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.
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.
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.
This afternoon I had the opportunity to ask questions in the Senate Committee on “Lessons to be learned in relation to the Australian bushfire.”
I chose to ask my questions to Greg Mullins who is a Climate Councillor with the (Tim Flannery’s) Climate Council. Mr Mullins wasn’t too keen on answering my questions and took the name calling route rather than providing the evidence I asked for.
“I’m a retired person, I don’t have time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.” Mr Mullins is the person who the Greens rely on as their climate expert during the recent bushfires.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you chair, and thank you Mr. Mullins for attending today, and also thank you very much for your service over many years, in fact nearly half a century.
I’m very pleased that the opening sentence, in fact the opening line of your presentation, you used the word empirical, and when I first used that in the senate in 2016 and in the media a lot of journalists were running off getting their dictionaries and senators were giggling and carrying on. I am pleased to see that you have used that word empirical.
There is another part to that though that needs to be proven when it comes to cause and effect. It’s not just the word empirical, not just the empirical data, but also presenting that in a causal framework that establishes cause and effect, and you’re with me on that?
[Greg Mullins]
Uh, yes.
[Senator Roberts]
I’ve had to use data because I’ve had to manage people’s lives and make sure people stayed alive, so I always relied on empirical data and understood cause and effect especially investigating safety incidents to establish cause.
Now in your opening paragraph and in your recommendation one you state irrefutable empirical scientific data concerning warming climate proven to be caused by burning of coal, oil, and gas is resulting in worsening and more frequent extreme weather events that spawned the 2019 bush fires. Could you please tell me the specific source of your empirical scientific evidence within a logical structure proving cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate?
I’d like to know the specific title of the publication, I’d like to know the specific page numbers in which the data is presented, and in which the causal relationship is established.
Now I know you’ve used a lot of references from SBS, The Guardian, the Greens Party, The Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, the ABC, but I would like to know the specific location of the specific empirical data that scientifically proves cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Could you do that for me please either on notice or now?
[Greg Mullins]
Uh, senator or chair, do I have to answer this question? Senator, I’ve read your website, I’ve read, or tried to read, a lot of your stuff that you’ve published, and so I’ve read very widely for and against. I don’t think there would be any purpose served me trying to convince you of what thousands of scientists agreed on and the settled science, and it is settled science, and I’m at a loss to know how to deal with your assertion, I won’t call it a question.
[Chair]
Thanks Mr. Mullins, Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts]
Can you provide me with one title of empirical scientific evidence in a causal framework establishing cause and affect?. Not one?
[Greg Mullins]
Look I could provide many for you, but I’m a retired person.
[Senator Roberts]
One would do, just one.
[Greg Mullins]
I frankly don’t have the time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.
[Chair]
I think what I propose, thanks Senator Roberts.
[Greg Mullins]
That was not an admission, it was exasperation senator.
[Senator Roberts]
Now we have talked also about-
[Chair]
You’ve got one last question Senator Roberts if that’s okay, we are out of time.
[Senator Roberts]
Yeah one more question, that’d be fine. Are you aware, Mr. Mullins, that in my cross-examination of the CSIRO that the CSIRO’s acting head of climate change admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented and that the CSIRO admitted to me in an earlier presentation in Sydney that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger and they never will say it.
Are you aware that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented?
[Greg Mullins]
Senator, now that’s a very broad question. Are you talking about hundreds of millions of years when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth or when humans, and look I say again, I have read your material and the assertions made therein under the guise of being in scientific language, and I find it very concerning and quite muddled, and I’d be very surprised if the CSIRO said what you’ve just stated just as you said that I didn’t have any reference, it wasn’t true.
