As elected members of parliament we have a shared solemn duty to behave with integrity.
This embraces our duty to ensure legislation and policies are solidly based on accurate and objective data so that the consequences on our constituents and nation are safe, affordable, reasonable and fair.
Yet Attachment 1 shows there has never been, and there remains no, factual scientific basis presented in parliament for legislation cutting or limiting the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. Parliament has never debated the climate science.
The term logical scientific point means the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework proving causality. Senators and members of parliament have never been presented with the necessary logical scientific points to justify legislating the cutting or limiting of carbon dioxide from human activity. Nor has parliament ever been presented with the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate or weather.
Attachment 2 shows that CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and The Chief Scientist have never produced the logical scientific points needed as the necessary and essential basis for climate change legislation. The supporting detailed scientific documents are Attachments 6 and 7.
I acknowledge and thank Senator Arthur Sinodinos as then Minister for Science and his predecessor Mr Greg Hunt for supporting me in arranging for my science and senate office teams to cross-examine government climate science agencies.
Attachment 3 concisely summarises facts explaining that no government, institute, agency or entity of any kind anywhere has produced the necessary logical scientific point. Together with climate scientists and climatologists internationally and within Australia we have held agencies, institutions, universities and individual academics accountable.
Attachment 3 notes that Maurice Strong was the United Nations Under-Secretary-General who triggered and fanned global climate alarm. He did so while having many serious conflicts of interest including being a director / shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange trading global Carbon Dioxide credits and being disgraced for his involvement in the UN Oil-for-Food program. Following allegations of serious breaches of American law he fled from American law enforcement agencies to exile in China. The United Nations Environment Program that he founded and led stands accused of contradicting scientific evidence and causing the avoidable deaths of 40-50 million people from 1972 through 2006.
Attachment 4 reveals the repeated results of two global natural experiments and prove that cutting carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect. The associated limited summary of the science introduces concepts explaining why the cutting of carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect on global or regional climate or weather. Included are basic facts on Earth’s essential, natural atmospheric trace gas that is the focus of legislation before our parliament.
Attachment 5 presents the fundamental basis for policy and legislation and for measuring progress toward achieving legislative aims and targets. This is combined with core questions that are at the heart of senators’ responsibilities to our constituents and I ask the committee to consider and deliberate upon these fundamental questions that must precede any consideration of the climate change legislation.
Attachment 6 summarises the staggering and sometimes crippling cost burdens of climate and energy policies.
Attachments 7 and 8 provide details underpinning Attachment 2. Attachment 7 provides a detailed scientific report documenting our discussions with CSIRO, an entity whose advice politicians claim is the basis for climate and related energy legislation. Attachment 8 cites associated peer-reviewed scientific papers in a scientific and statistical analysis of CSIRO’s presentations of its climate science claimed to underpin legislation. Please note particularly our scientific analyses of Marcott (2013), Lecavalier (2017), Harries (2001) and Feldman (2015) being papers upon which CSIRO relies and note the conclusions.
Attachment 9 provides detailed supporting statistics and analysis for Appendix 6. It cannot be sensibly refuted since the data was professionally and independently sourced from federal and state government budget papers and reports.
The attachments prove that the effect of Australia’s human production of carbon dioxide has never been specified or quantified in any way. Yet sound legislation should be based on quantified and measurable evidence so that we can assess its cost-benefit and measure implementation to track whether the legislation is effective and achieves the desired outcomes.
This is impossible with current climate and related energy policy and the government’s latest climate change bill.
I hope that you, as a fellow member of parliament, share my commitment to doing our due diligence in fulfilling our duty to serve our constituents, state and nation. I hope that the attachments are of assistance to you in fulfilling our duty to the people of Australia.
I would welcome meeting with the committee and welcome an opportunity for me and my team to address the committee in its hearings to afford senators an opportunity to scrutinise our scientific team. We welcome you holding us accountable
Our principal scientist has legally gathered 24, 000 datasets worldwide on climate and energy from peer-reviewed scientific papers, institutes and government agencies including CSIRO and BOM. He is the recipient of an Order of Australia Medal for his services to research.
I hope every member of the committee agrees that in assessing legislation we each have the onus to produce the logical scientific points including the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or weather. As senators and before endorsing legislation we each have the onus to prove that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut as proposed in government legislation currently before the committee and before all senators in parliament.
The attachments reveal the need for detailed scrutiny and serious consideration of all climate and related energy legislation.
Our Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Historical empirical scientific evidence shows there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current temperatures or weather events.
Climate science has been hijacked. Special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent-seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for easy new ways to tax citizens are hijacking our nation’s governance and sovereignty. Alarmingly, once highly regarded agencies such as the CSIRO and BOM, have allowed themselves to become a part of the climate change industry and have failed to provide government with robust competent science advice, upon which to base policy.
There is no logical scientific point with empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide from human activity as the cause of climate variability. No entity or person has ever proven that the ongoing natural climate variability is not entirely natural.
This lack of vigorously tested evidence has allowed governments to create policy that is permanently damaging our once cheap and reliable electricity system. Our manufacturing industries are disappearing overseas, families are struggling to pay their exorbitant power bills, farmers are under pressure, and our once reliable electricity system is on its knees, due to government regulations forcing intermittent wind and solar into the electricity grid.
Even our children are not safe from this alarmism, with eco-anxiety finding its way into the innocent world of our children.
Nor is the environment safe due to the lack of recycling of many solar, wind and battery components with relatively short working lives and due to other inherently damaging aspects of solar and wind.
I implore you to apply the utmost of analytical and sceptical scrutiny to the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy. The effects of climate policy are historic, and Australia has never before faced such a fundamental and arguably monumental change to our way of life and lifestyle. Your extra scrutiny on the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy could be the difference between millions of Australians suffering if the proposed legislation is passed, or alternatively, having a more prosperous nation if existing climate and related energy legislation is rescinded.
I sincerely hope that your decision on legislation is mindful of the costs and burdens on our constituents, on our nation and on our national security. Your vote if in favour of the climate change bill will prevent sound governance while your vote against the bill will enable sound governance, fairness and integrity.
A mandate for a policy and legislation lacking the claimed scientific basis is a mandate based on lies or misrepresentations. As such it is not a mandate.
Every one of us though has a mandate and responsibility to tell the truth and to vote with integrity.
CONCLUSION
After 14 years studying and investigating climate science, along with in-depth research into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and profound cross-examining of CSIRO and BOM, we know there is no empirical scientific data as evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity has changed or will change temperature or any climate or weather factor.
Importantly, the effect, if any, of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variable has never been quantified.
In its presentations to my team and I, the CSIRO stated that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity and that there is nothing unprecedented about our planet’s temperature. Therefore, there is no scientific justification for any government to introduce policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide from human activity.
We are calling for all climate-based policies and subsidies for renewable energy to be rescinded. The consequences of climate alarmism cost the Australian economy in productivity and growth, and in our ability to compete in the highly competitive international arena.
Clearly, it is time to change our approach to climate change. These Bills must be rejected.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Roberts
Enclosures: Attachments 1 through 9
- Attachment 1 – Political Basis Driving Climate and Related Energy Policies
- Attachment 2 – Cross-examining Government Science Agencies
- Attachment 3 – Other Agencies, Institutions and Universities Fail to Prove Causality
- Attachment 4 – Natural Global Experiments Confirm Carbon Dioxide’s Innocence
- Attachment 5 – The Basis for Honest Policy and Legislation
- Attachment 6 – The Savage Economic Burden of Policies Contradicting the Science
- Attachment 7 – Restoring Scientific Integrity
- Attachment 8 – Scientific and Statistical Analysis of CSIRO’s Presentations
- Attachment 9 – The Hidden cost of Climate Policies and Renewables
I totally agree with you Malcolm. It is a hoax designed to make money for the financial institutions who are involved in carbon trading.
There is an old fictional story that raises questions about warming.
I guy in a pub gets the bar tender to overfill a beer glass with ice. Then he asks him to fill the glass to the brim with tap water. The glass is left on the bar and the results noted. If the theory on the melting ice poles is correct, when the ice melts in the glass, it will overflow. If you have ever tried it you will find the melted ice in the beer glass makes no discernible difference to the water level. It does not overflow, due to the fact that ice is water in its expanded form. On melting it actually takes up less room in the glass than as ice. What about our sea levels in the light of this?
Tick!
Very interesting. Thanks Malcolm and Max. I think that the way you can prove that the ice is expanded water is by taking a photo of the ice through the glass. You can actually see the veins of air running through the ice.
Thank you for your through research and common sense. The climate change scare is being used to bring us under the control of a NWO. Certainly we must be good stewards of our nation and act with consideration of others; but as you have shown the case for drastic changes has not been proven.
Tick!
The people, we are treated like criminals for breathing and they want to control us like this planet is a gaol. The wardens of this gaol planet are the criminals. They are corporate hypocrites where they like China and the Democrats do what ever they want and create wars/division and treat us like we are the ones that are the cause. Absolute nonsense. WEF and WHO are the criminals for the puppet masters, and all these government/corporate leaders need to be hung they are the carbon we don’t need.
As a scientist who made a major world-first discovery in the field of atmospheric physics back in 2013 when I published my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” I can legitimately and emphatically state that the whole conjecture that so-called “greenhouse” gases warm us is based on nothing but fictitious, fiddled physics which violates or ignores at least three long-established laws of physics. Like Senator Malcolm Roberts (who knows me) I have tied the CSIRO in knots with several Freedom of Information questions in response to which they could not provide evidence of the main “greenhouse” gas (water vapour) warming the surface, and nor could they provide any correct physics supporting their conjecture. In fact water vapour cools us, as is seen in real-world data comparing regions with different concentrations as in the study in the Appendix of the above paper.
Prior to that paper (when I had made the discovery as to what does actually warm the surfaces of Earth, Venus and other planets) my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” had been peer-reviewed by the three PhD scientists named therein and acclaimed and published on several websites in 2012. These papers are linked from my website and are also on Researchgate and at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. In that paper I showed why climatologists are wrong in their fundamental assumption that solar radiation is assisted by about twice as much “back radiation” from the cold atmosphere in order to attain observed surface temperatures. That assumption violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (causing heat from cold to hot via radiation being impossible) and they incorrectly apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law by using the sum of solar and atmospheric radiation to calculate surface temperatures. That law only ever works for a single source of radiation, as is easily demonstrated in a cheap experiment. Furthermore, because climatologists incorrectly assume that these planets’ surface temperatures are primarily determined by radiation impinging on the surface they had to show on their energy diagrams (such as on the NASA website) that the atmosphere amplifies energy and sends more out of the base of the atmosphere than enters at the top – a violation of the First law of Thermodynamics. Such a conjecture should never have got off the ground.
In fact, the whole assumption that surface temperatures are set by radiation was proven wrong in the 1870’s by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt – two decades before a pathetic, irrelevant experiment set in motion the conjecture that carbon dioxide warms us. It is gravity which establishes the observed temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres, not radiation.
Correct physics can be used to explain why all greenhouse gases cool us – water vapour by a few degrees but carbon dioxide by less than 0.1 degree. They cannot warm the planet. They act like holes in a blanket acquiring thermal energy from nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules that collide with them and then radiating that energy back to Space. They reduce the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and thus support cooler surface temperatures: rain forests are cooler than deserts; humid Singapore rarely exceeds 33 degrees.
Soon there will be some form of legal action that I or major companies will initiate against the CSIRO as their deadline to “come clean” and tell the Government the science is wrong will expire on 31st August after eight months’ warning. I anticipate not only winning the case(s) but the Government having to repeal legislation in light of the potential of huge compensation payouts and numerous refusals to pay for carbon credits. And, as for electric cars, lithium shortages will rule them out anyway and subsidies will have to cease for all “clean energy” projects and activities. The world will know it’s all false by 2024 or 2025 I anticipate.
So please watch my 15 minute video at http://whyitsnotco2.com and spread the word attacking the physics which you will understand from the video and the above papers. There is also a new article on Uranus linked on my website and that will help you understand the process I called “heat creep” which makes the base of the Uranus troposphere hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, and explains for the first time in world literature what really supports the surface temperature of Venus.
As seen on Dr Roy Spencer’s website, drroyspencer.com, there has been net Global Cooling since 1998 which I anticipated back in 2011 due to natural climate cycles of about 1,000 years and 60 years, the latter now declining whilst the former may be about to reach a maximum later this century (about half a degree warmer) before about 500 years of cooling. These cycles are governed primarily by sun-spot activity in the case of the 1,000 year cycle for reasons relating to cosmic rays forming clouds, as is explained in my third paper written in 2016. As planets can alter the paths of such rays, that may explain the superimposed 60-year cycle. No significant global climate change is man-made.
Yours faithfully
Douglas J. Cotton
Independent Researcher into
Atmospheric Physics
P.S. Despite there having been over 150,000 visits to my websites, downloads of my papers and views of my videos, nobody has proven me wrong in over a decade now.
With projected projects in Australia to store CO2 under the sea bed, Has anyone seen figuires for the expected dilution of CO2 in the world from the present 0.03% ( not that it would matter anyway ) It’s a bit like opening my front door and windows so my air conditioner can dehumidify WA .We need to get some adults running the country
Spot on, Malcolm, congratulations for all the hours you have put into your report.
We need more atmospheric CO2 to promote plant growth. Submariners work in 2000-5000 ppm of CO2 so why are alarmists worried about 440 ppm and over which we have zero control.
Has to be the not-so-hidden agenda.
Plants are more productive with more CO2!
Congratulations on your comprehensive demolition of any and every reason to limit CO2 emissions. Why is it that with this being apparent for years, no one in the political world and most journalists will listen? The nonsense get worse, Chris Bowen now wants the proposed Hunter Valley Power Station to run off ‘green hydrogen,’ when, as far as I know, none exists in sufficient quantity in Australia to do so. The WA proposal has a long way to go, both time-wise and from the Hunter Valley.
As well as presenting the submission to the Senate, have you sent it to Chris Bowen and other Labor MPs, Senators, as well as Liberal/National and even State parliamentarian, in particular, Matt Kean? Perhaps I should not have asked that question, but the intention is to ask whether you would like other like-minded scientists, engineers, etc., to follow up with support?
None of our governments appear to have realised how much it would save their budgets if they stopped all of the current and future spending on REs, subsidies, etc.
Regards … Paul – B.Sc., Physicist, retired, with some geological training.
Well done Malcolm. A breath of fresh air & rare common sense. Yet so few among our political elite listen, or are prepared to open their eyes & look at the lack of empirical evidence proving the so claimed case against that minuscule, odourless, tasteless, invisible atmospheric trace gas necessary for life on Earth!
There is no climate emergency!
I can only but hope that your peers within the Australian Federal Parliament will pay heed to this excellent submission.
More strength to your bow Malcolm & that of Pauline Hanson at future Federal Elections & Mark Latham in the NSW State Govt where there growing numbers of the voting public who are progressively realizing that there’s another political Party to vote for with more integrity at future elections.
Keep up the pressure Malcolm.
Regards
MikeE
Thank you Malcolm for your escellent review that is clearly not being read or understood by most of the other politicians. Policies made on the basis of unsupported opinions are a disgrace to democracy and our political representatives should, and will be, eventually held responsible for such actions in following radical green groups aimed at destroying our industrie and way of life for no benefit except for main chancers making money at community expense either directly or by the destruction of social services such as health and many others.
As a geologist, I know that the history of climate change is clear on evidence from Rocks, ice and the environment and it supports in entirety what Malcom Roberts is reporting.
Thank you Malcolm for your eccellent review that is clearly not being read or understood by most of the other politicians. Policies made on the basis of unsupported opinions are a disgrace to democracy and our political representatives should, and will be, eventually held responsible for such actions in following radical green groups aimed at destroying our industries and way of life for no benefit – except for main chancers making money at community expense either directly or by the destruction of social services such as health and many others.
As a geologist, I know that the history of climate change is clear on evidence from Rocks, ice and the environment and it supports in entirety what Malcom Roberts is reporting.
Thank you Malcolm Roberts. It is a revelation to me that our polity is so wilfully ignorant and has no intellectual interest whatsoever in the actual science of so-called climate change. it is a mark of our society that we are happy to spend billions of dollars we don’t have in order to be seen to be ‘saving the planet’ and almost nobody is prepared to call out the hoax. You are an honourable exception.
Save Our Surroundings (SOS) wrote a paper entitled Wind and Solar Electricity Generation Are The Answer. Seriously? November 2020.
It earned us, as the only objecting witness to Zali Steggall’s Climate Bills of 32 witnesses, an appearance at the REPS Standing Committee on Energy and Climate. The Bills were withdrawn. Google our paper and it comes up near the top of the search. We stopped two solar works proposals & are fighting dozens more, including Wind, Pumped Hydro and BESS works. All damaging to rural communities. We used some of your information. Our latest paper is February 2022, which updates the evidence for our predictions that have now come about for Europe and Australia. We commend your works and clarity of the facts. However, is this really about climate change or just the subjugation of the masses to the elites?.
Outstanding effort senator. I’ll be doing my best to disseminate this brilliant summary of the AGW scam as much as possible.
The name of every Greenfool who supported this disasterous misstep should be engraved in granite and set where our impoverished (and possibly enslaved) future generations can mock, deface and curse the perpetraitors [sic] of this travesty of science, logic and the benefits of civilisation.
I have long argued that the debate has been hijacked(?) and distracted by trying to determine how many degrees Kelvin the temperature would fall if we limited CO2. That is a chimera equivalent t the question ‘How many angels can dance on the head of a pin…’
What we should be asking is the destination we seek. Therefore, the two scientific questions at (theoretically) can be answered by the climate catastrophists are:
1. What is the OPTIMUM concentration of CO2 that you seek?
In 1800 it is thought that the atmosphere contained about 280ppm. In 2022 it is 410 ppm and rising by 2ppm/year. Remember when 400ppm was the predicted end of te world?
So, as we must stop this dastardly gases inexorable rise, can anyone tell me the actual ‘tipping point’ concentration after which catastrophe is inevitable? An open goal for the cultists to score I would think. What will the temperature be at this point and at what level of CO2 will the temperature stabilise into boringly perfect weather?
So, what is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
000ppm
100ppm
200ppm
300ppm?
As we have zipped past 400ppm without harm it cannot be that. Also, as plants stop growing at 250ppm the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ must be somewhere between the two. I am breathlessly awaiting the answer from a scientist climate deceiver, but I am not expecting to receive one any time soon.
2. What is the OPTIMUM average global temperature?
The AVERAGE global temperature is currently thought to be a paltry 15.1° Centigrade.
So, what is the optimum global temperature if any rise is thought to be somewhere between dangerous to catastrophic? Surely if we don’t know where we are going how can we formulate a realistic plan to get there?
Several years ago I did a rough study by trawling some websites on CO2 and its effects on humans and plants. The personal conclusion I reached is that 2,000ppm – 4,000ppm is the optimum level of CO2 for the majority of life on the planet, with a probable/maybe rise of 2° – 3° centigrade increase in temperature, mainly in the temperate regions. To help out, please note that US nuclear armed submarines operate with a CO2 level up to 8,000ppm for extended periods without harm to the sailors breathing it. The USN has set a maximum limit of 12,000ppm before they become concerned, so no doubt that still contains a safety margin.
So, to seriously answer the question I think we need MORE CO2 – and soon as the quiet Sun is going to cause havoc in the coming decades with serious cooling the result. Ah, skiing in Melbourne, now that would send the climate alchemists into frenzy of a new series of incantations would it not? Note, the last glacier in Scotland melted about 6,000 years ago. in 2014 two new proto-glaciers were found on Ben Nevis to be accumulating year round packed snow and ice. Globl cooling is back on the agenda …
However, if real life is any indication then the optimum temperature (when life was at its most prolific) is about 18°C with an error bar of +2°C, but preferably at the higher end of the scale. This is >3°C warmer than at present.