The Prime Minister has caved on an election promise. After telling Australia the truth to get elected, that Bill Shorten’s net zero target would destroy the country, he has signed up to the exact same promise. Gutless, sellout, liar, there aren’t enough words to fully describe this backstabbing of the Australian people.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:39): Well, well, well, the Labor Party, as part of the precursor to the Albanese-Bandt coalition government, calls this a stunt. The Labor party is exactly correct. It is a stunt. The No. 1 issue here is integrity and the Greens’ complete lack of integrity. They have never provided the empirical scientific evidence for their claims. First it was Greta: ‘We’ll rely on Greta.’ Then it became, ‘We’ll rely on the Queen.’ Now, it’s, ‘We’ll rely on the Pope’—and most of them are atheists. My goodness, what are we coming to in this country? This mob is hijacking jobs—manufacturing jobs, coalmining jobs, farmers’ jobs. This is an absolute disgrace, because they show no integrity towards the people of this country; they show no integrity towards this parliament, none whatsoever. They tell lies and they make up stuff.
We now see them calling for the science. I want the science. I challenge Senator Waters to provide the empirical scientific evidence that proves carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut. She failed to provide it 11 years ago. She ran—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order?
Senator Thorpe: A point of order, Mr President: the senator over here has called us ‘liars’, and I think that is unparliamentary, is it?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, he was referring to the Greens as a whole. My view is that that is not unparliamentary. I will check with the Clerk to be sure, given I’m relatively new to this role. My ruling is correct. Please sit down, Senator Thorpe.
Senator Thorpe interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, there is no point of order. Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s make it clear: I did not call the Queen or the Pope a liar. I called them ‘not scientists’. They’re not scientists. But this is what the Greens rely on in the fact that they cannot provide the science. The Greens show no respect for science, no respect for humanity, no respect for the people of this country, no respect for hardworking Australians, and no respect for the farmers that they will gut with this 2050 net zero.
I also remind the Senate that it’s now day 772 since I challenged Senator Larissa Waters and Senator Di Natale in this parliament to a debate on the empirical evidence and also on the corruption of the science. I point out that there is no science that backs this up from the CSIRO, and I’ll have more to say about that next week. There is no science from the Bureau of Meteorology, none from the Chief Scientist—I can tell you a story about the previous Chief Scientist if there is time—none from the Australian Academy of Science and none from the IPCC. In fact, we had the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd dancing around in 2007 saying 4,000 people in white lab coats endorsed his claim. The reality is that only five academics in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed the claim of warming, and there’s doubt those five were even scientists.
We’ll hear more rubbish from the Greens, claiming that they have science, but the one thing that they are always consistent on is that they never produce the empirical evidence to justify their claim. They see a picture of a tree frog, a picture of a koala, a picture of a dolphin, and they say, ‘This is the science.’ That’s it; it’s complete rubbish. This has been going on for 11 years, Senator Waters.
Let me point out, Senator Gallagher, that the issue of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, and the integrity of the people of this country and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to One Nation, and I wish it were of utmost importance to every single person in this Senate, but clearly it’s not.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.png00Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-10-20 15:57:032021-10-20 15:57:16Prime Minister backstabs the people who voted for him
While the Liberal/National party tears itself apart over net-zero and Labor wants us to follow the Greens off a renewable cliff, Australians are paying BILLIONS of dollars for subsidies that are making electricity more expensive and killing manufacturing jobs. We have the best and cheapest coal in the world right here, yet our electricity prices are three times as high as China. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think it was deliberate sabotage from our gutless leaders.
Transcript
Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The core issue here is integrity. We see the Nationals Party and the Liberal Party tying themselves in knots, the coalition unravelling, according to some, the coalition all over the place, according to others. Depends who we listen to. But the core issue is the complete lack of integrity from the Labour Party and the Greens. This parliament, according to Senator McAllister, has seen all manner of scrutiny. Oh, really?
I can remember Senator MacDonald up here, standing, Senator Ian MacDonald, when he was a Senator here, standing up saying that this parliament has never, ever debated the climate science. Never. So this is all being done on nonsense. In fact, the science has never even been brought into this chamber that says we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, that we need to go to renewables. Never. Always the parliament tends to go to the second question, how do we do it, rather than should we do it?
The core question, if we’re really being faithful to and serving the people of this country and the taxpayers and the energy users who are being bled dry, is should we do this madness, not how do we do it. How do we do it comes second. The parliament too often in this country goes to the second question.
No one, no one has ever presented the empirical scientific evidence in this parliament, either House, that says carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. It is now day 770 since I asked Senator Richard Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters a fundamental question. Where is your empirical scientific evidence that shows carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut? That’s it. They dodged it. They have never come back with the evidence.
They refuse to debate me. I asked Senator Waters this more than 10 years ago, almost 11 years ago. In fact, it is 11 years ago this month. And she refused to debate me then. Senator Waters then talked about a waste of money. Oh, really? When we’re spending $19 billion a year on this rubbish, destroying our energy sector, destroying manufacturing jobs, exporting them to China.
We send them our coal. They generate electricity using our coal after we’ve shipped it thousands of kilometres. And they sell it for 8 cents a kilowatt hour. We use the same coal here in this country, some of the best coal in the world, and we sell our electricity at 25 cents a kilowatt hour. Why the difference?
Why is it three times as much here? Because of all the renewable regulations, subsidies and climate rubbish. That’s why. Not only do we export our coal, we export our manufacturing jobs, because the number one cost of manufacturing these days is electricity. Not labour anymore. Electricity. We’re gutting jobs, throwing people on the scrap heap. No livelihoods. For nothing. Because no one has ever presented the science that says we need to do this. They run from it.
In One Nation we welcome the debate. We welcome a debate on the science. We will welcome putting both coalitions, the Liberal Nationals and the Labour Greens coalitions, under scrutiny. The policies of the Liberal Nationals coalition are so close to the policies of the Labour Greens coalitions. Where’s the difference, I ask you, other than in slightly in degree?
This is an absolute disgrace with what we’re doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to the taxpayers, what this parliament is doing to jobs of real people, everyday Australians’ jobs getting gutted. And it’s based on a lie. And Al Gore’s making out like a bandit, because the crook has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of this scam, along with several other people, academics, politicians, government agencies.
It just goes on and on and on. This has got to stop.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.png00Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-10-19 15:22:442021-10-19 15:22:51$19 Billion dollars a year – for nothing!
WILL ANYONE TELL ME THEY’VE CALCULATED HOW MUCH CLIMATE POLICY COSTS?
Our commissioned report by economist Dr Alan Moran estimates that climate policies cost Australians $13 billion every year. You would think on such a costly policy area the government would have made its own estimates. Well they haven’t, not even the Productivity Commission could give me a figure or tell me where the proof that human CO2 affects climate and needs to be cut is.
Transcript
Senator Roberts, you have the call.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here tonight. I understand the Productivity Commission does analysis of policy sometimes; impacts, so on. Good policy in my view would be based on specifically, particularly in terms of climate change and energy policies, would be based upon specified, quantified impacts of carbon dioxide. In other words, for a given amount of carbon dioxide output from humans, it would have a quantified effect on climate factors, such as temperature. Now you’ve written reports on climate change, I believe. Have you ever identified any specified quantified link between human carbon dioxide and any climate factor? Whether it be temperature, rainfall, droughts, storms, whatever. Specific quantified impact.
So Senator, sorry, Michael Brennan the Chair of the Productivity Commission. I would have to check, it’s a while since we’ve done work that went specifically to climate change or other related policies like energy policy. For the most part, the scientific basis for the work, I think has been based on findings from organisations like the IPCC. So it hasn’t been the practise of the commission to second guess the scientific assessment made by other entities. But possibly to make a judgement about the economic policy response and how best the economic policy response might sit with that science. But as I say, it’s some time, I would have to take on notice the last bit of work we have done that was specifically on climate or a related policy and confirm that response.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ve not been able to identify specific, quantified impacts between human carbon dioxide and temp and climate factors.
Well, I’m really saying that it wasn’t necessarily we would not have seen that as part of our…
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. But you have to, yes. Okay. So I’m not finding you wrong for doing that, but you haven’t seen that. Have you assessed the, you have assessed the costs and benefits of policies?
I’m going to have to take that on notice because it’s a while. And I might even turn to Mr. Latimer because his history with the commission is longer than mine. It’s certainly in recent years, we haven’t done work in this area going back 10 to 15 years, possibly.
2012, we did some work on barriers to effective climate change adaptation, but we haven’t done a lot of work in this arena.
[Malcolm Roberts] Wouldn’t it be difficult to assess a policy if there’s no specified quantified link between the cause, the claimed cause carbon dioxide from human activity, and the impact supposedly?
Well, it could be potentially, but it would be, if we were to undertake work of that nature we would be taking the science as given by what we would take to be the expert scientific community.
Okay.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve had policies now going on at least 25, sorry, not in ’96, 25 years that are impacting energy, generation, agriculture, industry, transport, personal as well as business. And these had billions of dollars of impact throttling us back in our economy, especially relative to our competitors. Could you tell me, on notice, what advice you have given to governments? Not you, but the Productivity commission, has given to governments and MPs and ministers since 1996. Please, just the type of communication, the date, the type of communication, who it was sent to, and what the advice was, please?
You said it all. We can certainly take that on notice. It’ll be predominantly in the form of written reports that we will have published. That that’s our primary end for the most part, the overwhelming bulk of our communications with government.
[Malcolm Roberts] And if you could note the specific advice in there. Just a summary of that advice, please?
We’ll see what we can do. Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Thanks. Thanks Chair. That’s all.
I have asked CSIRO time and time again to provide the evidence that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is a danger to the planet and they still haven’t given me the evidence. Like I do every estimates session, I sent the CSIRO the questions I wanted them to answer in advance so that they could be prepared. This round however CSIRO was especially belligerent in not answering my questions. I have formally lodged them as questions on notice. That means if they refuse to answer them this time the CSIRO could be held in contempt of the Senate.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: While your annual remuneration package, Dr Marshall, is $1,049,000 and Dr Mayfield’s is $613,000, the medium income in Australia is just $49,000. Government policies based on your advice are hurting everyday Australians. You may not feel the impact, yet 25 million Australians do feel it. For some, it is now excruciating. With your pay comes accountability. I’m a representative and a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, and as such it’s my duty to hold agencies that are advising on government policy accountable, particularly agencies advising governments over the past 30 years on policies that are now costing billions of dollars and impacting our nation and all Australians to the extent of trillions of dollars.
Each of my questions is fairly short. In your answers to my questions in person and in writing, on notice, at last October’s supplementary estimates hearings, you cited seven papers, attempting to justify your assertion that the rate of the most recent period of temperature rise was unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. You did not specify the location of the basis of your claim. So, we went through all the papers, and we actually contacted Lecavalier and got the data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues and questions that raise serious doubts about CSIRO’s conclusions, which appear unfounded at best. Detailed examination of your references reveals some startling facts. Firstly, are you aware, for example, that Kaufman 2020, which you cited, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point and then loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?
Dr Marshall: Chair, if I may, because the senator has said a lot there—the preamble to the question—CSIRO exists to help all Australians, all 25 million, and we have done so for the hundred years of our existence but perhaps never more so than in the last year, when we’ve protected citizens, we’ve developed vaccines—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about COVID.
CHAIR: No, you had a very long preamble, Senator Roberts—which is unlike you—but let’s just let the official respond.
Dr Marshall: We’ve created personal protective equipment to protect frontline health workers, and we’ve helped government, both state and federal, to better understand the spread of the disease, its longevity on surfaces and how to best protect our people. As a result of all that work, Australia has come through this pandemic in remarkably good shape. There are crop yields that are at record highs despite drought, despite other impacts of a variable climate. So, Senator, we are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of all 25 million Australians. And I can bet that you, Senator, right now have at least three things on your person that were created by CSIRO science that maybe you don’t even know you have but that are benefiting your life.
So, whatever we are paid, which is decided by the rem tribunal, not by us, is because everything we do is designed to benefit Australia. And, like you, Senator, we want to ensure that all Australians, not just your constituents but all Australians, have the lowest possible cost of energy and the best possible life that our science and technology can create for them. And believe me when I say that when we do things like the GenCost report it’s all about helping industry and governments to make the right decisions for the future energy mix so that we can have a lower cost of energy, so that Australian industry can have a lower cost of energy, so that we can produce more products and generate more revenue here in Australia rather than shipping raw materials overseas and buying them back at a 10-times-higher price. So, we have the same mission, Senator, as you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got a lot of information from you but not an answer to my question. Are you aware, for example, that in your response to the Senate committee as a result of Senate estimates the paper that you cited, Kaufman 2020, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?
Dr Marshall: Dr Mayfield might be. I’m certainly not.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the answer.
Dr Mayfield: Senator, you’d be aware that we’ve probably met on a number of occasions.
Senator ROBERTS: We have.
Dr Mayfield: We’ve had quite a lot of exchange of information, whether through this forum or through questions on notice or letters that you provided to us prior to estimates. So we’ve done that over quite a long period, and in that time our observation is that you don’t agree with our answers. We can’t change that, but we also can’t change our answers, because we’re very comfortable that they’re based on the best scientific knowledge and scientific process. In the response we gave you earlier today with regard to the most recent questions, which we tabled through the committee, I think we will have to fundamentally disagree. That is the bottom line.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a simple question: are you aware that Kaufman 2020—
Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of your argument, but it doesn’t change the conclusions we make.
Senator ROBERTS: in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? That’s what you presented to the Senate as evidence. Are you aware of that?
Dr Mayfield: We’ve also presented a lot of other information to you, Senator, on many occasions. The bottom line is that you never agree.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. Are you aware of that error?
Dr Mayfield: We know what we believe in. We know what we understand through the scientific methods.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on.
Dr Mayfield: That’s what we’ll stick with. So we won’t be moving away from our answer. We will have to agree to disagree.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that neither of you answered my question. No. 2: are you aware that Kaufman 2020 disagrees with another of your references—that is pages 2K 2013, the reconstruction that has no uptick in recent temperatures? Are you aware of that?
Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of all of these claims through the various interactions that we have with you, Senator. We’ve provided our answers. Those are the answers we have. They’re not going to change.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—No. 3—that one of your references, the North report 2006, directly contradicts CSIRO’s claim—your claim—that the latest rate of temperature rise is unprecedented? Are you aware of that?
Dr Mayfield: Senator, again, we’ve been through all of this. We can go through every single question that you make, but it’s the same general response: we’ve provided our best response, we’re very comfortable with those responses and the basis of them, and we don’t have any basis on which we would change them. We’ll have to agree to disagree—bottom line.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m happy for you to keep asking if you really need to, but we are behind schedule.
Senator ROBERTS: Next question: Lecavalier, which is one of your key papers, from 2017, makes a conclusion that hangs on one data point from one short ice core, in contradiction to CSIRO’s clear statement last October to me in writing. We obtained Lecavalier’s data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues. In Lecavalier 2017, proxy data was used for recent times, when more accurate thermometer data from many Arctic thermometer stations is readily available. Yet in response to our comments about Marcott 2013, which you cited, in Senate supplementary hearings last October you said that thermometer measurements, when available, should be used instead of proxies. We agree. When the proxy is replaced with an amalgam of Arctic thermometer measurements, there is no period of unprecedented temperature rise in Lecavalier, which you cited. Why?
Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ve been through this many times. We have given you our answer.
Senator ROBERTS: I will go to the next one, because the chair wants me to hurry up. In citing Marcott 2013, how did the CSIRO overlook mentioning the author’s own statement written in the paper:
The result suggests that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability observed at periods shorter than 300 years.
So, for periods shorter than 100 years, no variability is preserved in the data. The authors explain that variability is not preserved for periods shorter than 2,000 years and, for periods of 300 years or less in duration, no variability passes through the process that Marcott used to analyse his data. Given the duration of the most recent period of temperature rise is just 40 years—and that’s Marcott citing Mann 2008 in his own paper and the paper you cited—there is no validity to CSIRO’s claim that the rate of recent temperature rise is unprecedented. All eight of your papers are completely flawed. There’s no evidence in your papers—not one of them. Why are you misleading the Senate and holding us in contempt?
Dr Mayfield: We are not misleading the Senate.
Senator ROBERTS: You are, sir.
Dr Mayfield: We’ve made our responses known to you in a number of meetings.
Senator ROBERTS: Ha, ha, ha! These are simple facts.
Dr Mayfield: And we’ve had climate scientists talk to you, and you continue to ignore our answers, and we can’t change that.
Senator ROBERTS: This is why I don’t accept your answers.
Senator CANAVAN: I haven’t heard the answers and I’d be interested in them, Dr Mayfield. I think Senator Roberts has raised some interesting points. Can we all hear the answers?
Dr Marshall: It might be easier just to look at the State of the Climate report that we produce every two years in partnership with BoM.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one, don’t worry.
Dr Marshall: The data’s in there, you can see it. It’s not theoretical, it’s measured.
Senator ROBERTS: My eighth question: you cited the IPCC, the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change from the UN, assessment report 5, working group 1. This is an irrelevant citation as the UNIPCC AR5 WG1 summary for policymakers itself contains no reference to rates of temperature rise in the last 10,000 years. That’s the only unprecedented change you claim to be in climate. Out of all the meetings we’ve had, all the letters exchanged, that’s the only one you claim is unprecedented, yet it doesn’t mention it at all. There is no reference even to the Holocene period or the last 10,000 years. Most citations in working group 1 are for only the last 1,000 years. Can CSIRO explain the inclusion of this irrelevant citation that contains no logical scientific point relevant to your claim? Can you explain why you’re using that?
Dr Mayfield: Again, you would be familiar with three meetings that we had. We had climate scientists there, we went through the arguments with you. We’ve been there, we’ve done that.
Senator CANAVAN: Chair, can I raise as a point of order? I don’t think it’s appropriate for a witness to refer to private briefings they’ve had with another senator. Senator Roberts is asking a question in this format—
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t mind.
Senator CANAVAN: in this framework. Unless there’s some public interest that’s being claimed here, I think the senator deserves an answer.
Senator ROBERTS: I got a lot from his answer, Matt, thank you.
Dr Mayfield: The record of those meetings has been tabled previously, as has the response to your various sets of questions, so there’s a lot of information that’s been tabled.
CHAIR: The fact is that this back and forwards has going on for at least the whole time I’ve been on the committee. I’ve got to say, Senator Roberts, I admire your perseverance, but I think it’s getting to the point of
being unproductive at a point in time when we are more than half an hour behind schedule and we have other important witnesses we want to devote time to.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll wrap up with two more. Your reference, pages 2K2013, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years—we asked for 10,000—and cannot support your claim of what you say is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. The second-half of this question is: your reference, pages 2K2017, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years and cannot support your claim of what is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. Why did you cite those two references?
Dr Mayfield: Again, the climate scientists that work with the CSIRO have an understanding of the science literature. They’re making those references because they add to the argument. As I said earlier, you don’t agree with the answers and we can’t change that.
Dr Marshall: Are you worried that somehow we’re giving bad advice to the government about what’s going to be the lowest cost of energy?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, definitely.
Dr Marshall: Because that’s what you said—
Senator ROBERTS: And on climate policy that’s driving the destruction of our economy.
Dr Marshall: That question has nothing to do with any of the modelling that you’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the underpinning advice that’s driving policies on climate and energy—
Dr Marshall: So am I.
Senator ROBERTS: the underpinning climate advice.
Dr Marshall: So am I, and it’s about the cost of solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, gas—
Senator ROBERTS: Dealing with property rights—
Dr Marshall: That’s got nothing to do with climate modelling.
Senator ROBERTS: destruction of our manufacturing sector—that’s what’s underpinning—
Dr Marshall: The future cost of energy is about the economics and the technology and the science that we produce.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking just about energy. I’m talking about climate science that underpins the destruction of our economy, including energy, but also property rights, water resources, right across our country. That’s what I’m talking about. You’re paid $1,049,000 a year in remuneration, and we’re getting this as science. It’s junk.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve made your point. Dr Marshall, I’ll let you reply, but then we are going to call it a night.
Dr Marshall: It is a fact that CSIRO’s science is in the top one per cent of the world, in some cases in the top
0.1 per cent. It’s a fact.
Senator ROBERTS: That is spurious—
Dr Marshall: It is a fact.
Senator ROBERTS: and climate science is not science. You have not given me any of the data, not a bit.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Dr Marshall: I will give you the data to substantiate every word I just said. I will give it to you.
Thank you Mr. Acting Deputy President. And there we have it, a motion and hyperbole, not one bit of science. In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I wanna firstly point out that The Greens last week wanted to declare a climate emergency because New Zealand did.
Not because of the science, but because New Zealand did. The Greens wanted to declare its climate emergency because Japan did. Yet Japan is building coal-fired power stations hand over fist. Now The Greens want to pledge to increase 2030 targets in line with the science.
Yet listen to what the CSIRO has divulged. I asked them where’s the danger? They said, they’ve never said there’s any danger due to human production of carbon dioxide, never. And they said they never would. So why the policy? Why The Greens rants? Secondly, the CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented.
That means we didn’t cause the mild warming that cyclical natural warming that ended in 1995 And it’s been flat since. Then ultimately the CSIRO relied not on empirical scientific data, It relied on climate models. Models unvalidated and already proven wrong. What’s more, the reliance on models means that they have no critical scientific evidence.
Yesterday, Joel Fitzgibbon stepped down as the Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources. This seismic decision is traced back to the 2019 election when One Nation’s Stuart Bonds won close to 22% of the vote causing Joel’s first preference vote to collapse by 14%. The blue collar workers in the Hunter sent a very clear and blunt message to the Labor party – you no longer represent us.
The Labor party have committed to a net-zero 2050 climate policy which means the end to coal and gas use and the end of tens of thousands of mining jobs across Australia. Joel has taken the blue collar workers in the Hunter for granted for the past 24 years, popping his head up before each election while doing nothing to stop the Labor party from slipping into the hands of the cultural elites and inner city Greens.
Stuart Bonds is a miner and the voice of the Hunter Valley. It’s time to elect a representative who will serve the people rather than someone who expects the people to serve him.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts]
Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, and I’m in our Canberra office on the Senate side of Parliament House. And I’m with Stuart Bonds, our One Nation candidate in the seat of Hunter last election, last year. Stuart, your campaign is still causing tremors around the place.
[Stuart Bonds]
Yeah, yes. Well, it was one of the untold stories, I think, of the last election. And it’s come home to roost with Joel Fitzgibbon. I think it’s shaken him out of bed. And I think it’s, you know, it’s woken him up. Before this, he’s been strong. As soon as the election was finished, he was, bang, he was out there, he was the biggest friend to coal. And I think he’s made too many waves and he’s been pushed out.
[Malcolm Roberts]
It seems strange that he didn’t really care about blue collar workers’ jobs and miners’ jobs in the Hunter until his job was threatened by you.
[Stuart Bonds]
Oh, absolutely. That’s one of the funny things, is that until someone comes for your job, right, you’re happy to sell everybody else out, you know what I mean?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, I don’t think you would.
[Stuart Bonds]
No, no, absolutely not. But I mean, you see this with the ABC, that they, they’re hammering the coal miners and then when they get threatened to have their funding cut, it’s the worst thing in the world. I mean, it’s terrible to have people gunning for your job.
[Malcolm Roberts]
And Joel’s now a backbencher. He’s resigned and gone back to the backbench. He was Shadow Agriculture and Resources Minister.
[Stuart Bonds]
Yep.
[Malcolm Roberts]
So if he couldn’t help the Hunter from the front bench, how the hell is he going to do it from the backbench?
[Stuart Bonds]
I have no idea. I mean, if you’re in the prime position, they’re meant to come to you for counsel, and they’re obviously going to Joel and then ignoring him, right? Because everything that he’s saying is the opposite of what the party’s saying.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, and people who are supposed to be in the Labor Party, are supposed to be from the blue collar, and support the blue collar, but they’ve abandoned Joel in place of the Chardonnay sippers and the latte sippers.
[Stuart Bonds]
Yep.
[Malcolm Roberts]
And we’ve got no real connection with the blue collar worker, the producer in Australia anymore in the Labor Party.
[Stuart Bonds]
No, no, and Joel was one of, if not the last members that were sitting from the Labor Party in a rural area. So they’re really losing their voice. Rural Australia is losing their voice, the hard working coal miners, gas, the oil producers. The miners in general are losing their voice from the Labor Party.
[Malcolm Roberts]
What should he do, mate?
[Stuart Bonds]
He should step down, he should resign. I mean, if he’s going to stand there and have no voice whatsoever, he should put it to a by-election and let people have a choice. Have their voices heard.
[Malcolm Roberts]
And would you stand?
[Stuart Bonds]
Absolutely, I would stand. Because the reason I stood in the first place was Labor’s policies. It was never Fitzgibbon’s policies, it was Labor. And they have not changed their policy. They still want to see the end of mining. Albanese’s on the television today, which I reckon might have been the thing that tipped Fitzgibbon over the edge, was when the scenes of the Biden results come in in America, and he won it, first thing Biden did, 2050, zero net emissions. And Albanese’s seen a crack, and he’s straight in there.
Yeah, I mean, and nobody to this day has come out and told us what a 2050 economy looks like. To this day there is no meat behind the policy.
[Malcolm Roberts]
I can tell you. It’s going back 150 years to without electricity. That’s what it is. Because you won’t have reliable electricity. But in the meantime, we wanna make sure that if there is a by-election, and you’re saying bring it on–
[Stuart Bonds]
We should do it.
[Malcolm Roberts]
That you’re there.
[Stuart Bonds]
We should do it, right now. He should call it now-
[Malcolm Roberts]
I’ll be there. I’ll be there to support you, mate.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FdWTTzyJ9bw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-11-11 14:41:002020-11-23 14:46:25Hunter Valley Workers to Labor – you no longer represent us.
I gave the following speech this afternoon in response to the Greens wanting even more damaging climate policies.
Transcript
One Nation does not support this motion. One Nation supports policies that are based on empirical scientific evidence. Without robust scientific evidence policies are not worth the paper they’re written on. By avoiding robust scientific evidence to support policies, politicians are able to base policies on their political and ideological whims and vested interests.
As we recently learned, the CSIRO, which advises the government on climate science, has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy.
The Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens have no empirical evidence that the production of human carbon dioxide is affecting the climate and needs to be cut. Until there is, all climate policies need to be scrapped. I remind the Senate that this is day 419 since I first challenged the Leader of the Greens in the Senate to provide the evidence and to debate me.
7 October marks a decade since I first challenged her to debate me and she has not fronted after immediately refusing.
Member for the seat of Hunter, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon MP, ought to resign and offer the voters a real choice for representation at a by-election.
Senator Roberts said, “Mr Fitzgibbon’s resignation from the ALP cabinet over climate policy is damming confirmation that Labor no longer represents blue-collar workers.
“He cannot be effective sitting on the back-bench sulking over how Labor have lost their way. Hunter Valley constituents deserve better and he needs to resign.”
In the 2019 election, with a massive 14% swing against Labor, the seat of Hunter became a truly marginal seat for the first time in its 109-year history.
“Mr Fitzgibbon only started caring about blue-collar workers in his electorate when they deserted him at the last election in favour of One Nation’s Stuart Bonds.
“Labor can no longer hide from the fact that traditional working-class voters no longer support their climate and energy policies,” Senator Roberts added.
Mr Stuart Bonds, One Nation candidate in Hunter stated, “It’s over Joel. If you cannot fight for your constituents as the Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources from the front bench, then you will never do it from the back bench.” Mr Bonds with nearly 22% of the vote in the 2019 election said, “The Hunter deserves a strong voice and I intend to be that voice …. so game on!”
https://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/12867130-16x9-xlarge.jpg?v=2485862Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-11-10 15:29:232020-11-10 15:29:31Senator Roberts calls for Fitzgibbon to resign from Parliament
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.
Re: Repeal of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 2019
Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef is an immense treasure and multi-dimensional asset belonging to the people of Queensland.
Our beautiful reef is a spiritual asset connecting people with nature’s universal awe and wonder, an ecological asset and an enormous economic asset with vast unrealised potential value in tourism, fishing, research, healthcare, recreation and other activities. It is a living part of Queensland, a renewable asset for generations to come.
I hope you agree that it is the duty of elected officials to work for the benefit of all citizens within their jurisdiction and that in our country governments have a duty to listen to, understand, work for, and serve the people.
On Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 July 2020 I took part in the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, held here in Brisbane. I was amazed yet not surprised with the answers to fundamental questions that senators asked on behalf of all Queenslanders. Among many facts the academics presented to us about the reef, we learned that what some groups say about the reef is incorrect. Specifically, that:
“Cloudy water” affects only the inner reefs being three per cent of the reef and is natural. Indeed, the portion adjacent to farm runoff is only half that, being 1.5 per cent with the other 1.5 per cent being off Cape York whose coastline is largely agriculturally undeveloped. The cloudy water effect is natural with no effect from modern farming methods.
Targets for pesticides near the reef and on the reef are not being exceeded and results shows there is no need for your Labor government’s most recent reef regulations.
Middle and outer reefs are pristine and show no impact from farming.
There is no direct evidence that dissolved nitrogen is having any effect on inshore coral reefs and certainly no effect on the middle and outer reefs;
There have been no measurements of coral growth rate since 2005. That’s fifteen years with no data and the question this raises is – what is the basis for the Labor government’s regulations?
Over recent decades farmers have made massive changes to farming practice, yet academics say there has been no impact from these changes and that leads logically to the conclusion that farming is having no discernible impact on the reef. Thus, there is no need for the Queensland Labor government’s reef regulations.
The cost of the Queensland Labor government’s regulations to each farmer is or will be tens of thousands of dollars per family farm. There is no benefit to the reef, and it will increase the price of the food we buy.
Secondly, it became clear during the inquiry that the Labor government is not meeting farmers’ needs to be heard and that agriculture seems to be a dirty word to your government. Neither is your government meeting farmers’ and communities’ needs to be treated with respect and consideration. Farmers are understandably frustrated and angry and have lost confidence in your government because they have never been presented with the empirical scientific evidence needed to justify the changes your Labor government is imposing.
Thirdly, farmers today are environmentalists and not criminals. Farmers know that their main asset is their farm soil and they protect it. Farmers today know that the future productivity and value of their farm depends on the quality of the surrounding natural environment. Farmers know that productive farming and the natural environment have a mutually beneficial relationship, not as you portray, as being mutually exclusive. Productive farming depends on a healthy natural environment and in turn the natural environment depends on healthy, economically productive farming communities.
These days farming must be internationally competitive, and farmers cannot afford to waste money applying fertilisers if those fertilisers run-off their farm. Technology today places fertilisers where they are needed and no more.
In giving evidence under questioning, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, AIMS, admitted:
“There is lots we don’t know about the Great Barrier Reef”;
The term “Consensus Statement” may be misleading;
“Climate change is not connected to farming”.
Your Labor government and senior public service bureaucrats seem to operate under the spell of ideologically driven activists including the notorious WWF, who are pushing their agenda to destroy Queenslanders’ rights to use their land and to destroy basic freedoms. These few activists and your government pandering to people who lack understanding of the source of their food are demonising farmers, farming and food production. You and they are doing so in contradiction of the science and in conflict with common sense.
The inquiry was told that the 30 per cent nitrogen reduction target has been modelled to cost $110 million annually for sugar cane farmers and sugar millers. Yet the science shows that this is and will be for no environmental benefit. That means that all this pain is for no gain.
I hope that you will support my recent call for an Office of Scientific Integrity to ensure the validity of science in making policies that are claimed to be based on science.
I enclose a copy of my report titled Restoring Scientific Integrity, together with a copy of Dr Alan Moran’s report titled The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables. These show that your government’s destructive energy policies are costly mistakes for which the people of Queensland are paying heavily and for which you have no justifiable scientific basis.
I request that you reconsider your farming, climate and renewable energy policies. Your Labor government’s reef regulations will destroy east coast farming and your energy policies will smash all industries across the state, destroy livelihoods, export jobs and place a frightful burden on all families and on people’s cost of living.
I look forward to your reply and request that your government holds an independent inquiry into the unfounded “science” underpinning its reef regulations, repeals the legislation and apologies to farmers across the state.
