Posts

The Great Climate Change Debate

,

I have always said I will debate anyone in the country or overseas about the evidence on climate change. The truth is, there is no evidence that CO2 from human production directly causes changes in the climate and needs to be cut.

Transcript

Forward to this all weekend, all week, the great climate change debate. Gee, I’m nervous. I shouldn’t be, I know. But I’m a little nervous. The first time I’ve ever done something like this, live on this programme. Malcolm Roberts from One Nation and also regular caller, Mark. Mark’s the only one, it seems, with the kahunas to take on Malcolm, particularly on a live radio debate. We put it to some Labour MPs to come on, I won’t shame them at the moment by naming them, and they said, “Nope, nope!” But Mark is up to the challenge. Gentleman, are you both there?

G’day, Marcus.

Hi.

G’day, Mark.

All right, now this is the way this is going to work, gentlemen. You will both have two minutes to start. So Malcolm you’ll go first. You’ll plead your case against climate change using, no doubt, your empirical data, all the rest of it. Then Mark, you will respond. You’ll get two minutes. You’ll be on a clock. And then after that, you’ll get two minutes again each for a rebuttal, okay? That sounds okay to you?

Yep.

Sounds good.

All right, now. A couple of rules, no name calling in the rebuttals. All right. Straightaway that’s a no-no. No name calling,

Okay.

Obviously not that you will, but we just have to be a little clear here. No name calling. And if I think you’re getting a little off topic, I’ll pull you up. Are we ready to go?

Yup, we’re ready.

Yeah.

All right, gentlemen. Thank you, the great climate change debate is underway. Malcolm, you’re going to go first, okay? Because I say so, and I will roll your two minutes from now. Climate change, you say, is not real. Tell me why.

I don’t say climate change is not real, Marcus. I say that carbon dioxide from the use of hydrocarbon fuels does not change climate. That’s the core point. What people have to understand that the core point is that they want to tax and cut our carbon dioxide from human activity, farming, agriculture, driving, transport, industry, power stations. So what has to happen? Always, science is decided by the empirical evidence in logical scientific points. What that means is that you have to have empirical data, hard data, within a logical framework that proves cause and effect. And empirical means measured or observed. Actual solid data. So before we can justify cutting human agriculture, driving, industry, power stations, electricity, raise their prices, we have to have hard evidence that temperatures today have been unusually high and continue to rise unusually.

One minute left.

There is no such evidence. Secondly, the cause of any temperature rise is increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Third thing, they have to prove that the carbon dioxide rising in the atmosphere is due to human production of carbon dioxide. There is no evidence to that effect. Number four, even if everything is correct, and someone provides the data that shows that temperatures are rising unusually in continuing to rise, and that it’s due to human carbon dioxide, they then have to prove that warmer temperatures are harmful to humans, harmful to the planet. Scientists classify earth’s past far warmer periods

20 seconds.

far warmer periods as climate optimums, because warmer periods have been booms for human civilization, nature, and individuals. Cold periods kill more people than warmer periods.

10.

So the next thing I point out is that I’ve done extensive work with the Parliamentary Library, with freedom of information bills, with parliamentarians-

Three.

Themselves. No one is able to

Two. provide that evidence. No one.

All right, okay. Okay. So Malcolm stated his points. Mark, are you ready, mate? You’ll get two minutes on the clock.

Just before I start-

Oh god.

on time.

Yes.

Do you recycle Malcolm? Or do you put it all in the same bin?

Hey Mark, we’ll get to that. We’ll get to that.

No, just out of curiosity. We’ll get to that. Your two minutes is up and in your rebuttal, that’s when you can ask questions of each other, okay?

All right.

All right. All right, Mark. Your two minutes starts now.

Righto. Let’s go back 450 million years. The earth was barren. It’s being bombarded by solar radiation. There was fissures and cracks pumping out carbon dioxide and methane gas. I’ve got a Kelpie chewing up my foot while I’m talking to you. The seas were swarming with jellyfish, and fish, and sharks with big bony plates. The first algae, at that time, began to creep up onto the rocks. Come forward another 50 or 60 million years. They’d turned what they call the Gilboa Forest. They were about five metres high. They had a base like a palm tree with multiple roots. They had a straight trunk. They had fronds like a tree fern. There’s fossil evidence of these from Belgium to New York state, a town called Gilboa funnily enough. Then go back to to about 349 million years ago. We started the Carboniferous Forest. These massive forest. These huge rainstorms, probably like we’ve never seen before, that filled up swamps, carved out canyons, rivers flowing up and everywhere it was just to intense-

One minute. One minute.

And then glaciers begin form ’cause there’s so much oxygen in the atmosphere. But the downside of that was every time there’s an electrical storm, because there’s so much oxygen, there’s these massive fires. And that’s what they reckon kept the forest going because forests, obviously, need carbon dioxide. Then by the end of that time, 299 million years ago, the begin to split up.

30 seconds.

And then we got back to now. Now we’ve got, the atmosphere has changed. In 200 years we’ve dug up so much carbon and burnt it, we’ve changed back to what it was 3 million years ago. So what you’re saying is, Malcolm, it took 200 years to go back to what it was 3 million years ago.

10.

And now you’re saying it doesn’t really matter because we’ve changed 3 million years in atmosphere in 200 years. That doesn’t compute.

All right. All right. Well said. All right. I think that’s pretty good from both of you. Great for a start. So the way this now works, you both had your opening arguments. Now it’s time for rebuttal. Another two minutes for any of the points that Mark’s brought up, Malcolm, you get to rebut. Then Mark, you get your chances as well. You ready to go there, Malcolm?

I am, Marcus.

All right. The clock starts now two more minutes, off you go.

I’ll say it again. What determines science is the use of logical scientific points and that’s the beauty of science. It gets rid of all the crap, all of the opinions, all living emotions, and just says, “Show me your data.” And that data, hard empirical data, has to be provided within a logical framework that proves cause and effect. Mark has done none of that. He has not proven the temperatures are higher than in the past. He has not shown that the carbon dioxide that man produces drives temperature. He has not shown that higher temperatures are dangerous to humans. Now, he’s then talked about carbon dioxide levels. In the earth’s past, fairly recent past by earth standards, carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than today. Carbon dioxide levels today are closer to the limit of 0.015% in the atmosphere where plants shut down. We need far more carbon dioxide, not less.

One minute. One minute, Malcolm.

Now, I’m the only person in the world from a Congress or a Parliament who has cross-examined the government science agency. I’ve cross-examined CSIRO over a period of five years. They have admitted to me that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger. Never. They have failed to show me, in the last 10,000 years, anything unprecedented in climate. Not just temperatures, anything at all, rainfall, snowfall, etc, nothing at all. They have failed to show me

30 seconds. any statistically significant change in climate. None that all. The chief scientist, after I questioned him, broke down and said to me, he is not a climate scientist, and he doesn’t understand it. Yet, that man was around the country spreading this misrepresentation of carbon dioxide and climate.

10.

No one anywhere has identified any quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity and climate. And thus, there is no basis for policy whatsoever.

All right. Well done. Malcolm. That’s your rebuttal. How you feeling Mark, by the way? You feeling okay? What was that?

Bored.

Bored!

I’ve heard it all before.

Oh really? Okay.

So start the clock.

Hang on there. I’ve just got to re set it. Give me two seconds. Here we go. All right, you’re ready, boss? And again, you’ll have two minutes to state your rebuttal and off we go. By the way, gentlemen, I won’t be making a decision on who wins this. My listeners will. Both on air and online. So we’ll put it up a little later for those who aren’t listening live. They can listen back to it, etc. We’ll leave it up for a while. Malcolm, if you wouldn’t mind, perhaps share it as well. And we’ll get some feedback from your followers. Mark, off you go.

Okay. Now what I was getting at there is all those processes took millions and millions of years to happen.

Yeah.

Now what we’re doing now, we’re clearing land the size of the United Kingdom, every year. We’ve got this corrupt fool in Brazil that’s cleared a fifth of the Amazon jungle, which pumps out oxygen and absorbs carbon dioxide. Now in 1857, a scientist named Eunice Newton Foote, a lady scientist, she couldn’t understand why when the carbon dioxide was in… Looking at the earth’s history, everything began to heat up. So she did an experiment. She put a sealed jar of oxygen, a jar of, I think it was hydrogen or helium, I can’t remember what it was, and a jar of carbon dioxide and put them in the sun. And she noticed when she took measurements, the carbon dioxide absorbed, and attracted, and retained the heat, more than the other gases in the atmosphere. They were three sealed jars.

One minute.

And then years gone by. In the late ’70s, the Nixon government, they started making warnings about climate change caused by carbon dioxide. All the insurance companies in the US all got together and said, “We’re going to have to do something about this. It’s going to cost us a heap.” Now, the track were going on now, we’re clearing so much land, and we’re cutting down all the trees, it’s turning into heat sinks. I noticed that Rob Stokes this morning, announced a thing where no more houses with black roofs ’cause the cities are taking the heat sinks.

30.

If you look at new housing develops now, they’re hot because there’s no trees, all got black roofs, and because we’re pumping out so much carbon dioxide now that it’s getting hotter and hotter. Systems are starting to collapse all around the world now. And if you take any notice or if you care, we need nature.

10.

Nature doesn’t need us. We need nature. And the thing is all these right wing gits all around the place say, “Oh, so what, who cares? It’s not our problem.” I heard some fool yesterday on the radio say, “Who cares what happens in 30 years.”

All right. That’s it. Mark, all right. Well done. Well done to both you gentlemen. Any questions between each other, let’s be respectful. You had a question of Malcolm just before, Mark. You can ask it now.

Do you recycle, Malcolm?

Yeah, I recycle.

Well, hello. That’s what the earth’s atmosphere does. We have forests to recycle carbon dioxide and turn it back into oxygen.

That’s right, and-

Yay!

Nature alone produces 32 times, every year, 32 times the amount of carbon dioxide than in the entire human production around the planet. And whats more, Data shows that the-

Hang on.

Human production cannot-

We’re burning so much-

And does not change the-

fossil fuel we’re changing-

Level of carbon dioxide-

The balance.

In the atmosphere.

Okay. I think you spoke over each other. Malcolm, just again.

Again what?

Just repeat what you were saying ’cause Mark, I think, spoke over you. We couldn’t hear you properly.

I believe in recycling and-

Yeah.

Nature itself recycles through the carbon cycle, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon is essential to all life in this planet. Every cell in Mark’s body contains carbon. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this planet. It and water vapour are essential for life. All forms of life on this planet. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas at 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere. It has no physical effect on temperatures at all.

All right, Mark?

Air, and also oxygen, blankets out the heat that’s being bombarded into the planet. We’re just changing the balance so much. These people just don’t get it. I just can’t believe people can be so thick as a society.

Hang on, lets be nice.

We need more carbon dioxide.

Let’s be respectful. It’s not about being thick. We’re talking ideology, we’re talking science, we’re talking-

All right.

It’s an important debate because it’s effectively divided our-

I’ll finish up with this.

Yeah?

I’ll finish up with this. Remember the smoking debate. They used to trot out all these people with white coats and clipboards saying “Oh, it’s not smoking. Two twins, one smoked and the other one didn’t. The one that smoked didn’t die, but the other one that died had cancer, so explain that.” They try and confuse you with figures. That’s what it is. But we’re changing the balance. And as I said before, all these things happened over millions of years, not the rate we’re doing. Not 200 years-

Yeah.

Millions of years.

All right, Malcolm?

Yeah, sure. Marcus, the use of any label like thick indicates that Mark-

Yeah.

Hasn’t got an argument that he can put together to counter the data.

Well, I think he did put an argument together, but.

The second thing, Marcus, is that raising smoking, which has got nothing to do with this. just shows that he hasn’t got an argument. Temperatures today are cooler than the 1880s and 1890s, when they were warmer 140 years ago. The longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was from the 1930s to 1976 when temperatures cooled. Since 1995, for 26 years, that’s more than a quarter of a century, temperatures have been flat yet China, India, America, Brazil, Russia are producing record quantities of carbon dioxide. When you consider nature’s El Nino cycles, there has been no warming trend at all for 26 years. And that conclusion is confirmed in NASA satellite temperature data.

All right, Mark? There is nothing unusual happening.

Mark?

Look at the extreme weather events that we’re getting now. As we talk, did you know last week in Canada, a place called Merit City, they had to evacuate 7,000 people because of the floods. Do you know in India last week they evacuated 200,000 people because the floods? This is what’s happening here. All these extreme weather events, and these people keep living in denial.

So Malcolm, Mark is suggesting climate changes has led into catastrophic floods, and we look here in Australia at the fires. Are you suggesting, Malcolm, that climate change has nothing to do with these severe climb of the severe environmental challenges faced by flood, fire, and?

Mark himself has failed to provide the evidence.

But there is evidence there.

Hang on, Marcus, I’m answering your question. The area of land burned-

Yeah. In the 2019 fires was much, much smaller than in the past. Even in the 1970s and much smaller than a hundred years ago. Much, much smaller. That’s the first point. The second point is that Antarctica has just had the record coldest six month period in its records, ever, ever.

Yeah.

And you can’t just go off… You notice, I don’t raise things like that, because that is weather. And the same with Canada having floods, we’ve always had floods. And if you look at the records from the Bureau of Meteorology, and you hear it on the news every night, oh, this is the heaviest flooding since in the last 50 years, what happened 51 years ago?

All right.

It was greater.

30 seconds each, just to finish. Mark, you first.

The weather events are getting more extreme because the oceans… I’ll just tell you. Okay, we’re in Australia. This is what’s happening. Up in Queensland they’ve cleared so much land the fertilizer’s washing into the water, feeding the Fido plankton. Fido meaning floating, plankton meaning plant life. That’s feeding the crown-of-thorns starfish. They’re munching their way through the barrier reef. Up in the gulf you’ve got hundreds of kilometres of the, what do you call them, mangroves have died off because it’s so hot. You’ve got Leeuwin Current floating in the coast of Western Australia was five degrees warmer-

All right.

than what it usually was. Five degrees!

Malcolm, last 30 seconds please.

Mark has failed to provide any evidence. Look, before we can provide any policy, you need to be able to quantify the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. No one anywhere in the world has done that. No one anywhere has quantified any effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. And thus, there is no basis for policy. Mark is just clutching at straws. Crown-of-thorn starfish come and go in cycles. And we’ve known that for decades and decades and decades.

All right.

We need to respect nature, not vilify nature.

Gentleman, thank you both. This has been very enlightening. Very interesting. I hope the people listening at home, and those that listen back to the podcast online, enjoy it. Thank you, Mark, and both of you for being a really good sport. I think Mark deserves kudos for taking you on, Malcolm considering others, including federal members of parliament, have refused to do so. So I think kudos to him.

I agree. I agree. Kudos to Mark. But one of the sad things is that Mark has failed to provide the evidence. What we need, Marcus-

All right.

Is to understand-

Yes.

That you need to provide the empirical data, proving the link between the human carbon dioxide and climate variability.

All right, guys.

No one has done that anywhere in the world.

All right, I have to go. We’ve got the news coming up. Thank you, gentlemen, both for your time. That’s the great climate debate.

/18 Comments/by

Climate Nonsense Taking Over

,
https://youtu.be/4Ke2GHOrd14

Yet again, the Prime Minister is bowing to unelected overseas elites and forcing unnecessary, broken climate policies on Australia. Our entire economy and your job is at risk so that the elites can have more control and money.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Well Malcolm Roberts says that parliament has lost it’s way under the two major parties. He made this impassioned speech just the other day.

[Malcolm Roberts] The issue that is of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, the integrity of the people of this country, and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to our nation and I wish it was of utmost importance to every single person in this senate. But clearly it’s not.

[Marcus] Well.

[Malcolm] The issue that is of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament.

[Marcus] There we go Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you Senator.

[Malcolm] Good morning Marcus. How are you mate?

[Marcus] Alright thank you. You looked pretty annoyed when you made that speech just the other day.

[Malcolm] I’m very very annoyed because I’ve always been a passionate person for the honesty and for the truth. Integrity is extremely important to me and Pauline, and accountability is too. And you know the people of Australia are now paying 19 billion dollars a year in nonsensical rubbish commitments for these parasitic mal investments. Unreliable energy that’s destroying our energy sector. We went from the cheapest energy in the world to now amongst the most expensive.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] And the typical family household is now paying an extra 1,300 dollars a year for this rubbish.

[Marcus] Okay but I’d love to know how much we’re paying in subsidies to fossil fuel industries. You always talk about how much money we’re subsidising renewable energy. What about the fossil fuel industry that’s making billions out of our resources, many from overseas corporations that pay little to no tax, Malcolm. And all the rest of it. Are there any figures for, ya know, how much subsidy we’re providing fossil fuel companies?

[Malcolm] The Greens claim that, that the Greens have never ever provided any evidence saying what these circle subsidies are. The closest the Greens have come is to say that depreciation and amortisation on our subsidies. That applies to every single industry, and that applies to the taxation system. So that’s nonsense.

[Marcus] Okay so what you’re suggesting

[Malcolm] The clear

[Marcus] Hang on you’re suggesting we

don’t pay subsidies

[Malcolm] Correct. to the fossil fuel industry?

[Malcolm] We’ll let’s get two things straight.

[Malcolm] First of all,

[Marcus] Course we do.

[Malcolm] It’s not fossil fuels, they’re hydrocarbons. They’re compounds of hydrocarbons.

[Marcus] Semantics.

[Malcolm] No no no no. No it’s semantics. It’s extremely important they’re hydrocarbons. Now what happens with the coal sector, coal fired power section I should say, coal fired power section is now subsidising the other forms of electricity. Because coal fired power sections are competing with subsidised wind and solar and they can’t compete on that basis. So their prices of coal fired power sections are going up because of that. But if you look at the basic costs of coal fired power sections, we can build a new power station in this country and generate electricity for 45 dollars a megawatt hour. 45. There’s nothing comes close. Wind and solar are many times that.

[Marcus] What about the affect that will cause on climate change in the longer term, Malcolm?

[Malcolm] There is no evidence anywhere in the world that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. And remember they’ve tried to tax us on this. And the tax was beaten by attorney Evan. One of the good things he did. Think about this Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The production of carbon dioxide in 2009 after the global financial crisis decreased. Decreased. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased. Because nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We don’t control it. Second point, in the last 19 months with the COVID shutdown around the world, we had almost a depression. Yet the level of carbon dioxide reduced from humans using hydrocarbon fuels. Cars,

Power stations

[Marcus] Yep.

[Malcolm] gas heaters, has decreased. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased. Nature controls it. It wouldn’t matter how much they tax us. How much they throttled us. We will not affect the temperature. The second thing to remember is that despite the human production of carbon dioxide going up dramatically, in the last 25, 30 years, the actual temperature of the planet has stabilised since 1995. It’s been flat. It’s just natural variation, up and down from year to year. It’s been flat. So no matter which way you look at it, this is rubbish. It’s just a matter of controlling our energy,

[Marcus] Well the

[Malcolm] controlling our water,

[Malcolm] controlling our land,

[Marcus] Well okay

[Malcolm] and ripping us off in taxes.

[Marcus] Well the Prime Minister obviously doesn’t feel that way. He’s gonna sign up to net zero by 2050. He’ll drag the Nationals screaming and kicking along the way as well. And he’ll be off to Glasgow. What do you make of that?

[Malcolm] It’s another show. Another show. Look the real issue here is that we have two coalition governments vying for government. We have the Morrison Joyce government that’s currently in power as you know, and we have the Albanese Bant government. And make no mistake, the last labour government, they’ve lost so much support from their key areas that they could only govern in coalition with the Greens. And that’ll be the case

[Marcus] Whoa hold on

[Malcolm] It’ll be Albanese and Bant together.

[Marcus] No all that rubbish.

[Malcolm] The fact is that Scott Morrison has got no data. We know that. Got no data backing up his claims about having to cut down carbon dioxide from human activity.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] What he’s doing on this is kowtowing to his globalist masters.

[Marcus] Alright I got a note here I’ll get you to comment on. It’s on the same thing. It’s from one of my listeners. Good day Marcus. Whilst the federal government dithers, bickers, and carries on developing a coherent policy for net zero emissions, the private sector is getting on with it. Rio Tinto, Big HP, the Commonwealth Bank, the CSIRO, Fortescue Metals, Mirvac, Brisbane airport, AGL, Ramsay Health Care, they’ve all pledged to slash their emissions. Atlassian’s founder says he’ll invest and donate 1.5 billion dollars for climate action. The states are all backing clean energy projects. And he concludes by saying in my view Morrison’s strategy is clear, do nothing and allow the others to do the heavy lifting. If the others succeed, as they’re likely to do so, then Morrison will take the credit. If their strategies do not work, then Morrison will not be blamed.

[Malcolm] Very very simple Marcus.

[Marcus] Hm?

[Malcolm] People, humans have a problem in that some people just follow like sheep. I challenged the chief executive officer, the head of coal division, and the chairman of BHP, several years ago, about 2014 from memory, to provide me with the evidence for their policy. They all failed. Every single, Rio Tinto failed to provide it. These people are pushing a globalist agenda. BHP you’ll notice is piling out a thermal coal because it’s mines are so damn inefficient. It’s piling out a thermal coal, steaming coal, power station coal, but it’s not saying anything about it’s coking coal. Coking coal is absolutely essential. And BHP can make money because coking coal prices are so damn high. They can’t make it in steaming coal because they’re inefficient. They’re very badly managed. I’ve challenged the chief executive officer of the ANZ bank. The head of the ANZ bank. And he can’t provide me the evidence. And what’s more, he told it’s not about evidence. It’s not about science anymore because it’s become political and the risks are too great because the globalists that are pushing this scam, and you can go back to Maurice Strong, he started this. He created this whole scam. And Maurice Strong died a criminal on the hunt from the American authority.

[Marcus] Right okay.

[Malcolm] Because of criminal activity. So this is the kind of thing we’re looking at here. And Marcus, the leadership of these companies, some of these companies, is atrocious. I can give you fine leaders who are saying it’s complete rubbish.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] Fine leaders.

[Marcus] Okay Malcolm, always good to have you on. It’s great to get your perspective on this and I’m really interested to get your thoughts once Glasgow gets underway and we start hearing more and more about

[Malcolm] Can I?

[Marcus] action on climate, yeah?

[Malcolm] I’ll issue a challenge to you Marcus.

[Marcus Laughs] –

[Malcolm] No no

No one has been able to do this. CSRO, Bureau of Meteorology, no one. The UN panel on climate. I challenge you to provide me with the specific location of the data within a causal framework, scientific framework, and that’s what determines science. That shows we need to cut our carbon dioxide. No one has been able to do that. And what’s more I’ll issue a challenge to anyone in Australia who wants to debate me on the science and on the corruption of science. Anyone.

/by

The true cost of shoddy Governance

, , , , , ,

Governments have been making policy that is completely out of touch with reality or data for decades. It’s all based on political whims or looking good, not the facts or data. As a result, our country is broken.

We have to return to policy based on tested data, not Labor or Liberal’s feelings on the day.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will discuss the cost of shoddy science that is crippling people, families, communities and our nation. One Nation has repeatedly called for and continues to call for an independent office of scientific integrity and quality assurance to assess the science claimed to be underpinning government policy and decisions. We want objective, independent scientific scrutiny that is protected from politicisation. Science is a not a label; it is hard, verifiable, reliable data within a framework that proves cause and effect logically. It is every senator’s responsibility to ensure that she or he makes decisions using such data.

I’ll give you some examples of the cost of shoddy science that has not been scrutinised. Climate policies and renewable subsidies cost Australian households via electricity costs $13 billion per year, every year. That’s $1,300 per household per year needlessly wasted. The median income in this country is $49,000. After tax, that’s around $34,000 or maybe a little bit higher. How can someone on $34,000 after tax afford $1,300 flushed down the toilet, for nothing? The additional costs of climate policies on our power bills is a staggering 39 per cent, not the 6½ per cent that the government claims. Renewables distort the low cost of coal based power and more than double the wholesale electricity price from coal’s $45.50 per kilowatt hour to $92.50. China and India use our coal to sell electricity at 8c a kilowatt hour, while we burn the same coal without transporting it thousands of kilometres and the price of electricity from the coal is three times as much at 25c an hour.

All Australians have the right to benefit from our rich natural resources. The true cost of electricity in this country would be $13 billion per year less if cheap, affordable, reliable coal production was not lumbered with policies that distort the market. We commissioned independent expert and respected economist Dr Alan Moran to calculate those figures, and he used the government’s own data. So it can’t be sensibly refuted. The government stopped presenting it in consolidated form to hide what government policy is doing to everyday Australians in our nation.

Every subsidised green energy job or so-called renewable job, from renewable or unreliable power, such as wind and solar, costs 2.2 jobs lost in the real economy. Parasitic unreliables are killing their host, the people of Australia and the people of Queensland.

We can go further, beyond raw data on energy costs, to look at property rights. Property rights have been stolen in this country in the name of the Kyoto Protocol. John Howard’s Howard-Anderson government started it with Rob Borbidge’s National Party government in Queensland, followed quickly by Peter Beattie’s government and every government since, with the exception of Campbell Newman, who failed to repeal it. Property rights have been stolen with no compensation. That is fundamentally wrong. We see it in water policy, with corruption in the Murray-Darling Basin when it comes to water trading. We see the stealing of water rights, all based on shoddy science. The whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based on shoddy science—political science. Instead of having science based policy, we now have policy based science, and both sides of this parliament are responsible.

Senator Carr, who I have a lot of regard for in many ways, raised COVID. We have not been given the scientific data on COVID. We’ve been given models. The scientific data which I got from the Chief Medical Officer points to a completely different picture and to completely different management. COVID is being mismanaged in the name of science. It is wrong. By the way, the costs of all of those examples I’ve given are not in the billions but in the tens or hundreds of billions, and the impact on our country’s economy is in the trillions, with the lost opportunity and the lack of competitiveness.

COVID exposed to us that our country has lost its economic independence. We now depend on other countries for our survival—for basics. We’ve lost our manufacturing sector because of shoddy governance from the Labor, Liberal and National parties over almost eight decades, since 1944. In the last 18 months, we’ve seen the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals squabbling at state and federal level, because there is no science being used to drive the plan. There’s no plan for COVID management. Each state is lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, and the federal government is bypassing the Constitution and conditioning them to suck on the federal tit. That’s what’s going on.

Let’s have a look at the science. I have held CSIRO accountable at three presentations from them, plus Senate estimates. Firstly, the CSIRO has admitted under my cross-examination that the CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger—never. We asked them: ‘Who has said it? Politicians told us you said it.’ They said, ‘You’d have to ask the politicians.’ Secondly, CSIRO has admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. I’ll say that again—not unprecedented. They’ve happened before in recent times without our burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Thirdly, the CSIRO then fell back on one thing—one paper, after almost 50 years of research, that said that the rate of warming is now increasing. That too was falsified by the author of that paper. It was falsified and contradicted by other references which the CSIRO had to then give us. There is no evidence for the CSIRO’s sole claim that the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. Its own papers that it cites do not show that. The CSIRO then relied upon unvalidated computer models that were already proven to be giving erroneous projections. That’s what the UN IPCC relies on. They’ve already been proven wrong many times.

The clincher is that, to have policy based upon science, you would need to quantify the amount of impact on climate variables such as weather: rainfall; storm activity, severity and frequency; and drought. You’d need to be able to quantify the impact on that of carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact on climate, or any climate variable, from human carbon dioxide.

With us, the CSIRO has repeatedly relied on discredited and poor-quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. It gave us one of each, and then, when we tore them to shreds, they gave us more. We tore them to shreds. It has never given us any good-quality scientific papers. That’s their science. The CSIRO revealed little understanding of the papers they cited as evidence. That’s our scientific body in this country—they could not show understanding of the papers that they cited.

The CSIRO admits it has never done due diligence on reports and data that it cites as evidence. It just accepts peer review. What a lot of rubbish that is! That has been shown in peer-reviewed articles to be rubbish. The CSIRO allows politicians to misrepresent it without correction. It doesn’t stand up—it doesn’t have any backbone. The CSIRO has misled parliament. Independent international scientists have verified our conclusions on the CSIRO science, and they’re stunned—people like John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Nils Morner, David Legates, Ian Plimer and Will Happer. There is no climate emergency—none at all. Everything is normal. It’s completely cyclical weather.

Now I’ll move to the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which has turned into a propaganda outfit and a mouthpiece and cheer squad for global policies. Politics has captured it and turned it into a massive bureaucracy that writes legislation rather than checks it. POST, as it’s called, comprises people, as Senator Carr said, ‘consistent with parliamentary composition’. That tells us straight away that it’s not independent. Instead of a body to drive legislation we want a body to vet it. Senator Carr mentioned the Office of the Chief Scientist. I asked the Chief Scientist for a presentation on his evidence of climate change caused by human carbon dioxide. After 20 minutes of rubbish we asked him questions and he looked at us and said that he’s not a climate scientist and he doesn’t understand it. Yet we have policies around this country based upon Dr Finkel’s advice. Some of those policies that I mentioned are based on his advice.

We’ve had activists, such as Tim Flannery, David Karoly, Will Steffen, Ross Garnaut, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Matthew England, Kurt Lambeck, Andy Pitman and Lesley Hughes, being paraded and paid by the government—both Liberal and Labor—and yet they’re nothing more than academic activists. None have provided any empirical scientific evidence in a logical framework proving cause and effect. That’s what has been paraded around this parliament as science for decades now. It’s rubbish. That’s why One Nation opposes this motion. It is wasting committee resources to send them off on a goose chase to adopt something like the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

We invite Senator Carr to join us in legislating for an independent body of scientists to scrutinise government policy and decisions. Let the government put up the science upon which its policies are based and let the independent body scrutinise it. That requires a few things. First of all, it needs a team funded and set up to oppose the government’s position, and we’ll let them both go at it. Science, fundamentally, is about data and debate. We need the government to put up its science and let a team tear it apart—and be funded to tear it apart. Once that happens, and the science is dismissed, that will save the country billions of dollars. If it withstands the scrutiny, that’s good—we’ll know we’ve got a really solid scientific case. Another way is to have a transparency portal. Put the science out there and let anybody in the public domain tear it apart. If someone finds a chink, fix it. True scientists are not about protecting their egos; they’re about being open to the advancement of humanity. They welcome their own science being torn apart.

We need an independent view. The type of information, as the motion discusses, is simple. All we need is empirical scientific evidence in a framework proving cause and effect. We then need independent scrutiny, and I’ve given you two examples. That will replace policies—as Senator Carr has discussed, and I agree with him—based on ideology, headline-seeking, prejudice, opinions, looking after vested interests and looking after donors. This is what’s driving this country, and the people are paying for it. They’re paying for it through the neck, and we’re destroying our country. We need the ‘claimed’ science to be scrutinised and verified or rejected.

What a shameful, disgraceful incident we saw in this parliament just after midday today. We saw Senator Wong, Senator Watt and Senator Waters engaging in a screaming match. Not once did anyone raise empirical scientific evidence. This is day 701 since I asked the chief proponent of this climate change nonsense in the parliament to be accountable for her data. I asked Senator Waters. I challenged her 701 days ago—almost two years ago. I challenged her 11 years ago. She has never agreed to debate me. She refuses to debate me. She refuses to put up the scientific evidence. She refuses to discuss the corruption of climate science. Yet she espouses policies that will gut this country. Also, we’ve seen Senator Wong quoting a report from the IPCC. That’s not a report from scientists; that’s a report from political activists. She talks about what we are told—insert the catastrophe—will happen in the future. That’s not science. What we need is an honest debate. We need an honest debate to reveal the pure science and to hold people accountable in the parliament. We will not be supporting this motion because it will encourage politicisation.

/3 Comments/by

Letter to Minister Greg Hunt: Stop Gain of Function Research

25 June 2021

Hon Greg Hunt MP

Minister for Health and Aged Care

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Minister Hunt

I draw your attention to an article published in the Australian today[1], which states that “CSIRO and several Australian universities have engaged in at least 10 joint projects with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past decade, a laboratory that US intelligence has linked to the Chinese military and which is suspected of being at the centre of the Covid-19 outbreak.”

The same article states “a spokesperson for Mr Hunt said he had ordered a review of “gain-of-function” research in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council.” 

Concerningly, this article points out the roles of CSIRO and Australian universities in research and development at, and/or with, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, roles which CSIRO at first denied in Senate Estimates.

What is worse is that the CSIRO trained Chinese infectious diseases expert Shi Zhengli’s protege, Peng Zhou, who is now head of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunity Project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

Further, there are links into many universities, one being the University of Queensland, including Dr Hume Field[2] who is one of many academics from Australia engaged with the EcoHealth Alliance as a Science and Policy Advisor for both China and southeast Asia regions. Dr Hume has been working on emerging diseases, environmental science and infectious disease epidemiology.  On 12 May 2020, the Washington Post reported that EcoHealth is a “longtime partner” of the Wuhan Institute of Virology[3].

Minister, so called “Gain-of-Function” (GoF) is a euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the virulence and lethality of pathogens and viruses. GoF research:

  • is government funded and supported by CSIRO and Australian universities and academics.
  • academics may not understand the underlying political or military agendas of such research.
  • its focus is on enhancing the pathogens’ ability to infect different species and to increase their deadly impact as airborne pathogens and viruses.
  • ostensibly, GoF research is conducted for biodefense purposes in many countries. 
  • GoF experiments are extremely dangerous and there is evidence of outbreaks[4].
  • these deadly science-enhanced pathogens can and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people – it is biological warfare.

Government officials and the recipients of government grants and contracts for GoF research argue that these experiments are critical for understanding the subtle changes that can make a virus a pandemic threat. GoF experiments have neither prevented a pandemic, nor provided useful information about safe and effective pandemic countermeasures.

We believe these high-risk experiments deviate from morally justifiable research, and these experimentally altered viruses and pathogens have put the entire human race at risk.  Especially given the potential for a country such as China to ‘weaponise’ the products of Australian supported and funded research.

If you, and/or your government support these programs then it is time to stop.

The risks posed by influenza/virus GoF experiments include frequent documented escapes of deadly pathogens into the community, which have a potential for triggering a pandemic. These risks far outweigh any speculative benefits.  What’s more, as Dr. Marc Lipsitch of Harvard and Dr. Alison Galvani of Yale argue:

“the creation and manipulation of potential pandemic pathogens are too risky to justify…there are safer more effective experimental approaches that are both more scientifically informative and more straightforward to translate into improved public health.” [PLoS Medicine, 2014][5]

The risk of laboratory enhanced transmissibility of influenza viruses is obvious. Dr. Andrew Pavia, Chief, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah stated:

“A readily transmitted H5N1 virus could be extraordinarily lethal; therefore, the risk for accidental release is significant, and deliberate misuse of the data to create a biological weapon is possible.”[6]

Many everyday Australians are asking why your government is not being proactive and protecting us from viruses by having both an end-to-end plan for managing the COVID-19 outbreak, and by cancelling support for research and collaboration with nations that may weaponise a virus and harm everyday Australians.  Australians deserve to be safe.

Minister: can you advise what you and your government know about this GoF research and of the participation of CSIRO and Australian academic institutions?

Additionally, I have submitted a question on notice (QON): I have requested a copy of the terms of reference of your proposed review as well as detail on the composition of the review group, meeting times, how submissions may be made, attendance at meetings and importantly an undertaking from you that this will be a public inquiry with published results.  I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further and await your advice.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

[1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/csiro-unis-in-10-joint-research-projects-with-wuhan-lab/news-story/5856c25b8a9036535eef9e9057f5d127

[2] Dr. Hume Field – EcoHealth Alliance

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/suspicion-of-wuhan-lab-ensnares-new-york-nonprofit-testing-bat-coronaviruses/2020/05/12/22d0d642-8f3c-11ea-8df0-ee33c3f5b0d6_story.html

[4] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/lab-incidents-lead-safety-crackdown-cdc

[5]  Ethical Alternatives to Experiments with Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens, Marck Lipsitch and Alison P. Galvani, PLoS

[6] Laboratory Creation of a Highly Transmissible H5N1 Influenza Virus: Balancing Substantial Risks and Real Benefits, Andrew T. Pavia, MD, Annals of Internal Medicine, 2012

/by

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

, ,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.

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

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

[Marcus] Yeah.

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

[Marcus] Not bad.

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

[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.

[Marcus] Why don’t you?

[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.

[Marcus] Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

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

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

[Marcus] Yeah.

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

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

[Malcolm] Correct.

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

[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.

[Marcus] Talk soon.

[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.

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

/by

CSIRO Refuses to answer questions at Senate Estimates

,

I have asked CSIRO time and time again to provide the evidence that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is a danger to the planet and they still haven’t given me the evidence. Like I do every estimates session, I sent the CSIRO the questions I wanted them to answer in advance so that they could be prepared. This round however CSIRO was especially belligerent in not answering my questions. I have formally lodged them as questions on notice. That means if they refuse to answer them this time the CSIRO could be held in contempt of the Senate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: While your annual remuneration package, Dr Marshall, is $1,049,000 and Dr Mayfield’s is $613,000, the medium income in Australia is just $49,000. Government policies based on your advice are hurting everyday Australians. You may not feel the impact, yet 25 million Australians do feel it. For some, it is now excruciating. With your pay comes accountability. I’m a representative and a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, and as such it’s my duty to hold agencies that are advising on government policy accountable, particularly agencies advising governments over the past 30 years on policies that are now costing billions of dollars and impacting our nation and all Australians to the extent of trillions of dollars.

Each of my questions is fairly short. In your answers to my questions in person and in writing, on notice, at last October’s supplementary estimates hearings, you cited seven papers, attempting to justify your assertion that the rate of the most recent period of temperature rise was unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. You did not specify the location of the basis of your claim. So, we went through all the papers, and we actually contacted Lecavalier and got the data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues and questions that raise serious doubts about CSIRO’s conclusions, which appear unfounded at best. Detailed examination of your references reveals some startling facts. Firstly, are you aware, for example, that Kaufman 2020, which you cited, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point and then loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Chair, if I may, because the senator has said a lot there—the preamble to the question—CSIRO exists to help all Australians, all 25 million, and we have done so for the hundred years of our existence but perhaps never more so than in the last year, when we’ve protected citizens, we’ve developed vaccines—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about COVID.

CHAIR: No, you had a very long preamble, Senator Roberts—which is unlike you—but let’s just let the official respond.

Dr Marshall: We’ve created personal protective equipment to protect frontline health workers, and we’ve helped government, both state and federal, to better understand the spread of the disease, its longevity on surfaces and how to best protect our people. As a result of all that work, Australia has come through this pandemic in remarkably good shape. There are crop yields that are at record highs despite drought, despite other impacts of a variable climate. So, Senator, we are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of all 25 million Australians. And I can bet that you, Senator, right now have at least three things on your person that were created by CSIRO science that maybe you don’t even know you have but that are benefiting your life.

So, whatever we are paid, which is decided by the rem tribunal, not by us, is because everything we do is designed to benefit Australia. And, like you, Senator, we want to ensure that all Australians, not just your constituents but all Australians, have the lowest possible cost of energy and the best possible life that our science and technology can create for them. And believe me when I say that when we do things like the GenCost report it’s all about helping industry and governments to make the right decisions for the future energy mix so that we can have a lower cost of energy, so that Australian industry can have a lower cost of energy, so that we can produce more products and generate more revenue here in Australia rather than shipping raw materials overseas and buying them back at a 10-times-higher price. So, we have the same mission, Senator, as you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got a lot of information from you but not an answer to my question. Are you aware, for example, that in your response to the Senate committee as a result of Senate estimates the paper that you cited, Kaufman 2020, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Dr Mayfield might be. I’m certainly not.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the answer.

Dr Mayfield: Senator, you’d be aware that we’ve probably met on a number of occasions.

Senator ROBERTS: We have.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve had quite a lot of exchange of information, whether through this forum or through questions on notice or letters that you provided to us prior to estimates. So we’ve done that over quite a long period, and in that time our observation is that you don’t agree with our answers. We can’t change that, but we also can’t change our answers, because we’re very comfortable that they’re based on the best scientific knowledge and scientific process. In the response we gave you earlier today with regard to the most recent questions, which we tabled through the committee, I think we will have to fundamentally disagree. That is the bottom line.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a simple question: are you aware that Kaufman 2020—

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of your argument, but it doesn’t change the conclusions we make.

Senator ROBERTS: in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? That’s what you presented to the Senate as evidence. Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’ve also presented a lot of other information to you, Senator, on many occasions. The bottom line is that you never agree.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. Are you aware of that error?

Dr Mayfield: We know what we believe in. We know what we understand through the scientific methods.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on.

Dr Mayfield: That’s what we’ll stick with. So we won’t be moving away from our answer. We will have to agree to disagree.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that neither of you answered my question. No. 2: are you aware that Kaufman 2020 disagrees with another of your references—that is pages 2K 2013, the reconstruction that has no uptick in recent temperatures? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of all of these claims through the various interactions that we have with you, Senator. We’ve provided our answers. Those are the answers we have. They’re not going to change.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—No. 3—that one of your references, the North report 2006, directly contradicts CSIRO’s claim—your claim—that the latest rate of temperature rise is unprecedented? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: Senator, again, we’ve been through all of this. We can go through every single question that you make, but it’s the same general response: we’ve provided our best response, we’re very comfortable with those responses and the basis of them, and we don’t have any basis on which we would change them. We’ll have to agree to disagree—bottom line.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m happy for you to keep asking if you really need to, but we are behind schedule.

Senator ROBERTS: Next question: Lecavalier, which is one of your key papers, from 2017, makes a conclusion that hangs on one data point from one short ice core, in contradiction to CSIRO’s clear statement last October to me in writing. We obtained Lecavalier’s data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues. In Lecavalier 2017, proxy data was used for recent times, when more accurate thermometer data from many Arctic thermometer stations is readily available. Yet in response to our comments about Marcott 2013, which you cited, in Senate supplementary hearings last October you said that thermometer measurements, when available, should be used instead of proxies. We agree. When the proxy is replaced with an amalgam of Arctic thermometer measurements, there is no period of unprecedented temperature rise in Lecavalier, which you cited. Why?

Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ve been through this many times. We have given you our answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I will go to the next one, because the chair wants me to hurry up. In citing Marcott 2013, how did the CSIRO overlook mentioning the author’s own statement written in the paper:

The result suggests that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability observed at periods shorter than 300 years.

So, for periods shorter than 100 years, no variability is preserved in the data. The authors explain that variability is not preserved for periods shorter than 2,000 years and, for periods of 300 years or less in duration, no variability passes through the process that Marcott used to analyse his data. Given the duration of the most recent period of temperature rise is just 40 years—and that’s Marcott citing Mann 2008 in his own paper and the paper you cited—there is no validity to CSIRO’s claim that the rate of recent temperature rise is unprecedented. All eight of your papers are completely flawed. There’s no evidence in your papers—not one of them. Why are you misleading the Senate and holding us in contempt?

Dr Mayfield: We are not misleading the Senate.

Senator ROBERTS: You are, sir.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve made our responses known to you in a number of meetings.

Senator ROBERTS: Ha, ha, ha! These are simple facts.

Dr Mayfield: And we’ve had climate scientists talk to you, and you continue to ignore our answers, and we can’t change that.

Senator ROBERTS: This is why I don’t accept your answers.

Senator CANAVAN: I haven’t heard the answers and I’d be interested in them, Dr Mayfield. I think Senator Roberts has raised some interesting points. Can we all hear the answers?

Dr Marshall: It might be easier just to look at the State of the Climate report that we produce every two years in partnership with BoM.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one, don’t worry.

Dr Marshall: The data’s in there, you can see it. It’s not theoretical, it’s measured.

Senator ROBERTS: My eighth question: you cited the IPCC, the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change from the UN, assessment report 5, working group 1. This is an irrelevant citation as the UNIPCC AR5 WG1 summary for policymakers itself contains no reference to rates of temperature rise in the last 10,000 years. That’s the only unprecedented change you claim to be in climate. Out of all the meetings we’ve had, all the letters exchanged, that’s the only one you claim is unprecedented, yet it doesn’t mention it at all. There is no reference even to the Holocene period or the last 10,000 years. Most citations in working group 1 are for only the last 1,000 years. Can CSIRO explain the inclusion of this irrelevant citation that contains no logical scientific point relevant to your claim? Can you explain why you’re using that?

Dr Mayfield: Again, you would be familiar with three meetings that we had. We had climate scientists there, we went through the arguments with you. We’ve been there, we’ve done that.

Senator CANAVAN: Chair, can I raise as a point of order? I don’t think it’s appropriate for a witness to refer to private briefings they’ve had with another senator. Senator Roberts is asking a question in this format—

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t mind.

Senator CANAVAN: in this framework. Unless there’s some public interest that’s being claimed here, I think the senator deserves an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I got a lot from his answer, Matt, thank you.

Dr Mayfield: The record of those meetings has been tabled previously, as has the response to your various sets of questions, so there’s a lot of information that’s been tabled.

CHAIR: The fact is that this back and forwards has going on for at least the whole time I’ve been on the committee. I’ve got to say, Senator Roberts, I admire your perseverance, but I think it’s getting to the point of

being unproductive at a point in time when we are more than half an hour behind schedule and we have other important witnesses we want to devote time to.

Senator ROBERTS:   Okay, I’ll wrap up with two more. Your reference, pages 2K2013, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years—we asked for 10,000—and cannot support your claim of what you say is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. The second-half of this question is: your reference, pages 2K2017, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years and cannot support your claim of what is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. Why did you cite those two references?

Dr Mayfield: Again, the climate scientists that work with the CSIRO have an understanding of the science literature. They’re making those references because they add to the argument. As I said earlier, you don’t agree with the answers and we can’t change that.

Dr Marshall: Are you worried that somehow we’re giving bad advice to the government about what’s going to be the lowest cost of energy?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, definitely.

Dr Marshall: Because that’s what you said—

Senator ROBERTS: And on climate policy that’s driving the destruction of our economy.

Dr Marshall: That question has nothing to do with any of the modelling that you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the underpinning advice that’s driving policies on climate and energy—

Dr Marshall: So am I.

Senator ROBERTS: the underpinning climate advice.

Dr Marshall: So am I, and it’s about the cost of solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, gas—

Senator ROBERTS: Dealing with property rights—

Dr Marshall: That’s got nothing to do with climate modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: destruction of our manufacturing sector—that’s what’s underpinning—

Dr Marshall: The future cost of energy is about the economics and the technology and the science that we produce.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking just about energy. I’m talking about climate science that underpins the destruction of our economy, including energy, but also property rights, water resources, right across our country. That’s what I’m talking about. You’re paid $1,049,000 a year in remuneration, and we’re getting this as science. It’s junk.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve made your point. Dr Marshall, I’ll let you reply, but then we are going to call it a night.

Dr Marshall: It is a fact that CSIRO’s science is in the top one per cent of the world, in some cases in the top

0.1 per cent. It’s a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: That is spurious—

Dr Marshall: It is a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: and climate science is not science. You have not given me any of the data, not a bit.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Dr Marshall: I will give you the data to substantiate every word I just said. I will give it to you.

/by

Greens Climate Emergency MOU

,

Transcript

Thank you Mr. Acting Deputy President. And there we have it, a motion and hyperbole, not one bit of science. In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I wanna firstly point out that The Greens last week wanted to declare a climate emergency because New Zealand did.

Not because of the science, but because New Zealand did. The Greens wanted to declare its climate emergency because Japan did. Yet Japan is building coal-fired power stations hand over fist. Now The Greens want to pledge to increase 2030 targets in line with the science.

Yet listen to what the CSIRO has divulged. I asked them where’s the danger? They said, they’ve never said there’s any danger due to human production of carbon dioxide, never. And they said they never would. So why the policy? Why The Greens rants? Secondly, the CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented.

That means we didn’t cause the mild warming that cyclical natural warming that ended in 1995 And it’s been flat since. Then ultimately the CSIRO relied not on empirical scientific data, It relied on climate models. Models unvalidated and already proven wrong. What’s more, the reliance on models means that they have no critical scientific evidence.

/by

Greens call for more destructive renewables

,

Motion 874 – Greens call for more destructive renewables

Speech

One Nation does not support this motion. Australia’s Chief Scientist stated that, if Australia were to reduce its entire carbon dioxide output to zero, it would have virtually no effect on the global temperature.

It’s time that the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens parties acknowledge that implementing layer upon layer of destructive climate policies and renewable energy schemes cannot change the global climate.

If people were serious about reducing the world’s carbon dioxide output, they would be pressuring China, which accounts for 30 per cent of the world’s output and renegotiated its Paris Agreement, allowing China to increase output until 2030 and then only slow the increase. There is no agreement. Yes, you heard that right: China will be increasing its carbon dioxide output for the foreseeable future, while climate policies here in Australia decimate our economy.

What’s more, we are subsidising China to build the appliances that will be installed here and will raise our electricity prices.

This is insane.

/by

Greens call for a climate emergency

,

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to respond to Senator Waters’s speech in which she claimed the need to declare a climate emergency. She’s acting. Her opening statement says it all—’The Greens are moving this motion because the New Zealand government has declared a climate emergency.’ That’s it!

There’s no data, no empirical scientific evidence and no scientific reasoning with a framework proving cause and effect, just, ‘We’re going to do it because the Kiwis have said it.’ That’s it. That is the summary of climate change in this country and globally. Then she raised pollution, meaning carbon dioxide as a pollutant. At the same time, she was exhaling 100 times the concentration of pollution of carbon dioxide that she was taking in.

This is absurd. She’s always exhaling. Does that mean she’s always polluting? It’s nonsense. I see Senator Sterle laughing, as indeed I know he should be, because this is absurd. Nowhere on this planet, under any government, is carbon dioxide defined as a pollutant. There are no criteria specifying it as a pollutant.It is a misrepresentation instead of data. There is no data, just a false statement.

Carbon dioxide, nature’s trace gas, is essential for all life on this planet. Then Senator Waters went on to talk about ‘megafires on a scale never seen before’. False. In the 1930s and the 1970s there were bigger fires, wider fires, and more damage. And then she said the fires were due to a deep drought. That is partially correct. But, in the past, we have had more severe droughts and we have had more severe fires.

The fires and the droughts are not due to human use of hydrocarbon fuels. In fact, the drought we’ve just gone through—and it’s still in place in some places—is confirmation, is evidence, that the weather is behaving naturally. There is natural variation. And then Senator Waters said Fraser Island ‘had a massive bushfire,’ as it does every now and then, and—wait for it—’a 1,000-year-old tree is threatened’.

Really? I know a 10,000-year-old civilisation that is being threatened globally—with no data, just false statements and fear.I remind the Senate that my questioning of CSIRO, my holding of the CSIRO to account, has shown these things. The CSIRO has admitted to me that they have never said there is danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. Never. So why are we going through this nonsense?

Secondly, the CSIRO admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. That means we didn’t cause them. There were warmer temperatures in the past.

Thirdly, when they couldn’t respond properly with evidence to my questions, they said they rely upon climate models. Their climate models show that they are not based on data. Their climate models are invalidated and have proven erroneous. The fact that they have to resort to them—their fabrications—means they don’t have any data.

We have 17 scientists from leading organisations around the world who have shown that the CSIRO is wrong and I am right that the CSIRO has no evidence.Senator Waters talked about the government’s role in letting the country down by not having adequate policies on climate. The government has three basic roles. The first is to protect life. There is no threat to life from current climate variability.

The crippling energy threat destroying our energy sector is a threat to life. Ask anybody who is old and poor. Secondly, government has to protect property. With no data and for no reason, the government has stolen land from farmers, stolen their property rights, and that is a huge threat. The third role of government is to protect freedom.

Again, there is no data, no reason; they are just putting into place arbitrary regulations and policies that have complete control over people. Then Senator Waters said we need 10 years to get climate under control. Oh really! King Canute claimed he could part the waters in the Red Sea. Senator Waters is claiming to be able to control the climate.

These things come and go. This is sheer arrogance, insanity and stupidity.Al Gore claimed that the northern polar ice cap would disappear by 2013. He said that back in 2008. It is still there, as big as ever. There is a joke in which Al Gore is complaining about someone who has just made a statement that there will be no life on the planet, no polar ice caps, in five years.

He says: ‘Really? I’ve been saying that for 30 years. That’s my statement!’ This is absolutely stupid. And then we are told we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was said in 2005. We have had zero climate refugees, absolutely none. This is just a propaganda tool to scare people. Again, the use of propaganda confirms the lack of data and the lack of empirical scientific evidence.

Then Senator Waters talked about pure physics as her evidence—no data, no empirical scientific evidence, not even a claim of the relationship that is supposed to be underpinning this. She had no data, just false statements and fear. And then she talked about ‘abundant, cheap, clean renewable energy’—her words. Let’s look at that. Solar and wind are none of these things.Abundant? No. Intermittent? Unreliable. Cheap? No—the most expensive.

Without subsidies, as Warren Buffett said, they’re dead; they only live on subsidies. Alan Moran, the noted economist, has estimated the costs, using the government’s own figures, of climate subsidies and renewable energy subsidies as being $13 billion every year. That is $1,300 per household per annum in Australia. For nothing! This is on top of energy prices. And for every clean energy job there are 2.2 real jobs lost.

As for clean: they rely upon rare earths that come from child Labor in Africa. They’re talking about the Kilcoy solar panels; cadmium and selenium will leach into the soil and the waterways—into Brisbane’s water supply—if that solar plant project goes ahead.And what about afterwards? What do we do with these windmills after their 15-year life? They’re burying them in Wyoming right now.

That’s extra cost and extra pollution—real pollution: solar panels are a real pollutant and they’re now an environmental legacy. Again, there’s a reason why windmills didn’t last. Again, Senator Waters relies on no data, just false statements and fear. Then she cited nations declaring a climate emergency. Let’s look at some of these. Japan is building coal-fired power stations.

France relies on nuclear energy. Britain relies on the French nuclear energy through an interlinked cable and Britain also relies upon wood pellets burned in an old coal-fired power station—they cut down American forests and transport them across using hydrocarbon fuels. And Germany is now building coal-fired power stations.

Then Senator Waters quoted socialist Christiana Figueres, who is a senior bureaucrat in the UN in charge of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—the governing body for this nonsense.She says openly that the aim of the whole climate campaign is to convert the world to socialism and to change the economic system—change the economic system!

Those are her words, not mine—again, no data, just misrepresentations and fear. That’s all that Senator Waters is relying upon.We don’t have time to go into the motion itself; it’s easily torn apart. But I will remind the chamber that 10 years ago, on 7 October 2010, I challenged Senator Waters in a public forum that we both attended as panellists to debate me on climate science and the corruption of climate science.

She jumped to her feet faster than I’ve ever seen her move and said, ‘I won’t debate you’. Five years later, in May 2016—almost six years later, or 5½ years later—she again refused my public request to have a debate. Four hundred and forty days ago, on Monday 9 September 2019, I challenged her again, and Senator Di Natale. But they continued; they refused to debate me and they refused to provide the evidence to the Senate—no data and no proof.

There was no debate, just shouted alarm—false statements and alarm.If the Senate keeps making decisions without data then this Senate ceases to be the people’s house of review and continues to be the circus of useless gestures—the big top of virtue signalling and the ministry of silly walks. Senator Hanson and I will continue to use the empirical scientific evidence, the hard facts, to continue to respect and restore the house of review for the people of Australia.

There is no climate emergency, there is a governance emergency.

/by

CSIRO – Senate Estimates

, ,

I am shocked that the CSIRO came so unprepared to Senate Estimates when I gave them my questions in advance. For an organisation who claims to have been studying climate science for 60 years, their responses were truly embarrassing.

I will prepare a more detailed response in the next few days, but to be clear, the government should not be relying on the CSIRO’s climate division for advice on climate science.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you chair, and thank you all for being here today. My questions chair, were sent in advance about two weeks, a little bit under two weeks ago, and deal with past presentations by CSIRO. And so my first question is that, as I said in the letter, number one, do you stand by CSIRO’s implied claim that Marcott and Lecavalier, are the best evidence CSIRO has for showing that the rate of temperature change today is unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.

[Chair – Sen. Paterson]

I’ll just very briefly say this Senator Roberts, ’cause there’s obviously been an exchange of correspondency. You’ve written to CSIRO and I’ve just received a copy of their response to you and Dr.Marshall–

[Senator Roberts]

I haven’t seen CSIRO–

[Chair – Sen. Paterson]

I think it’s just about to be circulated to the committee. Dr. Marshall we are intending for that to be tabled by the committee?

[Dr Marshall]

Yes.

[Chair – Sen. Paterson]

Hopefully? Okay, all right. Well then in that case we’ll circulate copies to committee members for tabling. Sorry, Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts]

No, Dr. Marshal was about to answer.

[Dr Marshall]

And Senator, I’ll let Dr. Mayfield answer the detail of your questions.

[Dr Mayfield]

So Dr. Peter Mayfield, Executive Director for Environment, Energy and Resources. So Senator, yes we have prepared a response to the letter that you sent us. I do have copies of that here and electronic copy was provided to the secretary. So, there’s an opportunity to sort of look at our response and data. In regard to Marcott, yes we do stand by the conclusions of that paper.

[Senator Roberts]

Stand by Marcott.

[Dr Mayfield]

Yes.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay. And what about Lacavalier?

[Dr Mayfield]

Yes, both papers.

[Senator Roberts]

Lacavalier too?

[Dr Mayfield]

We believe our best evidence.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay, thank you, that’s good. Why did… Second question, what did CSIRO rely on before Marcott 2013? Say in the 1980s, when Bob Hawke was the first Prime Minister to raise the issue of anthropogenic climate change, said to be due to carbon dioxide from human activity.

[Dr Mayfield]

So Senator, so the state of the science in the Australian context is being provided by the volume in greenhouse, planning for the future, which is published by CSIRO in 1988. And it’s still available. And it was already very evident in the 1980s that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide were altering the chemistry of the atmosphere.

[Senator Roberts]

Excuse me, the chemistry of the atmosphere, but not the temperature the earth?

[Dr Mayfield]

Chemistry of the atmosphere is at that point in time and temperature record is also changing.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay, thank you. Third question. At what stage did CSIRO start giving significant advice to governments on anthropogenic climate change?

[Dr Mayfield]

So CSIRO has been providing advice to government in relation to greenhouse matters for more than 60 years. So it’s been a long history of us providing advice in this area.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. Then I had my fourth question was to Dr. Mayfield. I need Dr. Mayfield to specify one, a slide or slides and specific data to which he refers and on which his answer relies when I asked my previous question, which you’re familiar with, Dr. Mayfield.

[Dr Mayfield]

So Senator we’ve provided the details many, many times to you. You’d appreciate that in each of these papers which have been published by a peer review. The analysis around statistical substance of the various measurements.

[Senator Roberts]

No, no, no, I’m not gonna let you off the hook. That’s a dodging of the question. The question is, to which of the specific slides or specific data in the presentations do you refer to when you stood up last time, at senate estimates and said, “It’s in the presentations.” Which of the slides, I want, specifically contain the statistical analysis that proves that carbon dioxide from human activity has the… Sorry, that there is a change in the climate, in any factor of climate.

[Dr Mayfield]

So, as you’re aware of Senator, there’s a number of papers, multiple ones–

[Senator Roberts]

No, no, no, no. I’m asking you for this specific slide and the specific data to which you refer. I’m not gonna take any more of this vague nonsense. I want this specific slide, specific data.

[Dr Mayfield]

In the slides, you’ll see, there’s a number of different references. Obviously we work with work from Marcott, more recently there’s the work of, it’s coming from… Kaufmann sorry.

[Senator Roberts]

How do you spell that?

[Dr Mayfield]

So it’s K-A-U-F-M-A-N-N.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay.

[Dr Mayfield]

So it’s a paper that’s been produced in 2020, which also undertakes an analysis of a wide range of methodologies, looking at both the–

[Senator Roberts]

2020?

[Dr Mayfield]

Historical record and the current record of temperature change.

[Senator Roberts]

So I asked you on Thursday, the 24th of October, 2019 a year ago, to provide empirical scientific evidence that shows quote, “Statistically significant variation “that proves there has been a process change.” That is variation that is beyond our outside natural inherent cyclical or seasonal variation over the last 350 years. You stood up and said, “It’s in here, “we’ve given it to you.” That is not correct. I wanna know specifically what the data was and is in those presentations that–

[Dr Mayfield]

Senator, we provided you with a number of references. Those are the references that we believe showed that.

[Senator Roberts]

I don’t know where–

[Dr Mayfield]

You don’t agree with us, but that’s what we believe.

[Senator Roberts]

You have never presented, CSIRO’s, never presented any response to that question, because the first time that question was asked was in the Senate estimates last year. CSIRO’s has never addressed that question. Your statement is false, if that’s what you’re implying.

[Dr Mayfield]

That’s incorrect Senator. The data is in the papers that we refer to.

[Senator Roberts]

No, no, no, I said show me—

[Dr Mayfield]

Part of pulling that science together is about undertaking that sort of statistical analysis, So that it show meaningful trend.

[Chair – Sen. Paterson]

So I’ll just briefly intercede here. Senator Roberts, could I ask that you allow the witness an opportunity to finish the answers your questions before you interject or ask a follow up question.

[Senator Roberts]

Chair, he’s not answering the question.

[Chair – Sen. Paterson]

Well, Senator Roberts you may be unsatisfied with the answer that he’s giving, but that doesn’t give you a right to interrupt him. You have to allow witnesses to conclude their answers and then you can ask a follow up question to challenge that answer if you wish.

[Dr Mayfield]

So as I said Senator, those various papers is part of doing peer review process you go through the statistical analysis. You show what is a meaningful trend versus what is not a meaningful trend, due to the uncertainty of those measurements. And we stand by those papers and those measurements and those peer review processes.

[Senator Roberts]

I want on record that never has CSIRO in any of the presentations to me, made any reference, any statement about statistically significant variation in climate. Not at all. I asked it for the first time, this time last year.

[Woman]

You can ask to read the paper to you.

[Senator Roberts]

Yeah, could you specify the paper?

[Woman]

But let’s not…

[Senator Roberts]

Could you specify the papers?

[Dr Mayfield]

I’ve already specified the papers.

[Senator Roberts]

The exact papers? Because you have never referenced them in any way in any of the presentations. So I wanna know the specific papers.

[Dr Mayfield]

So I’m giving you the papers, Senator.

[Senator Roberts]

Which ones?

[Dr Mayfield]

So it’s Marcott, it’s Lecavalier.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay.

[Dr Mayfield]

And more recently Kauffman.

[Senator Roberts]

So let’s go on to the second part, now that you’ve come on that. Specify the statistical analysis techniques that we used.

[Dr Mayfield]

So Senator there’s many techniques that are used, there’s thousands of papers.

[Senator Roberts]

No, the ones that you rely upon to make the statement that there is a statistical significant change. I wanna know the specific ones.

[Dr Mayfield]

Well, that’s part of the peer review process that’s undertaken for each of these papers Senator. So, if you choose to track the authors.

[Senator Roberts]

All right, thank you.

[Dr Mayfield]

They will be able to talk you through this specific work.

[Senator Roberts]

We contacted the author of Lecavalier which you recommended, and he will not divulge his information. That’s what you rely upon? People who do not divulge their information. So let’s go to the third one then. The relevant statistical levels of confidence from the analysis of the climate factor that you’ve identified. So what is the level of confidence in the analysis?

[Dr Mayfield]

So Senator again, I’ve just refer to my previous answers.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. Could you specify the time interval of data for which this statistical analysis was applied?

[Dr Mayfield]

Senator, I can’t answer that question. It’s a question that should be directed towards the author of the paper.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. Question five.

[Dr Mayfield]

Very much to detail sir.

[Senator Roberts]

Yes, it certainly is.

[Dr Marshall]

Senator Robert, sir might have been remiss last time I think I promised to send you a copy of this and I don’t know if I did or not from my office to you, but if not I bought a copy.

[Senator Roberts]

No, you didn’t.

[Dr Marshall]

And I’ll leave this here with you. It does have a map of the projections for temperature.

[Senator Roberts]

No, I’m after empirical scientific evidence, that’s what I’ve been through all the way along. Not on projections.

[Dr Marshall]

It’s based on data since 1950 and successfully predicted the last 20 years.

[Senator Roberts]

I wanna know statistically significant change Dr. Marshall.

[Dr Marshall]

Well, I think you’ll get it from here and the references here in Senator, but, I’ll leave this to you if I can.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you, good.

[Dr Marshall]

Hopefully be helpful.

[Senator Roberts]

Now, Dr. Marshall, I also said in my letter that I hope you agree that the only valid analysis for such policies, climate change and supporting of renewable subsidies, is specific empirical scientific evidence with a logic proving causation and quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate factors, such as atmospheric temperatures. I hope you understand the need to justify such policies on solid scientific evidence, quantifying cause and effect. Such quantified evidence is needed to implement such policies and to monitor the effect of such policies. Without the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide output and climate factors, it is not possible to do cost benefit cases nor track progress. So my question to you, number five was, if you disagree with this reasoning, please provide me with what you see as the alternative basis for policy.

[Dr Marshall]

So Senator we base our work on the measured changes in climate since about 1950. We have, for example, directly intervened by breeding different strains of wheat to prevent the wheat yield from going down, because we don’t want the impact of drought or increased temperatures or the shifts in rainfall to reduce the productivity of Australia’s weed industry. So, we have data since 1950 that shows these effects are happening. We know that the nation has become drier in the South, weather in the North. And we know that the temperature has come up, that’s not projections, they have been measured. But, because we’ve known that, ’cause we predicted that some years ago, some decades ago, we were able to successfully intervene to help the industry navigate those changes without a loss in their profitability. And that’s why we do the modelling Senator, to try and understand how to help industry navigate changes in our investment.

[Senator Roberts]

So let me put it bluntly, do you or do you not believe that policy should be based on a quantified specified relationship between cause and effect? In other words, this much carbon dioxide with the amount specified leading to this much temperature change.

[Dr Marshall]

Senator, I think policy should be based on the best science available and it should be data-driven, data-driven. And I’ve just given you the data that drive us to make the interventions,

[Senator Roberts]

No you haven’t given me the data. You’ve talked about having…

[Dr Marshall]

Senator it’s in here.

[Senator Roberts]

And so do you agree on or not that policy should be driven by specified quantified relationship between cause and effect?

[Dr Marshall]

I think policies should be data-driven and it should be monitored and measured and evaluated using data.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay, thank you.

[Dr Mayfield]

So Senator, if I can add to that. So science, peer reviewed science does provide that foundation which policy can be built. In terms of the papers that we’ve talked to you about.

[Senator Roberts]

Marcott and Lecavalier?

[Dr Mayfield]

We note that there’s been at least 265 other papers which have referenced Marcott as part of the peer review process. And to date, no one has come up with an argument that says that paper is not valid. So the peer review process is at play there and has basically reinforce that that paper is correct.

[Senator Roberts]

We’ll come back to that but Marcott himself, said that the 20th century temperatures on which you are relying are not robust. Marcott himself. So much for–

[Dr Mayfield]

I disagree with your statement.

[Senator Roberts]

So let’s move on to question six. Australia has already done much to destroy its energy grid, yet, as an overseer of taxpayers’ funds, taxpayers’ resources. I need to know whether this has shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how has it shown up and to what extent? Please provide empirical scientific evidence on the effect of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures from Australia’s cuts to human carbon dioxide output. In other words all the pain we’re going through economically where is it showing up in the global carbon dioxide levels?

[Dr Marshall]

So Senator, as I think you and I have discussed before, Australia is barely 1%, 1.2, 1.3% of the world’s emissions. Therefore, any direct changes we make in this country are unlikely to have any impact on the global levels of carbon dioxide.

[Senator Roberts]

So are we not gonna have any impact on the temperature then?

[Dr Marshall]

Well, 1.3% impact. Senator, however, our science can have an impact. For example, future feed which has solved what seemingly was an impossible problem and reduce the emission from–

[Senator Roberts]

I wanna know the effects of Australia’s carbon dioxide. Because people are paying an extra $1,300 per household Dr. Marshall. On your salary, that’s trivial, but on someone on the median income of 49,000 that is painful, extremely painful. Dan McDonald, a farmer in Queensland and many farmers have lost the rights to use their property because of policies enacted by this government and previous governments. On $800,000, that’s easy for you to wade through but these people are suffering.

[Dr Marshall]

Senator. I’m not sure I understand your question here. Are you saying that there’s some connection between things that CSIRO has done and these people suffering

[Senator Roberts]

Your advice.

[Dr Marshall]

Is a concern if that’s the case

[Senator Roberts]

Your advice has been cited by many ministers, both labor and liberal national for the painful impositions of policies on our country. And people are paying for that through the hip pocket and through the loss of the rights to use their property that they own and have paid for. Your so-called support, according to ministers is the reason for that. And I’m not getting evidence of quantified impact of our carbon dioxide. And you’ve just said, you can’t see any evidence in the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere because of Australia’s carbon dioxide cuts.

[Dr Marshall]

Senator I’ve just said that Australia has a relatively small direct impact on the carbon dioxide levels because–

[Senator Roberts]

Can you show me the evidence that says we are reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?

[Dr Marshall]

The evidence that Australia is reducing.

[Senator Roberts]

Australia’s impacts on energy, on agriculture are resulting in a reduced temperature, reduced levels of carbon dioxide.

[Dr Marshall]

So the reduction in emissions has been reported by the department of the environment. So that would be a question for them senator.

[Senator Roberts]

You’ve just answered my question. Thank you very much.

[Dr Mayfield]

If I could add to that as well. So global CO2 levels are measured through the global carbon project which works from data from their resilience.

[Senator Roberts]

In part they’re measured, in part they’re residual. So my last question have global attempts. So we forget about Australia’s little minuscule contribution. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, and to what extent.

[Dr Mayfield]

So again, Senator the global carbon project measures or captures various–

[Senator Roberts]

Didn’t answer my question Dr. Mayfield

[Dr Mayfield]

Various divisions that are made around the globe.

[Chair]

Give him some time.

[Dr Mayfield]

And that is the numbers that are being captured, when they show that emissions are increasing.

[Senator Roberts]

Chair, when someone’s asked a question and they say something but don’t answer the question that is not answering questions

[Chair]

Order Senate Roberts. In that case, Dr. Mayfield would have been five to 10 seconds into his answer. So it’s pretty early to form a strong view about what he was giving you. And Senator Roberts, I don’t seek to dictate how you ask your questions or what questions you ask, but only that you show courtesy to officials so they can answer your questions to the best of their abilities.

[Senator Roberts]

With respect chair, I deserve the respect of being answered properly when I’m asking questions on behalf of my constituents who had gone through a lot of pain.

[Chair]

Senator Roberts if you’re not satisfied with the answers that you receive, please ask another followup question, but don’t interrupt officials in the middle of their answers.

[Senator Roberts]

I’ll ask it again. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how, and to what extent?

[Dr Mayfield]

So Senator in terms of the emissions being made whether there’s attempts to cut them or whether that’s how they are naturally, they are captured through the global carbon project. That’s the accounting process that’s worked to do that. And that shows that emissions overall are still increasing.

[Senator Roberts]

How- emissions are still increasing? We’d just been through–

[Dr Mayfield]

Globally.

[Senator Roberts]

COVID depression and we’d just been through a 2009. We had lower use of carbon dioxide then in 2008 in the recession that was global except for Australia. And in both cases, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to rise, despite human production falling dramatically especially in the last nine months. And yet you’re telling me, you can see it. They’re going up. Dr. Mayfield. So I’ll ask again for the third time, then I’ll leave it. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide, particularly in the recession that was in 2009 when global production of carbon dioxide from human activity decreased and have decreased considerably in the last seven months, shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? And if so, how, and to what extent? Please answer how they show up and to what extent.

[Dr Mayfield]

So Senator the measure is the CO2 signal that’s in the atmosphere. It’s a well-mixed system so it’s represented well across the globe. If you wanna refer to periods like 2009 which is at the end of the global financial crisis, there were slight changes in the rate of climb of these measurements. So you can see inflexions like that. I don’t have the details on the specific numbers on how that changed, but there are inflexion points. But in terms of the longer term trend, it’s still on the up.

[Senator Roberts]

Could you please send me the inflexion points? I wanna see the data please. Because from what I’ve seen at global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, they’ve continued to rise relentlessly despite no inflexion whatsoever. So I would like to see the inflexion points. I’d like to see how much and I’d like to see when. Is that clear? How much and when? Is that clear Dr. Mayfield?

[Dr Mayfield]

So what we’ll provide you with is the Cape Grim record which is a continuous record of CO2 content in the atmosphere.

[Senator Roberts]

That’s CO2 Cape Grim, could you give me the global?

[Dr Mayfield]

So as I said, CO2 is a gas that mixes well across the globe. There is minor variations but overall there’s a very good indication of the time series of the CO2 measurement.

[Senator Roberts]

Could you show me the global levels? I wanna know how much it’s changed and when.

[Dr Mayfield]

As I said before Senator, that work is for the Global Carbon Project. They report annually. We will provide you with some of that work as well as the Cape Grim measurements.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you, thank you chair.

[Chair]

Thank you Senator Roberts.

/by