Government opening the door to China’s bullying in Antarctica

, , ,

Australia claims a very large part of Antarctica as our territory. Despite this, China is muscling in, refusing to sign treaties and building 5 research bases in the Australian Antarctic territory. To add to the worries, Australian Government has back-flipped on its plans to build a strategically important, all-weather runway at Davis research base.

This opens the door for China to do it instead, further eroding our claim to Antarctic territory.

The decision came from the minister for environment which begs the question, have we let China take a strategic win because we were a little bit worried about the penguin’s feelings?

Transcript

I think the last stretch.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. Minister Sussan Ley recently made a decision to not proceed with the building of an all-weather runway at Davis research base in Antarctica. What level of consultation did the Minister have with the Department of Defence and what advice was received prior to making such a decision, which many see as retrograde?

Senator, I can probably assist with that. That was a decision taken by the Government. There was extensive consultation with a range of departments and indeed I and Mr. Ellis personally, were in discussions with the Secretary and the CDF and others on that matter before it was considered by Government.

I understand Defence were pushing it.

I think the view taken by the Government was that the combination of the very significant environmental impact, the proceeding with the airstrip, would do together with the very sizable cost, ultimately meant that proceeding with a project that would not provide results for another 15 or 20 years was not viable. However, there are a whole range of other ways that we are very confident we’ll be able to ensure continuing and indeed expanded presence in Antarctica.

Was the Minister aware of the likelihood of China then building the strategically important runway, thereby enhancing its claim for a portion of the Australian Antarctic territory when the Australian Antarctic territory is renegotiated, or even sooner, because China is not a party to the Treaty?

A full range of geopolitical and other considerations were available to government in taking the decision, Senator.

Is the Minister aware that China has already built five research bases within the Australian Antarctic territory to enhance its future claim?

The answer is yes, we certainly are aware. I’ll let Mr. Ellis answer as to the number, but certainly we’re aware that China, and indeed a number of other countries, have established bases in the area claimed by Australia.

Does this mean that environmental issues, such as the comfort of penguins can be used to negotiate, to negate issues of national security to the detriment of all Australians? You mentioned that, you mentioned the 15 year time span for the return, I’ve just come from the Australian Rail Trade Corporation and they’re talking about a 30 year timeframe.

Some of these projects do involve a long period of time, Senator. But the answer is that we are very confident that the right decision was made, taking into account all of the factors and, as I’ve said, indicating that Australia’s is continuing presence. Our scientific research, our expeditionary exploration are second to none and we’ll continue over the decades ahead.

So is this yet another example of the short-term strategy visions that have dogged Australian antarctic policy, antarctic policy making us a pushover for the Chinese Communist Party?

I wouldn’t agree with the premise of any of that Senator, Australia very significantly ensures that we are a strong player in the international system that focuses on Antarctica, on CCAMLR and Australia, through investments, such as the Nuyina, which we’ve just been talking about at 1.8 billion dollar investment together with all of the other activities that Mr. Ellis and our hundreds of staff, both in Hobart and in Antarctica undertake, we believe that we are very much ensuring Australia’s interests are protected and advanced.

Perhaps a question to Senator Hume. The Chinese Communist Party just rolls over weak leaders. They see in Australia a country that is handed over its sovereignty to many UN agreements, destroying our energy, for example, our property rights, UN policies gutting our culture. These get no respect from the CCP and I think it makes us targets. So, was this the best decision to make at a time of heightened concern about the expansion as policies and aggression of the CCP? Especially as what they’re doing to us in trade.

I don’t necessarily agree with the premise of your question, Senator Roberts, but what I will say is that Australia in no way will be ceding any of our territory. The decision that was made was always gonna be contingent on a final investment decision next year and careful consideration of the environmental impact, economic investment and broader national interests. Australia feels that it’s particularly important that all nations place the Antarctic environment at the absolute centre of their decision making, and respect to the Treaty system. And the government is now considering further investments in our scientific research and environmental programmes in Antarctica. That include to continue to create jobs and investment for Tasmania, as the international gateway to East Antarctica.

Thank you, Chair.

[Attendant] Thank you very much.

/by

Bureau of Meteorology: Report doesn’t link humans and climate change

, ,

Whenever I ask politicians to prove climate change is real and caused by humans they always point to the Bureau of Meteorology report, State of the Climate. But the report only publishes temperatures and observations, it doesn’t link any changes with carbon dioxide created by humans.

BOM admits in this questioning that the report itself simply confirms that the climate is variable without attributing a cause for it. If this is the case, why do politicians and so-called experts keep claiming this report proves carbon dioxide from humans is a danger and must be cut?

Transcript

[Metcalf] Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Mr. Metcalf and Dr Johnson and Dr Stone for being here tonight with us. My questions are fairly simple and they go to one of your documents that you’ve produced jointly with the CSIRO, namely, the State of the Climate reports that come out every two years. What is the purpose of these reports?

As I say, Senator, that report comes out every two years. It’s something we’ve been doing with CSIRO for many years now. The genesis behind both agencies for coming together to produce the report is to provide an authoritative summation of the state of Australia’s climate from arguably the two most trusted sources of scientific knowledge on our climate, so the purpose is really to provide the most up-to-date and trusted reporting of the various parameters that contribute to Australia’s climate.

Thank you. The reports confirm that climate varies naturally, or at least that’s my conclusion. Is my conclusion valid?

I think there’s a lot of variability in the world’s climate Senator.

Thank you, yet the document seems to be written, Dr Johnson, in a way that subtly and implicitly reinforces the notion that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. Now I see no empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework proving cause and effect within the State Of The Climate reports. What are you doing to stop people drawing that misleading conclusion from your report?

Well, Senator,

I think it’s important for the record to note that none of the State of the Climate reports in any way whatsoever make statements with respect to global emissions.

Dr Johnson, Bureau of Meteorology at Senate Estimates 16 February 2022

They merely report on the state of various climate and ocean parameters over time. So, if you look at the reports, and I know you get a copy of them, they chart a trajectory around a range of parameters: temperature, rainfall, so on and so forth, sea level, ocean temperatures, and so on, over time, and they show, quite clearly, that on all of those parameters, or most of those parameters, the trend is increasing, so whether it’s temperature or sea level rise or air temperature, ocean temperature, and so on and so forth, it does show for a number of parameters that there’s quite a degree of variability across geography, for example, around tropical cyclones, rainfall and so on, so it merely reports what we’re observing, Senator. And I think it’s very well established now, and I think this is the view of the Bureau, or at least they strongly agree with us, that the cause for that increase in temperatures is absolutely, or predominantly, due to the activities of human beings. I think that’s well established, Senator, and it’s not for argument.

So there’s nothing in the report, I’m sorry I cut you off.

[Dr Johnson] No, no, I was finished.

Okay. Thank you. So there’s nothing in the State of the Climate reports that proves that, but you rely on other documents and other work to prove that connection between human activity?

[Dr Johnson] Clarify, prove what?

Proof that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. So that is not the purpose of the State of the Climate reports?

Well, no, it isn’t the purpose, but the State of the Climate reports clearly show the trajectory of CO2 in the atmosphere for many, many years, well over a hundred years, I think it’s a very well established fact, Senator, that the predominant cause, not the only cause, but the predominant cause, of that warming trend is human activity.

Well, yeah, I’m not asking about that, you have that view, but I’m asking whether the State of the Climate reports actually show that: scientifically prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut?

Well, I’ve got the report in front of me. I don’t believe there’s a section in there that, well, that’s right, it’s not the purpose of the report.

[Roberts] Thank you.

The purpose of the report is to report on observations that we are taking on or around a range of parameters in Australia’s climate. That’s all it does.

Thank you very much for clarifying that. That’s fine. When I asked for empirical scientific evidence proving, proving, that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger and needs to be cut. ill-informed MPs refer solely to these documents on occasions, as do some ill-informed media journalists and citizens. Is it the intention of the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO for the document to do that implicitly, even though that’s, Dr Stone just said, that’s not the purpose of the document?

I’m just wondering whether you can clarify what your question is, Senator. I think we’ve made it really clear what the purpose of the document is: it’s to provide a synthesis of our observations of Australia’s climate and oceans. How others choose to interpret it’s up to them, but the report is very clear, it lays it out very clearly and has done it pretty much in the same way for the best part of a decade.

I accept that. You’ve repeated that three times now. Thank you for that clarity. I’d like to know about the intention behind the wording, because so many people misleadingly come to the conclusion that the State of the Climate reports prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Is the wording deliberately misleading or is that just their lack of scientific understanding?

Well, I can’t speak on behalf of others. I can only speak on behalf of us, which is the wording is, I think, crystal clear and great effort has gone into making sure the wording is clear. It’s simple to understand in its reporting of the observations that we’re making. It does nothing more and nothing less than that.

[Roberts] I agree with you and –

How others choose to interpret it, Senator, is for them, but I think you read the report, it makes it very clear what we’re reporting on, and I think right up the very front of the report, if I’m correct, it makes it very clear what the report isn’t.

[Roberts] Can I just ask?

Did you want more?

No, no, no, that’s fine, actually. I don’t need to ask that question. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson, much appreciated.

/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show – 22 January Par

, , , ,

Transcript

Speaker 1:This is a Malcolm Roberts Show. On Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT.  
Ian Plimer:Today’s News Talk Radio, tntradio.live.  
 This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from down under, fresh from my COVID bed. Yes, I had COVID. Now I have the world’s most powerful immunity, natural immunity.  
 Thank you very much for having me in your car, your lounge room, your men shed, picnic. I hasten to say that I’m not contagious. I know that some people think that telemarketers and telehealth people have to get injected before they can speak over the phone, but I can assure with 100% confidence that you will not catch anything from me over the phone, other than a dose of the truth and some outspoken speech.  
 My session on the radio is governed by two things, freedom. Specifically, freedom versus control. That is basic for human progress and livelihoods. And we’re going to have a very special guest today to talk about that.  
 The second thing that drives me is personal responsibility and the importance of integrity. That’s the basics for personal progress and livelihood.  
 Before getting to our guests, let’s just cover my show’s aims, themes, and the focus. I’m fiercely pro-human. Yes, you heard that. I am fiercely pro-human. I believe in humanity. I am tired. I’ve had a gutful of the media and politicians ragging on humans and humanity. I am proud to be one of our planet’s only species capable of logic, and capable of love and care, and quite often giving that love and care.  
 I’m also fundamentally positive. I get excited by good things that are happening, and I want to contribute to that. While we are dealing with issues that people face today, and they’re concerned about, I will encourage guests to provide solutions, lasting meaningful solutions. Instead of what’s wrong with politics, what’s needed in politics? Instead of what’s wrong with politicians, and there’s plenty, what we need in politicians? Instead of what’s wrong with the media, what’s needed in media? And we can start that with the truth.  
 We will get to the core issues, whats and all to develop solutions, because it’s only by getting into the real issues can we have real faith in the outcomes.  
 We’ll cover the human aspects, strengths, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, failings, highlights. What makes people real?  
 The second thing about anything I do, it’s got to be data-driven. It’s got to be factual, truthful, and honest.  
 And the third thing, be blunt. We will be speaking out, calling it like it is. And I’ll be welcoming talkback callers in the near future. Currently, tntradio.live is betting down many systems. This is a truly global operation. It’s a gift to the world from the world. We’ve got hosts all over the globe, broadcasting from Belfast, London, Los Angeles, New York, Tel Aviv, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, The Bush in Australia.  
 And I want to express my deep and sincere appreciation to Mike Ryan for restoring integrity to media and to politics.  
 This radio network, this global radio network will serve the people, not control and con the people. We will serve with truth, and we will be blunt.  
 Before getting to my first guest, let’s just cover a couple of things that have happened today in the news. First of all, right around Australia, to all the people taking part in freedom marches, whether it be in Newcastle din-making, or people in Brisbane, people in Melbourne, people in Sydney, people all over, country towns, regional towns, thank you very much. And, Robert F. Kennedy, and your supporters in Washington, D.C. tomorrow on their freedom marches.  
 I have brothers-in-law coming from the Southern United States and the Northern United States meeting in Washington. They’re going to tell Biden what we think about his mandates and his coercion.  
 I’ll see people in Maryborough tomorrow because we’re having a peaceful protest in Maryborough.  
 I want to express my condolences to the family of Meat Loaf. Meat Loaf was a big part of my life. He had such a wonderful voice. He could go down so low, and then belt it out so strongly, so powerfully. He brings back many, many fabulous memories of my time listening to his music and with friends.  
 For those listening outside Australia, you probably don’t know that it’s Australia Day this coming Wednesday. That’s when we celebrate our country, or some people try to.  
 A friend of mine sent me this. “On the Mornington Peninsula, this year, they have cancelled Australia Day celebrations, yet they have not cancelled the Invasion Day celebrations. Invasion day events …” he goes on to say, ” … are free for the indigenous and $39 for the non-indigenous. They’re setting up two countries, one against the other.”  
 Another news item. China coal production in the month of December alone, 384 billion tonnes in one month. China is by far the world’s largest producer of coal now, and it’s thriving because of it. Australia producers just under 500 million tonnes in a year. Our production is around 11% of what China’s is, basically, one tenth, yet we’re trying to gut our economy, thanks to the Liberal Labour Nationals and Greens. What the hell is going on? China will produce 10 times as much coal as we will. And our politicians want to gut our country. This is ridiculous. And my first guest will be talking about this and many other things.  
 Then we’ve got news that the Bureau of Meteorology has, wait for it, remodelled Australia’s official temperature record for the third time in nine years, and found things to be warmer than thermometer readings had measured.  
 The Bureau did not announce the changes, but details of them were published on the Bureau’s website. So we’ve got to sneak around trying to catch them out, because they won’t talk about it boldly.  
 Jennifer Marohasy, a noted scientist in this country, a fighter for truth has said this, “The bureau has now remodelled the national temperature data set three times in just nine years.” Do they have no confidence in their own revisions and modelling? They have to keep cooling the past and warming the present? Why aren’t they doing an independent open transparent scrutiny of all of this work that they’re supposedly doing to fabricate global warming?  
 My first guest, fittingly, is a true scientist and a remarkable human being with a remarkable sense of humour, and engaging lively real personality, and a wicked sense of humour. He’s won many international awards and recognition, but this man is no ivory tower preacher, no ivory tower academic. He’s a real world man, who gets down in the mud, wrestles, argues, debates in the bush, pubs, exploration camps, politicians offices, street corners, corporate headquarters, media, academics, anywhere. He’ll take on anyone anywhere. This man, Professor Ian Plimer has dismantled frauds wherever they appear. Welcome, Ian.  
 Well, thank you for having me, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Always a pleasure, mate. I’ve known you for a few years now. I always start with something, and we’ll talk about the reasons for this later, what do you appreciate?  
Ian Plimer:Being alive. I’ve had many chances to die, but I think the devil has taken a good look at me and thought, “My God, the competition’s too great, so I’ll leave that one.”  
Malcolm Roberts:Right. Now, you are famous as a scientist, and as a speaker, and as a fighter for humanity. What is science?  
Ian Plimer:Science is married to evidence, and that evidence comes from experiment, it comes from observation, and it comes from calculation. It comes from, basically, collecting data. Now, that data, if it’s collected in Peru, or Poland, or Chad, or Canada, it makes no difference. It is data. And that data has to be reproducible. It has to be in accord with all other validated data.  
 And if it’s not in accord, then any conclusions based on the data are rejected. So science has a habit of rejecting old theories and building stronger, more valid theories. It is a way of understanding how the world works. And it is very much different from religion, which is an understanding of the world within, and science is an understanding of the world without.  
 And scientific ideas are always challenged. There is no such thing as consensus in science. There is no such thing as agreement in science. There are fads, and fashions, and fools, and frauds in science, the same as in any other area. And just because someone arrogantly struts around with a white lab coat, stroking their beard, and trying to look intelligent, doesn’t mean that what they’re promoting is correct.  
 Now, science is always changing, and so, to have a scientific concept wedded over time is non-scientific. And I argue that there are many things in today’s world that are not scientific.  
Malcolm Roberts:Well, Ian, fabulous discussion by the way. But perhaps we can bring it back to every-day lives these days, because a typical person today living on welfare, a welfare recipient … that’s not being denigrating, that’s someone saying is down on his luck at the moment, or her luck … a typical person on welfare today lives better than a king or queen did 200 years ago, longer lives, easier lives, healthier lives, safer lives, more comfortable lives, more entertaining lives, more diverse lives. Science gave us this, didn’t it?  
Ian Plimer:Yes. By every measure, we are living better than we did hundreds of years ago. The world’s gross domestic product and per capita GDP has gone up. The global population in absolute poverty’s gone down. The food supply has gone up. The tree cover’s gone up. The global urban population has gone up. Democracies, a number of democracies around the world has gone up. The deaths from natural disasters has gone down. And the list is a very, very long one.  
 We are living in far better times now than our great-grandparents did. And the reason for this is, that we’ve created potable water, we’ve created good sewage systems, we’ve created employment such that animals and humans don’t do the backbreaking work, that we have machines to do that now.  
 And so, we are living in an age where we have benefited from science … and you are an engineer, trained as an engineer … and from the application of science, which is engineering. And we are living in a far, far, better world than any generation has.  
 Now, we’ve had about 20,000 generations of humans on planet earth, and it is only the last four generations, where we’ve had an increase in longevity, and that is due to better science. But, not only medicine, due to the fundamentals by having a sewage system, by having drinking water that doesn’t kill you, these are the fundamentals.  
 And for people that moan and grown about how terrible the planet is, and how we’ve ruined it, should actually take a look at history. We have never, as humans, lived in better times, we’ve never eaten better, we’ve never had more shelter, we’ve never had more ability to travel. And that doesn’t matter, whether you live in Africa, or India, or the West, we are living in the best times ever to be a human.  
 And, yes, we have plenty of humans that need to be dragged up to the level that those in the West have, but the best way to get out of poverty is to get wealthy. And one of the ways of getting wealthy is to have a very cheap and reliable energy system. The West has done this, the UK, the U.S., and Europe have all gone from miserable poverty to living comfortable lives by having cheap reliable energy.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, science to me is something profound, something beautiful. It’s done, not only what you’ve just said in terms of our health and our opportunities, but it’s given us something even more fundamental, and that is freedom through objectivity. It is fundamental for freedom, isn’t it? Science.  
Ian Plimer:I think so. It provides you with the absolute tools that you need for freedom, and that is criticism, analysis, argument, and these must be unconstrained. And this doesn’t happen in some areas of science today. And we see that with the science on COVID, the science on climate. There is no freedom there. There is no ability to be able to express different views. That’s what we had in the past.  
 And we saw that with Lysenko, in Russia. Lysenko was a peasant. He managed to get into the establishment, and he established a concept called vernalization, and this is where seeds of plants must be persuaded to take on the communist characteristics, where they’re all equal.  
 And Stalin absolutely fell in love with this idea. The end result of that was that tens of millions of people died in famines. Those people who were engaged in genetics, those people who were engaged in trying to create better plant yields by using science were banished to the Gulags, some of them were killed. And this is a very good example of where science has not allowed freedom, where we’ve had one concept rule, and the end result was poverty, and tens of billions of people starving to death quite unnecessarily.  
Malcolm Roberts:I think we’re going for an ad break now, Professor Plimer, and we’ll be back in just a minute or so.  
Malcolm Roberts:This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, coming to you from Gold Coast in Queensland’s remarkable playground. And I have with me a special guest, Professor Ian Plimer.  
 Ian, science is more than just a word, it’s a process, a method, and as you’ve said, it never ends. We used to have science-driven policy, we now have, as you alluded to, policy-driven science, can you explain why that’s dangerous?  
Ian Plimer:Well, I think it’s extraordinary dangerous, because you do not get an independent conclusion on reality. And a lot of policy is driven by fairly young people in government offices who have gone straight from university into a government office, or into a union, or into a political office, and these people have absolutely no life experience.  
 And science is a constant questioning. Once you have a policy set in concrete, you are incapable of questioning it. The system doesn’t allow you to do it. And we have that with a couple of aspects in today’s modern world. So I very much reject the idea of policy-driven science. I would rather have facts, and I would rather have facts that are underpinned by the scientific method.  
 Now, policy-driven science is, in fact, having an opinion. I don’t have an opinion, I don’t have an opinion at all. I have facts. And if you want to challenge me on the facts, then we come to an argument about how we collected those facts, who collected those facts, where they were collected, what instruments were used, what was the order of accuracy? What corrections might have been used in collecting these facts.  
 So, I think we are facing fairly bad times when we are not looking at facts. When we have one group of people saying, “Oh, well you have your facts, and I have my facts.” I’m sorry, facts. There’s only one thing. It’s a fact. And that fact is reproducible. That fact can be validated. And if it’s not validated, then it gets thrown out. That is the basis of science.  
 And we have abandoned the scientific method in so many areas of our life. Medicine would be one of them, climate change would be another one of them. And if we had policy-driven engineering, you can imagine how many bridges would fall down, or how many aeroplanes  would crash. I mean, this is just absolute nuts.  
Malcolm Roberts:So you’re a scientist of the real world. Now, you are one of the most qualified scientists in the world. You’re esteemed. You’ve been given awards. You’ve been showered with praise for, not only your scientific integrity, but your guts, because you are a scientist who gets out in the pubs, and actually talks to people, listens to people. Above all, listens, because that’s another form of observation. You get into debates … you don’t hide from these things … you get into debates, where you flesh ideas out. What are your greatest qualifications, life qualifications, Ian?  
Ian Plimer:My greatest life qualifications is that I’ve worked underground. I absolutely love working in underground mines. And, there, you’ve got safety constantly in the forefront of your mind, but you are dealing with real people, and you can’t afford to be dealing with anything else. But, reality, when you are underground, these are real people, these people know how you convert a rock into money. It’s the same as if you’re on a farm, you’re converting soil into food or fibre. These are the real people. And I spent a lot of my time with real people.  
 Yes, I spent a lot of my life in the academic world, but that was also pretty uncomfortable because I was a square peg in a round hole. And none of the academics loved me, but the students absolutely loved me because I told it as it is.  
 So, when you’re underground, you’re in a totally different world. It’s a three-dimensional world. If you want to find some more oil, you have to use basic principle of physics, and chemistry, and geology. You have to understand how the rocks move. When you’re underground there’s always a bit of noise, the rocks are creaky and groaning. The miners say the rocks talk to you. So that was probably the greatest learning experience for me.  
 The other was working out in the bush and getting my hands dirty out in the deserts. And I have a great affinity for desert. I have a couple of places, houses out in the desert, and I absolutely love the desert. And this is unforgiving, if you make a mistake, you are dead. If you make a mistake underground, you are dead. If you make a mistake as a climate scientist, you get promoted.  
Malcolm Roberts:What an absolutely amazing explanation. And I share it with you, because when I graduated as a mining engineer with honours in 1976, I decided I better go and learn something. So I’ve worked as an underground coal miner and one open cut mine, but mainly underground around the country, mixing with people, learning about people, learning about underground.  
 And it is such a challenging place to be. It is such a wonderful teamwork environment to be. Surface mining, large open cuts, that’s just dirt shifting, Ian. We know that. But underground, that’s real mining.  
 And where did you learn to have your love of argument, because you just love argument. I’ve seen you run away from nothing. Why do you love an argument?  
Ian Plimer:Well, that, of course, goes right back to my childhood. I was always a little bit of a rebel with a number of things. I had relatives, and grandfathers, and great-grandfathers who were scientists, but also quite argumentative.  
 And my life was opened up when I was married, and my wife saw the potential, and gave me the freedom to argue and to fight. And this is how freedom, and argument, and science all come together.  
 Now, in terms of having debates, the one group of people who will not debate me are climate scientists. They will not debate me because I don’t use political policy, I don’t use opinion, I use facts. And you cannot get a climate scientist to stand up in public, and debate me, and then face questions after the debate. They will not do it. And I know why, because they are being funded to pursue the biggest scientific scam we’ve ever seen in the history of the planets.  
Malcolm Roberts:Correct. And I saw you and Viscount Monckton dismantle two members of the media in Brisbane several years ago. I think one of the poor fellows, Graham Readfearn, I think that was his name, just absolutely hopeless, you just tore him to shreds, so much so that his employer, The Courier-Mail, I think sacked him not long afterwards. Absolutely disgraceful presentation from him.  
Ian Plimer:But he’s still employed. He’s employed by The Guardian, and still writes the same codswallop that is going on with there. So there is the warning, no matter how hopeless you are, there is always something for you. And if you’re really hopeless, the left will look after you. If you’re absolutely extraordinarily unbelievably hopeless, the extreme left will look after you. And that’s what’s happened to Graham Readfearn.  
Malcolm Roberts:That’s absolutely so accurate, what you’ve just said. You have mentioned empirical evidence, the hard data, the observations, because your advice sometimes leads to the expenditure of billions of dollars, and your employers are not happy if it’s wasted. And you are held accountable because you’re working in industry, you’re working in academia, and you’re working in the community at large. You’ve worked in the global community.  
 What we’ve seen now is that science has been reduced to a label. It’s no longer a process, it’s no longer a methodology. It’s a label to justify policies that contradict hard data.  
Ian Plimer:Well, let me give an example. We have had trillions spent globally dealing with human-induced global warming. And what you do in science, is ask really simple questions. You don’t need to use nomenclature, you don’t need to use complex words, you don’t need to hide behind a lab coat and pretending you’re important. Just ask a simple question. And you’ve got to be polite. The simple question is, can you please show me that the human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming?  
 Now this has never been shown. You have pursued that in senate’s estimates committee meeting with Australia’s premier scientific organisation, the CSIRO.  
Malcolm Roberts:Premier?  
Ian Plimer:Well, they were ones-  
Malcolm Roberts:Bloody hopeless on climate, Professor Plimer.  
Ian Plimer:They were once a premier organisation in things like genetics, and wheat, and water, but they have now suffered from being woke, and they have suffered from being dragged into getting extra funding by following the climate line.  
 Now, that question, can you please show me that the human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, it has never been answered. I have asked people who claim to be scientists, just give me half a dozen scientific papers showing that? I have asked journalists, can you please show me that? They can’t.  
 Now, of course, the next question is, if they could, you would then have to ask the next question. And 3% of all emissions of carbon dioxide are from humans, the other 90% is natural. And you then have to ask the next question, can you please show me why the 97% of natural emissions do not drive global warming? So it’s checkmate before the game even starts.  
 Now, these people who call themselves climate scientists, and these can vary from anything, from influencers, to lawyers, to sociologists, to historians, to mathematicians, and on we go, the whole basis of human-induced global warming has never been challenged. And as a result of that, we’ve had this massive waste of trillions of dollars.  
 Now, what flows on from that are these monstrosities like wind turbines. Now, to make a wind turbine, the amount of energy to make that is more than it will ever deliver in its workable life.  
 The second thing is, that the amount of carbon dioxide to make it and maintain it, is more than it will ever save. So why bother? And then when you’ve got these wind turbines, which have a fairly short life of about 15 years, they need to be disposed of after their working life.  
 And when you dispose of turbine blades, you start to contaminate the environment with some dreadful toxins. So you cannot claim that these burden, bat munching, scenery destroying monstrosities have anything to do with the environment. And the way to understand the way that climate industry works is follow the money. Just have a look at who is behind these wind turbines. If one country starts with C and finishes with A.  
 And then we look at the solar PV systems. Now these destroy huge amounts of [inaudible], and you have to clear a lot of [inaudible], that’s surely not environmental. To make them, again, use far more energy than they will ever release. They also emit, in the making of them, more carbon dioxide than they’ll ever save.  
 You can’t have solar power 24 hours a day. We can, but I’ll come to that in a second. When you dispose of those, you start to contaminate the environment with all sorts of toxins, of gallium, and germanium, and arsenic, and selenium, and tellurium. All the things that, of course, make your hair curl and kill you.  
 But just to show you what a scam, the whole business is, we have solar power generation in Spain at night. Now, the Spanish are absolutely wonderful, but to generate solar electricity at night? And you scratch yourself, and you think, well, how the hell do we do that?  
 The answer’s simple. In Spain, the solar panels are illuminated with floodlights from diesel generators because the subsidies are so great that they can make money out of generating solar power at night. And that demonstrates that we have got a total scam in solar and in wind power generation. Now that scam is coming towards the end of its subsidy life and solar and wind power don’t generate electricity. They generate subsidies.  
 And towards the end of the life, now the boys have got to think of something else. So they’re thinking of offshore wind, which is wonderful, you reduce the life of the equipment even more with the saline attack. You also now see people saying, “Hmm, I wonder if we can use this gas, hydrogen?”  
 Now people have tried to use hydrogen 100 years ago and it failed. It failed for three reasons. First, it’s super expensive. Secondly, there’re massive energy losses in making hydrogen, which doesn’t occur in large quantities naturally. And, thirdly, it has to be transported at -253 degrees Celsius and 700 times atmospheric pressure. Now, that is a bomb waiting to happen.  
 So the same people who are scamming on wind and solar, are the people now who are shifting into hydrogen saying, “Oh, we’ve got to try this wonderful new fuel.” Well, it has been tried and it has failed.  
 And in my latest book called Green Murder … and check it out on greenmurder.com … in my latest book, I go into all the details on this and other scams.  
 And this is how we’ve wasted trillions of dollars, and it’s been a slimy approach, every single person who’s paying an electricity bill gets a little slice taken off, and that goes to the scamsters. And this ends up in trillions of dollars in subsidies, trillions of dollars getting paid to people who are only interested in making money rather than providing long-term stable electricity.  
 And if it’s cheap, then it generates employment. And if you have employment generated, then you have less people on the dole queues. And if you have fewer people on the dole queues, then your economy thrives. It’s pretty simple. And we have been conned because we’re so wealthy, because we’re so comfortable, and people have said, “Oh, I can afford to pay a few more dollars because it makes me morally feel better.”  
 And in this book, Green Murder, I argue about the morality of The Green position. And I will give you just one or two examples. For example, if you are wanting to put in wind or solar, then the solar panels have a very good chance of being made by slave labour in China.  
 The wind companies and wind turbines are made by Chinese companies who are destroying the long-term, stable, cheap electricity, be that nuclear, be that coal, be that gas, be that hydro, and replacing it with what they call renewable energy, and I call it unreliable energy, because we once had cheap reliable energy. So there is a scam. And that is weakening the West, and it’s seriously weakening countries like the U.S., and the UK, and Germany.  
 And we can see now the disaster that has occurred in Germany. This is one of the G20 countries, yet we have people getting cut off from their power source because they can’t afford to pay the exorbitant prices. They are now going foraging in the forests to get wood, to keep themselves warm, and to cook. That’s in Germany.  
 In England, you have a choice, do I have a hot shower, or do I heat the house, or do I have a warm meal? I can’t have all three, I can only have one of them. That is a G20 country that’s committed suicide on this green murder path they’ve chosen.  
 And if you, as a wonderful Green, if you think, oh, I want to save the environment and drive an electric vehicle, well, start to look at the resources you use. We haven’t found them yet. And I’ve spent a lot of my time in exploration in a lot of countries, and we have not found the resources we need to put all of the U.S. hydrocarbon-driven vehicles off the road and have them as EVs. We haven’t found the resources. We haven’t got the copper, we haven’t got the lithium, we haven’t got the nickel, we haven’t got the cobalt.  
 But assume you are living in Los Angeles, and you want to be a moral virtue signaler, and get yourself an electric vehicle, well, you’re only constrained to the city, you can’t drive any further. You couldn’t drive to Nevada in an EV. You just couldn’t charge it up. And if you did, for a 500 mile trip, you’d have to stop 3 or 4 times to charge up the vehicle. It’s just totally ineffective.  
 But if you are going to moralise about driving electric vehicle, you have to ask a few questions. Where does the cobalt for your electric vehicle come from? About 80% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Congo, and it’s mined by Black slave children underground, in conditions that are extraordinary dangerous, and where there are toxins everywhere.  
 And if you want to claim that you are moral in driving electric vehicle, you also have to be aware that you are supporting Black child slave labour in the Congo. You can’t have it both ways.  
 So I argue that there is no science behind The Greens position on climate, and I argue that there’s no morality behind The Greens position on climate. You can’t have it both ways. And so, we have to, I think, be fairly blunt, and fairly robust when we argue with people who claim that they want to save the planet. What are they saving it from? Who are they saving it from? Follow the money and follow the morality causes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Ian, the fundamental thing, as I understand it, for driving human progress, there are eight of them. First of all, is freedom. That is determined by science because science gives us objectivity. The second one is rule of law. Third one is constitutional succession, so that we have a smooth ongoing form of government and elected democracy. The fourth one is secure property rights. The fifth one is cheap, abundant, affordable, electricity, or energy, both forms, hydrocarbon and electricity. The next one is family. A strong family network. The next one is honest money. And the last is, of the eight, that I carry around in my head, is, a fair, efficient, honest taxation system.  
 This climate scam, as you have talked about it so accurately, is an assault on every one of those eight fundamentals of human progress. In particular, what we’ve seen in the last 200 years, last 170 years, in particular, is a relentless reduction in electricity prices and energy prices, to the point where each reduction in real terms leads to an increase in productivity.  
 That was until about three decades ago, when the lunatics in the West fared by China, pumping wind and solar generators at us, have destroyed our electricity sector. Australia has gone from being the cheapest electricity in the world, to the most expensive. That means that we export our jobs to China, our future to China, our independence to China. We become dependent on China. Isn’t it a fundamental travesty against generations not yet born, to destroy our country’s manufacturing capability, to destroy our country’s economy, when the Chinese themselves are pumping out almost 10 times as much coal as we produce in total each year? This is insane.  
Ian Plimer:Well, there’s a couple of points here. We have a coal-rich country called India. And, yes, they have some rather shabby transport systems, but they have a lot of coal. And there has been a huge amount of pressure on India and on Africa not to have coal-fired power generation. And so, people live in huts, they burn dung, and twigs, and leaves for heating and for cooking. And, as a result, there’re millions of women and children, every year, die because of that form of energy. So the cheap electricity that people in Africa and India deserve is denied by moralising greens, who are actually killing people by their policies.  
 The second thing is that, I’m very pleased that countries like China have had the industrial revolution. The UK, the Europe, and the U.S. have had their industrial revolutions that brought people out of poverty, that enabled people to live longer, that gave a lot of meaningful work. It actually created all sorts of new jobs. China is undergoing that industrial revolution, and undergoing it very, very quickly. And, in China, we’ve probably had the greatest movement of people, and the greatest economic rise that the world has ever seen. And I think that’s fabulous for the average Chinese person.  
 But the greens tell us the downside is the pumping out of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Well, have I got news for you? We have had a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 30 years. And satellite information is showing us that the planet has greened up. Our crops have become more prolific. Now, that’s partly due to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because carbon dioxide is plant food, but it’s partly due to better fertilisers, and better farming techniques. So we have very good evidence that carbon dioxide is good for you.  
 We have evidence from the Second World War, from the global financial crisis, and from the COVID crisis, when we’ve had a backwardation of economic activity, that we’ve had carbon dioxide continue to increase. So there’s been less carbon dioxide coming out of industry, yet we’ve had a global increase in carbon dioxide. And that’s telling us that the dominant source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from degassing of the oceans, it’s not from industry, it’s not from human activities.  
 And, thirdly, in the geological past, we’ve had times when the atmospheric carbon dioxide was up to 100 times higher than now. And what did we have then? We didn’t have runaway global warming, we actually had ice ages. And six of the six ice ages, this planet has enjoyed, was started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So you cannot ignore that huge body of evidence from the past telling us that in geological times, carbon dioxide was much, much higher, and we yet we had ice ages during these periods of high carbon dioxide.  
 And the fourth point is, ice core drilling, it’s shown on one scale that is a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. But when you look on a much closer scale, we see something that we all know from chemistry, but it tends to get ignored, and that is, that, when we have a natural warming event, anything from 650 to 1600 years later, we then have an increase in carbon dioxide. So it’s not that carbon dioxide drives the temperature increase, it’s the exact inverse, the temperature is actually driving a carbon dioxide increase.  
 And this is why I argue, that those who call themselves climate scientists are milking the taxpayer to keep themselves in a job because they’re in effect unemployable. And we are being frightened as humans to accept this concept that we are going to fry and die, yet we’ve had periods of time when it’s been much warmer, yet we’ve had periods of time we’ve had much higher carbon dioxide.  
 And just during the time when we humans, Homo sapiens, have been on the planet, we have experienced many periods of cooling in glaciation and warming in interglacial. And in the last 20,000 years, we have gone from the zenith of a glaciation, where most of the U.S., most of all of Canada, most of Northern Europe, and England were covered by ice. A lot of the southern hemisphere was covered by ice.  
 Those areas that weren’t covered by ice were deserts with howling winds, bring salt-laden air, and shifting sand dunes. And these are the great Loess plains of Asia. There’s a great sand dune country of inland Australia.  
 And we humans have endured that. And we came out of that great glaciation event about 12,000 years ago. And temperature increased, it then suddenly plummeted, and then went up again by about 15 degrees in about 10 years. Now that’s real global warming. Then it stayed static for a while, then it dropped again, then it went up again.  
 And then we had, what was called the Holocene optimum, from about 7,000 to 4,000 years ago. And it was a couple of degrees up to 5 degrees warmer then than now. Sea level was higher than now. And over the last 5,000 years, global temperature has been decreasing. We are coming out of the interglacial into the next inevitable glaciation. We’ve actually been cooling. But during that cooling period, we had warm spikes like the Roman Warming in the dark ages when it was cool. Then another warm spike in the mediaeval warming, then a cool period in the little ice age, and then the modern warming. And we’re coming out of that modern warming into another cool period.  
 So if you ignore the past, and if you ignore all the sciences that deal with the past, you can come up with an unvalidated idea that human emissions drive global warming. I say that is false. I say that the promotion of that is done by people who are modellers, who do not look at the science of the past. And we know, that from 30 years of models, not one of these models is in accord with what we measured over the last 30 years.  
 And if I have the choice as a scientist, between a model and a measurement, I will take a measurement any day because a model is a garbage in, garbage out process. And a model, basically doesn’t deal with the unknown unknowns, whereas measurement can be replicated measurement. We argue about the order of accuracy, but it’s still measurement. So, that’s the answer to your question. God knows what the question was.  
Malcolm Roberts:That was fabulous. I want to remind you of two recent episodes in human history. The first occurred in 2008, the global financial crisis. It led to a downturn around the world. Australia wasn’t hit because we were living off the Chinese minerals boom, but most of the world was hit. And it’s certainly a global recession, very severe recession.  
 So the actual use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, gas decreased in 2009 compared with 2008 in the recession. That meant there was less carbon dioxide produced in 2009 than in 2008. And yet, Professor Plimer, as you have so accurately stated, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase.  
 Then we marched forward to 2020 when we had a global, almost a depression due to the COVID restrictions, the government imposed COVID restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government-imposed COVID restrictions. We saw, again, a reduction in the use of coal, oil, and gas compared with the previous year 2019, we saw a decrease in the human production of carbon dioxide, and yet the global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to increase, which just shows two things.  
 First of all, we have no say in what is the level of global carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. None at all. We can gut our economy and it will have no effect on it whatsoever. So we can gut the West and let China keep producing carbon dioxide, let India keep producing carbon dioxide because they have a duty to their citizens to lift them out of poverty, and to give them the trappings of modern civilization, there’ll be nothing we can do. And besides that, carbon dioxide, as you’ve said, is a plant fertiliser it’s plant food. It is essential to all life on this planet, is it not?  
Ian Plimer:Yeah. Just to add to that, these two examples you gave are examples of the scientific method. We’ve had two great unintentional global experiments, global financial crisis, and COVID, and these were great global experiments. So it’s not that we’ve done the experiment once, we’ve actually replicated it. And in both cases, we have shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide do not drive global temperature. And in fact, global temperature depends upon whether you measure it on the ground, and if it’s measured on the ground, then what a wonderful opportunity you have to cook the books and change results. And that’s what happens almost universally with cooling the past and warmingly the present.  
 But when you look at the satellite measurements, and there are three basic sets of satellite data, it shows a very different story. So I would much prefer to have a uniform measurement at all altitudes around the whole planet that tell me about the temperature rather than having selected people entrusted with looking after a surface measurement, and then changing it over time. And as you mentioned, the Bureau of Meteorology has done that three times over the last nine years, which creates all sorts of uncertainty about whether they’re worth a million dollars a day.  
 So we’ve had these two great global experiments, which in my mind prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide did not drive global warming. So, why bother? Why bother? Why don’t we, as Western countries, say, we are very happy to look after our environment. And the only countries with good environmental policies preserving the environment [inaudible] have become wealthy due to the industrial revolution.  
 And this thing you can do for our environment [inaudible] what you consider is worth preserving. We should be very pleased China [inaudible] ahead and becoming a wealthy country. As a result, they will [inaudible] pollution. And I think China and India should [inaudible] people.  
Malcolm Roberts:What you’re saying, Professor Plimer, is that, we need to restore scientific integrity to protect freedom, to protect our natural and environment, because scientific development and understanding has enabled us to protect our natural environment.  
 Science also then is vital for sound sustainable policy, which impacts people’s economies, and lives, and livelihoods, and security. And it’s also to protect the human spirit by ending the unfounded climate fear and guilt while restoring our connection with nature.  
 Something I think is really important to human progress is strength of character. You display it in spades. Whenever you speak, you’re fearless, but you’re also passionate. Why are you so proud of being a human, and what traits in humanity, are of concern to you?  
Ian Plimer:You’ve asked me 17 questions there, so let me just comment on a couple of things. You spoke about protecting the environment. I’m a great supporter of that, because I’ve bought a considerable acreage of land to protect it. But I’m not conserving it, because how can you conserve the environment on a planet that’s dynamic and it’s always changing? So we can protect what we have and let nature do its bit.  
 In terms of fear, we, humans, are hardwired to fear that grizzly bear that’s behind you and is going to come and get you. We are hardwired to have an adrenaline rush to save ourselves. This is a fundamental trait of humans and of many, many other animals. So fear is still hardwired into our system. And the fear that has been induced in populations, by governments on matters such as COVID or climate, they have been exploiting that fundamental human characteristic of fear.  
 And in many cases, you fear because you do not understand. Science gives you a method of being able to understand. And if you can understand, then you are not nearly as fearful.  
 Now, I am very passionate because my early life I started being interested in the planet and geology, when I was about four. And I had some very good mentors, and I’ve been guided well through life. And I’m mentoring, I think 8 or 10 people now, giving back the same way it was given to me.  
 But if you can understand how the planet works, if you can understand the past, then this is far more exciting than-  
Malcolm Roberts:We’re going to have to call it off, Professor Plimer. This is Professor Ian Plimer, guest of Senator Malcolm Roberts.  
 

Part 2
 

Speaker 1:You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on today’s News Talk Radio TNT.  
Malcolm Roberts:Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT radio.live. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from the Gold Coast broadcasting globally. Fresh from my COVID bed a week ago, I had COVID, now I have the world’s most powerful immunity, all natural. I want to call out to the people marching around our country today. And in fact, around the world for protesting or reinforcing freedom. I’ll see you in Maryborough tomorrow for the protest at Maryborough. And I look forward very much to being up in Maryborough. I want to express my condolences to the family of Meatloaf who died last night. He brings back very fond memories. I love his music, that the way he can go from something, belting something out to just something so soft and tender.  
 We have Australia Day coming up this Wednesday in our country, celebrating our national day. On the Mornington Peninsula, friends send me this: on the Mornington Peninsula this year, they have cancelled Australia Day celebrations, yet not cancelled Invasion Day celebrations. Invasion Day events are free for indigenous and $39 for a non-indigenous. See what people are doing? They’re setting up division. That’s quite often what’s happening around our planet. The globalists are pushing division.  
 Last hour, I had the honour of having professor Ian Plimer as my guest, a highly intelligent, very practical man. I, now introduce another highly intelligent, very practical man. John McRae, his voice is known all over Sydney, all over New South Wales, all over Australia. He’s even tied up Alan Jones in arguments at times. This man has got the knowledge about our country and about our potential and our history. I have enormous respect for John, his knowledge, his passion for Australia. His memory; it’s like an iron trap. I can remember meeting John for the first time around about 2011 and what a character.  
 He opened up to me Australia’s successful past in so many fields. His memory would just showered me in facts. He gave me an introduction to books from people like Anthony Sutton, who wrote three books about Wall Street and the damage that Wall Street does. Above all though, his diverse stories, his practical knowledge of factories in Sydney, banking, his knowledge of farming, his knowledge of our history, his knowledge and introduction to people like Graham Strachan, who has done so much to publicise what the globalists are trying to do to our country to destroy it. He’s made public presentations informing residents across New South Wales. He’s worked in so many diverse industries. He shares with me a time and working as an underground coal miner. John, welcome to the show.  
John McRae:Thank you very much, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Mate, first simple question. [crosstalk] First simple question for you, John, what do you appreciate?  
John McRae:I appreciate what you’ve just done. One thing, what you’ve just done a moment ago, having that brilliant man on radio, expanding the truth, the fact and the science, as opposed to the lies and the deceit that we are being fed from parliament and from so-called academics that are on the gravy train payroll. And he exploded all their theories and I enjoyed it immensely. I should have been brushing up with my own memory, but I enjoyed it. You’ve got to get him back on. You’ve got to advertise it, that he’s on there, so people can get the truth.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, you’ve always been pushing the truth. You just like professor Ian Plimer. You never run away from an argument. You know how to deal with people because you apply same basic strategy that Ian does. You use facts and data. Could you tell us something about past accomplishments? I’m thinking particularly about the Kalgoorlie pipeline and look, mate, we know that sometimes Sydney Radio tries to shut you down because you’re just too good for them. I want you to talk. I want you to spill the goods on this country. So, just do what you’re doing. Just tell it as it is. Away you go, mate.  
John McRae:You want to know about the pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie?  
Malcolm Roberts:Yes.  
John McRae:Firstly, I’ll say this. Australia is the richest country in the world with 75 of the 77 minerals our world requires we’ve got them in abundance, but we’ve a crazy wombats running the joint. The Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline exemplified that. 1896 to 1903, it is still regarded as the greatest hydraulic achievement ever in the world. They pump water from Perth to Coolgardie originally, because a bloke, they found gold at Coolgardie, but then Patty Henon found it in 1892 at Kalgoorlie. And that started the gold rush. And people came from everywhere to get money out of the gold rush and people were dying because they had no water and things like that. So, they were condensing water and it’s replication of what’s happening in Australia today, the money people started condensing water to supply the people at the goldfield, but it was wasn’t enough because it needs a thousand gallons of water to refine one tonne of ore.  
 So, they were opposing the pipeline, the men that come up with this idea , John Forest. So John Forest was the premier and he borrowed money from England, 2,500 Pound… 2,500,000 Pound. Now remember that figure because I’m going to give you a figure later on as we go, that’ll shock you. And they got Alberton O’Connor to do it. He was an Irish engineer and they brought him over to do the railway lines. And they said, “We need water.” Now you’ve got to get over the Flinders Ranges into Barron land desert, but it’s not desert. It’s rich, red basalt soil. Let’s say you’re up in Queensland, you’ve got black basalt soil, that’s the indication of the volcanic reaction and the formation of Australia.  
 He then put together some smart people. This is 1896. It’s got to go 500 kilometres and the first pump up was 390 metres. In actual fact, Kalgoorlie is about four or 500 feet higher than Perth. So it’s going to be pumped all the way over the Flinders Ranges. 3000 people worked on it. Population of Australia was about four and a half, 5 million. So they had 70,000 plates of steel was imported from England and Germany, but what he had to do was build the harbour first to get the ships, in the sailing ships and the steam ships with all the supplies, then he had to design and build the dam, then they had to manufacture the pipes. Then they had to get the pipes from Perth all the way to Coolgardie. But then they found out that they can go to Kalgoorlie, and this whole pipeline was built on budget and on time. So away they go. It all has to be done by man, pick and shovel, horse and cart and camel train.  
 Now, the dam has to be built first and completed first before the rest of the pipeline is completed and the pumping stations and everything. 5,000 boxes of pump parts came out in containers and had to be built along the way. The pipe were built in two halves, 180 degrees, you know a full pipe and cut in the middle, you’ve got two pipes. They had to be sealed. And that’s where the Australian inventor started.  
 They invented the ceiling sleeve that goes along it. Then you’ve got to seal it. There’s no welding back then, only rivets. But this is what people got and said, “No rivets, no welding, no dynamite, only black powder. And you’ve got to build a dam, extract rocks out and everything else.” So they’ve got to make these ceiling machines, make this sleeve.  
 Three Australian… Me and Ferguson, Hodson, and a fellow from Sydney called John Hoskins, the start of the steel mills in Australia. The first steel plates of steel were built down in Murgon, there’s a park built there, Fitzroy Park. That’s where Fitzroy Steel started. He made the first plate steels in Australia and the first piece of plate of stainless steel. They got together and invented how to bend the steel by making the pipes. They had this steel bending machine and they redesigned it. They were making the pipes in the finish in 11 minutes, put the ceiling sleeve on it, it was sealed by lint and rope. And blacksmiths had to make the ceiling rings. They tested them between 320 and 400 pound PSI. The pipes were 23 foot long and 3 feet in diameter. Now that’s the pipe bit going.  
Malcolm Roberts:Excuse me, John. Excuse me, excuse me, John. What you’re really saying there, and I want you to get back to your story as quickly as possible, but what you’re really saying is that they started this project with a vision and with no understanding of how to do some of the details? They relied upon their intuition to come up with solutions and dammit, they did.  
John McRae:They did. They did. Hey, hey, listen, in the overall scheme of things, what I’m about to tell you about doing the dam, that they’d nearly pile into insignificance. So, they’re going to build the dam, they’ve got to build the dam. In the meantime, everyone’s against him because of the sale of the water. Now, there was two senators in the government, on the 26th of the 6th, 1898, G. T. Simpson said, “It is the height of madness to mortgage the future of our state with two and a half million Pound for just one silly project. The gold will run out and we’ve wasted all the money.” And Alberton O’Connor said, “This is rich fertile soil. So who’d want to go there?” The next bloke Wilson said the same thing. No government can justify pledging so much money to plunges into debt, for this.  
 So, they’re going to build the dam. So this is all done with pick and shovel. So they’re building the dam, and when they’re building the dam, they run into what they call a floater. Now, when you get the sandstone bedrock, that’s where you start your foundations. You can’t be on slippery, shifty ground or shifty… They’ve got to get this grounded boulder out. They had to dig down 90 feet further than the original depth. 90 feet hand, pick and shovel, hand drills, and everything else. Out they came again, stopped the project. “This bloke’s an imbecile. You can’t have this going on. It’s going to be further behind time. We’ll never get the job done, or anything else.”  
 What did he come up with? He’d come up with a carbon arc light. That’s the same as what you do with the search light, carbon arc. He rigged it all up. They worked 24-7. I’ve got photos of the vicarious stuff out, how they did it. They dug that granite out. I’ve sent you a photo of them down in the hole. You can hardly see the blokes down in the hole.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah.  
John McRae:Nd there’s no shoring up between the granite sandstone that they dug down. They extracted the granite boulder out, crushed it all up, reintroduced it back as the foundation with the carbon arc. How’s that for ingenious? How is that?  
Malcolm Roberts:Mm.  
John McRae:There’s no electricity over there, no Boeings to get an extension cable and a generator. None of them existed. And they got it back on time. They worked 24-7, and that’s what they did. If he hadn’t done that, they raised a dam wall, remind me to tell you about how they raise a dam wall. So, that dam had to be built, that pumping station had to be built because where the dam is, is 24 kilometres away from Perth, where they’ve got to pump the first pump over the Flinders Ranges. So there’s two pumps there at the dam to go to the pump at Perth, the reservoir in Perth to pump it.  
 Then they’ve got to get all the pipeline going. Then the first lot of pipes that were delivered, were delivered by horse and cart and camel trains. Then he built the railway line and then they could go on the railway. Now they had to… There’s an invention, how he got the rock out. He built a ramp for a steam shovel. You wouldn’t pass his test today because they’d say it would fall in, but they did it. No dynamite, no dynamite. I know they had black powder then, but I don’t know how they would… There would’ve been hand drill, one bloke held the drill and wriggle it, another bloke banged with the sledgehammer, they dug it out.  
Malcolm Roberts:So let me just reframe this for people who’ve just joined us, this is in the days of horses and carts, camels, predated the railway to some extent in some areas. And it was the man who proposed it was vilified for his 2,500 Pound investment. Are you going to tell us about the success of this investment?  
John McRae:Well, the 2,500,000 Pound, it was built in… This only took six years with no machinery. What do you think we could do today? What do you think we could do? We could do it overnight with the will of Australians, because they had the will do, can do and want to. The 2,500 million Pound they borrowed, three years after it was finished, the goldfields, the water, they made 25 million Pound.  
Malcolm Roberts:So that’s 10 times as much. So not only that, John and I’m talking with John McRae here from, used to be Sydney, now it’s central New South Wales Coast. They opened up the gold mining, which continues to this day in one of the richest gold mining areas in the world-  
John McRae:Recognised the biggest goldfield in the world, and it opened up the whole mining industry of this country that we’ve benefited by for all those years. And we still are, but we’re not getting the value that we should have, as Ian Plimer has just told you, we’re not getting the value, we just kept holding our arms up and let them rape us for our money.  
Malcolm Roberts:Didn’t they also open up a farming area?  
John McRae:Oh, there’s 8,000 kilometres now a pipe, 8 million acres of cropping land, sheep and wheat and everything else. And when the English migrants came out here, they put it on the share market and there was a stampede to get shares in this joint and Kalgoorlie mine and everything else. The English migrants come in, they said, “You could grow anything here.” They’ve grown vegetables, everything, everything there.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, so let’s-  
John McRae:You only need heat and water. That’s all Australia needs, water and electricity as we were supplying the whole world commodities, the whole world.  
Malcolm Roberts:Thank you. Thank you, because energy is the key to productivity, which is the key to prosperity, which is the key to wealth generation for everyone in the country. And what we are doing, we’re destroying our energy. But listen to some of these figures, I’ll go through them again. I noted them as you were talking. John McRae, the initial cost was 2,500,000 Pounds.  
John McRae:Yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Within two years, it was 10 times that much paid back.  
John McRae:Yeah. Because you have just identified the component that we need was energy and water is energy because their whole body is 82% of water.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah.  
John McRae:So don’t worry about the water out in the grass. The water in your own body is 82% to give you the energy. So all these wombats that are running around, talking about climate and everything else that the climates just destroyed, they better go back and read this. It’s not very hard to read. I’ve never been to university, but I can read. And most people can read. Don’t listen to the crap they’re telling you. And when they start telling you all this say, “Don’t tell me, show me.” And they can’t.  
Malcolm Roberts:No, they can’t. And we’ve had that repeatedly. Now in addition, they had to lift that water 390 metres to get it over the range. [crosstalk] They then had to continue pumping it uphill for 500 kilometres to Kalgoorlie. I mean, this is in 1896 with no machinery. No machinery. And we can’t even do that now. This would be, with the technology we’ve got these days, John, that would be so easy. Why can’t we do it?  
John McRae:Oh, oh, look, look, Malcolm. It is equivalent to you driving around T Model Ford as opposed to a Mercedes-Benz. That’s the advancement. But what Malcolm, I failed to tell you one thing, there was eight pumping stations and it relied on the push-and-pull system. The same as the sewage does. So sewage is not done with pumping, it’s done with suction. So to get to the first reservoir and they held about a hundred thousand gallons, I think. And then it might go downhill to the next bit, now it’s got to be pumped up to the next reservoir. It’s got to go over the Flinders Ranges. If you see the Flinders, it’s more up and downhills than what the Luna park Ferris Wheel is.  
 And they had to do that. They pumped it. There was pumping stations all along, they had to build pumping stations. They had to build schools. They had to build hospitals. They had to have nurses and everything else going along there. And all the people in the town that were getting money out of this water condensers, they were jumping up and down because they’ve lost their gold mine. Their gold mine was water. They were more interested in water than gold.  
Malcolm Roberts:They wanted to preserve their monopoly rather and open up the country for Australians.  
John McRae:Of course.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yes.  
John McRae:Same thing. What do you think they do with the Murray–Darling water now? Same thing. It’s superannuation for the fire brigade, superannuation fund in New York and a massive amount of water rise. Who did they get the water off in the first place to sell to?  
Malcolm Roberts:John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull and John Anderson.  
John McRae:Yeah but they’re about as helpful as ashtray on a camel.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah. Water Act of 2007, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull, John Howard and John Anderson. And we’re still crippling.  
John McRae:And under our constitution, no one is to be denied water. And that’s what the thing should be taught in the school, our constitution and our rights, our civil rights and what you’ve just been speaking about, it’s music to my ears.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, John, you’ve always impressed me with your knowledge, your depth and your passion for this country. You’ve also struck me, I mean, you’re not a technically educated man. You’ve got a trade certificate. There’s no doubt about that. But you’ve read widely. Where did this love of humanity, this inquisitiveness, where did it come from? Was it your mother? Was it something happen in Kids?  
John McRae:It was my mother. Malcolm, what happened to me when I was little, I got polio and I was crippled. And you are ostracised by society back then, this was in 1948, 49. People didn’t want know you, even my own cousins were not told I had polio because people think you could catch it. You can’t catch it. You can breathe on, you do what you like. You’ve got to ingest it. And it comes from poor hygiene, exactly what Ian Plimer was talking about, poor hygiene. You got to lift people out, give them water and lack of water and end and lift them out of their hygiene standard and their living standard. Look, they are saying, pulling hands and juices a lot of times teach. Give a man to feed of fish today, he eats it. Teach him how to fish and he’ll feed himself for life. Now that’s what you’ve got to do.  
 We’ve got to get the hygiene and everything. Anyway, what happened after that? I crippled up and they operated on me, but I had the most beautiful mother that anyone could ever have. She was talented and not only talented, she was a good looker. Fair Dingham, she looked like, it’s either Susan Hayward or Vivien Lee, one of them, she looked like a one of them. She was a concert pianist, dress maker and milliner, and then become a psychologist. And I went to a lot of her, I was in lucky, I went there. But anyway, one of my grandfather’s best friends was Sir William McKell, the Governor-General. The man that got us-  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell me about that because you have a lot of respect for McKell, why?  
John McRae:Oh, it’s unbelievable, man. Unbelievable. He started off as a five and six fiddly a week boiler maker because his dad, they come from down the South Coast and he was a butcher and his dad died. They lived at Redfin and he detested people calling Redfin congested areas-  
Malcolm Roberts:John, I just want to point out, we’re going to an ad break fairly soon. So I might have to cut you off suddenly, but we’ll come back if I do, so please continue.  
John McRae:That’s okay. That’s okay.  
Malcolm Roberts:Please continue.  
John McRae:Anyway, he started off as a five and six fiddly boilermaker of Maud Stock. That was the place where they first shipped the fresh meat, the over frozen meat to England. Then he went to Eveleigh Workshops. He educated himself. Then he went and become a lawyer. Then he got into local government, then a pilot, and he became the premier of New South Wales. And he was the instigator through with Chifley and Kurton to get the Snowy Mountain Scheme going. But that person they think was a great bloke, Menzies was verdantly against it because he wanted to, I don’t know what he wanted to do, but he just didn’t want to do that because he said, “You’re going to deny people of water in Victoria, South Australia.” He said, “No, they’ll get more water.” He said, “Well, I’m going to stop you with The Constitution.” And McKell said, “Well, you do your best because I’m going to invoke the Emergency Powers Act and see how you travel with that.” He’s a fellow that explained a lot to me, and he explained the Taxation Act to me and things like that. But he-  
Malcolm Roberts:So, McKell did this for you?  
John McRae:Yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Wow, wow.  
John McRae:Just after I left school-  
Malcolm Roberts:What a blessing.  
John McRae:In 1953, that Tax Act that was after Robert Menzies introduced that, and I asked him about the Snowy Mountain Scheme, and he was good enough… He got me an introduction to Sir William Hudson, the engineer. What a genius, what a genius. We had Alberton O’Connor, but what people have got to understand, all that project over in Western Australia, all the knowledge and empirical knowledge and-  
Malcolm Roberts:Okay, John, we’re going to go to an ad break. We’ll be back straight after to hear this continuation of your story. Thank you.  
Speaker 4:If it feels like it’s hot enough to fry an egg on a sidewalk, it probably is. When it’s 86 degrees outside, asphalt can reach a sizzling 135 degrees. Hot enough to cook an egg and your dog’s feet. Be safe. Test the sidewalk with your hand. Avoid midday walks and walk in the grass. Bring along water and rest in the shade at the first signs of heat exhaustion, including heavy panting and stumbling. Go to peta.org for help and information on how to keep your dog safe in hot weather.  
Speaker 5:Good day. Fast Ed here. As a chef, you know what I hear a lot? Wow. That smells really good. Is it done yet? For certain foods it’s important to cook properly rather than how they look or smell. Those foods include hamburgers, sausages, chicken, and leftovers. The rule of thumb is pretty simple: cook those foods to 75 degrees Celsius. Listen, I’m no Einstein, so I use a food thermometer and I reckon you should too. That way you’ll know it’s done without guessing. And no one will get sick.  
Speaker 6:A message from the Food Safety Information Council.  
Speaker 7:The bush fire was so unpredictable. It was important to have a plan.  
Speaker 8:[crosstalk] We stayed up to today with our phones and the radio. We knew it was coming.  
Speaker 9:I never thought it would actually happen. I’m glad we had a plan.  
Speaker 10:You have to prepare your property and your family.  
Speaker 11:And there was nothing we could do. [crosstalk]  
Speaker 13:Hence, why I always had a plan.  
Speaker 14:We can all be bushfire ready. Do a five minute Bush fire plan today.  
Speaker 15:Unlike other health concerns, mental illness is not always easy to see. Depression won’t show up on an eye chart and you won’t find PTSD by looking at a thermometer. Sorting out a mental health concern takes professional diagnosis and treatment. Anxiety won’t just go away under a bandage. If you or a loved one has a mental health concern, call 1-8-0-0-6-6-2 HELP for free and confidential information and treatment referral. Learn more samhsa.gov/support.  
Speaker 1:Today’s News Talk Radio TNT.  
Malcolm Roberts:Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT radio.live. And I’ve got a special guest with me, John McRae. John, continue please with McKell.  
John McRae:Okay. I’ll finish that brief thing with McKell because I’ve got to give you some more information on that pipeline. And I was, speak to McKell about politics and everything else and different things had happened. And he explained to me how we were the supplier for the world, which I knew, after the war because I was aware of it, and the great farmers and the great things we’ve done. Then I learned a little bit about the pipeline. He invigorated that in me. Now, and I spoke politics to him. He gave me forecasts of politics. Malcolm, in this pipeline, there was 60,000 joints they had to seal. 60,000, and there was 63,000 pipes and they had to be done, it had to be sealed with cork, with lead and rope, and they invented a corking machine and that invention, this sleeve situation and they couldn’t be done without blacksmiths because blacksmiths used to make this shrink seal that pulled the pipes together onto these two ceiling sleeves.  
 Remember the pipes are 23 feet long anda metre in diameter, three feet. And they had to be all man handled. And they made this with pipe, this steel bending machine, they got one and modified it. They made the sleeve machine. Then they tested them. It’s between 320 and 400 pound PSI. I don’t know how they did that. I’ve lost that documentation. Off they went. Then what was happening, they started the belly ache because when they started to do them by hand, by 1901 they’d only done 90 miles. And oh, it’s going to fail. It’s going to fail. It’s going to fail. Then the three engineers that I told you about, me and Ferguson, Hodson, and another fellow, can’t remember his name, Stuart Sternum, some name like that. And Hoskins, they come up with this ceiling machine. Well, they could do 30 joints a day then. Why, it went like a rocket. Off they went.  
Malcolm Roberts:So John, this remarkable pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie basically opened up the west, developed so much for the country as well in terms of our steel industry, the technology we use. But ultimately, there was another dam project, the Snowy Mountain Scheme, which was more than one dam, wasn’t it?  
John McRae:Oh, yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:And McKell saved that from being cancelled by Menzies. Is that what you were saying?  
John McRae:Yes. Yes. What happened, Menzies was against it. Chifley was the prime minister and he gave, well, New South Wales has got snowy mountains in New South Wales, but the Murray, the Snowy river and that filters into Victoria and into South Australia. And they thought it was going to cripple their water supply. And he guaranteed they wouldn’t. And Menzies said, “Fight him on the constitution,” I think section 101 or 190, how no one is to be denied water. He said, “Well, I’ll take you on and I’ll invoke the Emergency Powers Act and you won’t beat me.” And McKell is there, you can see photos of when they first started, he pushes the detonator to do the first blast.  
 He was Governor-General then. He was so brilliant as a Governor-General, he was a labour appointee. When he was appointed Governor-General, by the Labour Party, when Menzies won the election 49, it was a stitch up job that. He still retained him. Then he was going to retire and Menzies said, “You can’t retire. I need you.” This is a bloke that’s fought him in the first place, then he admires him in the second place, because he could see at the end of the section, I’m going to get the brownie points for finishing this job.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, Menzies could take credit?  
John McRae:So Menzies could take credit, but initially he’s against it. There was a big strike there once. I’ll also tell you about Sir William Hudson and what a visionary, he was like that Ian Plimer, like that, and they shut the joint down. So William Hudson went to where the strike was and said, “What’s going on here?” And it’s all up, all hell has broke loose. They said, “The moots blown,” and everything else. And he said, “This place should have fly screens and they’re contesting. Why hasn’t that been done?” That was an interference from parliament. We won’t go into that. You can work out where it had come from.  
 He said, “Get the carpenters wherever they are, the air conditioner. I want it all done immediately, right now. Get them all.” Wherever he was, he went there. “You won’t be docked for your day off. You’ll still be paid. Go back to work.” Menzies told him and he said, “I never want you to do that again.” He said, “Otherwise, I’ll take your commission off you,” because he said, “I’ve got to beat the unions. I’ll get too strong. And I’ll lose the election.” See? Money again.  
Malcolm Roberts:Whereas Hudson, what he wanted to do was fix the workers problems so they just get back to work productively.  
John McRae:Yes, and they did. And by the way, all the big mob come out from America, Utah Mining, and all that. And the other mob and from England and everything else. And they thought we rode kangaroos and all this business here, and we have no chance on doing tunnelling and all this has never been done in Australia before. Four blokes come down from Queensland, their name was Feis. They broke all the tunnelling records and they built 25% of the Snowy, they built the largest earth and rock fill dam ever.  
Malcolm Roberts:And they said it was impossible to build an earth and filled dam that big. And yet they did it.  
John McRae:They did it. It was all done. This is Australian initiative. Look, I could go on for hours with what Australia’s done with inventions and how it’s benefited the world.  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell us about a few.  
John McRae:That is the hardest concrete in the world down there, Malcolm. The hardest. And I said to William Hudson, I was fortunate enough to meet him. A lot of people can meet him, when they had tools, you could go and talk to him. He said, “It was pretty simple. We had the best people.” And I said, “But how did you work out the mixtures?” Because if they had to make their own sand. Now, that sounds funny, doesn’t it? They had to make their own sand. Now, I’ll tell you how they did it. They got sandstone and you grind it up. But in sandstone, there’s impurities like silica and mud and you can’t mix with it because it goes like jelly.  
 So that had to be extracted, which they did. I don’t know how they did it, but they did it. And then they’d have to be mixed. Now, when they were mixing it, they mixed it with hot ice and ice. And they put other additives in it. But the granite and stuff they used there, they worked out what aggregate would be the best. And that’s how they did the formula, working out the earth and rock fill dam and that concrete is the hardest concrete in the world and it made Australia world leaders in concrete and highway engineering and things we’ve done with highway engineering and concrete lead the world.  
 I ask people, “Where’s the largest concrete span bridge in the world?” Because they got all the information from the Snowy, how they mix concrete. 25 countries, they tell you. I said, “You don’t even might know what you’re talking about. It’s in Sydney, called the Gladesville Bridge.” At that time it was built, it was the largest concrete span bridge, reason being, they got empirical knowledge and statistic and science from the Snowy, which they got when they did the Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline doing the… So, it keeps revolving along, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Can I share a story with you, John? I’m reluctant to interrupt you because you’ve just got so much. But when I was in America, I travelled through all 50 states. I was fascinated by the country and I came across a story about the development of their early space exploration. And John Kennedy had just become the president in 1960. And he commissioned NASA to do a study on the chances of getting a man to the moon and back safely by the end of the decade. In other words, by 1969. And I’ll always remember this, I bought a poster of it. It’s in every office I’ve ever worked in. I carry it with me. The result from NASA’s assessment of the possibility of getting a man on the moon and back again within nine years, wasn’t yes, it wasn’t no, it was these words: We have a sporting chance. And with that, and I’m getting a little bit teary here, John F. Kennedy said, “We go to the moon.”  
 And then you think about the technology that’s come out of that from electronic ignitions, from medicine-  
John McRae:Everything.  
Malcolm Roberts:So many things, even Velcro. I mean, so many things.  
John McRae:Yeah.  
Malcolm Roberts:And what you are saying to me, John, is that we had people like John F. Kennedy in this country who had vision, people like McKell, people like Connor. And they said, “Get out of my way and let me get on with the job.” And as a result of that, they had so much technology developed in this country that then gave us our steel industry, our concrete industry, so many opportunities and what we’ve got now, we’ve got this whole thing smashed.  
John McRae:Well, the reason being is because people haven’t had the privilege that I’ve had or ignorant and don’t want to do it. See, when I wasn’t allowed to go to school or to go to the pictures.  
Malcolm Roberts:Oh, that’s right. You had polio with your mother. Yes.  
John McRae:I went to older people and I’d ask questions and that’s what I do all my life, ask questions.  
Malcolm Roberts:Can I just interrupt there for a minute? Just want to interrupt there. I want to just tell the listeners here while they’re sitting at home or in their cars or at the picnic, wherever they are, that John is not exaggerating a bit here. I’ve watched this man. He treats people with enormous respect. If he disagrees, he’ll let you know. But he walks up to people and he takes an engaging interest. Doesn’t sacrifice his principles, his morals. He just takes an imbibing interest and people share things with John. That’s why he’s become such a magnet for facts and data. Keep going, John. I just had to share that with you. You’re you’re so impressive, the way you deal with people.  
John McRae:So I would go and ask him things. And everyone used to say to me, “John, look after your pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.” And the director of one of joints, the directors at the glassworks in Sydney, it’s Sydney in Maude Park, largest glassworks in the Southern hemisphere. He said, “Never denounce anyone.” Even the bloke sweeping the street can give you information and tell you something that you don’t know. And I’ve lived by that. When I was growing up, I’d go into engineering, “Why do you do this? Why do you do that?” I was taught how to read a micrometre at the age of 11. By 13 or 14, I knew how to do dynamic balancing. My mate’s father was an engineer, I’ll tell you his name. And-  
Malcolm Roberts:Dynamic balancing of wheels?  
John McRae:I beg your pardon?  
Malcolm Roberts:Dynamic balancing of wheels, lathes?  
John McRae:That’s nothing. Wheels are nothing. No armatures in motors and things like that.  
Malcolm Roberts:Right, thank you. So complex stuff by the time. So complex stuff by the time you were 13?  
John McRae:Yeah, I could work lathes and everything. I helped the bloke build a speedway engine. At 14, I did all the rough turning and I used to, I asked questions, if I go somewhere… Look, this is off the track. I went down to Stéphanoise and I used to go to Shepherd a lot. And I went to visit, [inaudible] They lovely people, these Italians. And they’d telling me different things. They going over the machines, breaking down. I invented this machine that could extract eight types of oil out of the apricot kernel, eight types of oil and one oil can harness one type of cancer a bit.  
 Guess what happened? John Howard sold it to Pakistan. So, we invented this machine. You should have seen it. Unbelievable. So they’re the sort of things, and I’d say, Charlie Bennett taught us dynamic balancing, when you’re balancing an armature… See I’m going from subject to subject.  
 When you’re balancing armature, if you turn it over and balance one end and then balance the other, it’s out of balance again, because you’ve got to keep the harmonics in unison. No one was doing dynamic balancing this way. He invented a machine that could balance the armature at both ends at the one time. And he balanced thousands. And he did it for the army, the Navy, the Heart Research and everything. We learned all that.  
 The rolls in the paper mills, in the newspaper bill, they get out about… He rectified that for them. How does that work, Charlie? How does this work? I worked on overhead valve at T Model Ford Motors. How does this work? How does that work? How does something else work? And I that’s how I got knowledge, but I’ve been blessed with a memory and I’ve been told that come from polio, but I was blessed with the encouragement of my mother.  
 My father was a violent, alcoholic gambler, so that didn’t give me much of an opportunity in life. So, that’s how I’ve learned things. And I appreciate, and when I see someone like Ian Plimer, I pull him up and I’d ask him a heap of questions. And that had enhanced my knowledge. And that’s what people have got to, interaction. From interaction, you get reaction. From reaction, you get action. And that’s what we’ve got to get. And we’ve got all the knowledge in this country here. I could name a few of the great Australians, what they’ve done, that settled the world on their heels. They couldn’t believe it. And then the medical inventions that we’ve had here. Hugh Victor McKay invented the wheat stripper with Headlie Taylor, feed the world, everything. I could just rattle them all off for you. And I knew Jack Brabham and I’ve even got a photo of myself sitting in the car. And that was a handmade motor in his car.  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell us, tell us more about Brabham because the likes of him has never been seen before and probably will never be seen in motor sport.  
John McRae:Never, never, never. There’s been no one ever. No one ever won the World Driver’s Championship and the Manufacturer’s Championship. In the car they helped build, mate, designed himself and raced himself. Now you’ve got to take into consideration, Australia back then, we were only making the whole motor car. So we’ve got to go up against the world of finesse, Mercedes, Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Audi, Jaguar, Honda, Lago-Talbot, Elvis, Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Renault, Citroen, Peugeot, all European. And how do they get their success? On Grand Prix racing. And they built on that Ferrari win. Michael Schumacher and Pangio, driving the 250F Maserati that Pangio drove and everything like that.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, Brabham’s up against the world?  
John McRae:He’s up against it. And they said, “Where did this billy cart come from? From Australia? It’s got a V8 motor. Where does this the local yokel come from?” The same bloke went to American in Indianapolis with a car under powered and showed him a new trick over there with a rear engine car. They’ve never seen a rear engine car before. And it was underpowered and still finished ninth. Other blokes with their big Offenhausers and everything else. Going back to that motor, when he started in the Speedway, Offenhauser was built especially for… That was a racing engine, especially for the Indianapolis. And they built a smaller motor for Speedway. Now, the Americans come out here with the most beautiful looking cars you’d ever see because all our cars were made out of junkyards and bits and pieces.  
 And this car of his was a little, air cooled motor, a Harley Davidson crank case off a motor bike and you build the rest yourself and it beat the Offenhausers. With that technology and his driving ability, he then transferred that into his car racing thing and with the help of the two Australians, Ozzy and Ronnie [Toranecko] another bloke, Ronnie Ward and Repco of Australia. They designed the engine off the 308 Holden Motor aluminium, designed their own heads and everything else. What did he do? Blew them to pieces. And they said it could never be done. Same as Ken Warby. They said they’ll never, never-.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, who was Ken Warby? [crosstalk] Ken Warby’s World Water Speed Record.  
John McRae:Yeah, 1977. It hasn’t been broken ever since.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, so the World Water Speed Record still stands and it’s held by an Australian?  
John McRae:Yes. And he put the first wind curl on a boat. Then Ben Lexcen then copied it, but hang on, here’s the clincher. He had the Naval apprentices from the Naval College, and University of New South Wales, helping him with technology, science, exactly what you’re speaking about with Ian Plimer. And the science they relied on was the temperature of the water, the atmospheric pressure and everything else when they went for the world record. He still said his only chance his son’s going to have an attempt on it in May. Now, Brabham set a world record with a car, never been equaled, built in Australia. Anywhere else in the world, they had to build an industry around it. But what do we do here? Give it away. Same with what they’ve done with all our minerals.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, speaking of giving away industries, tell me about Sydney. I mean, we drove one night and you took me through an area where we had factories after factories, after factories. And we had seafood canneries and fish canneries in Sydney and all of that’s gone.  
John McRae:Well, look, I showed where the glassworks were, that was Georgian’s bit. That was the biggest glassworks in the Southern Hemisphere. There was Crown Crystal. In that area where I took you, there were seven companies making setda lathes, drill shapers and things, and couple of turret lathes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Hang on, hang on. For people to understand, their fundamental for metal working, which is fundamental to manufacturing machinery, fundamental to making any kind of machinery. And we had all of that technology. In fact, some of our technology was world leading, wasn’t it?  
John McRae:Of course, it was. Yeah. Malcolm, before we go any further. Nothing, you’ve got, you clothes, your car, your cooking, utensils, anything has got to be made… Jigs have got to be made by a tool maker. He’s the man, the upper echelon machine in engineering. And if we can’t make the jigs, you’ve got nothing. And we had all that here. There was seven, there was seven lathes. I can name them for you if you want. Seven lathe manufacturers and machinery manufacturers in that area where I showed you. After the war, all those machinery places were working 24-7, supplying Europe and everywhere else to rehabilitate them. When we could go out near Mascot, Botany, up that way, there was all the cotton mills, the tanneries, the woollen mills and working 24-7. We made milking machines. We made shearing machines. We made wall presses. We made everything.  
 Canneries making the tins, the stuff to go in for the canning fruit. We exported all that. We had all that, but that all went by the wayside when we started to lump ourself in with the United Nations. And we signed all these agreements, especially the Lima Declaration. But we still have, all we’ve got to do is get leadership of honesty and morals and with Botany the attitude, we have done it, can do it and will do it. And all we’ve got to do is get water, forget all of this global business, because there’s no country in the world that can produce rural produce 365 days of the year of every variety, every variation, and of every thing you need, no one. They built the Ord River, there’s more tonnes of rice coming out there than what Japan can do with their special rice for their religious ceremonies.  
 We’ve got mangoes growing up there. They get five or $6 a head, a piece of fruit. We get more tonnes per wheat off our ground than anyone else in the world. No one can grow the variation of Barley wheat, corn, that we can. No one, because the Northern hemisphere is constrained by weather constraints. And we are not here. All we need is the power. And the power is water. We’ve got the place, the farmer, we’ve got the greatest farmers in the world, they know that. Look, they brought the sheep in from the Marino. We get more yield per pound per sheep than what they get. Same as the Hereford cows, the Aberdeen Angus. We get more here. There’s a bloke up there in Queensland, Peter Hughes, he’s got 190,000 breeding Wagyu cows, Japan can’t get over how he’s succeeded. And that’s one of their breeds.  
 He’s worked out how to cross breed them. Australian ingenuity, Australian ability, we’ve got them here. We’ve got the scientists. We’ve got every… We’ve got the best machinists. We’ve got the best of everything. Look at the bloke that built our machine gun. Saved Australian up the Owen Stanley Ranges, 1,500 raw recruits went up with the eight and nine divvy and drove back 7,000 jungle hardened Japanese. Why? Because they had the will to win. They had the machine gun. They had what we built. We built aeroplanes  here during the war. Even in the fifties, we built Sabre jets for the Korean War. And they tell you, we can’t do things here.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, John, Australia has a history of punching well above our weight when it comes to war, comes to industry, comes to inventions, comes to sport, comes to arts, comes to science. We’re punching way above our weight. What the hell happened?  
John McRae:What the hell happened? Because follow the money. Follow the money. See, that’s what people have got to understand. Banks are credit creators and asset strippers. And boy, we’ve got to do this and we’ve got to get into the global economy. We don’t have to get into anything. We’re the only totally self-sufficient country in the world, put a moat round us. And we could trade with one another and live.  
Malcolm Roberts:That’s a really important point I want to jump all over for a minute there, John, because Australia was independent. We could stand on our own. We could make our own armaments. We could make our own ammunitions. We could make our own everything, everything. And yet what happens now, is we are dependent on other countries. [crosstalk] Our politicians have fallen for this crap that says we must be interdependent. That was the con job to get the UN agreement signed, which you can talk about, the Lima Declaration, the Rio Declaration, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris agreement. All of these declarations and agreements have undermined us. We are no longer independent. We are now dependent because when you are interdependent, you depend on someone else which makes you dependent. We’ve lost our independence as sovereignty, our economic sovereignty, our manufacturing sovereignty, our economic security. Because politicians in this country have sold our soul.  
John McRae:They have, Malcolm. By the way, I should have included this. We built that pipeline for 1896 to 1903. After that, we achieved the greatest achievement, can’t be equaled. The longest railway line in the world from 1912 to 1917 from South Australia over to West Australia, Northam 2,500,000 railway slip, hand cut.  
Malcolm Roberts:2 million?  
John McRae:140,000 tonne of rail line, all hand laid. Start at one end, start at the other, and they said they won’t meet. It wasn’t even a half inch out. On the 17th of the 10th, 1917, the last secure inch spike on the place that held the dam was put in. Five days later, the train arrived in Western Australia. They never even put a test run on it. They tell you we can’t do it. We built all the trams in Sydney for the tram service in Sydney, it was the largest tram network in the world. We built 2,800 trams. We built the buses and everything else. We built the ferries. We’ve done everything.  
 Now we’ve got to buy more off China and they’re not worth three and six pence, they can’t ever be used. And they tell you we can’t do things. I’ve got a history of stuff. I wish I could get a chance to debate some of these wombats because I’d blow up the pieces, because we’ve got the greatest people with the greatest initiative. And we’ve got the greatest will to win and achieve. All we need is the opportunity to exhibit it.  
Malcolm Roberts:Well said, well said, John McRae. Well said. What we’ve got is we’ve got the people. We’ve got the resources. We’ve got the energy resources, the metal resources, the climate resources, the soil resources, the water resources. What we have is huge potential. We have huge opportunity. We have got the world’s biggest market on our doorstep to the north. And what we’ve got is parliaments that have abandoned the people in favour of UN agreements, seeded our sovereignty. The parliaments no longer work for this country. John, I’m convinced of that. The state and federal parliament have abandoned the people. How do we get them back to serving the country?  
John McRae:For a start, we’ve got to fix up our voting system and our taxation system and our voting system is rigged so that you can tell lies and fraudulent. The best, we could go into that another day. But here’s what we did with our industries. Now, not everyone signed this Lima Declaration. That was in 1975. Whitlam was the bloke that in inaugurated Malcolm Fraser. Malcolm Fraser ratified it in 76.  
Malcolm Roberts:Okay, John, we’ve got one minute to go.  
John McRae:Okay. This is Section 35, that Australia transfer technical and financial resources, as well as capital goods to accelerate industrialization of underdeveloped countries. As Ian Plimer said, “All they do is go into those other countries and rape and build, then walk off.”  
Malcolm Roberts:So basically, the UN’s Lima Declaration that Whitlam signed as Labour prime minister in 1975, and that the liberal national’s prime minister, Malcolm Fraser ratified the following year 76, basically said, “Take our technology, take our leadership, take our manufacturing prowess and set it up overseas and gut our country.”  
John McRae:Well, the bottom line of that is, Malcolm, liberal and labour, it’s either Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber.  
Malcolm Roberts:And we might just leave it on that because the core message, John, you’ve just told me the answer, and we’ll explore that. I’m going to have you back. We’re going to explore that is fix the taxation system that favours foreign countries’ companies at the moment and fix the voting system. So this is Senator Malcolm Roberts. I remind you how I opened the first show this morning. I am staunchly pro-human. I am proud to be of service to you. Remind you, be human, be proud, be loving, care, listen, and appreciate. Thank you very much, John. We’ll have you back anytime. Thank you very much. And thank you for having us as guests in your living room, car, factory, wherever you are today. Thank you so much for listening.  
John McRae:Thank you, Malcolm.  
/by

No one has the evidence – Climate Urgency

,

Father of the Senate Ian Macdonald said there has never been a debate on climate science, and he’s correct.

Transcript

Contradictions erupt and abound in climate and energy policies, because no politician has ever provided the logical scientific points as evidence.

John Howard’s government introduced the Renewable Energy Target and stole farmers’ property rights to use their property. Yet, six years after being booted from office, he confessed in London in 2013 that on climate science he was agnostic. He had no science to support what has become the gutting of our electricity sector and our productive capacity.

In 2016, father of the Senate Ian Macdonald said there has never been a debate on climate science, and he’s correct. Two months ago 10 federal politicians confirmed in writing to me that they have never been provided with the scientific evidence. I’ll name those people; they showed integrity and courage. In August last year, 19 federal politicians advocating climate alarm and climate policies failed to provide me with the scientific evidence. I’ll name them too.

In 2007 and 2008, Kevin Rudd claimed that 4,000 scientists supported the claim that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. The UN climate body’s own data shows that only five endorsed the claim, and there’s doubt they were even scientists. Mathias Cormann, instead of providing evidence as requested many times, says, ‘We must meet global obligations’—to the same organisations that Prime Minister Morrison rightly describes as ‘unelected international bureaucrats’.

My own freedom of information requests and Parliamentary Library searches show that no evidence has ever been given to members of parliament—Senate and House of Representatives—that would require these policies. Yet both the Labor-Greens coalition and the Liberal-Nationals coalition have climate and energy policies that are not based on empirical scientific evidence. Come clean with the people of Australia. Unshackle our nation! Give the people a go. Restore freedom.

/by

The Great Climate Change Debate

,

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

Transcript

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

G’day, Marcus.

Hi.

G’day, Mark.

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

Yep.

Sounds good.

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

Okay.

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

Yup, we’re ready.

Yeah.

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

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

One minute left.

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

20 seconds.

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

10.

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

Three.

Themselves. No one is able to

Two. provide that evidence. No one.

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

Just before I start-

Oh god.

on time.

Yes.

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

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

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

All right.

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

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

One minute. One minute.

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

30 seconds.

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

10.

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

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

I am, Marcus.

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

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

One minute. One minute, Malcolm.

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

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

10.

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

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

Bored.

Bored!

I’ve heard it all before.

Oh really? Okay.

So start the clock.

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

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

Yeah.

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

One minute.

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

30.

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

10.

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

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

Do you recycle, Malcolm?

Yeah, I recycle.

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

That’s right, and-

Yay!

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

Hang on.

Human production cannot-

We’re burning so much-

And does not change the-

fossil fuel we’re changing-

Level of carbon dioxide-

The balance.

In the atmosphere.

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

Again what?

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

I believe in recycling and-

Yeah.

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

All right, Mark?

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

Hang on, lets be nice.

We need more carbon dioxide.

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

All right.

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

I’ll finish up with this.

Yeah?

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

Yeah.

Millions of years.

All right, Malcolm?

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

All right, Mark? There is nothing unusual happening.

Mark?

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

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

Mark himself has failed to provide the evidence.

But there is evidence there.

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

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

Yeah.

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

All right.

It was greater.

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

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

All right.

than what it usually was. Five degrees!

Malcolm, last 30 seconds please.

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

All right.

We need to respect nature, not vilify nature.

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

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

All right.

Is to understand-

Yes.

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

All right, guys.

No one has done that anywhere in the world.

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

/18 Comments/by

COP26 a Cop Out

,

Well it’s the same old story with Glasgow. Billionaires are going to fly their fuel guzzling private jets to a lavish party to declare you’re not allowed to run your two stroke motor. It’s all a scam designed to transfer your money to their pockets.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts joins us every Thursday. Good day, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul]

All right, thank you. I think we know who’s behind, perhaps, some of the, I’m gonna word this very carefully. Recoveries, if you like, in the expense of Australia spending time at the COP26. I’ve been sent a whole stack of photos of Santos billboards. I mean, I don’t get it. Why is Santos, a fossil fuel company, being promoted by the Australian government at COP26? It’s outrageous.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’ve got a deeper question for you.

[Marcus Paul]

No, no, hang on. Can you answer that though? I just–

[Malcolm Roberts]

I don’t know, Marcus. I honestly don’t know.

[Marcus Paul]

Can you ask next time you’re in the–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

Find out for me because I just think it’s ridiculous.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, yeah, but what’s even more ridiculous is there’s no resolution at Glasgow, which doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s as I thought it would be because the biggest hydrocarbon users and the biggest producers of carbon dioxide in the world are either not there or telling Joe Biden and Co. to stick it. In fact, Joe Biden’s own country and his own party, the Democrats in America are laughing at him and saying, we are not signing this mate, go away. That’s the state of West Virginia. Entirely democratic state. Powerfully democratic state saying, go to hell Joe. And so we’ve got China not turning up. We’ve got India not turning up, and India saying they won’t do anything until 2070. We’ve got Brazil, Russia, South Korea, the largest producers of carbon dioxide in the world saying, go to hell. Now, well, you got to ask that question, Marcus. I know you’re a lefty, but you gotta ask the question. Why no resolution? I’ll tell you why. There is no data underpinning this. It is a scam. There is no objectivity. If there was data, Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Scott Morrison would all say, here it is. Go and do something about it. And everyone would say, God, he’s got a good question. Let’s go and do it. Now listen. China is the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide. It’s saying, go away. We’re not gonna wreck our economy for this rubbish. There’s no science behind it. France is saying Australia, you must do something. You must save the planet. You must fulfil your responsibility. France is powered by nuclear energy. It is not gonna have anything to lose. This is going to destroy our country because the Paris agreement, there was no agreement. It was a scam and the countries could not resolve anything. And what they agreed on was to go away and come back with your own commitments. We came back with a commitment under Malcolm Turnbull to destroy our economy. China said, go to hell. America pulled out of it under Trump. What we’ve got is a massive scam here. And by the way, have you still not found anyone to debate me?

[Marcus Paul]

Hang on, hang on. Before I get to that–

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m still waiting.

[Marcus Paul]

I know. You say Glasgow has been a fizzer with no deal. It showcases the hypocrisy, deceit, theft and government’s lack of integrity and accountability on this. You talk again that no one has the evidence and all the rest of it. And maybe that’s true. Maybe that’s true. But again, I come back to my question. What are Santos doing there on billboards?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, there are many big question need to be asked about this. You can ask that question about Santos, and I’ll be happy to ask that question. It’s Santos looking after it’s own interests, but what about the people putting up lies about climate and costing the human race to pay for this rubbish? It’s a massive fraud to take money off the people. Look, you’ve got billionaires screaming in on their private jets. We’ve got 25,000 people jetting in from all over the world.

[Marcus Paul]

255 private planes, Malcolm. 250 private jet airlines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I read the figures were 400 at the damn thing.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, there you go, even more.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, and so what we’ve got is no scientific evidence. We’ve got huge costs. No impact whatsoever from any agreement that Australia will sign. We’ve got other people laughing at us. We’ve got the major producers of carbon dioxide, China, South Korea, Russia, Brazil, India, doing nothing and the poor yet again, will pay the price for the rich to get richer. We’ve got Malcolm Turnbull. Tim Flannery, who’s the clown climate scientist. We’ve got Tim Flannery, and we’ve got the millionaires like Twiggy Forrest jetting in there because Twiggy Forrest and other billionaires are the ones making money or looking to make money out of this. And we will be paying for it. The average bloke in this country will be paying for it. And the sheer hypocrisy, the sheer hypocrisy of what’s going on, and people are starting to wake up. It is absolutely disgraceful.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, as well as stealing farmers’ property rights, government climate policies, you say have destroyed the electricity sector taking us from the world’s cheapest to the most expensive. It’s gutted manufacturing and added, as you and I have mentioned many times, $1,300 per year to average households’ electricity bills.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes, but you know there’s a been a very good development. Last year in 2020 in August, I invited 19 politicians who have been calling for cuts to carbon dioxide from human activity in Australia, prominent politicians, all federal. I asked them for their evidence. Not one provided me with any evidence, not one. Four replied. One of them thought he presented the science. I ripped it to shreds. That was Trent Zimmerman. Ripped it to shreds. He did not come back. Morison, Littleproud. And Karen Andrews replied with nonsense, absolute nonsense. And that is just not acceptable. That justifies the fact that there’s no evidence. Now, but there is some hope. I also invited 10 people to provide me with the evidence, and they came back and they said, there has never been presented any such evidence to them in parliament or to their parties. And I’ll read out the names of these people because they have shown integrity and they are showing courage. Lew O’Brien, National Party. Craig Kelly, then a liberal, now no longer a liberal. Kevin Andrews, a liberal. Senator Eric Abetz, a liberal. George Christensen, a National. Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, from your state, New South Wales, a strong liberal. Bob Katter, Katter Australia Party. Senator Pauline Hanson. Senator Gerard Rennick, a liberal. I also got one Labor MP, a Senator actually, who promised to send me the article, send me his response saying that he’s never been given any evidence, but he withdrew at the last minute because I’m guessing he was afraid of the backlash. What we’ve got is we’ve got these senators, these MPs, willing to state in public that they have never, ever been given any evidence from their party nor from the parliament. And I just remind you too, that John Howard, who brought in, disgusting government, brought in these policies that are now gutting our country, stole farmer’s property rights, went around the constitution to do it and he has admitted six years after he got the boot from Bennelong and the prime ministership, he admitted that on the topic of climate science, he is agnostic. In other words, he’s got no science. All of this was started by the John Howard government. And that is what they did not have the science, they’ve admitted it. The father of the Senate, Ian McDonald at the time in 2016, stood up in December, 2016, looked across the chamber at me and said, I don’t always agree with Senator Roberts, but I have to give him the credit for starting the debate on climate science that this parliament has never had. Marcus, there is no evidence for any of this crap. None of what-so-ever.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, why then Malcolm, is nobody seemingly listening to you and those aforementioned politicians that you’ve just summarised for us?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Because parliaments are no longer accountable to the people. Parliaments serve the parties. Parliament serve the party donors. And we have got to get back to the parliament serving the country, holding parliaments accountable. We have a bunch of sheep in parliament. We have gutless, ignorant, insecure, dishonest people representing the country. That’s the bottom line. We have got to change parliament, get the minor parties into parliament, get some independents in the parliament and hold the major parties accountable. We have got to change parliament. People have got to stop voting for the same old donkeys and the labor, liberal, greens, national parties.

[Marcus Paul]

All right. Just before I let you go, we know that diplomacy is important on a global scale for a whole range of reasons. Just taking the climate debate out of it, but you know, the defence. What do you make of the current spat between Australia and France?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Again, Marcus, it’s not based on evidence. It’s not based on solid data. It’s just been a game. Greg Sheridan, who I’ve got to some respect for who writes in the Australian. I know it’s News Corp and you don’t go with the News Corp.

[Marcus Paul]

Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So do I, so do I, mate. I agree with you, but Greg Sheridan writes occasionally good articles.

[Marcus Paul]

Don’t be like that. Don’t be like that. When you say I don’t go with News Corp, I just think they’re a little bias, that’s all. I mean–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, yeah, they are in some ways. Every paper has it’s bias.

[Marcus Paul]

But we all are. That’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And anyway, Greg Sheridan points out that this submarine issue goes from one government to the next. It’s never based on sound data. It’s just an emotional ploy to get people in to think that we’re doing the right thing for security. And the government, and he said he bets that they will never ever build a submarine in this country. He bets that there’ll never be a proper submarine fleet that we can call our own. He bets that that’ll just be passed from one government to the next. And the reason that happens is that there’s no data driving decisions. Decisions in parliament are opinion-based, ideologically based rather than databased. We are not in parliament in this country under labor, liberal, nationals and greens. People are making decisions based on ideology, emotions, grabbing headlines, getting votes rather than what the people need. We have got to change parliament.

[Marcus Paul]

Thank you, Malcolm. Appreciate it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks mate.

[Marcus Paul]

Have a good day, there he is. One Nations, Senator Malcolm, Robert.

/4 Comments/by

Letter to the Leaders: The Climate Change Scam

Open Letter to Leaders

Dear Messrs Morrison, Joyce, Albanese and Bandt

Firstly, I acknowledge former Senator Arthur Sinodinos as Minister for Science and his predecessor Hon. Greg Hunt MP who made possible my cross-examination of government agencies on climate science.

Forty-one years after the United Nations (UN) held its first climate conference in Villach, Austria and thirty-three years after formation of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC), the issue of global warming, as it was first known and later became climate change, is still tearing apart the coalition, driving Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon out of parliament and, after turning over eight party leaders, hot dispute continues to rage.

Yet if there was solid scientific data underpinning the policies it would have been resolved long ago.

Independent economist and former First Assistant Commissioner in the Productivity Commission, Dr Alan Moran, estimates the cost of climate policies and consequent renewables policies averages

$1,300 per household each year, which with Australia’s mean income at just $49,000, is an unbearable burden on families. The cost to our nation each year is $13 billion and the aggregate economy wide costs are double that. These figures cannot be sensibly refuted since they are sourced in state and federal government budget papers and reports.

Dr Alan Moran Report – The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables

This report’s Executive Summary is Attachment 1 hereto.

Australia is spending some $19 billion a year in subsidies and subsidised private investment in wind and solar, close to 15 per cent of the private non-dwelling investment. Our country has the world’s highest per capita cost of subsidies for wind and solar, double that of the second highest nation.

Beware a blind charge to net-zero emissions

Another far greater cost has been the Howard-Anderson federal Liberal-National government taking farmers rights to use the land they paid for and own. It did so via the state governments in order for the Commonwealth to avoid paying just terms compensation under our constitution’s Section 51, Clause 31, an amount federal MPs have reportedly estimated to be around $100-200 billion. This uncompensated theft is documented to have been done so that the Howard-Anderson government could comply with the UN’s Kyoto Protocol. It is now a large component of our country’s compliance with the UN Paris “Agreement”.

http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/Hansard-1_Beattie.pdf

Despite the community’s use of this sacrifice for the supposed “community good” the community did not pay for it. Instead, farmers paid for the lot.

An additional cost is the loss of jobs due to wind and solar because studies show that for each wind and solar job, 2.3 jobs are lost in the unsubsidised real economy’s productive sector. According to the Institute for Public Affairs, over the last decade for every new solar and wind job created, there were five manufacturing jobs destroyed.

The total direct cost of climate and energy policies to our economy is in the range of many hundreds of billions of dollars. Combined with inefficiencies and lost opportunity, costs will be in the order of trillions of dollars.

Upon entering the Senate my first action was to invite the Commonwealth Scientific and Industry Organisation (CSIRO) to present its data justifying the claim to cut carbon dioxide produced from human activity. Many politicians have said inside and outside parliament that they rely on advice from CSIRO for their position and policy on climate.

In total I have had three personal presentations from CSIRO, the last being at CSIRO’s request. This has been supplemented with information prised from Senate Estimates hearings.

Throughout this process, including Senate Estimates hearings, I insisted on the CSIRO presenting “logical scientific points”, being the empirical scientific data as evidence within a logical scientific framework proving cause and effect. That is, quantifying the specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate and climate factors such as atmospheric temperature, rainfall, drought and storms. I have always insisted on getting the specific location of the empirical scientific data and the location of the logical scientific framework proving cause-and-effect because this combination is what decides science.

Importantly, it is the only basis for honest, effective, efficient, sound, sustainable policy.

As a duly elected representative of the people and as a servant to the people, I see it as our responsibility to ensure fairness and integrity for our constituents. It is our role as parliamentarians representing the people to hold governments accountable on behalf of taxpayers and all constituents. I hope that you are all in agreement with this approach, the scientific approach.

In addition to seeing my responsibility as one of ensuring that policies are based on solid objective logical scientific points, it is my duty and my aims to:

  • Protect freedom
  • Protect our natural environment
  • Restore scientific integrity vital for sound and sustainable policy
  • Protect our economy and security
  • Protect the human spirit: ending unfounded climate fear and guilt while restoring people’s universal connection with nature

It is my duty, on behalf of our constituents, to hold you accountable to the Australian people who pay the price directly and indirectly for your claims and policies. That is this letter’s purpose.

1.        Politicians admit and/or show they have no scientific evidence as proof carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut

As Prime Minister from 1996 through 2007, John Howard was responsible for introducing the Renewable Energy Target (RET) subsidising wind and solar. Late last year he expressed regrets for introducing the RET.

He was the first leader of a major federal party to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as policy. Subsequently Tony Abbott later correctly labelled ETS’s as Carbon (Dioxide) Taxes.

Despite these initiatives and the Howard-Anderson Liberal-National government’s deceitful stealing of farmers’ rights to use their land, on 6 November 2013, six years after being dumped from office, John Howard advised a British global sceptic think tank that on climate science he is agnostic. He admitted he did not have the science to back his government’s climate actions.

On 21 November 2016, Senator Ian Macdonald, the Father of the Senate, looked across at me in the chamber and thanked me for starting the debate on climate science that he said had never been held in our parliament. Although I have tried to have that debate, the parliament has still never debated climate science despite that being the claimed basis for your climate and renewable energy policies.

Many Senators and MPs have privately confided in me that they do not believe there is any scientific basis for your climate and renewable energy policies. This includes members of the Liberal, Labor and National parties and indeed many have enthusiastically encouraged me to keep holding parliament accountable on climate science.

Attachment 2 contains copies of letters from MPs and Senators with the courage and integrity to answer my request for evidence and in doing so, they confirm that they have never been presented with empirical scientific evidence quantifying the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate.

Additionally, I wrote to senators and MPs who have claimed that carbon dioxide from human activity is a problem and needs to be cut, asking that they “provide the specific location of the empirical scientific data within a causal framework proving that carbon dioxide from HUMAN activity is a danger, or pending danger, or threat and needs to be cut. Please also provide the specific scientific publication(s) title(s), authors’ names and page numbers”.

Attachment 3 contains a list of Members of Parliament to whom I wrote together with their replies. All failed to provide the scientific evidence.

The four who replied, including you Prime Minister Morrison, showed a disturbing ignorance of science and of the basis for honest, sound policy.

Kevin Rudd is another Prime Minister who showed complete ignorance of science as he turbo-charged the Howard-Anderson destruction of energy policy claiming that 4,000 scientists in white lab coats had provided the evidence in the UN IPCC’s 2007 science report. In correspondence with him in 2008

I pointed to the UN IPCC’s own data on the number of reviewers who endorsed the claim about human carbon dioxide causing warming and needing to be cut: it was just five, and there’s doubt they were scientists.

These numbers cannot be sensibly refuted because they are from the UN IPCC’s review of chapter nine in its 2007 report, being the sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to carbon dioxide from human activity. Additionally, there is no empirical scientific evidence proving causation in that chapter, nor in the other sole chapters making that claim in the UN IPCC’s 2001 and 2013 reports nor, from preliminary checks, in the 2021 report.

Not only did Mr Rudd mislead the people about the numbers of academics involved, he implied that science is a popularity contest, a game of consensus. The arbiter of science is not consensus. Rather, it is the provision of objective empirical evidence quantifying cause-and-effect. He debased science and misled Australia and parliament.

Turning to the Greens: for decades and continuing today, the Greens mislead people when they peddle emotional stories, use pictures of cuddly koalas, and/or invoke fear and guilt instead of science. Eleven years ago, on 10 October 2010, I was a joint panelist with Senator Larissa Waters in a Brisbane forum on climate. As a fellow panelist I challenged her to a debate on the empirical scientific evidence and on the corruption of climate “science”. She jumped to her feet to say she would not debate me. As did the WWF Climate Change Manager, Kelly Caught, who was on the panel with us.

On Monday 9 September 2019 I challenged Senator Di Natali, the Greens Senate Leader at the time, and Senator Waters to provide the empirical scientific evidence and to debate me. Both failed to do so. Today is Day 779 without their response despite my frequent reminders, calls and challenges.

During the 2016 election I challenged Senator Waters and Mr Mark Butler, then Labor spokesman on climate, to the same challenge when they attended a public forum together.

Senator Waters is a lawyer and should know what constitutes evidence. Yet, instead of providing evidence, her senate claims, exaggerations and omissions repeatedly misrepresent science, nature, climate and humanity. Emotion is not scientific evidence.

Tellingly, not one Greens parliamentarian has shown any interest in, or desire to understand the empirical scientific data on climate and all prefer to rely on emotional stories and misrepresentations of climate and nature. The Greens show enormous disrespect for our universe, for nature, for our planet, for our parliament and for all Australians.

In response to my requests, Senator Matthias Cormann as leader of the government in the Senate, repeatedly failed to provide the empirical scientific evidence needed to justify the government’s climate and energy policies and often justified his government’s policy with his claim that we need to fulfil our obligations to foreign organisations. Now as head of the OECD’s “unaccountable international bureaucracy”, to use Prime Minister’s Morrison’s term, Matthias Cormann is pushing Australia into agreeing to yet another UN campaign.

His replacement as the government’s Senate leader, Senator Birmingham, embarrassed the government again when on Wednesday 20 and Thursday 21 of this month, the government initially refused to release modelling of the future use of hydrocarbon fuels on which it claimed it had based its 2050 Net Zero policy. Clearly that was in accordance with the government’s tactic to hide the modelling and the assumptions on which that modelling is based. A casualty of the climate wars is the loss of truth and the loss of accountability.

Now we learn that you, Prime Minister Morrison, see the UN’s 2050 Net Zero campaign as necessary to fulfil commitments to President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The actions of Senator Matt Canavan and Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce provide an interesting insight. Prior to entering parliament, I corresponded with both when Mr Joyce was a Queensland Senator and Matt Canavan was his Chief of Staff. I spoke with Matt Canavan. Both were clearly sceptical that carbon dioxide from human activity was affecting climate and Senator Joyce was arguably the most effective sceptical speaker in Australia’s parliament.

Later, when Tony Windsor threatened Mr Joyce’s campaign for the New England electorate, the Prime Minister at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, showered the electorate with $400 million dollars of taxpayer funds to install wind turbines – the gift that keeps giving to farmers as landowners and voters, even when not generating electricity.

Barnaby Joyce’s scepticism fell silent.

Senator Canavan meanwhile was promoted to cabinet and fell publicly silent. In December 2015, before I entered the Senate, Senator Canavan spoke in a Senate speech saying that he believes that carbon dioxide from human activity has a warming effect and taken alone would lead to a one-degree Celsius increase in (atmospheric) temperature. Later, during a Senate division, I asked Senator Canavan about his claim and he simply said that we must be affecting the planet, yet when I asked for the empirical scientific evidence to back his claim, he slid sideways away from me on the bench. Silent.

Later in the lead up to the 2019 federal election after One Nation made coal an issue, Senator Canavan murmured quietly that coal is not evil, yet continued voting for Liberal policies that undermine coal. Recently, as One Nation leads the increase in political support for coal, Senator Canavan utters whisperings that imply he may again be sceptical toward climate alarm.

It seems that Labor’s former leader Bill Shorten is not the only MP whose position depends on his audience at the time.

I will be writing formally to Senator Canavan and others to invite them again to either provide the empirical scientific evidence as the basis for cutting carbon dioxide from human activity, or to come clean and stop voting for policies hurting coal and making electricity affordable.

According to media reports, Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce reportedly started edging to a deal with the Prime Minister on 2050 Net Zero on the basis that the PM would give Mr Joyce an extension on the Inland Rail to Gladstone. The latter makes perfect sense and there is no need for horse-trading, yet this example shows how projects and policies, costing the taxpayer many tens of billions of dollars, are made.

Indeed, the Nationals in early 2021 developed a policy on manufacturing with coal-fired electricity at its heart and within two weeks the Liberals reportedly caused the Nationals to drop it. Damn the science. Damn integrity.

Current Labor Senator Jenny McAllister is among those in parliament whose entry into politics was based on previous experience as policy advisers on climate advancing policies claimed to be based on science, yet never presenting the logical scientific points. Senator McAlister substitutes smears such as “climate denier” instead of logical scientific points and has never presented the evidence.

Several Labor Senators have proclaimed to me their deep disdain for Labor climate and energy policies wrecking workers’ jobs. Some enthusiastically agree with me in private on my stance on climate and energy and that Labor’s policy is nonsense, unfounded and damaging.

I turn now to consideration of CSIRO, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the UN’s IPCC because many politicians publicly proclaim that their position and policy on climate relies on one or more of these three entities.

2.        Freedom of Information requests and parliamentary library searches

Freedom of Information requests and Parliamentary Library research shows that from 2005 through 2020, no member of federal parliament was given empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. Those searches show that MPs have been fed nonsense and short bulletins and/or the joint CSIRO-BOM glossy booklet entitled “State of the Climate Report”. MPs not familiar with science, seem to see the report implies evidence when it merely confirms natural variation in weather and climate with no empirical scientific statistically valid evidence of a change in climate, much less a change due to carbon dioxide from human activity.

3.        Cross-examining CSIRO

In its three presentations to me from September 2016 to July 2017, the CSIRO’s climate research team stunned me with their abysmal level of understanding of climate and of science. Their repeated complete failure to do due diligence and their lack of understanding of the scientific process is staggering. These are documented in my report entitled ‘Restoring Scientific Integrity’ together with information gleaned in Senate Estimates hearings from 2019 to the present. The report is available as Attachment 4 and at the following link:

https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/200831-Examination-of- CSIRO-Evidence-for-Climate-Policies.pdf

This report provides a summary of the discussions and transcripts from meetings with CSIRO.

Additional links in the document’s References and Appendices give an in-depth appreciation of analysis of the supposed “evidence” CSIRO provided.

Attachment 5 provides this, which is available at the following link: https://checkvist.com/checklists/635622

In the context of seeking CSIRO’s empirical evidence to justify climate policies, CSIRO admitted that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous. When we asked why politicians are saying they attribute that claim of danger to CSIRO, CSIRO’s senior executive overseeing climate at the time, Alex Wonhas, said – we would need to ask the politicians. We asked Minister Hunt’s representative who was in the meeting, and he advised that he did not know why.

CSIRO admitted that temperatures today are not unprecedented. Given that claims of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change are based on claims of unprecedented global warming, this is a stunning admission.

In its first presentation after nearly 50 years studying climate, CSIRO’s climate team presented us with one sole paper on temperatures, Marcott et al (2013) and one sole paper on carbon dioxide, Harries et al (2001) as evidence. After admitting that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented, CSIRO claimed that Marcott was evidence of unprecedented rate of temperature rise. Under scientific scrutiny, our team demolished the Marcott paper. CSIRO tacitly admitted as such and effectively withdrew the paper from scrutiny. CSIRO had thus provided no empirical scientific evidence that temperature was changing at an unprecedented rate.

In the whole process of cross-examination of CSIRO’s offerings, CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity. Thus, there is no basis for policy aimed at cutting carbon dioxide from human activity.

Additionally, this means there is no way of measuring progress toward policy goals.

And there is no way of costing the policies and their net impact on climate and on the economy. Yet both are essential for making sound, sustainable policy.

CSIRO ultimately relies upon unvalidated computerised numerical models of climate that give unverified and erroneous projections claimed to be “evidence.” The UN IPCC itself admits the poor quality of the models in being unable to call their output forecasts and merely downgrading that to projections, or essentially scenarios.

In CSIRO’s third presentation it tendered a second paper on temperatures Lecavalier (2017) and a second paper on carbon dioxide, Feldman et al (2015). Under scientific scrutiny, both failed abysmally. CSIRO then tendered five papers, including some that contradicted CSIRO’s earlier offerings, along with a broad reference to the UN IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, without being able to specify the location in the report of any logical scientific points proving carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut.

CSIRO relies on discredited and poor-quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide and fails to provide any specific empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut.

CSIRO admits to not doing due diligence on papers and reports nor on data from external agencies.

Embarrassingly, CSIRO revealed little understanding of papers it cited as evidence. That means that policies costing hundreds of billions of dollars and with flow on impacts destroying trillions of dollars across the economy over time are based on … nothing scientific.

If the Marcott and Lecavalier papers are the best the CSIRO has today, upon what did CSIRO rely in the decades before 2013?

As detailed in Attachment 4, CSIRO allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO science without correction.

In their answers to my questions at Senate Estimates CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall and CSIRO Executive Director – Environment, Energy And Resources, Dr Peter Mayfield, misled parliament.

See Attachment 4.

After failing to provide empirical evidence that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut, CSIRO failed the easier request of providing empirical scientific evidence identifying anything unprecedented in climate during the last 10,000 years and proving it was due to carbon dioxide from human activity.

I then set an easier goal during Senate Estimates hearings when I asked CSIRO to provide empirical evidence showing any statistically significant change in any climate factor due to carbon dioxide from human activity and to specify the statistical analysis techniques used in doing so. Again, CSIRO failed to do this, yet Dr Mayfield claimed he had.

These findings cannot be sensibly refuted because they are largely admissions from CSIRO climate team members and are factual observations.

The parliamentary library found a Freedom of Information request that a third party had made on CSIRO, being a redacted letter from CSIRO to then Senator Arthur Sinodinos apparently associated with CSIRO’s responses to its presentations to me. That letter shows the possibility that CSIRO failed to tell Senator Sinodinos the full facts and possibly misled the Senator.

In Dr Marshall and Dr Mayfield providing misleading statements to the Senate, it raises serious questions as to CSIRO’s competency and/or integrity and I would be willing to pursue this with the government.

Serious questions are raised about Ministers such as Greg Hunt, who publicly stated that they relied on CSIRO and BOM for their position on climate, yet according to Freedom of Information requests and parliamentary library searches, neither agency sent him scientific evidence. In CSIRO’s September 2016 presentation to me, Minister Hunt’s adviser said he was not aware of where the concept of danger arose.

Mine is the first prolonged and persistent cross-examination of a government science agency on climate science anywhere in the world. CSIRO failed. This has significance beyond our country because CSIRO plays a core part in fabricating UN IPCC climate reports.

If CSIRO ever provided to you any specific logical scientific points quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, please specify date, title of report, author’s name, page number(s) and when it was received.

If not, why not? Why has CSIRO not presented logical scientific points to advise you? Was CSIRO asked the wrong questions because modern governments do not understand what is needed for policy?

The CSIRO Chief Executive and senior climate staff have repeatedly relied upon logical fallacies that are alternatives to science, including “appeals to name/authority”. Relying on such alternatives instead of science indicates CSIRO does not have the specific logical scientific points. If CSIRO had the logical scientific points, they would have tendered them and not relied on the logical fallacies.

CSIRO was once highly respected internationally for its scientific acumen. On the topic of climate, it failed to produce the basic logical scientific points and showed an embarrassingly poor and deficient understanding of science, of scientific processes and of basic due diligence. My team’s cross- examinations of CSIRO’s presentation confirm that on climate CSIRO lacks integrity.

Policy-driven “science” is not science.

4.        Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)

My Freedom of Information request and parliamentary library searches reveal that BOM has not given any members of parliament the logical scientific points quantifying the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate.

In answer to my Senate Estimates question in May 2021, BOM admitted that its revision of its temperature dataset in 2018 is the reason that graphed temperatures in its 2018 State Of The Climate (SOTC) report when compared with its 2016 edition, show a linearly increasing upward adjustment to temperatures for the years since 1970 to the present.

It is remarkable that adjustments were not naturally variable yet were linearly increasing and resulted in a uniformly higher and linear rate of temperature increase that exaggerates short-term warming.

This lends credence to calls from Liberal-National MPs, including Craig Kelly, Cory Bernardi, George Christensen and Gerard Rennick, together with prominent scientists and researchers, for an independent inquiry into BOM’s adjustments of its temperatures. Minister Greg Hunt effectively blunted Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s order at the time for such an inquiry.

Additionally, the fact that BOM’s metadata is so wildly inaccurate raises serious questions about the integrity of BOM’s temperature data.

BOM is the source of CSIRO’s temperature data and as the analysis of CSIRO’s work in Attachment 5 shows, when the El Ninos of 1997 and 2016 are considered, it seems the temperature has not risen since 1996.

That conclusion is in agreement with the data on atmospheric temperatures from satellites that America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operates.

Separately, independent researcher Bill Johnston’s statistical analysis of temperature data confirms no trend in temperature data.

BOM only displays data from 1910 onwards, with 1910 being in the coldest period of the last 150 years. Reliable Australian weather station recordings show that Australian temperatures across our country were warmer in the 1880s-1890s than today and the temperature recording methods did not change in 1910. Yet, in its public presentations of data, BOM excludes the warmer temperatures before 1910.

BOM and CSIRO jointly produce their bi-annual State Of The Climate reports that actually verify natural variation in climate and weather and contain no logical scientific points that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Yet the reports’ wording cleverly and deceptively implies there is a change in climate and implies that it is due to carbon dioxide from human activity.

The former leader of the government in the senate, Senator Cormann, MPs and others often incorrectly cited and often continue to incorrectly cite the reports as the basis for their belief that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut.

The current Director of BOM, Dr Andrew Johnson, was formerly the Executive overseeing CSIRO’s Climate Change program.

If BOM has the logical scientific points proving carbon dioxide from human activity harmfully affects climate and needs to be cut, then BOM needs to provide it together with the raw data allowing proper public scientific scrutiny.

On the topic of climate, BOM’s integrity is questioned.

5.        Chief Scientist

No Chief Scientist has ever provided or located any logical scientific points proving that carbon dioxide from human activity harmfully affects climate and needs to be cut. Yet previous Chief Scientists Professor Penny Sackett, Professor Ian Chubb and Dr Alan Finkel all advocated for government policies cutting carbon dioxide from human activity.

The current Chief Scientist, Dr Cathy Foley AO, came from CSIRO.

As a Senator I asked Dr Finkel to present the logical scientific points and scheduled a presentation from him in the company of Senator Sinodinos as Science Minister. After 20 minutes I politely challenged one of his statements and his response was to admit that he is not a climate scientist and that he did not understand it.

Yet, he had previously made many public statements advocating for government policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity and did so implicitly on the basis he does understand climate science. He continued to imply such statements after his admission to me.

We were then promised a proper four-hour session, at which time he would present his evidence and we would cross-examine his claims. Yet soon before the scheduled date of the presentation, Senator Sinodinos’ office advised that the Chief Scientist would be overseas.

CSIRO was then scheduled in his stead and during its presentation, as stated above, CSIRO failed to provide the logical scientific points as evidence.

If the current Chief Scientist has the logical scientific points quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, I welcome her presentation to me of the scientific evidence.

In my first Senate speech on Tuesday 13 September 2016 I said – “Australians should be able to rely on the information from Australian government bodies and institutions (such as CSIRO) but we can’t”. That remains true and valid.

6.        United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC)

Australian and international colleagues and I have reviewed every UN IPCC report except the latest in 2121 on which I’ve started analysis.

The first UN IPCC report in 1990 contains evidence that temperatures were warmer 1000 years ago than they are today.

That evidence was removed for the UN IPCC’s second climate report in 1995. That report claimed carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. Yet that claim was reportedly based on one scientist, Ben Santer, reversing the conclusions of the climate scientists who had concluded that there was no basis for the UN IPCC’s claims about the effects of carbon dioxide from human activity. Reportedly Santer did so without the scientific team’s consent.

The UN IPCC’s third report 2001 was based on the notorious, infamous and unscientific “Hockey Stick” temperature fabrication that statisticians debunked and completely discredited. Some people have described the hockey stick fabrication as fraud. This graph purporting to show stunning temperature rise was splashed around the world in scary headlines and then quietly dropped from the next UN IPCC report. Mission accomplished – fear and alarm instilled in politicians globally.

Subsequent UN IPCC reports ultimately rely only on unvalidated computerised numerical models whose assumptions and structure are widely questioned and ridiculed among climatologists. The models are not validated, vary widely in conclusions and have already been proven hopelessly wrong. Yet in UN IPCC reports the outputs from these models are mislabelled as “data”.

The UN IPCC itself downgraded the models’ outputs from ‘forecasts’ to being merely ‘projections’. Yet this is what the UN relies upon for its alarmist climate claims.

Each report contains a sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to carbon dioxide from human activity. I have read each of the sole chapters in 2001, 2007 and 2013 being chapters 12, 9 and 10 respectively and none contains logical scientific points. Preliminary analysis of the most recent report’s chapter 3 fails to find any logical scientific points for the UN’s claims.

Quoting from The Australian newspaper’s Chris Mitchell on 13 September 2021 – “The words “code red for humanity” do not appear in IPCC 6, even though they were all over Australian media reports last month. Those words were the political spin from UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Lazy environment writers reported that spin, but ignored the fact IPCC 6 had toned down temperature forecasts, found little evidence of increasingly severe storms and admitted much of the warming built into the system might take more than a century to eventuate.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/journos-must-focus-on-facts-of-climate-science- and-politics/news-story/290a3488a9347e8926115fff52e4af79

This is how the UN operates.

The world’s peak body for national science organisations is the InterAcademy Council. Its 2010 review of UN IPCC processes and procedures used in the UN IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was damning and confirmed what was widely known among climatologists: The UN IPCC produces systematically poor science and corrupts climate science. Nothing of significance has changed since 2010 because the UN IPCC is a blatantly politicised entity.

My 2014 review of the UN IPCC’s work on climate is here:

https://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/2_AppendixIPCC.pdf and was made in consultation with climate scientists and climatologists around the world and written for a lay audience.

It is astounding that now the UN, ill-informed political leaders and journalists cite and rely upon a socially awkward 18 year old teenage girl instead of logical scientific points, in the UN’s concerted move to attract altruistic and naïve teenagers instead of relying on scientists.

Yet senior government officials like the government’s former leader in the senate, Senator Cormann and former Environment Minister Greg Hunt have stated that they rely on UN IPCC reports for their beliefs and policies.

The notorious UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong created the UN IPCC 1988 and it has been operating for 33 years. While Maurice Strong was subsequently connected with the UN’s ‘oil-for-food scandal’ and with suspected crimes in America and went into exile in China, the UN IPCC has failed over more than three decades to produce the empirical scientific data as evidence within a logical causal framework proving cause-and-effect.

No one has been able to specify the location of such evidence quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate.

The UN IPCC has a history of scandals and is devoid of integrity.

7.        NASA-GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

Leaders, astronauts, managers, scientists in the esteemed American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have been widely critical of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA- GISS) for its small climate group’s misrepresentations of climate initially under director James Hansen and later under Gavin Schmidt. Yet NASA-GISS’s misrepresentations of climate have stolen the false cloak of credibility under NASA’s esteemed name.

In 2016 in response to my letters to Gavin Schmidt holding him accountable for NASA-GISS’s tampering with Arctic temperature data, he was unable to justify NASA-GISS adjustments. In the process he inadvertently confirmed what many knew, that is that the four datasets in the world recording ground- based atmospheric temperatures are really fabricated from one sole dataset. Yet NASA-GISS publicly maintained the deception that the datasets were independent.

Further, that Global Historical Climate Network dataset had never been audited, until Australian climate scientist Dr John McLean conducted an independent audit finding it riddled with deficiencies.

While head of NASA-GISS, James Hansen, became infamous as a climate activist, and his agency became notorious for adjusting Artic temperature data that has been shown to be wildly corrupted.

Neither NASA nor NASA-GISS has ever produced the logical scientific points quantifying any specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate.

NASA-GISS statements on climate under James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are widely seen as ideologically driven and lacking scientific integrity.

Yet politicians, academics and journalists swallow and peddle NASA-GISS’s proclamations under NASA’s excellent name.

8.        Universities

On 7 March 2010 I invited the University of Queensland’s Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg “to identify specifically just one piece of scientifically measured real-world evidence proving causal relationship between human production of CO2 and global temperature. Just one.” He failed to do so. As with academic activists advocating cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity, Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg receives grants and other funding based on his climate advocacy. Like many such academic activists in other universities that governments fund, Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg has repeatedly failed to do so.

Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg and other academic climate activists have repeatedly failed to debate me on the climate science and the corruption of climate science.

James Cook University’s sacking of Australian Professor Peter Ridd, an internationally accomplished scientist fulfilling his first duty to accurately question the science, confirms the power of the politicised climate campaign.

9.        Academics promoting climate activism and advocacy

Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard sponsored a group of academic activists reliant on government grants and commissions. The most prominent of these have included Tim Flannery, Will Steffen, David Karoly, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Ross Garnaut, Matthew England, Leslie Hughes, Andy Pitman and Kurt Lambeck, who are spread throughout academia and academic associations and government committees. Many have been connected with international agencies pushing a globalist agenda. None have provided logical scientific points quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity and showing it needs to be cut.

All have either directly, indirectly or implicitly provided a misguided view of science, climate, nature and/or humanity and benefited from perpetuating the alarm. Some employ clever use of language and rely on astute use of words such as “may” and “if”, set in a context of suggesting truth.

When prodded to provide the science, their replies sometimes falsely say it’s in UN IPCC reports.

Ross Garnaut’s review was widely taken out of context as being based on the science. Yet its chapter 2 entitled ‘Understanding Climate Science’ states – “The Review takes as its starting point, on the balance of probabilities and not as a matter of belief, the majority opinion of the Australian and international scientific communities that human activities resulted in substantial global warming from the mid-20th century, and that continued growth in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human- induced emissions would generate high risks of dangerous climate change.” The report blatantly admits that it is not based on logical scientific points yet was widely used politically and in the media, to entrench the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity.

Until they produce logical scientific points their advocacy will lack integrity.

10.  Govt agencies

Despite questioning and reviewing a wide range of government departments, agencies, authorities, administrative bodies, commissions and corporations, none has been able to provide me with the logical scientific points quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. Some have been colourful in their responses including the Productivity Commission, whose answer to my question in Senate Estimates was, quote – “won’t second guess the IPCC”.

In Senate Budget Estimates hearings on 25 May 2021, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources in response to my request for logical scientific points said:

  • “The Climate Change Authority provides independent advice on climate change matters to the Government by undertaking reviews and other research tasks. In developing and providing its advice, the Authority is informed by climate science as referenced in our publications available on the authority’s website. Sources include assessments by the (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Meteorological Organization and research by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation (CSIRO), Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics and Sciences (ABARES)”.

I requested the specific location of empirical data within a logical framework proving and quantifying cause-and-effect. The Climate Change Authority gave a vague answer, failing to quantify the effect and failing to specify the location of the empirical evidence upon which it claims it relies.

This tactic applies across government departments, agencies, authorities, administrative bodies, commissions and corporations. Not one has provided the logical scientific points quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity and showing it needs to be cut.

None have been able to answer logically and scientifically why energy sources producing carbon dioxide are not “clean” because they produce carbon dioxide.

The assumptions on which these agencies base policies are unfounded and contradict the empirical scientific evidence to the enormous detriment of taxpayers and of the truth.

Parliamentary accountability has been completely overthrown just as surely as if a military coup had occurred.

In 1976 Liberal MP Michael Baume was the first MP to raise climate alarm based on carbon dioxide from human activity, in an apparent attempt to advocate nuclear energy, while in 1989 Labor’s Bob Hawke was the first Prime Minister to discuss climate after he first raised it as an MP in August 1980.

The Howard-Anderson Liberal-National government entrenched the claim of needing to cut carbon dioxide from human activity due to the advocacy of Senator Robert Hill who was a champion of UN Agenda 21.

The Rudd Labor government and the Gillard-Milne Labor-Greens government turbocharged such claims and broke a promise to not introduce a carbon dioxide tax.

Tony Abbot removed the carbon dioxide tax yet entrenched the belief in cutting carbon dioxide through a Direct Action plan not based on science, before Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt quietly pushed the framework for a global carbon dioxide Emissions Trading Scheme, effectively a carbon dioxide tax, through parliament.

Changes, without logical scientific points, in the positions of Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce completed the takeover of parliament contrary to the empirical scientific data.

While I have successfully used systems to drive positive behaviour and change culture to improve safety, quality, productivity and profit in businesses and companies, most leaders do not know of this method to change attitudes and behaviour. It’s clear Maurice Strong knew and used it globally to drive national leaders’ behaviour and words, and government behaviours and policies. Many strategies have been used to ingrain unscientific climate claims, including carbon dioxide ratings on appliances and cars, to indoctrinate children from an early age in schools, to political leaders spruiking the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity.

11.    Media misrepresentations

The media fanned parliament’s misleading of the people, despite no one in the media providing the logical scientific points quantifying any specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate.

12.    Activists and politicians drive executives

Activists and politicians apply pressure to companies. In response to my written requests in 2014, BHP’s Chairman, Chief Executive and Coal Division President all failed in their replies to provide the logical scientific points proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. Yet BHP recently decided to exit the thermal coal business. Cutely, BHP continues to make huge profits from coking coal that is essential in steelmaking. BHP ultimately said it relied on UN IPCC reports, yet failed to specify the location or existence of any logical scientific points in those reports. There is none.

ANZ Bank Chief Executive Officer, Shayne Elliott, went further in response to my request for the logical scientific points when he answered that the science doesn’t matter, because in his opinion the political and commercial risks are now against funding new coal mines. Yet, due to high and increasing global demand for coal, new Australian coal mines are finding overseas funds readily available.

As with MPs who do not believe the climate narrative, I know of senior executives and directors who do not believe the climate narrative yet lack the integrity and the courage to state their position publicly for fear of being criticised.

13.    Vested interests and beneficiaries of climate alarm

Maurice Strong is the father of unscientific climate alarm and after forming the UN IPCC in 1988 to create an aura of scientific endorsement, he entrenched climate alarm through fomenting the staged illusion of grass roots movements in UN conferences including Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Kyoto in 1996 and Paris in 2015.

At the same time Strong built systems to drive behaviour and enrich himself. He formed the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to trade carbon (dioxide) credits. Al Gore invested in that and in 2007 Kevin Rudd, as Labor leader, brought Gore to Australia to peddle climate alarm with the intention of starting Labor’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) involving carbon (dioxide) credits that would ultimately pass through the Chicago Climate Exchange.

In Australia we now have politicians’ families benefitting from wind turbine subsidies.

In October 2021 Senate Estimate hearings, the government admitted that after a quarter of a century it still has no plan for disposing of toxic materials, including heavy metals in solar panels and wind turbines that have a short operating life of around 15 years. This is despite their massive scale, imposing a huge environmental and safety risk.

Communist China uses our high-quality coal to make wind turbines and solar panels for sale at a profit. We then subsidise the Chinese to install and run these turbines and panels, thereby driving massive increases in our electricity prices that force our manufacturers to move offshore to China with its affordable coal-fired electricity.

When Japanese aircraft bombed Darwin in 1942, Prime Minister John Curtin did not send Japan subsidies to help pay for the bombs destroying our productive capacity. Yet that is akin to what you advocate with your energy policies based on unfounded and unscientific climate policies.

14.  Reality – tens of thousands of scientists oppose climate alarm

There are tens of thousands of scientists who are sceptical of the UN’s climate alarm and know that there are no logical scientific points showing the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. I have assembled 17 international scientists and experts who can provide the empirical evidence showing carbon dioxide from human activity does not need to be cut.

These include internationally eminent climate scientist Dr John Christy, one of two people in charge of using NASA satellite data on atmospheric temperatures and presenting it as the world’s authoritative dataset on atmospheric temperatures. Dr Christy confirms that no one anywhere in the world has provided the logical scientific points quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. He was a UN IPCC Lead Author who resigned in disgust at the UN’s corruption of climate science.

Physicist Steven Koonin, formerly chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department recently expressed grave concern about climate alarmists hijacking climate science. The Wall Street Journal said, quote:

  • “Mr Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.” In his recently released book he contradicts the four core points of the ‘climate orthodoxy’, quote: “Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900” and “the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years. . . . Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. . . .

Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago       The

net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/how-physicist-steven-koonin- became-a-climate-truth-teller/news-story/1822e1ed8bbc3bc4175a889633203008

15.    Reality – facts on carbon dioxide

When a colleague asked the UN IPCC whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it replied – “On your question about whether CO2 is a pollutant, I cannot answer that as I have not found the answer in one of our reports“.

The level of carbon dioxide in earth’s air is around 0.042%, being so low that scientists classify it as a trace gas. It is much, much less than 1% of earth’s air. It is only 4 one hundredths of 1%.

Attachment 6 contains further details on carbon dioxide.

16.  Cost of policies

The cost of climate policies and consequent energy policies, and theft of farmers’ rights to use the land they bought is prohibitive. It’s immoral.

The cost of unaffordable energy is detrimental to jobs, livelihoods and to the natural environment. It’s immoral.

The cost of subsidising and making Communist China rich at our expense is absurd and undermines our security. It’s immoral and risky.

While I will be pleased to discuss the many enormous impacts on costs for families and for our nation, the core issue is clearly mismanagement, shoddy governance and lack of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. It is, in summary, a lack of integrity.

Why are you all proposing to address a claimed problem when you cannot quantify the effect on climate of carbon dioxide from human activity? Why are you proposing to address fabricated and unfounded climate alarm at a cost no one can quantify? Why are you proposing to address this non- problem when you cannot measure any progress towards arbitrary unfounded targets and cannot specify let alone measure benefits of doing so?

17.    Core problem

The CSIRO has failed to provide the logical scientific points quantifying the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. BOM has failed. The UN IPCC has failed.

NASA-GISS has never provided the logical scientific points. No Chief Scientists have provided it. No university anywhere in the world has provided it. No scientific paper or journal provides it. No government agency anywhere in the world has provided it. No academic or government funded commission has provided it. No beneficiary of government energy subsidies has provided it. No one has provided it, anywhere, ever.

The core problem is a lack of parliamentary accountability that all too often bypasses the primary policy question being – “Should we do something?” Until we answer that question, we cannot ask the second question being – “What should we do?”

Until we answer both these questions, it is wrong for politicians to be obsessed, as many are, with cutting carbon dioxide from human activity at great cost to our constituents. Instead, if answers to the first two questions suggest the need for a third question it would be – “How should we do it?” Various alternatives with varied costs and benefits would then be considered.

Prime Minister Morrison and Deputy Prime Minister Joyce; in the 2019 election campaign you hammered Mr Bill Shorten for going to the election with uncosted policies, yet you are embarking on the UN’s 2050 Net Zero campaign with uncosted policies based on unquantified impacts, and with no way of measuring progress.

Is that why you are keeping the modelling secret and out of parliamentary scrutiny?

Until you can provide the logical scientific points quantifying the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, you have no authority and no right to burden the Australian people who are already paying dearly, for the dictates of “unaccountable, international bureaucracy” to quote your words, and who in future will pay prohibitively.

In the second paragraph of this letter, I mentioned the dispute raging about climate yet despite that not being settled, your four diverging views on climate have coalesced. Sadly, that is despite the policies you now push together not being in our national interest, nor in the planet’s interests. You are not joining because you have the data. Instead, you are joining together as the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens coalitions under UN dictates.

18.  Call to action

Our constituents want to know:

  • What you intend to do about CSIRO and BOM leadership that has allowed, indeed enabled and apparently encouraged parliament to force policies that will hurt our nation and its people without any evidence that such pain is needed, nor will it be effective?
  • When will you restore farmers’ rights to use their land or compensate them?
  • When will you restore affordable, reliable, secure coal-fired electricity?
  • When will you enable our country to restore manufacturing jobs?
  • When will you restore scientific integrity?
  • When will you restore our sovereignty and restore our independence from what Prime Minister Morrison correctly labels the “unaccountable international bureaucracy”?
  • When will you implement a register of politicians and former politicians with interests in subsidised solar and wind projects and/or the land on which such projects are located and/or in Carbon (dioxide) “Farming”?
  • When will you provide the logical scientific points quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate? And until you do so,
  • How soon will you scrap all climate change policies and associated energy policies?

When will you introduce an Office of Scientific Integrity and Quality Assurance to prevent this recurring in the future?

Melanie Phillips said – quote: “The great political struggle of our times is not between left and right. It is between those who are connected to truth, reason and reality and those who are not. It reflects a fundamental division in the West, whose fate will be decided by its outcome”.

The struggle of all human existence is between control and freedom. Control uses lies, freedom welcomes and allows questioning, truth, facts and reason.

This climate issue is now about people’s living standards and our national security. It is about honesty and restoring effective governance. It is about care and integrity.

There is only one issue now. That is the destruction of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability for policies lacking any sound, sustainable policy basis. It is about restoring integrity.

Prime Minister Morrison, being quiet on the actual science is hurting the ‘quiet Australians’. In your speech entitled ‘You Matter’ on 29 April 2021 you said, quote:

  • “Human dignity. Everything flows from this.”

and

“Because if you see the dignity and worth of another person, you’re less likely to disrespect them:

…You’re less likely to be indifferent to their lives, and callous towards their feelings”.

And, I add, less likely to disregard their universal human needs including security, stability, and integrity.

Until you can restore respect and care for the people, hold them dignified and retore integrity at home, you cannot go to Glasgow.

Please put Australia and Australians first. Restore dignity. Restore integrity.

I await each of you providing me with the logical scientific points quantifying the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate as the basis of your climate and energy policies.

In the absence of you providing such empirical evidence, please cease all climate and related energy policies immediately.

Yours faithfully

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

c.c.         All Federal Senators

All House of Representative Members of Parliament

Scott-Morrison-Climate-Change-Letter

Attachment 1

Scott-Morrison-Climate-Change-Letter-Attachment-1

Attachment 2

Scott-Morrison-Climate-Change-Letter-Attachment-2

Attachment 3

Scott-Morrison-Climate-Change-Letter-Attachment-3

Attachment 4

Scott-Morrison-Climate-Change-Letter-Attachment-4

Attachment 5

Scott-Morrison-Climate-Change-Letter-Attachment-5

Attachment 6

Scott-Morrison-Climate-Change-Letter-Attachment-6

Open Letter to Leaders (click to read)

/1 Comment/by

No plan to remove toxic solar panels

, , ,

Solar panels have a limited shelf life before they lose efficiency and don’t generate enough electricity. When that shelf life is reached, the panels need to be removed and disposed of.

Unfortunately solar panels are full of highly toxic chemicals like lead, lithium and cadmium which are hard to dispose.

Despite knowing about this looming problem for decades, the government has no plan and no budget to clean up the millions of toxic solar panels across the country.

Transcript

Chair, and thank you for appearing today. In terms of clean energy technology development, what is the proposed solution from the government to safely dispose of the heavy metal component of degraded solar cells?

Senator, there is some work underway through ARENA to look at end-of-life issues for solar cells, but to give you a specific answer right now, I’d have to take that on notice.

Okay, thank you, so some work is underway with ARENA, end-of-life. How expensive, I guess you probably can’t answer this question. How expensive will this process be and what amount had been budgeted for this task?

Yeah, Senator, I don’t think we have the right answers for those questions, and certainly from a Commonwealth perspective, there isn’t a budget allocated to that activity.

Who will be responsible for implementing this policy once it’s developed.

So I think that there’s waste disposal issues. So that’ll be governed more by state legislation than Commonwealth legislation.

So we’ll have some Commonwealth legislation hybrid?

No, Senator, I’m saying that

I’m just trying to clarify.

it’s more a state issue.

Okay, it’s a state issue. So is it likely to be privatised or would it be the responsibility of the individual solar complexes owners?

Look, I really don’t think we have answers to those questions, Senator. I think the research that ARENA is doing will provide some light onto whether or not there are issues that need to be dealt with, and then if there are, there will be policy responses developed by the relevant level of government.

If there are issues?

Yeah, that’s right.

So we don’t know if there are issues yet?

I can’t say myself that I’m aware of how significant those issues are. So research is underway.

Senator, this issue further, we’ll take the rest of that on notice. That question…

Thank you. Will these costs be factored into the massively high government subsidies that are the only way to fudge the actual cost of solar to the community who have been duped into thinking that solar is a cheap source of electricity?

We’ll take that on notice, Senator.

Thank you. Isn’t it true that if the subsidies were removed from solar, they would not be viable because solar in reality is much more expensive than coal, which is still the cheapest form of energy apart from hydro?

On notice, Senator.

On notice? Given that we know that within 10 years or less, the Australian landscape will be littered with hundreds of thousands of dead toxic solar cells. What is the plan? You don’t know the plan yet, ARENA?

We’d take that on notice to do that properly for you, Senator.

Okay, thank you. Is it the government’s intention to create a new industry of solar cell disposal?

Same again?

Senator, we’ll take that on notice

Okay. When will this government, Minister, when will this government stop pandering to the greens on this issue when it works out against Australians who now are forced to pay the most expensive electricity bills in the Western world because of the government subsidies paid for solar and wind generation?

Well, I don’t accept the premise of your question, Senator Roberts. I mean, if you look at the record under this government when it comes to energy prices, for instance, we saw quarter on quarter, month on month energy reductions in costs in energy prices. So we take that

Does that have anything to do with COVID?

We take that very seriously. No, that predates COVID, like, we can go to some of the detail of that if you’d like, but we have had a very strong focus on reducing emissions. That’s why we don’t support things like, sorry, on reducing prices and reducing emissions at the same time. And that’s why we don’t support things like carbon taxes. We have pursued approaches that support reliability, ensure, yes, renewables are very important part of the mix. I know that there will be disagreement between the government and yourself, Minister Roberts, Senator Roberts, on that, but if you look at where renewable energy is affordable, of course, that’s a great part of the energy mix. It’s doing an environmental job and it’s also contributing to the overall price points, but we know that there are challenges with that. That’s why you need backup. That’s why you need, for instance, gas-fired power as backup to renewables. And so the mix of energy is important. We take that very seriously, but no I certainly don’t accept the premise of your question.

Do you think, Minister, it’s responsible for a government to embark on a policies as they did with the Howard Anderson Government in 1996 to reintroduce the renewable energy target, to drive renewables, and yet had no plan for how we would deal with the legacies of these solar panels and wind turbines?

Well, look, it’s probably difficult for me to comment.

This is now, excuse me, this is now 25 years.

But it’s probably difficult for me to comment on sort of the policy process in, you know, 1996 and sort of in that government. So it’s, I probably can’t add too much…

Well given that we are now aware of this issue, and we’ve been saying this for years now, given that we’re now aware of this issue, let’s forget 1996, and let’s look at what your government is doing with regard to this issue now. It’s right on us. We’re gonna have these toxic panels all over the country.

Well, look, as Ms. Evans has said, I think some of those questions have been taken on notice, and, obviously, we will provide you with some further detail if we can.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thanks Senator Roberts.

/2 Comments/by

Net-zero means dark times ahead, literally

,

Unreliable, intermittent wind and solar energy will leave Australian families sitting in the dark without coal-fired power to back them. ‘Renewables’ only farm taxpayer money, not energy.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note this government’s turn to the dark side. Pushing a zero carbon dioxide economy is gaining steam. ‘The dark side’ means sitting in the dark, because unreliable technologies like wind and solar will cause us all to be sitting in the dark, as is proven repeatedly overseas. These green boondoggles exist only to farm taxpayers’ money, not energy. It’s the ultimate irony that, when the Greens talk about a farm, they don’t mean one that grows food and fibre; their wind and solar farms are made from communist China’s industrial processes creating steel, fibreglass and concrete, the very things you can’t make with green power. The Greens vision for Australia has no integrity because they claim so-called science has no integrity. It does not exist.

It is 772days since I first challenged the former Greens Leader, Senator Di Natale, and the current Greens Leader in the Senate, Senator Waters, to provide the empirical scientific evidence justifying cutting carbon dioxide from human activity—nature’s pure, clean trace gas essential for all life on our beautiful planet. I challenged them to debate me on the science and on the corruption of science. Senator Waters has been running from my challenge for 11 years—since I first challenged her as a joint panellist at a Brisbane climate forum.

The Liberal Party should know that there’s no compromising with the Greens, who responded to the Prime Minister’s gutless, unfounded major shift in the way that any extortionist does: the Greens upped the ante. Rewarded, the Greens now call for 2035 carbon dioxide output to be 75 per cent of 2005 levels. Today, the media is reporting that a deal has been done between the Nationals and Prime Minister Morrison so he can jet to Glasgow with net zero and get his pat on the head from the elites, from his globalist masters. Mark my words, net zero will become ‘Nat zero’. Minister Hunt won’t even be able to claim the resulting death of the National Party as a COVID death; it’s very assuredly suicide.

As a result of the government’s capitulation to green lunacy, many things will happen. Prime agricultural land will be put over to farming carbon rather than food, increasing feral animals and noxious weeds on productive land. Abandoned. The Howard-Anderson Liberal-National government’s theft of property rights to implement the UN’s Kyoto protocol will now be buried, so it cannot be restored, and there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation. Buried. Farmers will experience more green tape and more blue UN tape, stealing more of their rights to use the land they bought and own. Family farms will disappear, a process well underway already. No new base-load power plants will be constructed. Mining industries will shut down and regional cities will be gutted.

Already, the cost of renewables to Australian taxpayers is $19 billion a year—$1,300 a year for each household. To implement this agenda, this burden will more than double. It will savage the poor as a capricious, regressive tax. Every job created in the green economy costs three jobs in the productive economy—jobs lost to communist China. I expect we’ll hear more about so-called clean smelting using hydrogen, an exhibit in the sideshow alley of green dishonesty. It will never be feasible without taxpayer subsidies or extreme inflation in the cost of building materials and housing. Adding the reduction in government revenue from a devastated regional economy, new energy subsidies and new subsidies for industries producing green boondoggles, the net zero policy’s mountain of taxpayer debt will be visible from space. Net zero will require as much taxpayer money as we are now spending on health or education. What will that do to the health and education budget? Or is the Prime Minister planning to ‘borrow, tax and spend’ in the worst traditions of the Labor Party?

Unreliable, expensive, parasitic malinvestment in so-called renewables—monstrosities that only last 15 years before they become toxic heavy metal industrial waste that cannot be safely disposed of. Every solar facility and every wind turbine in existence will need to be replaced before 2040. What a windfall that will be for the corporations that own this parliament—tens of billions of dollars in construction and operational subsidies to rebuild the national generating capacity from scratch, for no impact on earth’s temperature! It is a great reset not just of electricity generation but of our entire economy. We’re not transitioning from dirty industry to clean industry; we’re transitioning from a somewhat free economy to a controlled economy. The winners will be large corporations; the losers will be every Australian trying to get ahead to survive. It is madness, it is inhuman, it is insanity. We will continue to oppose this nonsense.

/by

‘Greensland’ just a bad fairytale

,

A broken and smouldering Australia is hidden beneath the Greens’ lies about a solar powered utopia. If we buy into this nonsense, the country will be destroyed.

Transcript

How would Australia fare under a Greens government? In ‘Greensland’, water will be limited to 120 litres per day, per person. After that, smart meters will shut the water off. With no water allowed for gardening, home gardens will die. Rural restrictions will shut down family farms. Productive land will be used to farm carbon, breeding feral pests and noxious weeds, not food.

The Greens’ policy of a smaller farming footprint will lead to big corporations centralising near-city production of food-like substances sold through corporate supermarkets. End-to-end corporate supply chains will exploit this monopoly to create deliberate shortages and raise prices.

The Greens’ policy of unlimited immigration will make these shortages of everything worse to enable more government control. Family homes will be turned into so-called environmentally friendly small homes—boxes—stacked in high-rise blocks in megacities with mass transit replacing the freedom of private car ownership. Travel for recreation will be limited to interurban travel; the bush locked up and returned to the gyre. Electricity will be rationed. Smart meters will remotely switch off unauthorised activity. Real wages will fall as businesses increase prices to meet rising power bills, brown-outs and green imposts.

In Greensland, gender is not related to genitals and can change daily unless a child permanently changes their gender from one to the other using gender mutilation surgery. The inconsistency of that logic escapes the Greens. Sex education will start in kindergarten and drive the Greens war on gender. The Greens are blindly advocating forced vaccinations that enrich foreign drug companies. My Body, My Choice is no longer a Greens’s value. Greens-land is a world of total corporate control without freedom, without joy, without opportunity—a dystopian nightmare for our families and our communities.

/by