and Ms O’Donnell is bearing hers. There are no other decisions to be made about costs.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I just make the point that the minister is not willing to provide me with a source for that advice to the government. You’re a senior member of the government.

Senator Gallagher: I think at a number of estimates hearings, on a number of questions on notice, that information has been provided, Senator Roberts. If there’s anything further we can provide, I’m happy to add—

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Gallagher, I need to correct you. The logical scientific points, with the empirical scientific data, have never been provided to me by anyone.

CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, I’m just going to make the decision that there’s a repetition to your line of questioning. Thank you very much for your brevity in general.

/6 Comments/by

Will Cutting Human Production of Carbon Dioxide Affect Atmospheric Temperatures?

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are impacting the Earth’s climate above and beyond natural variation. The climate activists’ solution to that perceived problem is to drastically reduce the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and the grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs.

Given that BOM claims carbon dioxide from human activity in Australia is contributing to a global situation in such a way that we must cease these activities, I asked the Bureau to provide me, on notice, with the total number of BOM weather stations such data is collected from.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term have continued to rise, even during the global financial crisis of 2009 and in 2020 during COVID lockdowns. In fact, real-world empirical evidence proves drastic cuts in human carbon output have no effect on atmospheric carbon levels.

I have put several questions on notice with Dr Andrew Johnson, Director of BOM, and look forward to receiving his responses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you again for being here again. You and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are detrimentally affecting climate and that, as a consequence, carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, necessitating cuts in the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and farm grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs. Given what you claim about carbon dioxide from human activity, could you please provide me, on notice, with the total number of bureau weather stations from which weather data is collected for the bureau to use, both those that the bureau operates and those that other individuals or entities operate, and, of them, the number that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?

Dr Johnson: Okay. I can probably answer that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Dr Johnson: The CO2 levels for our region are measured at Kennaook/Cape Grim, north-west Tasmania. That’s one of three, I think, global baseline CO2 measuring stations. That’s where those stations measure. There
are many, many, many pieces of equipment in the field that measure local CO2 emissions for all sorts of reasons, but in terms of the global baseline station, that is at Cape Grim—Kennaook.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know how many stations you have, how many your colleagues—

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: And how many measure carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the locations of any other entities’ stations that are measuring carbon dioxide levels whose data the bureau relies upon for its climate reports and claims, both within Australia
and overseas? You’ve already mentioned three.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: That won’t be a problem. Now, if you look at the document I’ve tabled—

Dr Johnson: I’m sorry, I’m not in receipt of it—I’m now in receipt.

Chair: You may want to talk to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. These are graphs from—the source data is Scripps institute and CSIRO. These are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured at those 10 points around the world. Now, it’s claimed that we need to cut the level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, and to do that we must cut carbon dioxide from human activity, correct? That’s what the claim is.

Dr Johnson: Senator, I’m not in a position to pass an opinion on that. Direct that to the department. All I can tell you is that, from our measurements of the changes that are occurring in the atmosphere, it couldn’t be clearer, in terms of the trends we’re observing, and our science—

Senator ROBERTS: I want to ask you about those trends.

Dr Johnson: And our science is very clear that the causes of those trends, to a very large extent, are human activities.

Senator ROBERTS: You claim that cutting human production of carbon dioxide will cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: No. Just to reaffirm, it’s not our role to do that. Our role is to measure the atmospheric, oceanographic and, in some cases, terrestrial phenomena. We’ve never made such claims. All we’ve said is—

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t—

Dr Johnson: that all of these parameters are rising and that the cause of that increase, to a very large extent—a predominant extent—is human activity. That’s all we’ve said.

Senator ROBERTS: So carbon dioxide from human activity is causing a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr Johnson: And other emissions—methane and so on—are causing the escalation in oceanic and atmospheric temperatures.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID lockdowns, we experienced severe global recessions. During those recessions, energy use fell dramatically and the use of
hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas for transport, residences and industry was cut severely, leading to dramatic reductions of carbon dioxide from human activity. Yet, despite those cuts in human carbon dioxide production, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise.

Dr Johnson: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: All the Scripps and CSIRO measurement stations reveal no decrease or downward inflection, just continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This real-world empirical evidence proves
that drastic cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity have no effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Making the drastic cuts is pointless and is damaging economically and socially. On notice, could you please
specify the dates, quantity and duration of any inflections or downturns on those graphs?

Dr Johnson: I’m happy to, Senator. But, very quickly—with the chair’s indulgence—the premise of your question is false. It is a well-established fact that the consequences of human activity have long lag periods
between when they occur and when they’re observed in the atmosphere. So, even if CO2 emissions were to stop today, the atmosphere is loaded, as is the ocean, and it will take centuries for that signature to work its way through; hence the urgency around the challenge to reduce emissions now.

Senator ROBERTS: How well is carbon dioxide mixed in the atmosphere?

Dr Johnson: How well is it mixed?

Senator ROBERTS: How well mixed is it?

Dr Johnson: I’m not an expert on carbon dioxide atmospheric mixing.

Senator ROBERTS: How does it vary temporally, spatially and with regard to surface cover—for example, vegetation type?

Dr Johnson: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not in expert in those matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take the next question on notice as well. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over—

Senator Whish-Wilson: Could you just put them on notice now? Could it go to us, because people are waiting?

Senator ROBERTS: I want to get this to make sure I’ve got the question right for Dr Johnson. I’ll put the other two on notice after this. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term and without
spatial and temporal context have increased substantially, what impact has this had on global and national atmospheric temperatures? Specifically, what is the rate of temperature increase over the period 1995 to today?

Dr Johnson: Again, you’re asking me a specific question on a specific set of dates. I don’t have that number with me.

Senator ROBERTS: No, on notice. I’m happy for you to do that on notice.

Dr Johnson: If we have that data, I’ll provide it, sure.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’ve got the temperature data. Could you please specify in your answer the statistical methods and procedures, as well as the data periods and sources of data. Could you please use the
global and national atmospheric temperature data from the following sources: from the Bureau of Meteorology, obviously, atmospheric temperature data for Australia and the world—

Chair: Senator Roberts, you can log them in writing, if you would like. And, if you’re asking for an answer, you probably shouldn’t specify where they get the data from. It would be entirely up to them if you’re asking-

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not specifying the data. I just want some alternatives because there’s variation between—

Chair: But I will speed you up, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to put them on notice.

Chair: That would be lovely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll also be asking you for NASA’s University of Alabama, Huntsville, and RSS data.

Dr Johnson: You’d probably best direct your questions about NASA data to NASA.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

/14 Comments/by