Motion 874 – Greens call for more destructive renewables
Speech
One Nation does not support this motion. Australia’s Chief Scientist stated that, if Australia were to reduce its entire carbon dioxide output to zero, it would have virtually no effect on the global temperature.
It’s time that the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens parties acknowledge that implementing layer upon layer of destructive climate policies and renewable energy schemes cannot change the global climate.
If people were serious about reducing the world’s carbon dioxide output, they would be pressuring China, which accounts for 30 per cent of the world’s output and renegotiated its Paris Agreement, allowing China to increase output until 2030 and then only slow the increase. There is no agreement. Yes, you heard that right: China will be increasing its carbon dioxide output for the foreseeable future, while climate policies here in Australia decimate our economy.
What’s more, we are subsidising China to build the appliances that will be installed here and will raise our electricity prices.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to respond to Senator Waters’s speech in which she claimed the need to declare a climate emergency. She’s acting. Her opening statement says it all—’The Greens are moving this motion because the New Zealand government has declared a climate emergency.’ That’s it!
There’s no data, no empirical scientific evidence and no scientific reasoning with a framework proving cause and effect, just, ‘We’re going to do it because the Kiwis have said it.’ That’s it. That is the summary of climate change in this country and globally. Then she raised pollution, meaning carbon dioxide as a pollutant. At the same time, she was exhaling 100 times the concentration of pollution of carbon dioxide that she was taking in.
This is absurd. She’s always exhaling. Does that mean she’s always polluting? It’s nonsense. I see Senator Sterle laughing, as indeed I know he should be, because this is absurd. Nowhere on this planet, under any government, is carbon dioxide defined as a pollutant. There are no criteria specifying it as a pollutant.It is a misrepresentation instead of data. There is no data, just a false statement.
Carbon dioxide, nature’s trace gas, is essential for all life on this planet. Then Senator Waters went on to talk about ‘megafires on a scale never seen before’. False. In the 1930s and the 1970s there were bigger fires, wider fires, and more damage. And then she said the fires were due to a deep drought. That is partially correct. But, in the past, we have had more severe droughts and we have had more severe fires.
The fires and the droughts are not due to human use of hydrocarbon fuels. In fact, the drought we’ve just gone through—and it’s still in place in some places—is confirmation, is evidence, that the weather is behaving naturally. There is natural variation. And then Senator Waters said Fraser Island ‘had a massive bushfire,’ as it does every now and then, and—wait for it—’a 1,000-year-old tree is threatened’.
Really? I know a 10,000-year-old civilisation that is being threatened globally—with no data, just false statements and fear.I remind the Senate that my questioning of CSIRO, my holding of the CSIRO to account, has shown these things. The CSIRO has admitted to me that they have never said there is danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. Never. So why are we going through this nonsense?
Secondly, the CSIRO admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. That means we didn’t cause them. There were warmer temperatures in the past.
Thirdly, when they couldn’t respond properly with evidence to my questions, they said they rely upon climate models. Their climate models show that they are not based on data. Their climate models are invalidated and have proven erroneous. The fact that they have to resort to them—their fabrications—means they don’t have any data.
We have 17 scientists from leading organisations around the world who have shown that the CSIRO is wrong and I am right that the CSIRO has no evidence.Senator Waters talked about the government’s role in letting the country down by not having adequate policies on climate. The government has three basic roles. The first is to protect life. There is no threat to life from current climate variability.
The crippling energy threat destroying our energy sector is a threat to life. Ask anybody who is old and poor. Secondly, government has to protect property. With no data and for no reason, the government has stolen land from farmers, stolen their property rights, and that is a huge threat. The third role of government is to protect freedom.
Again, there is no data, no reason; they are just putting into place arbitrary regulations and policies that have complete control over people. Then Senator Waters said we need 10 years to get climate under control. Oh really! King Canute claimed he could part the waters in the Red Sea. Senator Waters is claiming to be able to control the climate.
These things come and go. This is sheer arrogance, insanity and stupidity.Al Gore claimed that the northern polar ice cap would disappear by 2013. He said that back in 2008. It is still there, as big as ever. There is a joke in which Al Gore is complaining about someone who has just made a statement that there will be no life on the planet, no polar ice caps, in five years.
He says: ‘Really? I’ve been saying that for 30 years. That’s my statement!’ This is absolutely stupid. And then we are told we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was said in 2005. We have had zero climate refugees, absolutely none. This is just a propaganda tool to scare people. Again, the use of propaganda confirms the lack of data and the lack of empirical scientific evidence.
Then Senator Waters talked about pure physics as her evidence—no data, no empirical scientific evidence, not even a claim of the relationship that is supposed to be underpinning this. She had no data, just false statements and fear. And then she talked about ‘abundant, cheap, clean renewable energy’—her words. Let’s look at that. Solar and wind are none of these things.Abundant? No. Intermittent? Unreliable. Cheap? No—the most expensive.
Without subsidies, as Warren Buffett said, they’re dead; they only live on subsidies. Alan Moran, the noted economist, has estimated the costs, using the government’s own figures, of climate subsidies and renewable energy subsidies as being $13 billion every year. That is $1,300 per household per annum in Australia. For nothing! This is on top of energy prices. And for every clean energy job there are 2.2 real jobs lost.
As for clean: they rely upon rare earths that come from child Labor in Africa. They’re talking about the Kilcoy solar panels; cadmium and selenium will leach into the soil and the waterways—into Brisbane’s water supply—if that solar plant project goes ahead.And what about afterwards? What do we do with these windmills after their 15-year life? They’re burying them in Wyoming right now.
That’s extra cost and extra pollution—real pollution: solar panels are a real pollutant and they’re now an environmental legacy. Again, there’s a reason why windmills didn’t last. Again, Senator Waters relies on no data, just false statements and fear. Then she cited nations declaring a climate emergency. Let’s look at some of these. Japan is building coal-fired power stations.
France relies on nuclear energy. Britain relies on the French nuclear energy through an interlinked cable and Britain also relies upon wood pellets burned in an old coal-fired power station—they cut down American forests and transport them across using hydrocarbon fuels. And Germany is now building coal-fired power stations.
Then Senator Waters quoted socialist Christiana Figueres, who is a senior bureaucrat in the UN in charge of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—the governing body for this nonsense.She says openly that the aim of the whole climate campaign is to convert the world to socialism and to change the economic system—change the economic system!
Those are her words, not mine—again, no data, just misrepresentations and fear. That’s all that Senator Waters is relying upon.We don’t have time to go into the motion itself; it’s easily torn apart. But I will remind the chamber that 10 years ago, on 7 October 2010, I challenged Senator Waters in a public forum that we both attended as panellists to debate me on climate science and the corruption of climate science.
She jumped to her feet faster than I’ve ever seen her move and said, ‘I won’t debate you’. Five years later, in May 2016—almost six years later, or 5½ years later—she again refused my public request to have a debate. Four hundred and forty days ago, on Monday 9 September 2019, I challenged her again, and Senator Di Natale. But they continued; they refused to debate me and they refused to provide the evidence to the Senate—no data and no proof.
There was no debate, just shouted alarm—false statements and alarm.If the Senate keeps making decisions without data then this Senate ceases to be the people’s house of review and continues to be the circus of useless gestures—the big top of virtue signalling and the ministry of silly walks. Senator Hanson and I will continue to use the empirical scientific evidence, the hard facts, to continue to respect and restore the house of review for the people of Australia.
There is no climate emergency, there is a governance emergency.
I am shocked that the CSIRO came so unprepared to Senate Estimates when I gave them my questions in advance. For an organisation who claims to have been studying climate science for 60 years, their responses were truly embarrassing.
I will prepare a more detailed response in the next few days, but to be clear, the government should not be relying on the CSIRO’s climate division for advice on climate science.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you chair, and thank you all for being here today. My questions chair, were sent in advance about two weeks, a little bit under two weeks ago, and deal with past presentations by CSIRO. And so my first question is that, as I said in the letter, number one, do you stand by CSIRO’s implied claim that Marcott and Lecavalier, are the best evidence CSIRO has for showing that the rate of temperature change today is unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
I’ll just very briefly say this Senator Roberts, ’cause there’s obviously been an exchange of correspondency. You’ve written to CSIRO and I’ve just received a copy of their response to you and Dr.Marshall–
[Senator Roberts]
I haven’t seen CSIRO–
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
I think it’s just about to be circulated to the committee. Dr. Marshall we are intending for that to be tabled by the committee?
[Dr Marshall]
Yes.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
Hopefully? Okay, all right. Well then in that case we’ll circulate copies to committee members for tabling. Sorry, Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts]
No, Dr. Marshal was about to answer.
[Dr Marshall]
And Senator, I’ll let Dr. Mayfield answer the detail of your questions.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Dr. Peter Mayfield, Executive Director for Environment, Energy and Resources. So Senator, yes we have prepared a response to the letter that you sent us. I do have copies of that here and electronic copy was provided to the secretary. So, there’s an opportunity to sort of look at our response and data. In regard to Marcott, yes we do stand by the conclusions of that paper.
[Senator Roberts]
Stand by Marcott.
[Dr Mayfield]
Yes.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay. And what about Lacavalier?
[Dr Mayfield]
Yes, both papers.
[Senator Roberts]
Lacavalier too?
[Dr Mayfield]
We believe our best evidence.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you, that’s good. Why did… Second question, what did CSIRO rely on before Marcott 2013? Say in the 1980s, when Bob Hawke was the first Prime Minister to raise the issue of anthropogenic climate change, said to be due to carbon dioxide from human activity.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator, so the state of the science in the Australian context is being provided by the volume in greenhouse, planning for the future, which is published by CSIRO in 1988. And it’s still available. And it was already very evident in the 1980s that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide were altering the chemistry of the atmosphere.
[Senator Roberts]
Excuse me, the chemistry of the atmosphere, but not the temperature the earth?
[Dr Mayfield]
Chemistry of the atmosphere is at that point in time and temperature record is also changing.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you. Third question. At what stage did CSIRO start giving significant advice to governments on anthropogenic climate change?
[Dr Mayfield]
So CSIRO has been providing advice to government in relation to greenhouse matters for more than 60 years. So it’s been a long history of us providing advice in this area.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Then I had my fourth question was to Dr. Mayfield. I need Dr. Mayfield to specify one, a slide or slides and specific data to which he refers and on which his answer relies when I asked my previous question, which you’re familiar with, Dr. Mayfield.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator we’ve provided the details many, many times to you. You’d appreciate that in each of these papers which have been published by a peer review. The analysis around statistical substance of the various measurements.
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, I’m not gonna let you off the hook. That’s a dodging of the question. The question is, to which of the specific slides or specific data in the presentations do you refer to when you stood up last time, at senate estimates and said, “It’s in the presentations.” Which of the slides, I want, specifically contain the statistical analysis that proves that carbon dioxide from human activity has the… Sorry, that there is a change in the climate, in any factor of climate.
[Dr Mayfield]
So, as you’re aware of Senator, there’s a number of papers, multiple ones–
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, no. I’m asking you for this specific slide and the specific data to which you refer. I’m not gonna take any more of this vague nonsense. I want this specific slide, specific data.
[Dr Mayfield]
In the slides, you’ll see, there’s a number of different references. Obviously we work with work from Marcott, more recently there’s the work of, it’s coming from… Kaufmann sorry.
[Senator Roberts]
How do you spell that?
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s K-A-U-F-M-A-N-N.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay.
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s a paper that’s been produced in 2020, which also undertakes an analysis of a wide range of methodologies, looking at both the–
[Senator Roberts]
2020?
[Dr Mayfield]
Historical record and the current record of temperature change.
[Senator Roberts]
So I asked you on Thursday, the 24th of October, 2019 a year ago, to provide empirical scientific evidence that shows quote, “Statistically significant variation “that proves there has been a process change.” That is variation that is beyond our outside natural inherent cyclical or seasonal variation over the last 350 years. You stood up and said, “It’s in here, “we’ve given it to you.” That is not correct. I wanna know specifically what the data was and is in those presentations that–
[Dr Mayfield]
Senator, we provided you with a number of references. Those are the references that we believe showed that.
[Senator Roberts]
I don’t know where–
[Dr Mayfield]
You don’t agree with us, but that’s what we believe.
[Senator Roberts]
You have never presented, CSIRO’s, never presented any response to that question, because the first time that question was asked was in the Senate estimates last year. CSIRO’s has never addressed that question. Your statement is false, if that’s what you’re implying.
[Dr Mayfield]
That’s incorrect Senator. The data is in the papers that we refer to.
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, I said show me—
[Dr Mayfield]
Part of pulling that science together is about undertaking that sort of statistical analysis, So that it show meaningful trend.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
So I’ll just briefly intercede here. Senator Roberts, could I ask that you allow the witness an opportunity to finish the answers your questions before you interject or ask a follow up question.
[Senator Roberts]
Chair, he’s not answering the question.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
Well, Senator Roberts you may be unsatisfied with the answer that he’s giving, but that doesn’t give you a right to interrupt him. You have to allow witnesses to conclude their answers and then you can ask a follow up question to challenge that answer if you wish.
[Dr Mayfield]
So as I said Senator, those various papers is part of doing peer review process you go through the statistical analysis. You show what is a meaningful trend versus what is not a meaningful trend, due to the uncertainty of those measurements. And we stand by those papers and those measurements and those peer review processes.
[Senator Roberts]
I want on record that never has CSIRO in any of the presentations to me, made any reference, any statement about statistically significant variation in climate. Not at all. I asked it for the first time, this time last year.
[Woman]
You can ask to read the paper to you.
[Senator Roberts]
Yeah, could you specify the paper?
[Woman]
But let’s not…
[Senator Roberts]
Could you specify the papers?
[Dr Mayfield]
I’ve already specified the papers.
[Senator Roberts]
The exact papers? Because you have never referenced them in any way in any of the presentations. So I wanna know the specific papers.
[Dr Mayfield]
So I’m giving you the papers, Senator.
[Senator Roberts]
Which ones?
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s Marcott, it’s Lecavalier.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay.
[Dr Mayfield]
And more recently Kauffman.
[Senator Roberts]
So let’s go on to the second part, now that you’ve come on that. Specify the statistical analysis techniques that we used.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator there’s many techniques that are used, there’s thousands of papers.
[Senator Roberts]
No, the ones that you rely upon to make the statement that there is a statistical significant change. I wanna know the specific ones.
[Dr Mayfield]
Well, that’s part of the peer review process that’s undertaken for each of these papers Senator. So, if you choose to track the authors.
[Senator Roberts]
All right, thank you.
[Dr Mayfield]
They will be able to talk you through this specific work.
[Senator Roberts]
We contacted the author of Lecavalier which you recommended, and he will not divulge his information. That’s what you rely upon? People who do not divulge their information. So let’s go to the third one then. The relevant statistical levels of confidence from the analysis of the climate factor that you’ve identified. So what is the level of confidence in the analysis?
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator again, I’ve just refer to my previous answers.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Could you specify the time interval of data for which this statistical analysis was applied?
[Dr Mayfield]
Senator, I can’t answer that question. It’s a question that should be directed towards the author of the paper.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Question five.
[Dr Mayfield]
Very much to detail sir.
[Senator Roberts]
Yes, it certainly is.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator Robert, sir might have been remiss last time I think I promised to send you a copy of this and I don’t know if I did or not from my office to you, but if not I bought a copy.
[Senator Roberts]
No, you didn’t.
[Dr Marshall]
And I’ll leave this here with you. It does have a map of the projections for temperature.
[Senator Roberts]
No, I’m after empirical scientific evidence, that’s what I’ve been through all the way along. Not on projections.
[Dr Marshall]
It’s based on data since 1950 and successfully predicted the last 20 years.
[Senator Roberts]
I wanna know statistically significant change Dr. Marshall.
[Dr Marshall]
Well, I think you’ll get it from here and the references here in Senator, but, I’ll leave this to you if I can.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you, good.
[Dr Marshall]
Hopefully be helpful.
[Senator Roberts]
Now, Dr. Marshall, I also said in my letter that I hope you agree that the only valid analysis for such policies, climate change and supporting of renewable subsidies, is specific empirical scientific evidence with a logic proving causation and quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate factors, such as atmospheric temperatures. I hope you understand the need to justify such policies on solid scientific evidence, quantifying cause and effect. Such quantified evidence is needed to implement such policies and to monitor the effect of such policies. Without the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide output and climate factors, it is not possible to do cost benefit cases nor track progress. So my question to you, number five was, if you disagree with this reasoning, please provide me with what you see as the alternative basis for policy.
[Dr Marshall]
So Senator we base our work on the measured changes in climate since about 1950. We have, for example, directly intervened by breeding different strains of wheat to prevent the wheat yield from going down, because we don’t want the impact of drought or increased temperatures or the shifts in rainfall to reduce the productivity of Australia’s weed industry. So, we have data since 1950 that shows these effects are happening. We know that the nation has become drier in the South, weather in the North. And we know that the temperature has come up, that’s not projections, they have been measured. But, because we’ve known that, ’cause we predicted that some years ago, some decades ago, we were able to successfully intervene to help the industry navigate those changes without a loss in their profitability. And that’s why we do the modelling Senator, to try and understand how to help industry navigate changes in our investment.
[Senator Roberts]
So let me put it bluntly, do you or do you not believe that policy should be based on a quantified specified relationship between cause and effect? In other words, this much carbon dioxide with the amount specified leading to this much temperature change.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator, I think policy should be based on the best science available and it should be data-driven, data-driven. And I’ve just given you the data that drive us to make the interventions,
[Senator Roberts]
No you haven’t given me the data. You’ve talked about having…
[Dr Marshall]
Senator it’s in here.
[Senator Roberts]
And so do you agree on or not that policy should be driven by specified quantified relationship between cause and effect?
[Dr Marshall]
I think policies should be data-driven and it should be monitored and measured and evaluated using data.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator, if I can add to that. So science, peer reviewed science does provide that foundation which policy can be built. In terms of the papers that we’ve talked to you about.
[Senator Roberts]
Marcott and Lecavalier?
[Dr Mayfield]
We note that there’s been at least 265 other papers which have referenced Marcott as part of the peer review process. And to date, no one has come up with an argument that says that paper is not valid. So the peer review process is at play there and has basically reinforce that that paper is correct.
[Senator Roberts]
We’ll come back to that but Marcott himself, said that the 20th century temperatures on which you are relying are not robust. Marcott himself. So much for–
[Dr Mayfield]
I disagree with your statement.
[Senator Roberts]
So let’s move on to question six. Australia has already done much to destroy its energy grid, yet, as an overseer of taxpayers’ funds, taxpayers’ resources. I need to know whether this has shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how has it shown up and to what extent? Please provide empirical scientific evidence on the effect of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures from Australia’s cuts to human carbon dioxide output. In other words all the pain we’re going through economically where is it showing up in the global carbon dioxide levels?
[Dr Marshall]
So Senator, as I think you and I have discussed before, Australia is barely 1%, 1.2, 1.3% of the world’s emissions. Therefore, any direct changes we make in this country are unlikely to have any impact on the global levels of carbon dioxide.
[Senator Roberts]
So are we not gonna have any impact on the temperature then?
[Dr Marshall]
Well, 1.3% impact. Senator, however, our science can have an impact. For example, future feed which has solved what seemingly was an impossible problem and reduce the emission from–
[Senator Roberts]
I wanna know the effects of Australia’s carbon dioxide. Because people are paying an extra $1,300 per household Dr. Marshall. On your salary, that’s trivial, but on someone on the median income of 49,000 that is painful, extremely painful. Dan McDonald, a farmer in Queensland and many farmers have lost the rights to use their property because of policies enacted by this government and previous governments. On $800,000, that’s easy for you to wade through but these people are suffering.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator. I’m not sure I understand your question here. Are you saying that there’s some connection between things that CSIRO has done and these people suffering
[Senator Roberts]
Your advice.
[Dr Marshall]
Is a concern if that’s the case
[Senator Roberts]
Your advice has been cited by many ministers, both labor and liberal national for the painful impositions of policies on our country. And people are paying for that through the hip pocket and through the loss of the rights to use their property that they own and have paid for. Your so-called support, according to ministers is the reason for that. And I’m not getting evidence of quantified impact of our carbon dioxide. And you’ve just said, you can’t see any evidence in the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere because of Australia’s carbon dioxide cuts.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator I’ve just said that Australia has a relatively small direct impact on the carbon dioxide levels because–
[Senator Roberts]
Can you show me the evidence that says we are reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?
[Dr Marshall]
The evidence that Australia is reducing.
[Senator Roberts]
Australia’s impacts on energy, on agriculture are resulting in a reduced temperature, reduced levels of carbon dioxide.
[Dr Marshall]
So the reduction in emissions has been reported by the department of the environment. So that would be a question for them senator.
[Senator Roberts]
You’ve just answered my question. Thank you very much.
[Dr Mayfield]
If I could add to that as well. So global CO2 levels are measured through the global carbon project which works from data from their resilience.
[Senator Roberts]
In part they’re measured, in part they’re residual. So my last question have global attempts. So we forget about Australia’s little minuscule contribution. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, and to what extent.
[Dr Mayfield]
So again, Senator the global carbon project measures or captures various–
[Senator Roberts]
Didn’t answer my question Dr. Mayfield
[Dr Mayfield]
Various divisions that are made around the globe.
[Chair]
Give him some time.
[Dr Mayfield]
And that is the numbers that are being captured, when they show that emissions are increasing.
[Senator Roberts]
Chair, when someone’s asked a question and they say something but don’t answer the question that is not answering questions
[Chair]
Order Senate Roberts. In that case, Dr. Mayfield would have been five to 10 seconds into his answer. So it’s pretty early to form a strong view about what he was giving you. And Senator Roberts, I don’t seek to dictate how you ask your questions or what questions you ask, but only that you show courtesy to officials so they can answer your questions to the best of their abilities.
[Senator Roberts]
With respect chair, I deserve the respect of being answered properly when I’m asking questions on behalf of my constituents who had gone through a lot of pain.
[Chair]
Senator Roberts if you’re not satisfied with the answers that you receive, please ask another followup question, but don’t interrupt officials in the middle of their answers.
[Senator Roberts]
I’ll ask it again. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how, and to what extent?
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator in terms of the emissions being made whether there’s attempts to cut them or whether that’s how they are naturally, they are captured through the global carbon project. That’s the accounting process that’s worked to do that. And that shows that emissions overall are still increasing.
[Senator Roberts]
How- emissions are still increasing? We’d just been through–
[Dr Mayfield]
Globally.
[Senator Roberts]
COVID depression and we’d just been through a 2009. We had lower use of carbon dioxide then in 2008 in the recession that was global except for Australia. And in both cases, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to rise, despite human production falling dramatically especially in the last nine months. And yet you’re telling me, you can see it. They’re going up. Dr. Mayfield. So I’ll ask again for the third time, then I’ll leave it. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide, particularly in the recession that was in 2009 when global production of carbon dioxide from human activity decreased and have decreased considerably in the last seven months, shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? And if so, how, and to what extent? Please answer how they show up and to what extent.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator the measure is the CO2 signal that’s in the atmosphere. It’s a well-mixed system so it’s represented well across the globe. If you wanna refer to periods like 2009 which is at the end of the global financial crisis, there were slight changes in the rate of climb of these measurements. So you can see inflexions like that. I don’t have the details on the specific numbers on how that changed, but there are inflexion points. But in terms of the longer term trend, it’s still on the up.
[Senator Roberts]
Could you please send me the inflexion points? I wanna see the data please. Because from what I’ve seen at global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, they’ve continued to rise relentlessly despite no inflexion whatsoever. So I would like to see the inflexion points. I’d like to see how much and I’d like to see when. Is that clear? How much and when? Is that clear Dr. Mayfield?
[Dr Mayfield]
So what we’ll provide you with is the Cape Grim record which is a continuous record of CO2 content in the atmosphere.
[Senator Roberts]
That’s CO2 Cape Grim, could you give me the global?
[Dr Mayfield]
So as I said, CO2 is a gas that mixes well across the globe. There is minor variations but overall there’s a very good indication of the time series of the CO2 measurement.
[Senator Roberts]
Could you show me the global levels? I wanna know how much it’s changed and when.
[Dr Mayfield]
As I said before Senator, that work is for the Global Carbon Project. They report annually. We will provide you with some of that work as well as the Cape Grim measurements.
Queensland is plagued with poor policies that are undermining our economic prosperity and productive capacity. Whether it be our cattle industry, reef tourism, sugar farming or our coal mines, policy is being determined on the whims of the current political party and Queenslanders are suffering.
Channel 7 have reported on our press conference where cane sugarcane farmer Geoffrey Bradshaw claims that reef regulations are crippling his industry. Dr Peter Ridd has been studying sediment run-off on the GBR for 30 years and is certain that if policy was based on robust scientific evidence, the reef regulations would be scrapped.
Our proposed Office of Scientific Integrity would ensure that all policy is based on the best available science.
Transcript
[Laura]
It’s the big claim from a scientist and a One Nation Senator, that if true, could shatter the base of reef relations.
[Dr Peter Ridd]
I think you’d find that most of the latest regulations would be found to be completely unwarranted. There is no pesticides out on the Great Barrier Reef.
[Senator Roberts]
I’ve had a gut full of why things operate in the Senate or don’t operate. We’ve had politicians that make policies based on emotions, fears, exaggerations, and sometimes outright lies.
[Laura]
One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts has proposed an office of scientific integrity be formed.
[Senator Roberts]
So that we can restore honesty in science again.
[Dr Peter Ridd]
Well we’ve got to make sure that the science is absolutely robust and well tested.
[Laura]
Dr. Peter Ridd says the office would look at the science behind all policies, not just reef regulations. Senator Roberts says he’s confident that if implemented it would debunk some of the science that forms policies across multiple industries.
[Senator Roberts]
It’s affecting cattle, it’s affecting the reef tourism, it’s affecting cane, and it’s affecting coal.
[Laura]
Cane farmers say the regulations have crippled their industry.
[Mr Jeffrey Bradshaw]
We’re awash, we’re awash with regulations.
[Senator Roberts]
The Palaszczuk Government in particular has criminalised farmers.
When policy development is at the mercy of the political whims of which ever party is in government, it cripples industry and Australia’s future economic prosperity.
Instead of reputable evidence, policy makers defer to political beliefs and vested interests, resulting in a policy failure that wastes an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money.
Senator Roberts said, “We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) to scrutinise science, protect scientists from politicisation, and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just.”
Politicians often ignore the vast uncertainties in many areas of science used for policy development, and true scientific oversight will enhance public debate and transparency.
“Australia’s climate policies are a stunning example of policy determining the scientific “evidence”, rather than science informing policy,” added Senator Roberts.
The diminishing trust in government’s use of data for policy development is being felt across a range of industries.
In the area of science governing Queensland’s reef regulations and farming, Dr Peter Ridd says, “It’s not until we can get our scientific institutions to be trustworthy that we will finally be able to trust science again.
Evidence-based policy making is not a new concept, though it needs more prominence in Australian political debate. The design of good policy depends on a solid foundation of reputable science.
“I am committed to more transparency in justifying policy, and welcome contributions to the development of an oversight body, such as the Office of Scientific Integrity,” concluded Senator Roberts.
This afternoon I opposed a motion from the Greens asking for more money for climate research for the Antarctic.
Transcript
[President]
Senator Roberts.
[Roberts]
Seek leave Mr president, to make a short statement.
[President]
Leave is granted for one minute.
[Roberts]
Thank you Mr.President. One Nation will not be supporting this motion. The antarctic is a largely untouched and entirely spectacular natural wonder which needs and deserves proper scientific investigation and research.
Every dollar wasted on research in claimed human caused climate change in the antarctic, steals research grants from genuine geologists, paleoclimatologists, biologists, glaciologists and other scientists doing real scientific investigations. This chamber is the house of review.
When will the Senate demand a review of the science into claims of human induced climate change that has tax payers funding billions of dollars a year with no environmental or economic benefits?
Today, Mr. President, is day 278, since I first challenged The Greens and Senators Di Natale and Waters to provide the empirical data and framework proving carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut and to debate me on climate science and on the corruption of climate science. Thank you Mr. President.
