Posts

Incomplete Data Leads to Incompetent Governance

I expressed my disgust at the lack of data and the contradictions in the policy objectives of various legislation the Albanese Labor government is producing.

This parliament stopped making decisions long ago on issues relating to health, the environment and climate based on data. It now actually contradicts the data. Yet no one has the self-awareness to notice let alone care.

Thanks to the Albanese government, we’re now sending millions of dollars to the people of Tuvalu because their sea levels are rising when the data shows that in fact their island is growing in size and the sea levels are not rising. At a time when Australians are doing it hard from the rising cost-of-living, the PM wants to send millions of dollars to the Pacific over fear the people ‘might’ lose their homes based on flawed climate theories with no data. This is costing our country its future. We’re already feeling the pain as a result of this flawed process and it will hurt our grandchildren even more.

We urgently need responsible governance with policies based on real data for the good of all Australians.

Transcript

Senator Hanson has already outlined our party’s response to this, so I won’t go into that. I want to make it very clear that Pacific islanders, in my experience, are wonderful people. They’re very friendly. Fiji is the friendliest country on Earth, so I’m told. We have many Pacific islanders in the south of Brisbane. I’ve come across them in the regions, like when I worked in Kalgoorlie. They’re stars in the NRL. They’re wonderful people. I’ve got no issue with the people of the Pacific islands. 

What I have got an issue with are the people in this chamber, not just those who are here now. The people in the Senate are largely responsible for destroying this country. I’m going to talk briefly on how. For five days last week and for a half a day today, we discussed a bill about sea dumping, all based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. It’s complete rubbish. In COVID, tens of thousands of people died needlessly to something that was supposedly based on the science. It’s now coming out that the injections were not safe and not effective. We were told the science was there. What a lie. We are spending trillions of dollars in forgone income—heaven knows how much our children and grandchildren will spend and how many opportunities they will lose—on climate. I’ll come to that in a minute. There’s not one shred of evidence that has ever been given in this parliament.  

We talk about the environment. All kinds of things are done in the name of the environment, without any evidence: the Murray-Darling Basin, no evidence; the Coorong lakes in South Australia at the Murray mouth, no evidence. In fact, these are contradicting the evidence, and everyone here is asleep. This parliament stopped making decisions on data long ago, and now it actually contradicts the data, and no-one is awake enough to even care. Trillions of dollars being spent and contradictions of the actual real-world data characterise decisions made in this parliament, characterise policies made by the major parties in this parliament and characterise legislation. In my previous work as an engineer and as an executive, if we ignored the data, people died—they died—just like they did because of COVID injections. Science is often touted in this chamber as justification for various policies, yet it’s never presented. Science is wonderful. It gave us objectivity. It gave us freedom from the days when, prior to science, the biggest muscle, the strongest financial warrior, the strongest religion prevailed. Then suddenly science emerged and gave us objectivity, and suddenly freedom emerged. Let me tell you briefly what science is. The first thing is that it relies on empirical, scientific data. It’s based on objective data, objective observations. And no-one in this chamber does that on climate, COVID or the environment. 

But the data is not enough. When I first came into the chamber, back in 2016, I used that term, ’empirical data’ and all the journalists and some of the politicians scurried off to find out what ’empirical’ means. It means objective, measured data. But that by itself is not enough. It needs to be presented with a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect. No-one has presented the logical scientific points that show that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be changed. We now have Pacific Islanders supported to come here on that basis. Yet it’s never been done. A third part of science is that it’s backed up with hard references, scientific references—and not just peer reviewed, because peer reviewed can be done by anyone, but actually based upon assessing the papers objectively. They’re the three criteria: empirical scientific data, logical scientific points that prove cause and effect. 

With the whole climate scam, the climate fraud, no-one anywhere in the world has pointed out the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate: not temperatures, not snowfall, not droughts, not storm frequency or severity or duration—nothing. There’s not one shred of basis for policy, because that is the basis for policy. There’s not one shred of evidence. I’ve even heard a list of scientists who are afraid of the climate—but no science. We even have a minister, who’s sitting in the chair now, who I asked for evidence. She gave me 25-plus papers, and not one shred of evidence. Some of them even said there is no warming going on. It’s amazing, yet she listed them as evidence. 

And we hear things like ‘the science says’, and not one person has distinguished themselves by characterising any of that above natural variability, as Senator Hanson said earlier today. Natural variability is cyclical, inherent, natural variation. That’s all we see in the climate signal. And the Greens won’t debate me. I first asked Senator Larissa Waters on Thursday 7 October 2010, at a public forum at New Farm, where we both shared the dais, along with three other people. I challenged her to a debate. She jumped to her feet faster than I have ever seen her move and said, ‘I will not debate you!’ She came up to me after the forum and said, ‘I will not debate you.’ I challenged her again, along with Mark Butler, Labor’s climate spokesman at the time, on Tuesday 14 June 2016 at the Solar Council Forum, where I was not a participant, and I challenged him to a debate. Both ran from the challenge. Monday 9 September 2019 was the first day I challenged the Greens officially in the Senate—Senator Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters. Never have they debated with me. They will not present the science. They won’t treat the Senate with the respect of presenting empirical scientific data and logical scientific point—never; I’m still waiting. 

And why won’t they debate? Because they know they haven’t got the science. Yet we’re now sending, thanks to the government, millions of dollars to the people of Tuvalu because their sea levels are rising, when the data shows that that is not happening anywhere near that extent, and it’s all natural. 

One of the two biggest problems we have in this country is shoddy governance, driven by a lack of data and a lack of objectivity, reinforced by denial. The second thing is ceding our sovereignty. That doesn’t apply in this debate, but we are ceding the future of our children and the future of our country by not using objective empirical scientific data within logical scientific points.  

/1 Comment/by

Amending the Biosecurity Act — What Does it Mean?

This bill is seeking to provide biosecurity officers with increased powers. With everything we’ve been through over the past few years, I decided to ask for clarification on the bill. I questioned how these new powers could be used and whether there was a risk of discrimination against arrivals into Australia, particularly those who have chosen not to receive medical procedures such as the COVID-19 injections.

I am concerned these amendments would ensure the collection of data from all incoming travellers to support intelligence-gathering and evidence-based predictions of potential biosecurity risks.

Minister Watt offered assurances in the Senate Chamber that there is no intention of using the bill to discriminate against people based on medical status or ethnicity. He also assured me that this bill did not allow for collecting or retaining health information.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I have two questions. The first is of the minister: could this bill be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections related to COVID-19 measures? As part of that, does this bill allow travel documents to include information based on vaccine status?

Senator Watt: I’m just seeking some further advice on that, Senator Roberts, but I’m certainly not aware of any intention to use these powers in that way or even whether the powers could be used that way. I know that there were some concerns raised by a couple of the parliamentary committees about how these powers might be used and the risk of discrimination that might be posed. I think we were certainly able to persuade those committees that there would be no such ability to discriminate. You may have seen, Senator Roberts, that one of the things this bill is doing is providing biosecurity officers with increased powers to seek passports from people, but that’s really about trying to check where they have been and whether they’re repeat offenders when it comes to biosecurity risks rather than checking on people because of their particular racial background, their COVID vaccination background or anything like that. It’s more about, as I said, allowing biosecurity officers to trace when people have been to very high-risk locations or if they’re repeat offenders with biosecurity, in which case I’m sure you’d agree that they’re the people who we really need to focus our biosecurity efforts on.

Senator Roberts: Minister, have you received that advice yet about my specific question?

Senator Watt: The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the data collected in relation to biosecurity interventions with all incoming travellers can be recorded and analysed consistently to support a more intelligence- and evidence-based approach to predicting and managing the biosecurity risk posed by future traveller cohorts. As such, the requirement to provide a passport or other travel document to a biosecurity officer upon request would apply to all persons regardless of their ethnicity, their national or social origin or their vaccination status. The powers that are being granted here cannot be, or are not intended to be, used to go after particular people based on any characteristic about them. They can be applied to all people, regardless of their vaccination status, their ethnicity or anything like that. I think that you can be confident that your concerns would not be carried out as a result of these powers.

Senator Roberts: You said ‘could’ and then hesitated. So that means these powers cannot be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections for COVID-19?

Senator Watt: That’s right. The powers cannot be used to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including their vaccination status.

Senator Roberts: My second question is: should there be time limits on the time which health information about an individual is retained?

Senator Watt: In fact, Senator Roberts, this bill does not provide for the retention of data at all. That being the case, the concern that you have does not even arise. It’s not a matter of—sorry, I’ll just clarify this. There’s nothing in the bill that allows data to be retained for health purposes and so the issue of how long data could be retained for health purposes doesn’t arise, because it can’t be retained for that purpose at all.

/by

Is birth and death data being hidden?

,

Data on births and deaths is 2 years and 9 months overdue. It should be delayed 6 weeks at the latest. How can we assess the impact of health policy without this vital data?

Transcript

Yesterday, in questions without notice, I asked Senator Gallagher, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, about the availability of birth data. Her response included a statement to the effect that this information is available from the states. Senator Gallagher needs to be aware that it used to be available. New South Wales, South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory no longer publish this data. Queensland publishes data at the end of the year, meaning Queensland data is nine months out of date. Victorian data is already available for August 2022, so someone down there is doing their job.

Victorian births in August 2021 were 6,700. In August 2022, they were 5,900. Western Australia provides quarterly data for births: in the June quarter 2021, there were 8,750 births; in the same period this year, there were 8,060. That’s all the data we have. How can we make life-and-death decisions with insufficient information? These variations could just be the lockdown babies working through the system. They could be anything. We don’t know, and that is the problem.

When health policy has been as intrusive, expensive and controversial as Lib-Lab’s COVID response, wouldn’t this data be compulsory viewing for decision-makers? And yet the best the Commonwealth Bureau of Statistics can manage for births and cause of death is December 2020. That’s 20 months behind. What are they hiding, as I asked? Data for provisional mortality is four months behind, while Victoria can provide their data in five days. All the states use sophisticated reporting routines. The data delay is not with the states. I have submitted a document discovery for the latest data the ABS has on births, deaths and cause of mortality. As long as COVID is said to continue, this data should be provided monthly—one month behind, not two years and nine months behind. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation.

/6 Comments/by

Government avoids basing policy on robust science

I gave the following speech this afternoon in response to the Greens wanting even more damaging climate policies.

Transcript

One Nation does not support this motion. One Nation supports policies that are based on empirical scientific evidence. Without robust scientific evidence policies are not worth the paper they’re written on. By avoiding robust scientific evidence to support policies, politicians are able to base policies on their political and ideological whims and vested interests.

As we recently learned, the CSIRO, which advises the government on climate science, has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy.

The Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens have no empirical evidence that the production of human carbon dioxide is affecting the climate and needs to be cut. Until there is, all climate policies need to be scrapped. I remind the Senate that this is day 419 since I first challenged the Leader of the Greens in the Senate to provide the evidence and to debate me.

7 October marks a decade since I first challenged her to debate me and she has not fronted after immediately refusing.

/by

CSIRO’s conceit stands by discredited science

,

This week Senator Malcolm Roberts revealed CSIRO’s complete lack of scientific justification for climate policies and CSIRO’s only response was to state their world ranking.

Senator Roberts said, “CSIRO’s response to my findings came before my report was even released, which reinforces the academic arrogance that comes from believing they are above questioning. 

 “We all know CSIRO is an iconic and esteemed Australian institution in many areas of research, which is why its track record on climate science is so worrying; it’s not up to standard.”

Three levels of government base expensive and far reaching climate policies on CSIRO’s advice, which largely comes from inadequate and unvalidated climate models.

“Rather than address the obvious flaws in their climate research, CSIRO chose instead to deflect to a lame appeal to authority, instead of citing credible science.”

The absence of a scientific response from CSIRO can only mean that they stand by the discredited and contradictory papers they cited and later withdrew, because the papers failed to prove their claim.

“Let me make this very clear, all politicians need to be seriously questioning the science that they glibly use to make climate policies, and Parliament must scrutinise the quality of this science.

“The CSIRO’s flawed climate models have not been validated, they contradict real world measurements and should not be used as the basis for spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money on damaging policies,” added Senator Roberts.

A team of 17 acclaimed climate scientists reviewed CSIRO’s evidence and were sadly disappointed with CSIRO’S lack of scientific rigour.

Senator Roberts will travel to Queensland’s major regional centres next week listening to people across many industries that poor science and damaging policy have ravaged.

“We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity that will scrutinise the science, protect scientists from politicisation and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just,” concluded Senator Roberts.

200903-CSIROs-conceit-stands-by-discredited-science

/by

COVID19 Recession Avoidable

Today, Australia officially entered into the “COVID19 recession” with the economy contracting by 7% in the second quarter of 2020. This recession was avoidable if the Australian government, States and Territories had use the best available data and experience from around the world rather than reacting to models that predicted an armageddon.

In this speech to the Senate I discuss Taiwan which has dealt with the COVID19 heath issues properly because they maintained their economy. While Taiwan has a similar population to Australia, they have only had 7 deaths. I first talked about Taiwan in March, including writing to the Prime Minister asking him to look at the data from Taiwan and consider changing course.

He refused. And now we are in a recession with over 1 million people out of work.

/by

CSIRO has misled Parliament

CSIRO has misled parliament. Last night in the Senate I laid out my argument that the CSIRO has misled parliament by allowing the government to base climate policies on CSIRO’s advice which includes discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models.

The onus is now on parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. Until that is provided, the government must immediately halt all climate policies which are a multi-billion drag on our economy.

Press conference – https://youtu.be/QIWZSjQ18CY

Media Release – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/senator-roberts-calls-on-csiro-head-to-resign/

Report – Restoring Scientific Integrity – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/restoring-scientific-integrity/

Question time on CSIRO – https://youtu.be/5l31VlPoXvM

/by

Restoring Scientific Integrity

,

This report provides a summary of the discussions and transcripts from meetings with CSIRO. Additional links in the References section give an in-depth appreciation of analysis of the evidence provided by CSIRO. In the context of seeking CSIRO’s empirical evidence to justify climate policies, I know that CSIRO:

  1. has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous.
  2. admitted that temperatures today are not unprecedented.
  3. withdrew discredited papers that it had cited as evidence of unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide supporting empirical evidence.
  4. has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity.
  5. relies upon unvalidated models that give unverified and erroneous projections as “evidence.”
  6. relied on discredited and poor quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide.
  7. admits to not doing due diligence on reports and data from external agencies.
  8. revealed little understanding of papers it cited as evidence.
  9. allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO science without correction.
  10. misled parliament.

Seventeen internationally respected climate scientists from Australia and five other nations verified our conclusions about CSIRO.
In conclusion, CSIRO’s science on the matter of climate for policy making, amounts to a gross misleading of Parliament. The onus of proof is now on Parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on climate policies.

200831-Examination-of-CSIRO-Evidence-for-Climate-Policies

Download

/3 Comments/by

Senator Roberts calls on CSIRO head to resign

, ,

CSIRO has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy, which is a multi-billion dollar drag on the economy. 

Senator Roberts said, “This is shameful, and I call on the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, and executive Dr Peter Mayfield, to resign. 

“Both have been complicit in the economically destructive policies based on CSIRO’s misplaced climate research.” 

The controversial, but central claim, that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut, was the focus of Senator Roberts’ cross-examination of CSIRO. 

When CSIRO was asked for evidence of anything unprecedented in climate due to human carbon dioxide, and despite nearly 50 years of climate research, it could only provide the discredited Marcott (2013) paper on temperatures and the discredited Harries (2001) paper on carbon dioxide. 

Both papers wilted under scrutiny, with CSIRO representatives in agreement with the concerns raised, resulting in CSIRO withdrawing the papers. 

Astrophysicist and Geoscientist Professor Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”. 

Senator Roberts stated, “Robust science reflecting the highest standards of integrity and transparency should be the core business of CSIRO. 

“How could it be that climate scientists were unaware that the evidence being used for significant policy-making was based on poor quality and discredited scientific papers. 

“CSIRO’s lack of understanding of the papers they cited shows laziness and lack of intellectual rigor. Clearly, CSIRO cannot honestly claim that human activity is causing climate variability.” 

When pressed further regarding the view of CO2 being dangerous, CSIRO were quick to point out that they never claimed CO2 was dangerous, rather that it was politicians that assigned the word danger to human CO2. 

CSIRO also agreed that temperatures today are not unprecedented. 

In a last ditch attempt CSIRO referenced the United Nations’ reports relying on unvalidated computer models, despite freely admitting CSIRO had not done due diligence on any UN work. 

CSIRO also admitted it had not done due diligence on data from the Bureau of Meteorology. 

Senator Roberts added, “In my discussions with eminent international scientists, Professor John Christie stated he has closely examined CSIRO’s Access Models and found them below par, as the projections simply do not match what we actually see in the real world.” 

Professor Christie added, “Climate is so complex, our ignorance of the climate system is enormous, and the myriad of models have not even agreed on a key variable, CO2 sensitivities. 

“The CSIRO models are running overly warm and this has been proven when comparing real data of the last 40 years with the climate model projections.” 

Dr David Evans, one of the world’s top computer modellers, states, “CSIRO climate models should not be used for policy as they are not right yet. 

“The performance of all climate models, including CSIRO’s, are not sufficiently validated and consistently overestimate warming.” 

Senator Roberts added, “It is the duty and responsibility of politicians to base costly policies and economic structural change on robust scientific evidence, not discredited papers and deficient models.” 

Senator Roberts calls for “a halt to all climate policies and spending until credible empirical evidence is provided to justify the spend, and for an Office of Scientific Integrity to scrutinize science used for policy. 

“The onus is now on parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on vested interests riding the climate gravy train.” 

/by

Where is your COVID19 plan Prime Minister?

Yesterday I spoke in the Senate about the lack of a plan to live with and master COVID19 rather than hiding behind advice from bureaucrats in the health departments. There is no guarantee when or if there will be a vaccine. Where is your plan Prime Minister?

Transcript

I know that there are many grieving families, fearful families and concerned families. I raised the fact that in my correspondence to both the prime minister and to the premier of Queensland.

I expressed concern over their use of insufficient and flawed modelling to lock us all away and cause untold damage to our economy, businesses and jobs. Their responses to my letters avoided addressing the real issues.

Yes. If the federal government and state governments had learned, as I suggested in March from nations like Taiwan and promptly adopted rigorous testing combined with strict isolation of their sick, aged and vulnerable then many Australians could have stayed at work with minimal economic disruption and better health.

The difference is that Taiwan had a plan and relied on solid data. And as a result, Taiwan had seven deaths in the time we’ve had 517. They have a similar population to ours in terms of total population. Yet they are under greater threat because of the highly densely populated country and they’re closer to China.

The honourable John Houston in the Sydney Morning Herald, recently referred to quote, “planning or the lack of it has been the great failure of the Morrison government. It has been building over years of neglect and poor policy, but now it has been laid bare by both COVID-19 and the Royal commission.”

Queensland’s own chief health officer, Dr. Jeanette young, has stated this past week that she is only looking at the health issues. Mr. Acting deputy president. And this is very concerning. Who is looking after the big picture for us all? What about mental health, economic health, jobs, families, businesses?

The Queensland Premier referred us to the website location of her data. We checked there’s no relevant data, weak premier, irresponsibly abdicating, again, hiding behind the chief health officer, abdicating her duties. The Morrison government and the Queensland government need to both step up and to demonstrate leadership and to tell the truth.

They need to show us the data and the plan across all aspects of managing our way out of this pandemic and the resulting recession, and in the process, ensuring security for all Australians.

/by