Posts

No one has the evidence – Climate Urgency

,

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

/by

The Great Climate Change Debate

,

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

Transcript

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

G’day, Marcus.

Hi.

G’day, Mark.

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

Yep.

Sounds good.

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

Okay.

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

Yup, we’re ready.

Yeah.

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

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

One minute left.

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

20 seconds.

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

10.

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

Three.

Themselves. No one is able to

Two. provide that evidence. No one.

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

Just before I start-

Oh god.

on time.

Yes.

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

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

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

All right.

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

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

One minute. One minute.

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

30 seconds.

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

10.

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

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

I am, Marcus.

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

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

One minute. One minute, Malcolm.

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

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

10.

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

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

Bored.

Bored!

I’ve heard it all before.

Oh really? Okay.

So start the clock.

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

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

Yeah.

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

One minute.

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

30.

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

10.

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

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

Do you recycle, Malcolm?

Yeah, I recycle.

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

That’s right, and-

Yay!

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

Hang on.

Human production cannot-

We’re burning so much-

And does not change the-

fossil fuel we’re changing-

Level of carbon dioxide-

The balance.

In the atmosphere.

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

Again what?

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

I believe in recycling and-

Yeah.

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

All right, Mark?

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

Hang on, lets be nice.

We need more carbon dioxide.

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

All right.

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

I’ll finish up with this.

Yeah?

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

Yeah.

Millions of years.

All right, Malcolm?

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

All right, Mark? There is nothing unusual happening.

Mark?

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

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

Mark himself has failed to provide the evidence.

But there is evidence there.

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

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

Yeah.

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

All right.

It was greater.

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

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

All right.

than what it usually was. Five degrees!

Malcolm, last 30 seconds please.

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

All right.

We need to respect nature, not vilify nature.

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

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

All right.

Is to understand-

Yes.

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

All right, guys.

No one has done that anywhere in the world.

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

/18 Comments/by

COP26 a Cop Out

,

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

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’ve got a deeper question for you.

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Can you ask next time you’re in the–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m still waiting.

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

255 private planes, Malcolm. 250 private jet airlines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Well, there you go, even more.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

But we all are. That’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Thank you, Malcolm. Appreciate it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks mate.

[Marcus Paul]

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

/4 Comments/by

No plan to remove toxic solar panels

, , ,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we’ll have some Commonwealth legislation hybrid?

No, Senator, I’m saying that

I’m just trying to clarify.

it’s more a state issue.

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

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

If there are issues?

Yeah, that’s right.

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

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

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

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

We’ll take that on notice, Senator.

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

On notice, Senator.

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

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

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

Same again?

Senator, we’ll take that on notice

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

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

Does that have anything to do with COVID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thanks Senator Roberts.

/2 Comments/by

Net-zero means dark times ahead, literally

,

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

‘Greensland’ just a bad fairytale

,

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

/by

Climate Nonsense Taking Over

,
https://youtu.be/4Ke2GHOrd14

Yet again, the Prime Minister is bowing to unelected overseas elites and forcing unnecessary, broken climate policies on Australia. Our entire economy and your job is at risk so that the elites can have more control and money.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Well Malcolm Roberts says that parliament has lost it’s way under the two major parties. He made this impassioned speech just the other day.

[Malcolm Roberts] The issue that is of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, the integrity of the people of this country, and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to our nation and I wish it was of utmost importance to every single person in this senate. But clearly it’s not.

[Marcus] Well.

[Malcolm] The issue that is of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament.

[Marcus] There we go Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you Senator.

[Malcolm] Good morning Marcus. How are you mate?

[Marcus] Alright thank you. You looked pretty annoyed when you made that speech just the other day.

[Malcolm] I’m very very annoyed because I’ve always been a passionate person for the honesty and for the truth. Integrity is extremely important to me and Pauline, and accountability is too. And you know the people of Australia are now paying 19 billion dollars a year in nonsensical rubbish commitments for these parasitic mal investments. Unreliable energy that’s destroying our energy sector. We went from the cheapest energy in the world to now amongst the most expensive.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] And the typical family household is now paying an extra 1,300 dollars a year for this rubbish.

[Marcus] Okay but I’d love to know how much we’re paying in subsidies to fossil fuel industries. You always talk about how much money we’re subsidising renewable energy. What about the fossil fuel industry that’s making billions out of our resources, many from overseas corporations that pay little to no tax, Malcolm. And all the rest of it. Are there any figures for, ya know, how much subsidy we’re providing fossil fuel companies?

[Malcolm] The Greens claim that, that the Greens have never ever provided any evidence saying what these circle subsidies are. The closest the Greens have come is to say that depreciation and amortisation on our subsidies. That applies to every single industry, and that applies to the taxation system. So that’s nonsense.

[Marcus] Okay so what you’re suggesting

[Malcolm] The clear

[Marcus] Hang on you’re suggesting we

don’t pay subsidies

[Malcolm] Correct. to the fossil fuel industry?

[Malcolm] We’ll let’s get two things straight.

[Malcolm] First of all,

[Marcus] Course we do.

[Malcolm] It’s not fossil fuels, they’re hydrocarbons. They’re compounds of hydrocarbons.

[Marcus] Semantics.

[Malcolm] No no no no. No it’s semantics. It’s extremely important they’re hydrocarbons. Now what happens with the coal sector, coal fired power section I should say, coal fired power section is now subsidising the other forms of electricity. Because coal fired power sections are competing with subsidised wind and solar and they can’t compete on that basis. So their prices of coal fired power sections are going up because of that. But if you look at the basic costs of coal fired power sections, we can build a new power station in this country and generate electricity for 45 dollars a megawatt hour. 45. There’s nothing comes close. Wind and solar are many times that.

[Marcus] What about the affect that will cause on climate change in the longer term, Malcolm?

[Malcolm] There is no evidence anywhere in the world that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. And remember they’ve tried to tax us on this. And the tax was beaten by attorney Evan. One of the good things he did. Think about this Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The production of carbon dioxide in 2009 after the global financial crisis decreased. Decreased. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased. Because nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We don’t control it. Second point, in the last 19 months with the COVID shutdown around the world, we had almost a depression. Yet the level of carbon dioxide reduced from humans using hydrocarbon fuels. Cars,

Power stations

[Marcus] Yep.

[Malcolm] gas heaters, has decreased. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased. Nature controls it. It wouldn’t matter how much they tax us. How much they throttled us. We will not affect the temperature. The second thing to remember is that despite the human production of carbon dioxide going up dramatically, in the last 25, 30 years, the actual temperature of the planet has stabilised since 1995. It’s been flat. It’s just natural variation, up and down from year to year. It’s been flat. So no matter which way you look at it, this is rubbish. It’s just a matter of controlling our energy,

[Marcus] Well the

[Malcolm] controlling our water,

[Malcolm] controlling our land,

[Marcus] Well okay

[Malcolm] and ripping us off in taxes.

[Marcus] Well the Prime Minister obviously doesn’t feel that way. He’s gonna sign up to net zero by 2050. He’ll drag the Nationals screaming and kicking along the way as well. And he’ll be off to Glasgow. What do you make of that?

[Malcolm] It’s another show. Another show. Look the real issue here is that we have two coalition governments vying for government. We have the Morrison Joyce government that’s currently in power as you know, and we have the Albanese Bant government. And make no mistake, the last labour government, they’ve lost so much support from their key areas that they could only govern in coalition with the Greens. And that’ll be the case

[Marcus] Whoa hold on

[Malcolm] It’ll be Albanese and Bant together.

[Marcus] No all that rubbish.

[Malcolm] The fact is that Scott Morrison has got no data. We know that. Got no data backing up his claims about having to cut down carbon dioxide from human activity.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] What he’s doing on this is kowtowing to his globalist masters.

[Marcus] Alright I got a note here I’ll get you to comment on. It’s on the same thing. It’s from one of my listeners. Good day Marcus. Whilst the federal government dithers, bickers, and carries on developing a coherent policy for net zero emissions, the private sector is getting on with it. Rio Tinto, Big HP, the Commonwealth Bank, the CSIRO, Fortescue Metals, Mirvac, Brisbane airport, AGL, Ramsay Health Care, they’ve all pledged to slash their emissions. Atlassian’s founder says he’ll invest and donate 1.5 billion dollars for climate action. The states are all backing clean energy projects. And he concludes by saying in my view Morrison’s strategy is clear, do nothing and allow the others to do the heavy lifting. If the others succeed, as they’re likely to do so, then Morrison will take the credit. If their strategies do not work, then Morrison will not be blamed.

[Malcolm] Very very simple Marcus.

[Marcus] Hm?

[Malcolm] People, humans have a problem in that some people just follow like sheep. I challenged the chief executive officer, the head of coal division, and the chairman of BHP, several years ago, about 2014 from memory, to provide me with the evidence for their policy. They all failed. Every single, Rio Tinto failed to provide it. These people are pushing a globalist agenda. BHP you’ll notice is piling out a thermal coal because it’s mines are so damn inefficient. It’s piling out a thermal coal, steaming coal, power station coal, but it’s not saying anything about it’s coking coal. Coking coal is absolutely essential. And BHP can make money because coking coal prices are so damn high. They can’t make it in steaming coal because they’re inefficient. They’re very badly managed. I’ve challenged the chief executive officer of the ANZ bank. The head of the ANZ bank. And he can’t provide me the evidence. And what’s more, he told it’s not about evidence. It’s not about science anymore because it’s become political and the risks are too great because the globalists that are pushing this scam, and you can go back to Maurice Strong, he started this. He created this whole scam. And Maurice Strong died a criminal on the hunt from the American authority.

[Marcus] Right okay.

[Malcolm] Because of criminal activity. So this is the kind of thing we’re looking at here. And Marcus, the leadership of these companies, some of these companies, is atrocious. I can give you fine leaders who are saying it’s complete rubbish.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] Fine leaders.

[Marcus] Okay Malcolm, always good to have you on. It’s great to get your perspective on this and I’m really interested to get your thoughts once Glasgow gets underway and we start hearing more and more about

[Malcolm] Can I?

[Marcus] action on climate, yeah?

[Malcolm] I’ll issue a challenge to you Marcus.

[Marcus Laughs] –

[Malcolm] No no

No one has been able to do this. CSRO, Bureau of Meteorology, no one. The UN panel on climate. I challenge you to provide me with the specific location of the data within a causal framework, scientific framework, and that’s what determines science. That shows we need to cut our carbon dioxide. No one has been able to do that. And what’s more I’ll issue a challenge to anyone in Australia who wants to debate me on the science and on the corruption of science. Anyone.

/by

Prime Minister backstabs the people who voted for him

,

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.

/1 Comment/by

$19 Billion dollars a year – for nothing!

,

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.

/2 Comments/by

Cost of climate policies – Productivity Commission Senate Estimates

, ,

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.

/by