Posts

CSIRO Refuses to answer questions at Senate Estimates

,

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.

/by

Greens Climate Emergency MOU

,

Transcript

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.

/by

Hunter Valley Workers to Labor – you no longer represent us.

,

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.

[Malcolm Roberts]

They’ve already got that policy, 2050 net zero.

[Stuart Bonds]

Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So that’s the end of the coal industry.

[Stuart Bonds]

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.

[Stuart Bonds]

Excellent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

All the way.

[Stuart Bonds]

Thank you, Malcolm.

/by

Government avoids basing policy on robust science

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.

/by

Senator Roberts calls for Fitzgibbon to resign from Parliament

, ,

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!”

/by

CSIRO – Senate Estimates

, ,

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.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you, thank you chair.

[Chair]

Thank you Senator Roberts.

/by

Letter to Premier: Repeal the Reef Regulations

,

8 September 2020

Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk

Premier of Queensland

PO Box 15185

CITY EAST  QLD  4002

Dear Premier

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.

Yours sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

Photo by Daniel Pelaez Duque on Unsplash

/by

Policy development lacks scientific integrity

,

The timber industry in Queensland is being decimated by regulations that are not based on robust science. The Queensland Labor party has been captured by the Greens who have an ideological opposition to logging.

Even sustainable logging.In Maryborough, layer upon layer of red tape is choking the sustainable harvesting of timber leading to timber being sourced from overseas. The proposed Office of Scientific Integrity would ensure that policy development would be based on independent, empirically based scientific evidence rather than the loopy Greens.

Transcript

[Rosie]

A senator, a businessman, and a scientist claim this report will unearth lies about Australia’s climate change and renewable energy.

[Senator Roberts]

So over the last four years I’ve investigated the CSIRO, in fact, I’ve cross-examined them. I’ve asked them to present me with the evidence that we’re doing something with climate and we need to stop it.

[Rosie]

Senator Malcolm Roberts says common concepts that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to the climate and that today’s temperatures are unprecedented, were fabricated for political gain.

[Senator Roberts]

That’s shoddy. So as a result of that, we’ve been recognising that the corruption of science is right across the country.

[Rosie]

According to Tiaro local Curly Tatnell, the impacts of corrupt science is huge for the timber industry.

[Mr Curly Tatnell]

Country that we should normally be able to harvest and things like that being locked up, which means that we’ve got to produce smaller timber.

[Rosie]

He says farmers are harvesting their properties prematurely because of misinformation. It’s led the men to call for the establishment of an office of scientific integrity.

[Dr Peter Ridd]

To check the science that’s being used for making major public policy decisions, whether they’re state or federal.

[Rosie]

The state government is aware of the groups calls. Rosie O’Brien, 7 News.

/by

Properties of Carbon Dioxide

Neither H2O (water) nor CO2 (carbon dioxide) are pollutants.

CO2, carbon dioxide:

  • Is essential for all life on earth;
  • Is just 0.04% of earth’s air – four one hundredths of a per cent;
  • Is scientifically classified as a trace gas because there is so little of it
  • Is non-toxic; not noxious;
  • Is highly beneficial to, and essential for, plants;
  • Is colourless, odourless, tasteless;
  • Natural – nature produces 97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on Earth;
  • Does not discolour the air;
  • Does not impair the quality of water or soil;
  • Does not create light, heat, noise or radioactivity;
  • Does not distort our senses.
  • Does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive;
  • Does not make land water or air dirty or unsafe to use;
  • Does not cause disease;
  • Does not harm ecosystems and is essential for ecosystems;
  • Does not harm plants &animals. Essential for plants and animals;
  • Does not cause discomfort, instability or disorder;
  • Does not accumulate;
  • Does not upset nature’s balance;
  • Remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, and natural accumulations;
  • Does not contaminate apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes from some volcanoes and then only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts far higher than anything humans can produce;
  • Is not a foreign substance;
  • In past more than 130 times higher in conc’, in air than today.

In some locations within nature other atoms can be included with hydrocarbons as impurities in the resource deposit. These can include for example, Sulphur (S) and Nitrogen (N) among others. When these are burned in oxygen they produce sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxides (NOx).

Along with particulates that are small particles of soot or smoke, these are real pollutants. Fortunately, real science has led to technology that removes virtually all such pollutants at the source or after combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel.  This is why modern cities in developed countries have clean, healthy air.

/2 Comments/by

Opposing Antarctic research funding for Climate Science

,

This afternoon I opposed a motion from the Greens asking for more money for climate research for the Antarctic.

Transcript

[President]

Senator Roberts.

[Roberts]

Seek leave Mr president, to make a short statement.

[President]

Leave is granted for one minute.

[Roberts]

Thank you Mr.President. One Nation will not be supporting this motion. The antarctic is a largely untouched and entirely spectacular natural wonder which needs and deserves proper scientific investigation and research.

Every dollar wasted on research in claimed human caused climate change in the antarctic, steals research grants from genuine geologists, paleoclimatologists, biologists, glaciologists and other scientists doing real scientific investigations. This chamber is the house of review.

When will the Senate demand a review of the science into claims of human induced climate change that has tax payers funding billions of dollars a year with no environmental or economic benefits?

Today, Mr. President, is day 278, since I first challenged The Greens and Senators Di Natale and Waters to provide the empirical data and framework proving carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut and to debate me on climate science and on the corruption of climate science. Thank you Mr. President.

/by