Posts

My Mission: Exposing Climate Fraud

,

It was a pleasure to speak at an “Australians for Better Government” event on the Gold Coast, where we discussed Australia’s political future.

At the end, I got a warm standing ovation — clearly what I shared struck a chord with everyone there.

Note: This is a re-record of my original speech.

Transcript

Love. Care. Reason. Traits unique to our human species. Everyone in this room is proof humans care. We survived years of infancy and childhood when completely dependent.

Thank you to Australians for Better Government, organisers, speakers, audience, viewers, my wife Christine and Pauline who is the only politician who didn’t run from my climate work and instead came to me.

I’m excited. This is about restoring human potential and progress.

I’m proud to be here because we all have pride in our country. WE ALL want OUR country to be much better.

I’ll clarify my speech’s goal for you. The one thing I want everyone to remember is: why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.

This matters because it’s the key to restoring our country, lifestyle, standard of living.

The second thing I want everyone to remember is that we’re told the biggest purchase of our life is our house. That’s wrong – taxes, fees and levies make our biggest purchase government.

Are we getting value?

The direct cost of government is taxes. The direct cost of government waste is excessive taxes. The INDIRECT cost of government is failed or destructive policies choking productive capacity, driving waste, killing initiative.

120 years ago, our country had the world’s highest per capita income. What the hell happened?

I’ll share what I’ve done for 18 yrs on a key issue – climate fraud – in the senate and before the senate.

Starting in 2007, I worked voluntarily for nine years researching climate science – pursuing Empirical Data in Logical Points to understand Cause-And-Effect. Thank you, Christine. Then, I researched the corruption of climate science leading to the UN. And to drivers behind the UN’s climate politics – the World Bank, IMF, World Economic Forum, global banks, global wealth funds like BlackRock.

Then to motives. And to beneficiaries. Stealing money from Taxpayers.

I held people accountable – politicians, journalists, academics, agencies.

For another nine years from 2016, as a senator I held organisations and ministers accountable – climate and energy agencies, departments. Using my initiative and Question Time, Senate Estimates, speeches, letters.

(I’m feeling vulnerable, anxious. Right shoulder and hand tremor. Look beyond it and pay attention to my words).

I’ve written a speech because I’ll be covering a lot of ground and want to respect your time.

So, what’s the core climate claim? Climate alarmists claim carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbon fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – and from farming animals for food, is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – which they claim will raise temperature for catastrophic warming in some distant unspecified future.

That’s the basis for claimed solutions with devastating impacts on society:

  • Taxing and controlling farming and food – to stop raising animals, including stealing property rights to control land use and control citizens.
  • Taxing and controlling energy.
  • Pursuing UN Sustainable Development Goals to control every aspect of people’s lifestyle and life: what we eat, energy, travel, finances, homes.

All claimed to be based on science.

So, what’s science?

When done properly, science investigates and explains our physical world. Science is the systematic objective study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the EMPIRICAL DATA. Hard data in LOGICAL POINTS proving CAUSE-AND-EFFECT. SCIENTIFIC PROOF needs Data in Logical Points proving Cause-And-Effect.

Graduate Engineers like I are trained in science because we apply science. We understand scientific proof because it prevents us killing people.

My science training includes geology and atmospheric gases – two of the most important topics of climate science.

To understand empirical data, we need to understand variation. There’s variation in everything. There are two broad types of variation:

  • Inherent natural variation
  • Process change
  • Plus, Cycles – some daily, others 150M years

Time frames are important. Daily variation in temperatures is huge. Seasonal variations can be large. Yet over a 30-year climate cycle temperature may be consistent.

So, let’s define the problem.

Every person, business, employer uses and relies on electricity, petrol, diesel – at home. And at work. Australia has gone from having the most affordable power to having one of the world’s highest power prices.

The key to global competitive advantage is having the lowest power price.

China uses our coal to generate electricity for 12 cents per Kilowatt Hour [8 c/KWh]. We pay 26 to 33 cents per Kilowatt Hour.

Consider Parliament

From 1996 to 2007, John Howard’s Liberal-National government committed to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol introducing HIS solar and wind Renewable Energy Target, HIS National Electricity Market that’s really a National Bureaucratic Racket, stealing farmer’s property rights, and being the first major party to promise a Carbon Dioxide TAX policy.

All claimed to be based on “climate science”.

Yet 6 years later, in 2013, Howard admitted in distant London that “on climate he is agnostic”. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SCIENCE.

Since then, the LNP introduced every major climate and energy policy. Labor then accelerated each.

As a senator, I wrote letters to 10 Members of Parliament. All confirmed in writing they had NEVER been given scientific proof.

I wrote letters to another 19 senators who advocate cutting carbon dioxide from human activity. Four replied. NONE provided scientific proof.

The Greens and others refused to debate me – Larissa Waters in 2010, in 2016, and repeatedly from 2019.

Waters is a lawyer and makes many false and unsubstantiated claims, and misrepresents climate. She’s never provided scientific proof.

Members of Parliament like David Pocock show no understanding of science. His donors include Climate 200 with huge conflicts of interest.

They invoke so-called “experts” and other logical fallacies. They use emotion especially fear and catchy slogans. They have no scientific proof. Greens repeatedly lie, misrepresent, and sideline science with personal attacks.

From 2007 to 2016, I sent hundreds of Registered Post letters to Ministers and politicians. Most MP’s don’t know what’s science. Others lie. Others are cowed, gutless.

Why? Let’s see why they never present scientific proof.

CSIRO and What it Calls Climate “Science”

My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that no CSIRO Chief Executive had sent a climate report to any MPs, Ministers, parliament.

My 2013 Letter to the CSIRO Chief Executive and to the head of CSIRO’s climate team produced no scientific proof. And their replies were evasive.

In 2016 in the senate, my first action requested CSIRO’s Climate team to provide scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut.

At CSIRO’s first three-hour presentation to me, CSIRO’s climate chief stated – CSIRO has NEVER said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger.

He said, quote: “Determination of danger is a matter for public and politicians”. Yet politicians say it’s a danger. And say the CSIRO advised them.

CSIRO acknowledged to me the need for empirical data as scientific proof – yet failed to prove that human carbon dioxide causes climate change.

CSIRO admitted it lacks empirical data in logical scientific proof. Instead of physical data, CSIRO relied on unvalidated, erroneous computer models.

After 50 years of so-called research, CSIRO presented just ONE paper on temperature: Marcott, 2013. CSIRO used it to claim today’s temperatures are unprecedented. Yet Marcott himself had previously admitted his paper’s twentieth century temperatures are NOT robust and are NOT representative of global temperature.

CSIRO’s temperature graphs were all over the place. Some showed the 1998 El Nino peak which in other graphs disappeared.

On carbon dioxide, CSIRO presented just ONE paper: Harries, 2001. It did NOT support CSIRO’s claim of unprecedented levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. We made CSIRO aware of the paper’s flaws that made it unscientific and statistically invalid. CSIRO admitted NOT doing due diligence on reports. Nor on external data.

At CSIRO’s second three-hour presentation, CSIRO confirmed today’s temps are NOT unprecedented.  

CSIRO presented Lecavalier’s 2017 paper on temperatures, which our team showed is hopelessly flawed. CSIRO acknowledged that, effectively withdrawing it. And the authors withheld data from our scrutiny.

CSIRO presented a second paper on Carbon Dioxide: Feldman, 2015. It refutes Harries’ paper that CSIRO presented earlier. We showed CSIRO that Feldman’s paper is flawed. CSIRO acknowledged, effectively withdrawing it.

At CSIRO’s third presentation, CSIRO claimed RATES of temperature increase are unprecedented. Yet NASA satellites reveal temperatures are essentially flat and have now been flat for 30 years.

CSIRO presented five new references on temperatures. Some contradicted others. All were nonspecific. Scientifically useless. CSIRO never specified the effect of human carbon dioxide on climate. Thus, there’s no basis for policy cutting carbon dioxide.

We devoted eight hours listening to, and cross-examining CSIRO across three presentations with no scientific proof.

Internationally, 18 eminent scientists and statisticians confirmed CSIRO’s material is NOT adequate for policy.

CLEARLY CSIRO had never presented a climate report or presentation containing scientific proof. CLEARLY no one had held CSIRO accountable on climate – ever. Yet CSIRO Chief Executive is paid more than a million dollars per year.

Former CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was on two banks’ Advisory Boards – Bank Of America Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds Australia, both seeking windfall profits from Carbon Dioxide Trading.

Conflicts of interest?

At Senate Estimates hearings, CSIRO has never presented scientific proof for Australia’s climate and energy policies. We need a real scientific debate that CSIRO and parliament avoided.

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)

My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that BOM sent 17 documents to MP’s and Ministers. Many were just one-page broad, general UN updates. None contained scientific proof.

My 2013 letters to BOM executives produced no scientific proof and whose replies instead unscientifically claimed a consensus.

BOM has been exposed for tampering with temperature data. Repeatedly. Example – temperatures at Rutherglen weather station in Victoria were changed from a long-term cooling trend to concocting a warming trend. And many other weather stations. Other temperature data adjustments have been made under the label “Homogenisation“. With no audit. Fabricating warming.

BOM displays omit the 1880’s/1890’s that were significantly warmer than today. Heatwaves back then were longer, hotter and more frequent. BOM’s not aware of many station Meta data errors.

In Senate Estimates hearings BOM has never presented scientific proof nor any scientific basis for climate policy.

Australia’s Chief Scientist

In 2017, I organised a personal meeting with Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and Science Minister Arthur Sinodinos. After taking just a few questions Finkel admitted he does NOT understand climate science. Yet governments used him to publicly speak as if he’s a climate expert.

We then requested and he promised a four-hour presentation and discussion covering scientific proof and specific references. A date was agreed. Soon after he cancelled and failed to set a new date.

No Chief Scientist has provided scientific proof.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CC – UN IPCC

Both major parties, the Greens and Prime Ministers cite UN IPCC reports as the basis for climate policy. The UN has no scientific proof for its claims of warming and climate change. And no specific effect of cutting human carbon dioxide. Thus, the UN has no basis for climate and energy policies cutting human carbon dioxide.

The UN has no scientific basis for its temperature targets – initially fabricated at 2 degrees Celsius and later 1.5 degrees.

Both the UN IPCC Chair and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd claim 4,000 scientists said in the UN’s 2007 report that human carbon dioxide caused global warming. Yet the UN report’s own figures show only five UN reviewers endorsed the claim. And, there’s doubt they were scientists.

CSIRO is a major contributor to UN climate reports.

UN climate research excludes natural climate drivers. The UN defines “Climate Change” as studying only theories of man-made climate change. Ignoring and excluding natural drivers of climate.

The key graph driving the UN’s reports was the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph scientifically proven to be fraudulent. Instead of scientific proof, UN reports rely on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. With outputs falsely labelled as “data”!

The UN told us that no UN report states carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Because it’s not a pollutant, except in politicians’ speeches. UN Lead Authors rebelled against the UN’s corruption of climate science, yet the media did NOT report it. The UN, after initially hyping extreme weather to scare people globally, now projects no increase in so-called “Extreme weather” events.

The UN IPCC is a political entity pushing political goals.

The senior UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong fabricated both global warming, and later climate change. His stated life’s aims were to:

  • De-industrialise Western civilisation, and
  • Install an unelected socialist global government.

He said:

“humanity is the enemy.”

He was a co-founder and Director of the Chicago Climate Exchange seeking to make trillions of dollars from global trading of Carbon Dioxide Credits. American police sought Maurice Strong for crimes, and he went into self-exile in China, a major beneficiary of the west’s climate and energy policies.

UN senior climate bureaucrats like Figueres and Edenhofer admit the climate agenda is NOT about the environment. It’s about changing society and economics.

“a New World Economic Order”.

It’s all about control and wealth transfer from we the people to globalist corporations, investment funds, banks, aligned billionaires and the UN.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies G.I.S.S. (GISS)

Head of NASA-GISS climate group, Gavin Schmidt, admitted to me in writing that what GISS had previously claimed as four nations’ independent temperature graphs are NOT independent. All four used the same base data and each then made separate ”ADJUSTMENTS”. When I pointed out his accidental admission he stopped corresponding.

I held him accountable for NASA-GISS fabricating Iceland temperature records. Indeed, NASA-GISS has created temperature data in places where it’s NOT measured.

NASA executives, scientists and astronauts wrote a scathing letter to NASA’s head pleading with him to stop GISS from corrupting climate science.

NASA-GISS has never presented scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut. Other agencies prominent in claiming or inferring that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut have never provided scientific proof.

ALL depend on government funding.

  • America’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
  • The British Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre with its HadCRUT dataset – the basis for the UN climate report.
  • Australian Academy of Science – who I held accountable in writing.

Ross Garnaut’s 2008 Garnaut Review admits his influential report has no Scientific Proof. Despite his massive conflicts of interest, the Rudd government often used Garnaut’s review to justify climate & energy policies.

No university. No scientific society. No agency. No government. No journalist. No NGO – not Greenpeace, WWF, Climate 200. No celebrity. No company. No industry group. No politician anywhere has provided scientific proof.

Federal government energy agencies and departments currently crippling Australia’s energy grid have never provided scientific proof. Nor specific scientific basis for policy.

I conclude that some climate academics are really activists misrepresenting climate science while having substantial conflicts of interest, including being on government payrolls. In my view, these include Tim Flannery, Will Stefan, David Karoly, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Lesley Hughes, Kurt Lambeck, Matthew England, Andy Pitman and Stefan Lewandowsky.

Summary

Canadian Climatologist Professor Tim Ball, with 40 years holding alarmists accountable, said I’m the ONLY member of parliament or Congress anywhere in the world to hold a government climate agency, CSIRO accountable. Marc Morano confirmed. This is not said to brag. It shows that most western politicians and governments have gullibly swallowed or ignorantly supported climate fraud.

Across parliaments, politicians – like many people – bow to groupthink, party dictates and peer pressure to meet an ever-present need to belong.

Former senior American Senator James Inhofe was about to vote for a Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Scheme, as the basis for a global Carbon Dioxide Tax, when Morano showed him it’s part of UN Agenda 21 to lock up land across America. At the last minute, Inhofe stood up and rallied opposition. The American Senate rejected the scheme, and the world was spared the UN’s global Carbon Dioxide Tax.

All scary forecasts of climate catastrophes have failed. Polar ice caps, storms, Great Barrier Reef, polar bears. Yet here in Australia, the Greens, Labor, Liberals, Teals and Nationals say they rely on CSIRO, BOM, UN, NASA-GISS for climate and energy policies including the UN’s Paris Agreement and Net Zero.

What Does Nature Tell Us About Climate Variability?

Analysis of our 24,000 datasets worldwide show no process change in any climate factor. Just inherent natural variation. And, natural cycles.

The last 30 years of data from NASA satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming despite ever-increasing production of carbon dioxide from China, India, America, Russia, Europe, Brazil.

The longest temperature trend during industrialisation is 40 years of COOLING from the 1930’s through 1976.

Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth and is classified as a trace gas because, at 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, there’s bugger all of it. Nature controls the carbon dioxide level, regardless of Humans, as major global recessions in 2009 and 2020 proved. And as shown in seasonal variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Our atmosphere COOLS the land and ocean surfaces through conduction and convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation and finally radiation. The atmosphere does NOT and CANNOT warm our Earth.

Natural drivers of climate variability include Galactic, Solar, Planetary, Earth’s surface topography, atmospheric, water vapour, oceanic, regional decadal cycles, biological, regional changes to vegetation, interactions.

Conclusion

Climate and energy scammers prey on people’s ignorance of variation to falsely portray natural variation as process CHANGE.

It’s NOT climate CHANGE. It’s natural climate VARIABILITY.

Alarmists are preying on people’s ignorance of Science.

In many people – especially politicians – Groupthink and peer pressure cripple reasoning. And override care.

There’s no need to worry about warmer climate. INSTEAD, worry about governance.

Application of Fraudulent Climate Claims

CSIRO’s fraudulent “GenCost” report grossly understates the cost of changing to Solar and Wind, the most expensive forms of energy generation.

CSIRO’s fraud is based on flawed assumptions about: sunk costs, interest/ discount rates, generator life expectancies, estimates of costs to build, unspecified firming costs, unknown pumped-hydro costs, …

The Liberal Labor Uniparty fail to closely scrutinise CSIRO’s GenCost report.

Solar and Wind consume enormous resources and energy during manufacture – making them expensive.

Eking energy from low-density sources makes them very expensive.

Plus, they return humanity to dependence on the vagaries of weather when promoters claim future increased weather variability.

They’re not suitable for an industrial economy such as Aluminium smelting.

Subsidies are essential and reduce national productivity and wealth creation making solar and wind parasitic.

Solar and Wind are reversing Human Progress.

There’s no scientific, economic, environmental, social, or moral case for Solar and Wind.

Who’s responsible?

Almost the whole parliament. And the federal bureaucracy.

They’re getting away with it because people are dumbed down on science. And have yet to feel the huge pain of higher electricity prices.

Members of Parliament avoid data and are not scientifically literate.

And on that is based the destruction of our economy, our country.

Other Governance Failures

The same people driving the lie about Nature’s trace atmospheric gas essential to all life on Earth, are driving other governance failures:

The Covid response across western nations.

Money and banks.

The tax system.

The Anti-Human scam: which I may discuss in more detail later

Summary

Every major problem is created in Canberra. Or is worsened there.

The core problem is that most politicians simply do not care, and are ignorant, dishonest, fraudulent, stupid or gutless.

Shoddy governance avoids or contradicts data. Instead, the Lib-Lab Uniparty uses emotion, fear, headlines, paybacks for donors and vested interests.

They justify theft from the people and cede sovereignty.

History shows government is prone to being a vehicle for transferring wealth.

How? Our constitution is armed to prevent this.

Pamela Meyer in her book “How to Spot a Liar” said, quote: “Lying is a cooperative act … Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance. Its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie.”

The people have abdicated. We, the people unwittingly ceded our authority over parliament. THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT’S THE KEY TO RESTORING OUR COUNTRY.

In Australian politics, love, care, reason and truth have been pushed aside for ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of data.

Reason has given way to subtle control, theft, aggression and suppression.

Western politicians are reversing 170 years of remarkable human progress.

Our society, our western civilisation is in decline.

Politicians across many western parliaments have betrayed our species.

People Need:
  • Leadership that serves the people – based on solid data.
  • Freedom for personal enterprise with a small central government as Australia proved early last century. Instead, we now have less freedom than Eastern Europe and less enterprise than in China and Vietnam.
  • In current governance, what’s worth keeping?
  • Appreciation for what we have is important. Let’s keep what works.
  1. In our Constitution the people are paramount – yet Australians are not active participants in democracy. Australians for Better Government says people should take the lead in restoring sound governance. I agree.Our constitution is not perfect, yet is largely fine.
  2. The Senate is designed as a House of Review – yet political parties sidelined this role.
  3. States are constitutionally responsible for most services. With that comes Competitive Federalism bringing choice and accountability. A marketplace in governance. That’s been derailed and led to an unaccountable bloated central government with the power of the purse.
  4. Our constitution is based on Christian values – truth, freedom, respect, yet woke ideologies supplant these.
  5. Australia has abundant resources – yet lacks leadership and vision.
Some Broad Solutions
  1. Start with restoring compliance with our constitution. Shrink central government to fit the Constitution. Return to Competitive Federalism with states providing most government services. This will restore the marketplace in governance, essential for accountability. Enshrine free speech & Medical Rights in our constitution. Adopt Citizens Initiated Referendum to hold MP’s accountable.
  2. Realise free humans are wonderful. The source of all enterprise and progress. Despite each of us being imperfect, remember that generally humans outside parliament do care – once we’re aware something needs action. Be pro-human. Proudly pro-human. My experience in Australia, India, America, China, Korea, Japan, Britain, Canada & other nations overwhelmingly proves that humans love to contribute when work is worthy. In meaningful work, people take responsibility and opportunity to contribute. When taking initiative to start a business, people need to share in the wealth created. Please awaken, stir and energise people to be active and to take charge.
  3. Get government out of people’s way. Shrink the federal government. Bulldoze Canberra, a self-perpetuating, productivity-killing PARASITE. We need to get government back to enabling people to fulfil their potential.
  4. SYSTEMS DRIVE BEHAVIOUR THAT IN TURN SHAPES ATTITUDES. We need to change governance systems to enable productive behaviours and culture.

Culture and leadership are the most powerful drivers of productivity, initiative, creativity, security.

Establish an Office of Scientific Integrity with public scrutiny of science on every policy claimed to be based on science.

We need to restore compliance with our constitution, reform our governance structure and systems and hold politicians accountable.

Australia needs real leadership. From leaders who CARE. And who want to do good, not just look good. Leaders with courage to make hard decisions and to communicate the benefits of those decisions in honest messaging that informs and excites people. Truthfully. Based on hard data.

It starts with we, the people. Since 2007 I’ve held MP’s, departments, agencies, academics, corporations and others accountable on climate. Because I detest politicians killing our country and stifling people.

We need to curtail politicians. And, we need to release the people. Freeing people to use our inherent personal enterprise.

We all want to restore our country.

I commend Australians for Better Government for your initiative.

The one thing I want everyone to remember is – why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.

Instead of ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of hard data, we need to change the governance and political SYSTEMS to restore Love, Care, Reason.

And truth.

To tap into human potential to restore human progress and abundance.

That’s OUR challenge. Restoring love, care and reason.

I dedicate this speech to Professor Tim Ball, Marc Morano, Tony Heller, my wife and family, all climate sceptics, all critical thinkers and to everyone here today.

References

200831 Summary – Restoring Scientific IntegrityDownload

Reference mat’l:

Factors driving climate—the dynamic sun radiating to a dynamic earth FACT There appear to be hundreds, perhaps many hundreds of factors affecting global climate. These operate across many scales including the following partial list (with those likely most significant in italics):

  • Galactic – e.g. 150 million year cycle of our solar system passing through high cosmic wind radiation bands in our galaxy.
  • Solar system and sun – These are many, varied and appear highly significant for climate including variations in sun’s solar output; output of solar particles; sun’s magnetic field polarity and strength; Earth’s orbit; solar system’s centre-of-gravity; Earth’s axis tilt and precession; sun’s polarity; sun spot cycles; moon’s orbit.
  • Planetary – These appear to include Earth’s axis tilt; geotectonic and volcanic activity; many forms of energy including kinetic and magnetic; Earth’s polarity and movement of the poles; length of day; seasons of the year; volume of water in the global hydrological cycle; Earth’s geothermal heat flow; Earth’s interior heat source – vastly greater by many orders of magnitude than oceans as a heat sink.
  • Earth’s surface – e.g. topography; Earth’s surface temperatures; seasonal variations in temperature; fires; relative differentials between regions around the Earth’s surface, especially polar to tropical; photochemical -dynamical changes; sea ice; sea level; Earth’s internal constitution.
  • Atmospheric – e.g. variations in strength of Earth’s magnetic field – deflecting of photons; atmospheric water content; cloud cover; precipitation – rain, snow; variability in wind currents; lower and upper atmospheric temperatures and their relationships; natural aerosols (far outweigh human-made aerosols); ozone; natural mineral aerosols; atmospheric pressure; storm activity; auroral lights.
  • Oceanic – e.g. ocean temperature; salinity; currents; sea surface temperatures; iron content; Earth’s tides due to interaction of sun and moon.
  • Cyclic regional decadal circulation patterns such as North American Oscillation and the southern Pacific ocean’s El Nino together with their variation over time.
  • Biological – e.g. marine phytoplanckton producing natural aerosols like sea salt and dimethyl sulphide; enzyme action of microbes;
  • Nature’s large scale changes to vegetation.
  • Interactions – e.g. of wind currents and ocean currents; conversion of energy forms (eg, from sun’s e-m energy to cloud seeds); environmental processes involving the interaction of climate, biological and geological processes and, at times, extraterrestrial bombardment by meteorites; area of snow cover; heat content and transfers spatially and vertically around and within Earth; heat transfers between ocean and atmosphere and between land and atmosphere;
  • Water Vapour transfers spatially and vertically; release of volatiles at deep ocean vents.
  • Human – e.g. relatively tiny human production of aerosols (eg, soot); aircraft contrails; land use. Due to Earth’s relative enormity, the impact of human factors is restricted to local and occasionally regional.
/4 Comments/by

Scrap the EV Slush Fund

,

One Nation stands firmly against the Albanese Government’s push for electric vehicles (EVs), and the billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies and infrastructure spending that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy Australians. While everyday Australians face rising costs for housing, groceries, and fuel, the government continues to pour money into EV incentives and charger installations—despite low public uptake.

Australians should be free to choose the vehicle that suits their needs and budget—whether it’s a ute, a four-wheel drive, or a V8.

One Nation would cancel all policies that penalise internal combustion engines and calls for the return of reliable, efficient petrol and diesel vehicles.

It’s time to revoke the EV slush fund and put Australians first.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Industry Research and Development (Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally (DRIVEN) Program) Instrument 2024, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2024L01460]. 

What a mouthful! It’s an instrument made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. This is where the fun bit starts. This regulation One Nation seeks to revoke is a $60 million slush fund that climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen—there he is again—will have to splash around on pet projects. Specifically, this is $60 million for the installation and repair of electric vehicle chargers. These are electric vehicle chargers from which only some of the most well-off of Australians, who can afford an EV, will benefit. While rents are skyrocketing, houses are more unaffordable than ever, groceries keep getting more expensive and beer is heading towards $15 a pint, taxpayers should not be slugged with more taxes to pay for this government’s slush fund. 

Why is the government obsessed with putting everyone into electric vehicles? Some of them have decent speed, admittedly, when you put your foot down, yet the range on purely electric vehicles—battery electric vehicles—is mostly terrible. It gets even worse when trying to tow something. Forums for the Ford F-150 Lightning, a battery powered ute, are full of horror stories that unfold as soon as a trailer is attached. This is worldwide. 

Australians already know all of this and are voting with their wallets. The rejection of battery EVs shows up in new car sales figures. Battery electric vehicles were just 6.5 per cent of new car sales, and how long have they been offered? Years. Even here, in the capital of ‘Wokeistan’, Canberra, home of the country’s loudest virtue signallers, battery electric vehicles are just 3.6 per cent of all vehicles on the road. This is despite every effort of government and multinational corporations trying to pull Australians away from the trusty petrol and diesel engine. There has been a near decade of propaganda and lies trying to convince Australians to make the switch—we’re not buying it. 

Never mind the hugely expensive tax breaks that give an EV buyer tens of thousands of dollars. These tax breaks include exemptions from the lower luxury car tax threshold; exemptions from the penalties under the new vehicle efficiency standard, or the ute tax, as it has become known; no fuel excise at 50.8 cents a litre; exemptions from fringe benefits tax, representing a $12,000 saving on a $60,000 EV but costing taxpayers $550 million a year. Taxpayers pay for this. This is Robin Hood in reverse; robbing the poor to pay for the wealthy. Plus there is an array of rebates from state governments across the country. They’ve thrown just about every tax break in the book at EVs, and still Australians aren’t fussed over the inferior electric vehicle products. 

More than 95 per cent of the vehicles on the road still contain internal combustion engines, the trusty petrol and diesel, the reliable petrol and diesel, the safe petrol and diesel. Naturally aspirated, turbocharged, supercharged or a hybrid set up, Australians have rightly shunned battery EVs for engines that make a noise when turned on. Tradies cried out in horror when the legendary V8, from the Toyota LandCruiser 200 series and utes, was removed from market in anticipation of the coming government regulations and crackdowns. 

Are EVs cheaper to run? Well, a CarExpert road trip test throws real doubt on that. They drove two BMWs on a road trip from Melbourne to Sydney. They were the same exact car, the same year of make, with the same start and the same finish point. The only difference is that one was the battery electric version and the other was hydrocarbon fuelled. When they arrived in Sydney, the electric vehicle charging had cost more for the road trip than filling up with the most expensive 98 petrol. Of course, electricity isn’t free, and neither are these chargers. The minister’s slush fund that we’re seeking to disallow here is paying for the installation of chargers that are businesses in themselves, so we’re paying for a business. Taxpayers will foot the bill for installing a charger, and the EV business will reap all the profits from the charge they sell through it forever, for eternity. We would never do this with service stations, because it’s bloody ridiculous. Taxpayers should not be paying for the profits of these often foreign multinational companies who run charging services.  

Then there’s the fire risk. Everyone knows about this. The electric vehicle industry’s dirty little secret: the batteries and these chargers present an extreme fire risk. Car ferries carrying thousands of new car deliveries have been left to burn and potentially sink after battery fires have broken out mid-ocean. Just last month, News.com reported: 

There are concerns an abandoned EV carrier floating aimlessly in the Pacific Ocean could continue to burn for weeks … 

Salvage operators have finally reached the Morning Midas around 350km south of Adak, Alaska, a week after it first caught fire and 22 crew were rescued by the US Coast Guard after being forced to abandon ship. 

The floating inferno is said to have been caused by the lithium-iron batteries in the 70 electric vehicles on board—batteries that can cause fires that can burn for weeks. 

Some apartment tower complexes have banned battery electric vehicles in their car parks. Our fire departments are sounding the alarm on the increased risk battery fires present. These battery fires often can’t be simply put out and must be left for days to burn themselves out. One suggestion to deal with an electric vehicle fire is to have the burning wreck forklifted—imagine the forklift driver!—into a waiting shipping container of water to try and keep it contained. That’s a suggestion. Seriously! That’s the best firefighting strategy we have when one of these EVs goes up. 

Insurance companies have confirmed the risk in electric vehicles is real with their increased premiums. Insurance comparison site Compare the Market conducted a study of 12 insurers and has shown the top five bestselling EVs are 43 per cent more expensive to insure than similar internal combustion models. So EVs are more expensive to buy, more expensive to drive, more expensive to charge and more expensive to insure. We are running out of categories to find out where EVs are actually cheaper. 

What about environmentally friendly? Let’s ask that question. As for being environmentally friendly, the process for making batteries is one of the most environmentally destructive in the world, killing the environment to save the planet. The hundreds of kilograms of minerals that go into a battery include aluminium, copper, steel, iron, graphite, nickel, lithium, manganese and cobalt. These require extremely intensive mining and refinement and huge, huge amounts of energy. The resources and energy consumed in electric vehicle manufacturing is way above those consumed in making a petrol or diesel engine car. Many of these raw minerals are sourced from conflict-torn places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, using child labourers and slaves. The overall environmental impact of building an EV is devastating, as is the social impact. The raw materials are sourced from ethically questionable countries and processed almost exclusively by Communist China controlled companies. That’s where the focus on EVs leaves Australians—completely reliant on China. 

Then there’s Minister Tony Burke, whose Chinese EV says ‘Don’t plug in the phone.’ Worries about being reliant on China aren’t overblown. Government departments are warning Labor politicians of the same thing. The Strategist journal reported in November: 

Senate estimates … heard the remarkable revelation that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has had to take ‘precautions’ based on warnings from his own department to protect himself and the nation’s sensitive information from Burke’s own Chinese-made electric car— 

He’s got to protect himself and the security of the country from his Chinese electric car— 

The risks with such cars, according to Home Affairs officials, might include having data collected from the owner’s phone if it were connected to the car, voice calls eavesdropped on, image collection from the car’s external cameras and geolocation tracking—meaning that if Burke drove to a sensitive government location the car’s manufacturer would be able to see. 

If these are risks to ministers, those same risks are inherent for all Australians. Bloody ridiculous. 

What is even more confusing about the government EV push is that petrol and diesel engines are only getting better and more efficient in their newest versions. Did anyone mention weight? Electric vehicles are humongous in weight. Small, turbocharged, extremely efficient diesel engines were becoming the powertrain of choice, especially in small cars. Fuel efficiency numbers we couldn’t have dreamt of 20 years ago were being beaten. Then all the car makers in the world, and many stupid governments around the world, seemingly overnight, had to imagine that petrol vehicles and diesel engines were dead. Imagine that. Everyone would be driving an EV, apparently blind to or not caring for the downsides in range, resources and longevity. Just as we were getting to some of the cleanest, most efficient diesel and petrol vehicles ever made, why did the government decided no-one would ever want to drive them again? They decided for the taxpayers. They decided for the citizens of Australia. 

Why does the government want to splash billions of dollars into technology that Australians clearly don’t want and that is environmentally reprehensible? The answer may lie in the plan for Australia’s energy grid. The government needs electric vehicles hooked up to the grid under their plans for a consumer energy resources like EV batteries to be connected to virtual power plants. They want to use your car as a battery. The government can’t afford to build all the batteries needed under their net zero plan. They don’t even know how much. There is no plan. So the government wants Australians to buy an EV with a battery that can be taken over and discharged to the grid. They don’t tell you that, do they, but that is what they are wanting. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency says that batteries from EVs ‘can help stabilise the power grid by supplying power back during times of high demand’. There it is. Do you hear that in their advertisements? No. 

Like many things, this will start off as a voluntary scheme, currently called ‘bidirectional charging’ or ‘vehicle to grid’. That sounds good, but think about what it means. It means stealing your electricity when you want it. Then the inevitable threat of blackouts and the instability of the electricity grid under net zero will become an emergency, and everyone with an EV will be forced to participate. What we have now is power shortages in some states as they destroy perfectly good coal and gas generation and try and fail to replace it with solar and wind. So we’ve got a shortage of reliable electricity. And now they want to convert the car fleet, the transport fleet, to EVs to add more demand to the electricity sector. Then they want to promote artificial intelligence, which is an electricity hog. And then they want to support bitcoin mining. Where is all this going to lead? It’s going to lead to massive, sky-high prices as well as shortages, unreliability, instability and insecurity. 

The government’s plan, or what it claims is a plan, is all very complicated, but they don’t know what they’re doing. That is fact. One Nation’s solution is much simpler: Australians should be allowed to drive whatever car they want, whatever car they can afford, whether it’s a four-wheel drive, a ute or a smart car. Only One Nation has a policy to cancel all policies which lead to the death of the V8 engine being provided as an option to Australian car buyers. Porsche and Mercedes-Benz said that EVs would take over, and they stopped making V8s. Now they’re bringing back V8s and they’re scaling back their EV plans. I ask the Senate to revoke this electric vehicle slush fund and join One Nation in bringing back the V8. 

/2 Comments/by

DITCH Net-Zero to Fix Cost of Living

, ,

One Nation is the only party completely united in our belief that Australians deserve a better, cheaper way of life by ditching Net-Zero.

Groceries, power bills, insurance and running a small business can all be made cheaper.

Only One Nation can be trusted to put Australians first over what foreign, unelected organisations tell us to do.

Transcript

To get to what matters most in this debate over net zero, we just have to ask Australians some simple questions: is your life more affordable or more expensive over the last five years? Are you paying more or less for groceries? Is your power bill cheaper? How about the cost of a new car—how about your insurance premiums? Has your salary increased more than inflation? The answers are almost the same. It hasn’t gotten better; it’s far worse. All of these problems Australia is suffering from can be traced back directly to net zero policies. 

This isn’t just a culture war, as some people try to write it off as; this is a fight for the survival and prosperity of all Australians. This is a fight to restore our country’s position as the envy of the world. Australia is the richest country in the world for resources. We have abundant energy resources. Australia is awash with vast amounts of proven coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, rare earths and critical minerals. We should have the cheapest power prices in the world, yet we pay more for electricity than the countries to which we sell our resources. Back in 2004, the energy white paper proudly boasted Australia’s average price of electricity as being just a touch over 4c a kilowatt hour—amongst the cheapest in the world. Now the average is 33c a kilowatt hour, just 20 years later. Japan imports most of its energy resources from Australia. Japan’s electricity used to be four times more expensive than Australia’s. Now, ours is 20 per cent more expensive than Japan’s—all because of net zero. Thank you so much! 

We don’t make Fords, Holdens, Toyotas or Mitsubishis in this country anymore, because of net zero. Our steel mills, like the one in Whyalla, are going broke because of net zero. The copper smelters, like the one in Mount Isa, are shutting down because of net zero. Chocolate-maker Cadbury have said they may have to pull out of Australia because it has become undeniably expensive to manufacture in Australia. In the words of Matt Barrie, ‘Australia is about to be a country that cannot make a chocolate bar’—because of net zero. 

Wind and solar pushers have been promising Australia that it’s the cheapest way to go. They’ve been saying it for 25 years, since the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was implemented in the year 2000, under John Howard, yet here we are today, facing desolation. With the largest amount of wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro on the grid than ever in recorded history, life has only gotten more expensive. As the solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro increase, electricity costs increase. This is the experience of every country that has gone down the path of net zero. As electricity gets more expensive, good jobs in manufacturing are getting shipped overseas and life gets worse for that country. 

/4 Comments/by

EVs Are a Sinking Ship

Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China …

Three thousand cars are rotting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean – 800 of them electric – after the Morning Midas cargo ship burst into flames sank on its trip between China and Mexico.

The cause of the fire remains unknown, but many suspect lithium-ion batteries may be to blame.

Morning Midas burned for a week, pouring toxic fumes into the air, before aimlessly tipping over and taking her cargo of heavy metals to the ocean floor where they will leak into the surrounding water for the next century.

All the crew are safe, thank goodness.

What about the environment?

You and I could not dump these materials into the water without severe repercussions.

Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Coalition-deputy (?) Larissa Waters, have said very little about the issue to his counterparts in China.

Albanese is off on a six-day $325 billion trade trip where he has confirmed he will meet with Xi Jinping, head of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Prime Minister has not met with US President Donald Trump – leader of the nation whose defence structure protects Australia from China’s ambitions in the Pacific.

We should not forget (and neither should the Greens, who remain silent) that China’s environmental credentials include pouring concrete over coral atolls to build military bases inside disputed waters while deliberately transgressing against its Asian neighbours.

China’s neighbours are our Pacific partners, and together we rely on America to police the Hague’s freedom of navigation rules. Without an American presence in Pacific waters, China would control our critical trade routes and no doubt treat them with the same care as their history of ransoming river water in Asia as an ‘incentive’ to sign agreements.

The Prime Minister seems very keen to empower China inside the Australian economy, encouraging foreign business prosperity at the expense of our children’s careers.

While Treasurer Jim Chalmers mulls over tax reform to punish successful Australians, Anthony Albanese is all-but gushing over the prospect of Chinese cash.

‘Trade is now flowing freely, to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides. We will continue to patiently and deliberately work towards a stable relationship with China, with dialogue at its core. I will raise issues that are important to Australians and the region including my government’s enduring commitment to pursuing Australia’s national interest.’

He is taking 14 people with him to sit on an Australian-China business roundtable to talk about food, resources, banking, and tertiary education.

Strangely, pollution is one of the many things left off this ‘green’ economic agenda…

How odd.

There is no chance Albanese and his delegation will question China about recycling guarantees for the millions of tonnes of solar panels and wind turbines headed for Australian landfills every single year as industrial projects are decommissioned.

Whose responsibility is it to clean up after the Chinese Net Zero boom?

Australian taxpayers.

Who could have guessed?

Pollution is a sore spot with China. The communist empire courting our Prime Minister has made a mess of its own landscape.

67.7% of China’s water is unsafe for human contact, let alone consumption. Its air pollution crisis, much of which is from the factories that churn out ‘clean’ technology, is so severe it’s thought to kill two million people every year. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are responsible for 60% of plastic in the ocean – and yet the Prime Minister is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries as an apology for Australia’s (factually dubious) contribution to ‘rising sea levels’.

China is not, as the UN claims, a beacon of ‘Net Zero’ environmentalism.

If anything, China’s environmental catastrophe reveals the dirty side of the so-called renewable empire. It has led to polluted rivers, destroyed sacred mountains, slave-run factories, and an export chain that includes debt-trapping vulnerable nations with loans repaid with land acquisition, the empowerment of brutal dictatorships, and even child labour in the rare-earth mines.

In China, environmental and cultural protesters who stand against the renewable energy industry are harassed, arrested, or simply vanish.

Activists in Wuhan, famous for its dodgy gain-of-function labs, demanded the Chinese government ‘give back the green mountains and clear waters’.

Their social media posts were scrubbed and the story suppressed by digital censors.

It’s a process familiar to Australians who lived through the Great Digital Dark Age of Covid where the government saw fit to issue take-down notices to Twitter and Facebook to keep vaccine-injured victims quiet. Many of these social media sites still have legacy community guidelines that warn about the ‘misinformation’ of posts sceptical about Climate Change while Australian policy is littered with clauses determined to protect the narrative of the political movement even if it means listing environmental concern as ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’.

Chinese activists were not exaggerating their pollution problem, and neither are Australian farmers or beachside residents furious about the solar and wind industrial projects tearing apart the serenity of Australia’s landscape.

Soon, the curse of Net Zero will touch every corner of our continent.

The Morning Midas and Net Zero monstrosities share a fate decomposing into the landscape, poisoning everything around them – abandoned by the companies and governments responsible for their creation.

A toxic legacy left for nature to remediate.

It’s unlikely the Morning Midas will be remembered as anything other than a sidenote on the next article about a sinking EV cargo ship, but the EV problem is not going away.

Cheap Chinese vehicles are being welcomed into Australia as a market disruption by a Labor government desperate to prove that EVs can be ‘cheap’.

This is despite their questionable green credentials, service standards, and quality control.

How long will EVs stay cheap as the resources used in their manufacturing double and triple in price?

Market forces are sinking EVs, while Labor, and particularly Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious.

They would prefer to allow TEMU-style EVs to destabilise the auto industry, causing permanent damage, for the sake of a product that may not survive given its concerning track record in other countries. This is not good for the Australian consumer, the global environment, or the industries that support the car industry which employ many of our skilled young people.

Are we going to outsource auto-workers and mechanics to a Chinese helpline that goes unanswered?

Do we really want to keep pushing jobs and skills away in exchange for a collapsing ‘green’ dream with all the appeal of algae?

What about when these cheap cars break – which they undoubtedly will – where do they end up? In landfill, sheltering under a busted solar panel? Parked beneath a derelict wind turbine? In an abandoned shed with all the plastic we are meant to be recycling?

This is not a good look for an industry that exists purely to capitalise on environmental credentials.

It is hideous.

Electric vehicles are not better products. They are a technical solution to an ideological problem propped up by government subsidies and corporate Environment and Social Governance programs.

In this respect, EVs occupy the same ideological market space as lab-grown meat.

The third sinking of a cargo ship laden with electric cars is not a one-off event.

With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen pushing Australia toward EVs – specifically China-made EVs – we can only wonder if the next cargo ship will sink onto the Great Barrier Reef.

EVs are a sinking ship by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China

Read on Substack
/2 Comments/by

Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!

,

Has the price of a steak taken your breath away recently? That’s because the government wants you eating bugs or lab grown cells, not organic red meat.

In 2022, I confronted Meat and Livestock Australia directly. They were signed up to the crazy plan of ‘net zero’ by 2030.

The only way they ever could have achieved this is by killing off cows, reducing the total number across the country. That means good farm-grown meat would be too expensive for the peasants, but the elites jetting off to Davos every year would be able to afford it.

Three years later, Meat and Livestock have just admitted they are ditching their net-zero 2030 goals, exactly like I told them to do three years ago. Yet, they’re still committed to doing it by 2050.

End the nonsense. Ditch net-zero and make meat affordable for every Aussie house!

Meat and Livestock Australia drops 2030 carbon neutral target | The Australian

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:

We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.

I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?

Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?

Mr Strong : In part, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?

Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.

Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.

Mr Strong : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.

Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.

Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?

Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.

Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?

Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—

Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.

Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.

Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?

Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.

Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?

Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.

/5 Comments/by

94,400 Young Aussie Miners at Risk

,

How Net Zero Threatens the Next Generation!

Nigel Farage’s unapologetically anti-Net Zero #Reform party is making headway in Scotland.

This sounds strange.

Scotland has always been a rather left-leaning, working class, union-centric nation so for Net Zero to suddenly become a defining feature of a minor-right movement is worth a second look.

The answer is simple.

Jobs.

By 2030, it is expected that 58,000 jobs in North Sea oil and gas will be gone.

Replacing them is a meagre (and as yet unproven) 29,000 jobs in offshore wind.

There’s a real and serious concern about how many of these jobs will be filled by foreign nationals, especially as this was already happening before loopholes were closed. If offshore wind cannot convert workers locally, businesses will hire internationally.

Bureaucrats seem to believe that all forms of energy production fall under the same portfolio and that workers can wander between oil rigs and wind farms…

The truth is, just because the two industries revolve around ‘energy’ it does not follow that those employed in the oil and gas industry can change their qualifications to work in offshore wind.

Oil rig workers are highly specialised, well-trained, and experienced. Throwing their livelihoods into the dustbin in pursuit of an increasingly dodgy-sounding ‘decarbonisation’ project is starting to turn voters away from environmental fascism.

Most oil and gas workers know they’ll be forced to retire.

This is a truth Australian Unions refuse to acknowledge.

They remain prepared to throw Australian workers under the Net Zero bus.

The UK is ten years ahead of Australia when it comes to the energy ‘transition’ – and they are in a serious mess.

Net Zero has become the failure that unites Labour and the Tories.

Reform saw the truth early, and maintained its position in support of reality, workers, and sensible energy. One Nation saw the truth years before Reform even existed as a movement.

Of all the parties in the Western world on the centre-right, we were the first to warn about the dangers of Net Zero.

There is nothing modern about Net Zero. If anything, it’s an idea past its use-by date which is starting to fester and grow all sorts of nasty things.

Under Sussan Ley and David Littleproud as leaders, the partly repaired Coalition has shied away from rigorous support of Net Zero, yet they are defending ‘climate goals’ and ‘decarbonisation targets’ with the same zeal that Treasurer Jim Chalmers eyes-off super balances.

Which is the same thing.

When the next election rolls around, we will have an agreement from the major parties that Net Zero is law and the ‘transition’ is unstoppable.

Sadly, we’ll also see voters with little understanding about the source of civilisation’s trappings telling tens of thousands of young Australians who work in the coal and gas industry that they are dirty, evil, and unwanted in the ‘modern’ world.

This is not their fault. Inner-city voters have been lied to by the whole damn system, and they often lack real-world experience to combat these cruel untruths. Nor can they see the families being hurt by green policy.

The Australian Greens, for instance, want to stop fossil fuels.

Except, of course, for the coal, gas, and oil mined and shipped offshore to generate cheap energy for China so they can make solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries used in the so-called green energy revolution.

Green energy is built on fossil fuels.

This is a wasteful way of utilising Australia’s natural resources while saddling the highly skilled men and women who mine them as the villains of history.

Well, I refuse to believe that, and I refuse to allow Australian miners to be thrown out by ideologues in Canberra chasing inner-city seats.

There are 94,400 workers in the sector under 35 and 52,600 under 30.

The Greens, Labor, the Teals, and a majority of Liberals, all claim to be against this industry and yet the truth is they want these mining jobs to be shipped offshore to places like China, Africa, and the Pacific. They want someone else to benefit economically from the creation of energy and for Australians to circle the drain of consumerism until this nation becomes so dependent that it can’t so much as manufacture the shovel to dig itself out of the mess.

This is the dirty side of carbon trading.

One Nation supports Australian workers. We do not demonise them.

Our party wants young Aussies to have the same opportunity we had to turn the natural gifts of this country’s soil and rock into cheap, reliable energy for other Aussie families – including those who live in the city.

From miners to retail workers, energy is the foundation of a safe, affordable, and prosperous country.

94,400 young Aussie miners at risk by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How Net Zero threatens the next generation

Read on Substack

This article was first published on my Substack. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, consider subscribing to get future posts delivered straight to your inbox.

/4 Comments/by

Net Zero Policies Are Costing Us—Let’s Change Course

Australia has abundant natural resources, yet the Labor-Liberal uniparties want to DESTROY our prosperity with Net Zero policies!

One Nation says NO to this madness. It time our resources were used for cheaper energy and Australian jobs! It’s time to end this attack on Aussie families!

/2 Comments/by

Ditch Net Zero – Deliver Savings to Australians

,

During a recent “question time” in the senate, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change about the total cost of the net zero transition. In her absence, Minister Watt responded, estimating the cost to be between $120 billion and $130 billion. However, this figure is significantly lower than other estimates, such as Bloomberg’s $1.9 trillion.

Minister Watt claims that the government’s plan is the cheapest way to meet our future power needs. Yet, he couldn’t provide a clear figure for the taxpayer money being spent on this transition.

This lack of transparency is concerning, especially when wasteful government spending is feeding inflation and the budget remains in deficit.

One Nation is committed to holding the government accountable and ensuring that Australians know the true cost of these policies. We need a government that values transparency and makes decisions based on the best interests of the people. One Nation will ditch net-zero so that we can put more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Senator McAllister. Minister, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister is away up north, so your question is to Minister Watt. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. Yes, I’m representing Senator McAllister who represents Minister Bowen, while she’s in Townsville for the floods. Given I am the representing minister, I’m just waiting to have those figures handed to me. But I know that we have had that transition costed, and it’s in the order of $120 billion to $130 billion. That’s my understanding. Importantly, the CSIRO—an organisation I know you haven’t got an enormous amount of time for but the most reputable science organisation in the country—and the Australian Energy Market Operator, who probably knows more about the energy market than any other group within Australia, have both made clear that ensuring that we meet our future power needs with renewables backed up by gas and firmed by batteries is the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs going forward. 

I wasn’t too far off the mark. AEMO’s integrated system plan found that the net present value under a step-change scenario towards a renewable based system is $122 billion. Of course, that’s significantly lower than the figure it will cost for Mr Dutton’s nuclear program. As I said, people as reputable in this country as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have both found that it’s not just environmental benefits that we get from meeting our power needs through renewables going forwards but it’s actually the cheapest way we can do so as well. That’s the direct answer to your question—it’s $122 billion. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me make the question easier. Minister, how much taxpayers’ money is the government spending on the net zero transition across forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have a figure just for the forward estimates, being the next four years. But, as I said, the cost of delivering our power network into the future under the government’s plan is $122 billion in net present value terms. 

Now, I know there is another plan out there. But is it really a plan, or, as Senator Canavan revealed, is it just a political fix? Whatever it is, that nuclear plan from Mr Dutton costs $600 billion. We know that means that power prices will go up by about $1,200 per household per year. And we know that, to fund that $600 billion that is required for the nuclear program, Mr Dutton will have to put in place very big cuts to things like Medicare, energy support, cost-of-living relief, housing, pensions and all manner of other things to fund the most expensive form of power you can provide. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Bloomberg has put the cost of Australia’s net zero transition at $1.9 trillion. One Nation uses a consensus figure of $1.5 trillion. Across forward estimates, the budget is in deficit. Wasteful, undisciplined government spending is feeding inflation. And you can’t even tell me how much will be spent on net zero across the forward estimates. Minister, will you at least give an undertaking to table, on the first day of the March sitting, the figure for the total cost of the net zero transition, including the forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Well, I’ve already provided the figure of $122 billion. I’m not across the Bloomberg estimate that you cite, Senator Roberts, and I’m certainly not across the One Nation consensus figure. I assume that’s a consensus between you and Senator Hanson—you’ve had to sort of thrash that one out between the two of you and arrived at a consensus of $1.5 trillion! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m happy to answer Senator Watt’s question. 

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps some other time, thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator WATT: Maybe James Ashby was in there as well, with the calculator going, working out a consensus figure. And I certainly don’t know what assumptions underpinned the One Nation/James Ashby/Senator Hanson/Senator Roberts consensus figure. But the fact is that the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs into the future—as cited by AEMO and the CSIRO, our most eminent scientific body—is at a cost of $122 billion. That is the cheapest way we can meet our power needs, which I think is a very good reason for any government, no matter what their political party, to pursue it. 

/4 Comments/by

Exposing the True Cost of Net Zero

,

What is the true cost of the net zero transition? Minister Watt had previously provided a figure of $122 billion, but this figure was significantly discounted and left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics estimates to be over $650 billion. One critical omission was the cost of behind-the-meter power, which involves taking power from people’s wall batteries and electric vehicles.

When I pressed for details, Senator McAllister reiterated the government’s reliance on expert advice from AEMO. However, bombshell freedom of information documents revealed that AEMO was instructed by the government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite claims of independence. This raises a crucial question: could an even cheaper grid be built if we ditched net zero?

The reality is that Australia’s electricity prices have never been higher, despite increasing installations of wind, solar, and batteries over the past 20 years. South Australia, the wind and solar capital of Australia, has seen spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. It’s clear that the current approach is pushing Australia into poverty.

One Nation is committed to exposing the truth and advocating for policies that prioritise the well-being of Australians. We need a government that is transparent and accountable – one that makes decisions based on the best interests of the people, not political agendas.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. On Monday, Minister Watt provided a figure for the cost of the net zero transition to the economy at $122 billion. AEMO discounted the $500 billion cost by 7 per cent a year, producing a figure of just $122 billion. This left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics puts at over $650 billion. There was no allowance for behind-the-meter power, where you go in and take power out of people’s wall batteries and EVs. Minister, what is the cost of this behind-the-metre cost to households and businesses that you have left out of the net zero costs?  

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts yet again asks for more detail— 

Senator Cash: Yes, give us more detail! 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

Senator McALLISTER: when questioning a publication that is in the public domain— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is Senator Roberts’s question. He’s entitled to a response, and the minister is entitled to silence. Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thanks very much, President. I can inform Senator Roberts, as I have in the past, that the government’s approach is to rely on the advice of experts, and the experts at AEMO conduct intensely detailed, publicly available, engaged work with a community of experts to cost the transition for our power system to 2050. I will say that they provided information publicly again and again and again saying that the cheapest path to 2050 to meet our electricity system requirements lies in renewables firmed by batteries and other forms of storage and by gas. I will say, though, Senator Roberts, that the approach we take, which is to listen to the experts and provide significant amounts of detail in the public domain for scrutiny, is quite different to the approach taken by your party. I have checked the One Nation website. You’ve actually done some policy work over the summer. There were 88 words worth of policy on energy and energy prices previously on the One Nation website; it’s down now, I understand, to 33 words or thereabouts. It used to say that you were committed to building low-emission, coal-fired power plants. You’ve now moved to a new variation on this, which says that you’re going to change the NEM rules to incentivise coal- and gas-fired power. But I make this point: to your credit, it’s a deal more detail than those opposite have provided. The people opposite have proposed a risky nuclear system which they cannot find an expert willing to back. It is $600 billion worth, on the taxpayer tab, with no plan for how to pay for or deliver it— 

The PRESIDENT: The time for answering has expired. Order! Senator Ayres, I have called the chamber to order. That includes you. Senator McKenzie! I think I’ve called you to order enough times this question time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister—rely on experts, eh? Bombshell freedom of information document show that AEMO was directly instructed by your government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite your claims AEMO’s process was not independent of Labor’s political agenda. It’s true, isn’t it, that an even cheaper grid could be built if we ditched net zero, but your government told AEMO they could not look at that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts misunderstands the process that AEMO goes through. AEMO has and has been very clear about the process they undertake to work through the issues associated with replacing and fixing up the mess that was created by those opposite. When those opposite left office, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour. Just like we inherited a 6.1 per cent inflation rate, which they don’t take responsibility for, they won’t take responsibility for the mess that they left either. They know exactly what was going on. Prices were going up, and what did Mr Taylor do at that time? He went off to the Governor-General to make arrangements to hide that price increase from the Australian people before an election. What a disgrace. There is a lot of work to do to resolve the mess that was bequeathed to the Australian people by those opposite, and we are up for it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you talked about Liberal policy; I want to know about Labor policy. Australia has been installing more and more wind, solar and batteries onto the grid for 20 years, and electricity prices have never been higher. South Australia, the wind and solar capital, has spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. When will you admit the truth—that your net zero is pushing Australia into poverty? 

Senator McALLISTER: That statement is simply incorrect. The prices that are reflected in the way Australians experience their bills are not to do with the spot price. They are an average price from all of the prices that are experienced within the National Electricity Market. The truth is that renewables remain the cheapest form of new generation. We’ve got a lot of work to do. These guys managed the electricity system—or mismanaged it—for over a decade. There were 22 policies. Four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the grid; only one came on. That actually causes a problem that requires resolution. When we left office, prices were very, very high. There was no plan at all, and our government is working through the necessary steps to put in place the generation to secure Australia’s interests into the future. 

/3 Comments/by

Nationals confirm commitment to Net-Zero DESTRUCTION

,

Here’s the deputy leader of the Nationals confirming their party is 100% committed to the country-wrecking net-zero.

That means net-zero farms, net-zero trucks, net-zero red meat, net-zero diesel. The Nationals are the party of destroying the bush.

/1 Comment/by