Posts

Government wants to cut red meat production so you’ll have to “eat zee bugs”. Like lots of globalist claims however, demonizing red meat falls over as soon as you look at the facts.

Why on earth does the government want to tax cow farts?

Transcript

Australian beef and, best of all, Queensland beef are here to stay as Australia’s main source of protein. A recent CSIRO paper published in the journal Animal, found that pasture fed beef returned 1,597 times more human edible protein than it consumed. What a wonderful way to produce natural, nutritious and affordable protein to feed our world.

The CSIRO, though, couldn’t help themselves of course and went on to denigrate the cattle industry for its methane production. This fearmongering fails on the most basic of tests: the biogenic carbon cycle. Methane in the atmosphere combines with oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide which are then reabsorbed into pastures through photosynthesis, encouraging plant growth. For those who swallow the United Nations’ climate rubbish and think that nature’s trace atmospheric gas, essential to life on earth, needs to be sequestered: it is being sequestered!

There’s no environmental harm from cattle methane production. Cattle can be raised in a sustainable manner that not only protects but improves soil health. The war on red meat doesn’t have a leg to stand on! I call on Meat & Livestock Australia to dump its Red Meat 2030 plan—a plan designed to create a false scarcity of red meat in order to double meat prices and increase profits for a lucky few large beef producers. Red Meat 2030 will end grazing in lower rainfall areas, which will then be returned to nature in a process called ‘rewilding’. This land is where affordable meat is grown. Meat will become an elitist food; everyday Australians will be forced to source protein from food-like substances grown in labs or concocted on a process line from bugs, nuts and chemicals—lots of chemicals! Pick up a pack of fake meat and check the ingredients.

Meat & Livestock Australia must stop pandering to the climate change fraud and globalist elites. We are one community, we are one nation and climate change delusion is a danger to people’s cost of living and to our very food supply and security.

I always speak up for what is right. Again today I will speak up for what is right. The Climate Change Bill 2022 seeks to exploit fear based on fraudulent science to enshrine in legislation the subjugation of everyday Australians.

It’s time to vote against a world where hunger and poverty will increase by design as a means of control.

Transcript

So it has come to this, Madame President.

The globalists’ 50 year ‘long march through the institutions’ has come to this.

50 years of bribery, coercion and censorship of the few remaining honest scientists has come to this.

And 50 years of inciting hatred and violence against anyone who opposes the climate change agenda of ‘fear-based control’ has come to this.

Our scientists, crony corporations, political parties and mouthpiece media have failed Australia.

As a servant to the people of Queensland I have never failed to speak up for what is right and I will speak up for what is right again today.

The Climate Change Bill 2022 seeks to use fear based on fraudulent science to enshrine in legislation the ‘subjugation of everyday Australians’.

On many occasions now I have sought to alert Australians to the nightmare being planned for them.

Those many speeches, motions and bills have made little headway in mainstream media due to dodgy journalists protecting the interests of their advertisers and billionaire owners.

The public have been deceived into thinking climate change is a product of human activity and this bill is necessary to save Australia.

The truth is Australia will need to be saved from this bill.

This is not conjecture, look at the ‘net zero’ chaos overseas resulting from the scientific fraud underlying net zero. Here is just some of that.

Greening the world and growing food

According to the NASA Goddard Space Centre one quarter of the increase in carbon dioxide in the last 30 years has been absorbed into plant life, leading to an increase in forest cover.[i]

This is a demonstration of the fertilizer effect of CO2[ii].

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere will reduce the health of native forests and vegetation.

Reducing CO2 will reduce crop yields, remove food from the tables of the world’s hungry, and require the increased use of chemical fertilizers that are made from … natural gas.

An irony lost on the proponents of this bill.

The world is finding out, as Sri Lanka has found, the trade-off here is between plant food and starvation. It is that simple.

Forestation levels around the world have been rising since the 1980s because of the increase in CO2.[iii]

Australia is currently gaining forests.[iv]

Let me be clear for the disinformation media. Our continent is gaining trees, meaning the density of vegetation is improving thanks to CO2.

We are losing extent – much of that chopped down as part of green energy construction – building wind turbines, solar plants, access roads and transmission easements to take unreliable energy from where these things are being built, to where the power is needed.

13,000 hectares of native vegetation is planned for destruction just in North Queensland alone[v].

I remember when greenies hugged trees, now they chop them down.

Forests are being chopped down for biomass, also known as wood chips.

Apparently wood chips are renewable energy now[vi], spruiked on the BBC back in 2018 when the Drax coal plant was converted to burn trees imported from America in the name of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[vii]

Burning trees produces more C02 than coal[viii], but warmers never let the facts get in the way of the feels.

One Nation has always supported preserving our old-growth forests because One Nation supports real environmentalism.

Ocean Health

According to NASA one half of the increase in carbon dioxide over the last 30 years has been absorbed in the ocean carbon cycle.[ix]

Carbon is sequestrated in silt and in biological sinks. Sea grasses, mangroves, tidal swamps and wetlands all sequester carbon and thrive.[x]

Providing habitat for fish breeding.

Carbon is also an ingredient in phytoplankton, the start of the marine food chain.

The more CO2 that is produced from all sources and then absorbed in the ocean carbon cycle, the more phytoplankton is produced, leading to an increase in marine life.

Increasing populations of fish support the continued harvesting of seafood as a cheap source of protein. Something oddly opposed over there in Greensland.

The marine carbon cycle also absorbs nitrogen and phosphates coming from natural and man-made sources.

Phytoplankton absorb these elements as part of their growth cycle, producing oxygen in the process. The less carbon dioxide available to be absorbed, the less oxygenation occurs and the less healthy our oceans become.

Coral is calcium carbonate CaCO3. Some of the carbon sequestrated in the ocean has helped coral growth, probably contributing to the record coral cover across the Great Barrier Reef announced just a few weeks ago.

That is an inconvenient truth if ever I heard one.

Greening the earth mitigates increasing temperatures[xi]

A new study reported on the NASA website shows increased vegetation during the current “Greening Earth period” – their words not mine – has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of water vapor transfer to the atmosphere.

Without this the world would be hotter.

Increasing CO2 – plant food – fertilizers our forests, increasing transpiration, leading to more water vapour transfer, which in turn cools the earth.

Increased temperature causes increased evaporation from the oceans and that water vapour transfer also cools the earth.[xii]

We have a beautiful, self-correcting ecosystem that has maintained the earth in a liveable temperature range for millennia.

This bill is based on self-interest, arrogance and hubris, risking a natural ecosystem that will protect us from any variability in atmospheric gasses.

And always has.

Renewable power is a fairy-tale.

Madame President wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could get all our energy from the ‘Sun and wind’ for free.

That is the extent of the thought process in many Green and Teal voters.

Missing the obvious problem – Solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines through the middle of nowhere, battery backups and access roads are not free.

The direct loss of natural habitat from wind and solar is significantly greater than any other form of power.

Three megawatts of wind or solar generation is needed to replace one megawatt of coal, hydro or nuclear.

To explain that with an example, the NSW Government’s own webpage on wind power mentions their 850MW of wind turbines generate just 1941GW of power annually.[xiii]

850MW running 24/7, if it were a coal or nuclear plant of that sized, will generate 7440GW/h per annum. The actual wind turbine output of 1941GW/h represents just 26% of rated capacity. What a joke these things are.

Solar is worse.

Battery backup

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) recently assessed the battery requirement for net zero grid stability at 60GW/h.[xiv]

Power going into a battery loses 20% in resistance, meaning 72GW/h of generation will be needed to produce 60GW/h of output.

Batteries cost about $1.5m per MW/h, meaning batteries for short term grid stability will require an investment in excess of $100bn every 10 years which is as long as they last.

This is just the start. Germany experienced an 8% reduction in output from wind and solar in the first half of 2021 owing to poor weather.[xv]

No battery can keep the lights on during a sustained period of bad weather, such as Australia has had these last two years.

Blackouts will be normal.

Nuclear is the only way to do net zero

Other countries who descended into renewable hell ahead of us are being forced to rethink to save their economies.

South Korea has given up and announced a move away from wind and solar to nuclear.[xvi]

Germany will extend their last three nuclear power plants until baseload power can be restored from gas.[xvii]

Last week the UK government announced a huge new 3200MW nuclear power plant[xviii].

Nuclear power plants across the world will grow 26% through to 2050.[xix]

Green energy Madame President is very well named, it has become glow in the dark green!

Australia can supply the world with reliable, safe coal for a lifetime, instead the world is going nuclear simply because wind and solar can’t supply reliable baseload power, and coal has been demonised.

Australia will be forced to make this same hard decision if the Climate Change Bill passes.

Insane power bills will destroy the Australia we know

Last week in the UK the household energy cap increased from $2160 to $6020. Just in one year. How can people afford that.[xx]

Commercial power has risen 600% in one year.

Widespread business closures are now likely.[xxi]

A glance at the graph of UK GDP shows citizens of the UK are less wealthy now than they were in 2007.[xxii]

The correlation of GDP stagnation with the retirement of cheap baseload power and the switch to wind and solar is undeniable.

German households are so desperate for heating, firewood is being horded and woodchips are back in commercial use.

Seriously, what’s next – candles?

Despite $250bn spent on solar and wind so far, and $250bn still to come, Germany is planning for blackouts next winter.

10% of German industry is threatened with closure and 40% are under financial pressure.[xxiii]

No wonder Prime Minister Albanese is holding a jobs summit concurrent with the Climate Change Bill.

Here is One Nation’s submission to the jobs summit.

Stop destroying cheap, reliable, coal power.

The mouthpiece media are blaming the war in Ukraine for the gas shortage in Europe, deliberating avoiding the real question-

Which is how did energy-independent nations lose their energy independence, and become reliant on Russian gas in the first place?[xxiv]

Wind and solar did that.

Is this empirical proof wind and solar are unable to sustain baseload power or is it stupidity in shutting down baseload power before replacements were built?

The answer is both.

With unrealistic and unnecessary timelines now embedded in the Climate Change Bill, Australia is about to walk the same path that has brought the rest of the world, especially the UK and Germany nothing but misery.

Cost

Wind and solar is only cost-effective to build and operate if the cost is offset with taxpayer subsidies.

Australian subsidies for wind and solar currently total $13bn every year.[xxv]

Reuters reported last week Australia will need about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market to achieve net zero.

This includes 1,900 GW of solar and 174 GW of wind.[xxvi]

Not megawatts, gigawatts. How is that even possible.

As a comparison Liddell coal plant is 2GW and at full capacity can supply 5% of our current energy needs.

Charging electric vehicles is a large part of this huge increase in power generation needed to reach net zero.

The $20bn cost of re-wiring the national energy grid to allow for the charging of electric cars[xxvii] dwarfs the national electricity market, which is only $11bn.[xxviii]

What will that do to power prices?

There is no costing in the Climate Change Bill because the costings are coming out at insane amounts of money.

I have an amendment to this bill standing in my name to introduce a cost benefit analysis for every government decision taken. Surely that is just prudent economic management.

Blackouts

Last week AEMO announced its latest 10-year outlook for the national electricity market, which warned of reliability “gaps” affecting New South Wales from 2025 and affecting Victoria, Queensland and South Australia from 2030.[xxix]

Gaps in this context means structural blackouts – not enough generation to meet demand.

We know today there will be catastrophic blackouts in 2025 and even worse blackouts in 2030.

What is the Government’s plan to stop the blackouts coming from coal plant closures?

There is no plan because the Climate Change Bill is not about increasing energy output, it is about forcing a reduction in energy consumption.

The Climate Change Bill is about control

The only way to achieve long term stability under net zero is to use smart meters to restrict energy use.

Germany has already started that rollout.[xxx]

The South Australian Government has also announced the rollout-out of smart meters[xxxi]

Smart meters allow the energy operator to go in and turn off any appliance in your home that is connected to the fuse box.

Air conditioners, hot water service, one or all of your light and power circuits can be switched off.

This is not intended as an emergency measure, it will be normal lie under net zero.

Big Brother will reach into your home and decide for you what appliances you can use and when.

That is terrifying in what used to be a free country.

To the Greens and Teal supporters who voted on the basis of feelings not facts can I say this.

You have been deceived.

The experience from countries ahead of us on the net zero slippery slope has been the destruction of small and medium business, the decimation of the middle class and intrusive government control.

You will have less and the elites behind this scam will have more.

We a paying for our own enslavement.

It is time to vote against creating a world where native vegetation, crop yields, the marine environment – the entire biosphere is being damaged through reducing carbon dioxide.

It is time to vote against a world where hunger and poverty will increase by design as a means of control – neo serfdom.

Have some decency.

Vote no to the Climate Change Bill 2022.

We have one flag, we are one community, we are One Nation and we are proud carbon-based life forms.


[i] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect#:~:text=The%20CO2%20fertilization%20effect,carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)

[iii] https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

[iv] https://theconversation.com/every-year-in-australia-nature-grows-8-new-trees-for-you-but-that-alone-wont-fix-climate-change-146922

[v] https://stopthesethings.com/2022/01/23/getting-away-with-green-murder-wind-industry-destroying-vast-tracts-of-australian-wilderness/comment-page-1/

[vi] https://www.energy.gov.au/data/renewables

[vii] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180821-the-giant-coal-plant-converting-to-green-energy

[viii] https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/uk-biomass-emits-more-co2-than-coal/

[ix] https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle

[x] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/03/06/seagrasses-and-mangroves-can-suck-carbon-from-the-air

[xi] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

[xii] https://carnegiescience.edu/news/water-evaporated-trees-cools-global-climate#:~:text=New%20research%20from%20Carnegie’s%20Global,effect%20on%20the%20entire%20atmosphere.

[xiii] https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/renewable-generation/wind-energy-nsw

[xiv] https://reneweconomy.com.au/energy-crisis-reminds-us-why-we-need-a-rapid-shift-to-renewables-says-aemo-chief/

[xvi] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/korea-pares-back-renewables-as-it-taps-nuclear-for-climate-goal?cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-energy&utm_medium=social&utm_content=energy&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter

[xvii] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-08-18/

[xviii] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/07/20/uk-approves-new-nuclear-power-plant-in-eastern-england_5990789_4.html

[xix] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#:~:text=In%20the%202021%20edition%20(WEO,in%20particular%20India%20and%20China.

[xx] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/29/listening-to-european-electricity-traders-is-very-very-scary/

[xxi] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

[xxii] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita#:~:text=U.K.%20gdp%20per%20capita%20for,a%206.83%25%20increase%20from%202017.

[xxiii] https://www.ft.com/content/d0d46712-6234-4d24-bbed-924a00dd0ca9

[xxiv] https://www.aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/

[xxv] https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/13-billion-dolllar-cost-revealed/

[xxvi] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/massive-renewable-energy-needed-power-australia-net-zero-economy-by-2050-study-2022-08-25/

[xxvii] https://alp.org.au/policies/rewiring_the_nation#:~:text=Labor’s%20Rewiring%20the%20Nation%20will,signed%20off%20by%20all%20governments.

[xxviii] https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/National-Electricity-Market-Fact-Sheet.pdf

[xxix] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-31/power-supplies-in-australias-biggest-grid-to-run-short-by-2025/101389018

[xxx] ibid

[xxxi] https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/plan-to-switch-off-aircon-pool-pump-and-hot-water-remotely-to-shore-up-power-grid/news-story/5e9b70e06a1dec857979e17f2c2372e8

Senator Roberts calls on the Senate to reject the Climate Change Bills 2022 due to the complete lack of cost-benefit analysis.

He says, “Carbon dioxide emissions reduction is the biggest change to Australian lives Parliament has ever considered.”

“Despite the target’s huge impact, absolutely nothing in the Climate Change Bill says how it will be achieved, what the cost to Australia will be or what measurable impact reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production will have on global temperature.”

“Politicians don’t accept this kind of blank cheque and ignorant attitude to the flow-on effects of legislation in any other policy, and shouldn’t on energy.”

Emissions reduction policies are expected to significantly impact energy, transport and agriculture.

“Grids that have tried to rely on wind and solar to provide their needs have either been left in the dark or have skyrocketing energy prices. Instead of learning from international wind and solar disasters like Texas and Germany, Australian climate alarmists want us to follow their road to ruin.” 

“Adding emissions reduction to the National Energy Objectives will compromise the existing objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of energy.”

“A government funded study has already sounded the alarm on the forced and premature uptake of electric vehicles, finding that uptake could increase electricity demand by 30-100% on Australia’s already struggling power grid.”

“Under an emissions target, taxpayer money will be spent telling farmers to lockup their land for carbon dioxide credits, essentially a scam plagued with integrity issues and currently under government review. Australia’s farmers can grow enough to feed and clothe the world, yet won’t be able to under this target.”

Senator Roberts’ submission to the Climate Change Bills inquiry outlines the lack of due diligence and ideological, rather than evidence based, attitudes that have driven climate policy.

“Not a single politician can say what specific measurable impact these emissions reduction policies will have on any aspect of climate or weather.” “Until the true, full costs of an emissions target are given to Australia, this Bill must not pass.”

This week I talk to Ian Plimer for a full two hours and dive even deeper into the global warming fraud.

Transcript part 1 (click here to go to part 2)

Speaker 1:

This is the Malcolm Roberts Show.

Speaker 2:

On Today’s News Talk radio, TNT.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, good afternoon or good morning or good evening or good night, wherever you are around this marvellous world of ours, this is Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk radio, tntradio.live. Thank you for having me as your guest. Whether it’s in your car, your kitchen, your shed, or your lounge room, wherever you are right now, whichever continent, whichever country, whichever region, whichever state, thank you so much for having me as your guest. We are going to continue in a minute with continuation of last week’s show.

Malcolm Roberts:

We had two hours with the fabulous professor, Ian Plimer. He is back, as I promised, and we’re going to try and finish it. There’s so much material to cover. We may not get through it all, but we’re going to have some fun doing it. I’m just going to remind everyone that there are two themes to my show. Firstly, freedom, specifically freedom versus control, the age old human battle. And secondly, personal responsibility and integrity.

Malcolm Roberts:

And this man, Ian Plimer, Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer shows both, and he’s been a passionate defender and protector of freedom and shows personal responsibility and integrity. He’s a marvellous guest. Both freedom and personal responsibility are fundamental for human progress and people’s livelihoods. Before welcoming Ian back, let’s just recap some of the things that happened this week. First of all, the Great Barrier Reef. I’m going to ask again about this.

Malcolm Roberts:

We see now that the Australian Institute of Marine Science is telling us that, sorry, the Central Barrier Reef and the Northern Barrier Reef have got record levels of coral cover, record levels of coral cover. And he won’t be surprised, I am not surprised. And the Southern Barrier Reef, the Southern Region, there are three regions, the third doesn’t have record, but it has very high coral cover. The only reason it’s not record is because there’s a cyclical crown of thorns, starfish infestation. These come and go. We’ve known that for a long time.

Malcolm Roberts:

The other thing I would mention is that despite all the raving on about bleaching for the last few years rather, bleaching is entirely natural event response to, sorry, low cold temperatures and high warm temperatures, entirely natural. And people who understand barrier reefs understand that perfectly. And I remind people that Queensland had record cold temperatures, not in 1888, not in 1988, in 2008. And in that record, cold temperatures in 2008, the Southern Barrier Reef bleached in places. It’s a natural response.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then we have the lunatics in Canberra, and I’m part of that bloody zoo. We’re doing our best to try and turn the zoo around, but they passed in the lower house. It’s got to come to the Senate now, the labor’s climate change bill. Or should I say, the labour Greens coalition’s climate change bill, along with the tills. What a disgrace that is. Currently, unreliables, that’s wind and solar, are at 9% and 9% each. Both wind is 9% and solar at 9%. That’s 2020 and 2021.

Malcolm Roberts:

Labour wants to shoot that target up to 43% and unreliable’s solar and wind will make up 43%, more than doubling our solar and wind. Electricity prices have already trebled in the last three decades. We’ve gone from having the lowest electricity prices in the world to among the highest. Why? Because of wind and solar. The noted economist, Dr. Alan Moran, tells us in a especially commissioned report and he gets these figures, by the way, from government reports, government budget statements, state and federal. They can’t be argued.

Malcolm Roberts:

You cannot put a sensible argument to refute his figures. The levelized prices per megawatt hour of electricity hydrate is the cheapest. But the capacity in this country is very limited because we’re wasting the water up north. Let’s get onto the viable alternatives. Coal, $50 per megawatt hour. Gas, currently because of high gas prices, it’s around $80 to $100 per megawatt hour. It has been usually around $60 per megawatt hour. Nuclear, $70 to $80 per megawatt hour.

Malcolm Roberts:

And by the way, the coal prices are legit because there was recently another coal fired power station built in Vietnam to burn our coal. Wind, $100 per megawatt hour. Solar, $120 per megawatt hour firm. And of course, they need the batteries for wind and solar, and the batteries are impossible. Coal is half the price of wind and about 45% of the price of solar. That’s why our electricity prices skyrocketed. Now, what Ian Plimer and I are going to be discussing is my letter to the four amigos. That’s what I call them.

Malcolm Roberts:

The former prime minister, when he was prime minister, my letter was sent to Scott Morrison on the 27th of October 2021. It was sent at the same time and address to Barnaby Joyce, the deputy prime minister, head of the national party at the time. And also too, at the same time, the one letter went to these four people, went to Anthony Albanese, the then leader of the opposition and now the prime minister. And the fourth of the four amigos was Adam Bandt, the leader of the Greens. The letter can be found at the website, my website, malcolmrobertsqld.com.au, M-A-L-C-O-L-M-R-O-B-E-R-T-S-Q-L-D.com.au. And we’ll be discussing that letter. Ian has a copy of it. It’s not kept secret, but we’ll be going through that. Welcome, Ian.

Ian Plimer:

Good day to you. How are you?

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m very well, thanks, mate. How are you?

Ian Plimer:

Oh, struggling through life with the greatest of ease.

Malcolm Roberts:

Can you struggle with ease? Well, tell me something you-

Ian Plimer:

Oh, that was a pretty good [inaudible 00:06:18] about the week.

Malcolm Roberts:

The zoo, the zoo, the excellent zoo. All this is fabricated.

Ian Plimer:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So-

Malcolm Roberts:

All this climate hysteria.

Ian Plimer:

What a week it’s been. We have known from tourist operators for a long, long time, but the Great Barrier Reef was not in trouble. And they were using one of the fundamental criteria of science, and that is to observe. And they observe time and time and time again, that the Great Barrier Reef wasn’t in trouble. And finally, we get the Australian Institute of Marine Science tells us, it’s not in trouble. It’s, in fact, at best that’s been for a long, long. Now, how dare they? Now, if you’re employed in the climate industry, how dare someone say the planet’s okay?

Ian Plimer:

Because what that really means is you put people out of work. These people who are bludging grants from the government, these people who are imminently unemployable, working in these organisations that are trying to scare us and then in return, we give them money. They are now showing that it’s a total waste of oxygen and a total waste of money to keep these people alive. The Australian Institute of Marine Science has told us what we already knew, that coral reefs come, coral reefs go. There are many, many reasons.

Ian Plimer:

But the two major reasons I had been promoting, and that is runoff from agriculture and climate change just don’t affect coral ridge. And every time it warms up a little bit, a coral reef, you can hear it. You can hear it cheer because coral loves warmer water. The corals saying the Red Sea or Papua New Guinea growing much, much warmer water than the Great Barrier Reef. Coral likes it warm. Right from day one, you could not argue that warmer waters will kill off a coral reef. Now, blind Freddy knows that.

Ian Plimer:

But we have to wait till some official organisation can put their stamp of approval on it. For years, we’ve had to put up with the hypocrisy and moaning of these people. Thank God we’ve actually had a report that demonstrates that they’re tightly is this. They should go home.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, mate, can you … I normally start the show with something my guest appreciates. For something you appreciate, what is it? Anything at all? Maybe you appreciate the barrier reef, the truth being told.

Ian Plimer:

I appreciate living in a country with fresh air, with no pollution, with fresh water, something that so many countries where I work, such as in South America, Africa, Middle East, that they have got. We can actually breathe the air. Now we had the Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek, a week or two ago in a national press club announcement, tell us how dreadful the pollution was in Australia. And then she finished with a tee-wee little emotional statement about how she loves to fly into Australia and see all the forests surrounding the city of Sydney, that crystal clear sparkling water and how she can see for miles.

Ian Plimer:

What she’s saying is that it’s absolutely beautiful, there is no pollution. If you want pollution, go to China, go to parts of India, go to parts of Africa. But you don’t see it in Western countries. Why? Because we have generated enough wealth to be able to clean up our act. If you want to stop pollution, get wealthy.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well said, I’ve got to just adjust my microphone here because I’m coming across too loudly. We’ll see if that makes any difference. But thank you very much, Ian.

Ian Plimer:

All of the political issues, you have to come across loudly.

Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve been trying it. Now speaking of politics, the key issue in this whole climate scam is shoddy governance. And the key issue there is the lack of integrity. And that’s what we’re focus on. Now listeners who listened to Ian and myself last two weeks ago know that we devoted the two hours to exposing the fact that there has been no one anywhere that has in politics that has provided the logical scientific points. By logical scientific points, what I mean is empirical scientific evidence, hard data, hard observations within a causal structure, a framework that proves cause and effect. No one anywhere. Not only that-

Ian Plimer:

Oh, Malcolm, that’s so many words. That’s so many words. It’s really simple. No one has ever shown too many emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Those emissions are 3% of total emission. If you did show that human emissions drive global warming, then you’d have to show that 97% of natural emissions don’t drive global warming. It’s checkmate.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, exactly. Now what we then started on was the cross examination that I have done of the CSIRO, the Australian Federal Government’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. They’ve been given the responsibility for the last 48 years, almost half a century, to come up with the evidence. Now, these people in the CSIRO … By the way, CSIRO has a fabulous reputation over many, many years for some marvellous inventions, made life easier for people around the world. However, in the climate area, they are absolutely disgraceful.

Malcolm Roberts:

I refuse to call them scientists because they’re basically academics who are activists. Anyway, I’m the only person anywhere in the world, I’m not saying this to brag. I’m saying it to highlight a point in a minute, I am the only politician anywhere in the world, an elected representative in congresses, in parliaments to have held a government science agency accountable. And we’re going to go through that right now. Two weeks ago that we pointed out that the first thing I did when I entered the Senate, as an elected representative of the people on 2016, was to send a letter.

Malcolm Roberts:

As soon as I got sworn in, I sent a letter to the head of the CSIRO, Dr. Larry Marshall, the chief executive, requesting a presentation. Now they ducked and dodged and bobbed and weaved and tried desperately to get out of it. But we eventually pinned them down with the help of two government ministers and senators. What we found, the first question I asked was, I want a presentation on the empirical scientific evidence, the hard data that shows that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to humans.

Malcolm Roberts:

During the two-and-a-half presentation, when we eventually nailed them down … And by the way, they could bring any evidence they wanted, anything. They gave us one paper on carbon dioxide and one paper on temperatures. After more than 40 years of research, one paper on temperatures, which was published in 2013, and we dismissed that paper, completely tore it apart. Not only that we quoted the lead author of that paper himself saying, you can’t rely on the temperature construction that they made for the 20th century.

Malcolm Roberts:

I mean, the own author was dismissed within two weeks of that paper’s released in 2013. But in the course of that cross examination, CSIRO admitted that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger, never. We asked them, “Who has? Why do the politicians are saying that they rely on CSIRO?” And they said, “We better go and ask politicians.” Then I mentioned that we asked the chief scientists, the federal government’s chief scientist. And I think we got onto this, Ian, from memory, who at the time was-

Ian Plimer:

Yes, we did.

Malcolm Roberts:

… Dr. Alan Finkel. And we asked for a presentation from him. We opened the presentation in a little room in the science minister’s, Arthur Sinodinos’ office. And Dr. Alan Finkel started rabbiting on for about 20 minutes. And after 20 minutes, we’d had enough. And we just asked one simple question, I can’t remember what that question was. And he looked at us, he was stunned. He was suddenly realising that he couldn’t feed us crap. And he suddenly realised that we knew what the hell we were talking about.

Malcolm Roberts:

And he looked at me, and I will always remember these words, Ian. He said to me, “I am not a climate scientist and I don’t understand climate science.” And yet that man, funded with taxpayer money, was spreading the word around the countryside, advocating cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity. Ian, what do you say to that?

Ian Plimer:

Well, Malcolm, there’s couple of things here. There’s a couple of things here. You don’t have to be a climate scientist, whatever that is, to be able to see that this is total [inaudible 00:15:07].

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you.

Ian Plimer:

All you have to do is to adhere to the scientific method. And science is married to evidence. That evidence must be reproducible, it must be validated. It must be in an accord with everything else that’s been demonstrated. Now, in science, we have a body of evidence from which we construct a theory, and that’s just a way to try to understand things. And if the theory doesn’t work, you throw out the theory. What the climate activists are wanting us to do is to say, this is a theory. We, humans, drive global warming and we’ll juggle the evidence to fit it.

Ian Plimer:

Any evidence that doesn’t agree with the theory, such as my science, geology, then you just throw that out. It’s the exact inverse of how science works. And they are corrupting the scientific process. These people are not climate scientists. They are activists who are chasing your money, chasing power, chasing fortune. Yet they don’t chase an electorate as you have to do. It is not science. And it’s something that I get thrown at me quite often, because I’m an earth scientist. I’m not a climate scientist.

Ian Plimer:

These people do not realise that we have 200 years of geology textbooks where half the space of the book is arguing about climate. We, geologists, were onto climate change 200 years ago. This was from people working in the Paris basin, seeing that there was tropical flora and fauna in the Paris basin where it isn’t tropical. People in England realised from fossils that we had to have had much warmer climate. And Charles Lyell in 1833, pursue this even further. He very nearly got onto the idea of continental drift.

Ian Plimer:

We, geologists, have been struggling for centuries about how you can have tropical flora and fauna in fossils in high latitude European countries, that with climate change. The textbooks are full of it. And all of a sudden, when there’s money to be made and when people want to frighten us with this, we get a group of atmospheric mathematicians and physicists who argue that it is only a traces of a trace gas in an atmosphere that drive a whole planetary process.

Ian Plimer:

They don’t seem to realise that in the past, we’ve had huge processes where the atmosphere, the oceans, the rock and life have worked hand in hand. And that’s happened a number of times in the past. To be what is called a climate scientist, you have to basically ignore all the evidence from other sciences, ignore the scientific method, and promote your alleged science on the basis of feelings and beliefs rather than evidence.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well said. And we’re going to go to an ad break now. But when we come back, I’m going to tell you what the chief scientist did on the second presentation that we arranged. We’ll be right back for more from Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer.

Malcolm Roberts:

And this is Senator Malcolm Roberts, broadcasting from Australia with Professor Ian Plimer. And Ian, we arranged at that first presentation from the chief scientist. We said to them, this is not good enough, we want a proper presentation, and we want that to be at least four hours in length and a proper discussion. And he responded to me and he and the science minister, both agreed, we set a date for a couple of months’ time. And then as we wound up, he said to me, “Can I bring a scientist?” And I said, “You can bring anyone you like.”

Malcolm Roberts:

Ian, the second presentation, just before it was due to be held, was cancelled because Dr. Alan Finkel was overseas. Now he since come back. But anyway, that’s neither here nor there. We suddenly had the CSIRO arranged to give a second presentation to us. And at this presentation, we said, “You failed the first one, so let’s have a simpler task for you. We want evidence, empirical scientific evidence of anything unprecedented in climate in the past 10,000 years and due to human carbon dioxide.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And in the course of that, they presented another paper, which we ripped apart as well and had no evidence. But in the course of that presentation, Ian, over two-and-a-half hours again, from the CSiRO’s climate science team, they looked at me and admitted, “Today’s temperatures are not unprecedented, not unprecedented.” Yet the whole climate scam started on claims of unprecedented, unusual, catastrophic, disastrous global warming. Are we warm at all, Ian?

Ian Plimer:

Well, we hear that porn word, unprecedented. There are a couple of things unprecedented in the history of our planet. The first time it rained, the first time we had life on earth, the first time we had a climate change. They were unprecedented. They didn’t happen before. They only happened once. And after that, everything is a reflection of climate cycles, which seem to get ignored. We have cycles of climate related to the pulling apart of the continent and the stitching back together every 400 million years.

Ian Plimer:

Cycles of climate related to having a bad galactic address every 143 million years, cycles of climate based on orbital cycles of the earth, which get us closer or further from the sun, cycles of climate derived with changes in the sun. And these changes are based on sun spots, but they’re also based on long cycles, 1500 years and 10,000 years. These cycles are well documented and they then affect ocean cycles, which turn out to be about every 60 years. And we also have lunar tidal cycles, pushing warmer water into the Arctic.

Ian Plimer:

And every time that happens, the Northwest Passage is open. Every time we don’t have that warmer water pushed into the Arctic, it’s closed. We’ve known this for a long time. The Chinese have known it for thousands of years because they once had a calendar based on the 60-year ocean cycles, which was related to the productivity of their crops. We never hear that we have cycles of climate and we never hear that in the past, we had very carbon dioxide rich atmospheres. This atmosphere had cyclical changes.

Ian Plimer:

And in today’s atmosphere, we have traces of carbon dioxide and humans are adding traces and traces to that atmosphere. And all of a sudden, we have to forget all the previous cycles and being that traces of a trace gas are driving all of climate change. To forget all of past science and to try to blame humans on driving a massive planetary system is just bonkers. Yet this is what we get told. Now, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, they do not talk about cycles. They talk about carbon dioxide as if this trace gas drives the whole climate. They are demonstrably wrong.

Ian Plimer:

And I don’t have opinions in my science, I have facts. I don’t let emotions get in the way of my science. Well, yes, I do. I tell a lie, I get excited. And what excites me in my science is not what I know, but what I don’t know. What excites me is when I see something and I find out something and I think, well, that’s interesting. I’m curious about that. And it’s curiosity that drives science. It’s evidence that drives science. It’s not politics. You’ve only got to look at what Lysenko did to agricultural science in the Soviet Union, ending up in 30 million people dying because the science was wrong.

Ian Plimer:

Now we are in a similar situation where the science on climate change is demonstrably wrong. It is sending countries bankrupt. It is killing people. It’s not warm weather that kills people, it’s Jack Frost that kills people. The science is to demonstrably wrong. Governments are able to skin people alive in Western countries because they’re wealthy. And when these Western countries have ultimately fritted away, large amounts of money and have ended up economically like Argentina. Some clown is going to ask the question, how did this happen?

Ian Plimer:

We’re once wealthy, we once had reliable electricity and cheap electricity. What has happened? I mean, that’s when questions like the ones you are asking in the Senate and programmes like this become important. No one has ever pursued scientific organisations in parliament on those fundamental question. You’re the only person that’s done it, and more power to you. Keep doing it.

Malcolm Roberts:

We will. We will, Ian. We’re going to bust this rubbish. Now you raised-

Ian Plimer:

Well, I’m happy to talk with you in the trenches.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m going to ask you something about that. Maybe on air, but maybe after, it depends. We’ve got a lot of ground to cover. Can you explain-

Ian Plimer:

Well, it’s better if everyone can hold be accountable. I don’t mind being accountable.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no. I mean, I’m lining up to a range of presentation, an offer of a presentation from the best scientists in the world to some of the tills and some of the other climate alarmists. And I was wondering if you’d be available for that.

Ian Plimer:

I’m certainly available for it, but it’ll takes [inaudible 00:27:52] to quiet me down. But I’m more than willing to use evidence to charge and persuade people that opinion and feelings don’t count. It is evidence and it has to be reproduced. It has to be valid.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And the whole thrust of the programme two weeks ago for the two hours and these two hours is to do one thing, to put the onus onto the politicians who want to cut a human activity producing carbon dioxide and taxes all into oblivion, put the owners on them because they have never held onus.

Ian Plimer:

Yeah. If you come up with an extraordinary idea, you need extraordinary evidence to support it. That hasn’t been done.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. Tell everyone what a trace gas is because it’s a scientific term, trace gas.

Ian Plimer:

We once had an atmosphere with a very large amount of carbon dioxide. Our first atmosphere on planet earth had ammonia, methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium. That didn’t last long. And we got into our second atmosphere, which had nitrogen and a huge amount of carbon dioxide, maybe 20% carbon dioxide. Our third atmosphere-

Malcolm Roberts:

Roughly, when did that change occur? I mean-

Ian Plimer:

On a Tuesday and-

Malcolm Roberts:

Resident mother earth.

Ian Plimer:

Now, that was in the geological period called the Proterozoic from about 2.5 billion years ago to about 500 million years ago.

Malcolm Roberts:

Right, thank you.

Ian Plimer:

We had huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And we’ve sequestered that into the limey rocks. And the third atmosphere, which we currently enjoy, is nitrogen and oxygen dominant atmosphere. That oxygen comes from life. That oxygen comes from life consuming carbon dioxide, using the carbon and excreting the oxygen. And so, we have gone from an atmosphere that had 20% carbon dioxide in it to 1.04%. And we are worried about a slight increase in carbon dioxide. Now, during that time, we have had six great ice ages.

Ian Plimer:

Each one of those ice ages started when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. You can’t try to tell me that the traces of small amounts of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere, which has only got 0.04% carbon dioxide in it, can drive global warming. Because it didn’t happen in the past. The physics and chemistry of the way the planet works hasn’t changed because you are alive. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It is plant food. It has very slightly increased over the last 50 years. Now we actually don’t quite know why. Because we know from ice cold drilling that once you get a temperature increase, then anything from 600 to 6,000 years later, you get a carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere. We’ve had-

Malcolm Roberts:

So hang on there. That means the temperature drives the carbon dioxide, not the carbon dioxide driving the temperature.

Ian Plimer:

Yes. And we’ve only known that for 200 years in chemistry. But if you don’t know any chemistry, then, of course, that doesn’t fit your policy.

Malcolm Roberts:

Henry’s Law, right?

Ian Plimer:

Henry’s Law. And so, what we can see in the past is that once we have cold periods of time, then we get natural warming, later carbon dioxide increase. Now our last cold period finished in the minimum, just over 300 years ago. We’ve been increasing in temperature for that last 300 years. So that increase in carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere might not be due to humans emitting carbon dioxide from industry. It might be due to natural exhalation of carbon dioxide with the warming of the oceans.

Ian Plimer:

The jury is out because the methods which are used to try to tell us the proportion of human carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are dodgy at best. And I go in my latest book, Green Murder, I go into some of those calculation. And I’m arguing that it could have even be only 1% of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions every year from humans, not the 3% which we commonly get told. There’s a whole lot of uncertainty in this science. But when we have an atmosphere that was once 20% carbon dioxide and life thrived, we had glaciations, we had climate change.

Ian Plimer:

And now we’ve got an atmosphere of 0.04% carbon dioxide. We’re having connections about a couple of parts per million increase of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. Now we can see the effects of that because we’ve been measuring our planet from satellites since 1979. And we’ve seen that in the last 40 years or so, we’ve had a slight greening of the planet. That’s due to a very slight increase in carbon dioxide and maybe 10 or 20 parts per million carbon dioxide increase. That slight greening has done the planet good.

Ian Plimer:

The second thing is we’ve seen an increase in crop yield, partly due to increase carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, partly due to genetically modified crops, and partly due to better fertilisers. If we go the other path, you just go down the path of Sri Lanka. Carbon dioxide is good for you. It is plant food. If we didn’t have plants, we’d be dead. If we have the atmospheric carbon dioxide content kiss some part of your body and say goodbye, you’re going to be dead.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well said. We could talk for hours, and maybe we’d come back to carbon dioxide at the end of the show. But the trace gas carbon dioxide, as you pointed out, is 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere right now. And the proportion could … Well, that’s basically 4/100ths of 1%. It’s trivial. It’s minuscule. And that’s why it’s called a trace gas. And it’s not Professor Plimer or myself is calling it a trace gas. It’s a scientific category. It’s a trace gas. You also mentioned … Well, let’s go to sticking with the second CSIRO presentation.

Malcolm Roberts:

The first one, they presented after 48 years of research, they presented one paper and temperatures, which we showed was complete crap, complete crap. They presented one paper by Harris. And that first paper on temperatures was by Mark Adam. I’m putting these on the record, 2013. And the second paper was Harris et al that was on carbon dioxide, and that was shown to be completely faulty, completely faulty. The covert spoke about those two papers again.

Malcolm Roberts:

And at the second presentation, they gave us Lecavalier 2017 on temperatures and Feldman on 2015 on carbon dioxide. Again, faulty and proven to be faulty by pre-reviewed scientific papers that we presented to the CSIRO. At their third presentation, they presented five vague references. None of which specified any location where there’s proof that human carbon dioxide is affecting the climate, nothing at all, nothing scientific, nothing specified. And some of the references in the last five they gave us contradicted the earlier references.

Malcolm Roberts:

I mean, Ian, you can’t make this stuff up. They provided us with no evidence at all and then contradicted themselves and showed an abysmal understanding of science. Is that typical of the CSIRO? It doesn’t seem to be, but they’ve gone rogue.

Ian Plimer:

Well, in that particular case, they were treating you with disdain. Feed this man a bit of bullshit and he won’t understand it. He would go away. Now, that’s not the way it works. The CSIRO has been a great organisation, creating new strains of wheat that can survive our lower rainfall and high solidity soils in Australia. They’ve done some wonderful work. They’ve done some wonderful work with mineral exploration, but many of these divisions of the CSIRO now have been reduced or closed. CSIRO now has a sociologist in each division.

Ian Plimer:

And these people are there to help promote the social benefits of what the CSIRO do. And they were fobbing you off. They actually made a fundamental strategic error of warfare. They underestimated how strong and how good you work. And they said, oh, we’ll just give this clown a few papers full of gobbledygook and he’ll go away. Well, firstly, he’s like a rabid dog. He won’t go away. And the second thing is, you understand the science, you’ve got a background in engineering, you’ve practised engineering. You’ve actually seen the practical side of doing things. And that contempt that they had for you, you have exposed. And you’ve got to keep doing it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, and we will. And I’ll just point out something. While I’m an engineer by training and qualification, I have other statutory qualifications that also depend upon my understanding of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide. I’ve had to keep people alive, underground in minds, based upon my knowledge of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide. I’ve had to do that. I’ve held accountable under the most rigorous scrutiny of possible. But the work that we did holding the CSIRO accountable involved a wonderful man who’s highly objective.

Malcolm Roberts:

I won’t give you his name out at the moment. He has an order of Australia medal for his services to research in this country. And he is not only a phenomenal brain and one of the highest intellects that I’ve ever experienced, he has a complete objectivity, no emotion, whatsoever, attached to his statements. He just says it like it is and he holds people accountable. He is also a genius in statistics, a genius in computing. He wrote programmes to legally go into scientific bodies around the world and scrape off 24,000 datasets.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s what CSIRO was up against, this man with 24,000 datasets on both climate and on energy. And that’s how we smashed them. But the key thing we were doing, Ian, was putting the onus on them. They failed the first time. They failed the second time to provide any evidence that we need to cut anything at all in our output. Let’s move on to Senate estimates. Sorry, they-

Ian Plimer:

Just come back-

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes.

Ian Plimer:

Just come back to that. We are having people create policy and make statements, such that pensioners say in the UK, need to make a choice that whether they eat, have a hot shower or heat a room. These policies are-

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s happening in Australia, Ian. That’s happening in Australia.

Ian Plimer:

Yeah. These policies are killing people. Now, while you were an engineer working underground, and I go underground very regular now, we measure gases. We measure carbon monoxide. We measure carbon dioxide. We measure methane. We measure sulphur dioxide. We measure nitrogen oxides. We measure oxygen. And if you, as an engineer, underground and someone dies with a methane gas dust explosion or someone asphyxiates from carbon monoxide, it’s not only that you are responsible in the state where you worked as a mining engineer, you are criminally responsible.

Ian Plimer:

You go to a trial where there is no jury and where there’s no mechanism of appealing. You go to jail with a very hefty fine. That is the industrial law that you worked under as a mining engineer underground. We have no such industrial laws for those people who might set up a wind turbine that send people absolutely bonkers with the ultrasound that they have to suffer. We have no industrial law to make people responsible for killing people because they haven’t got enough energy to stay warm. I think that point of the consequences of your action and responsibility is an extremely important one. And this is why I called my latest book Green Murder, because these green policies knowingly kill people and there is no responsibility for that.

Malcolm Roberts:

Hear, hear. Well, we’ll go to another ad break and we’ll be right back for more with Professor Ian Plimer. And we’ll continue putting the onus on these people who are destroying humanity.

Malcolm Roberts:

And this is Senator Malcolm Roberts, coming to you from Australia, wherever you are in the world right now, with my special guest, Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer. Ian, we then had a third presentation from the CSIRO that they requested, because they were so embarrassed with what we’d done to their so-called science, their third presentation. And that’s-

Ian Plimer:

Oh, you [inaudible 00:43:12] for punishment.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And then we had Senate estimates hearings. I was knocked out due to dual citizenship and came back in 2019. And I held these people accountable in Senate estimates. And I asked them for a really … They failed to provide anything that was any evidence of danger. They admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. They failed to provide any evidence, whatsoever, that we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. I asked them a really simple question. “Okay, okay.

Malcolm Roberts:

All I want from you in Senate estimates is the empirical scientific evidence, the hard data showing that there has been a statistically significant change in climate, anything, temperatures, snowfall, rainfall, drought length, severity, frequency, a flood, lengths of frequency, severity, tides. Anything at all, away you go.” And they said, “We’ve already done it,” which was a fundamental lie, which is a fundamental misrepresentation by the CSIRO’s director, one of his directors, Dr. Peter Mayfield.

Malcolm Roberts:

They have never shown us even that there’s statistically significant change in climate. In other words, Ian, there is no change of process, there is no change of climate, just as you pointed out at the very start of your contribution today, natural cycles interacting.

Ian Plimer:

Well, yes, you can’t show that human emissions drive global warming. Because you have to show that the oceanic emissions don’t. It’s checkmate. It can’t be done, and it hasn’t been done. And the arguments always fall apart with what you are doing. Really simple questions. And I think for any listeners that want to battle their local green activist, don’t argue with them. Don’t present them with facts. Ask them really simple questions. Put the owners on them to say, oh, well, that’s an interest concept. Where can I find the evidence? And wave your mobile phone around.

Ian Plimer:

And you can say, look, for the 30-second search on this phone, I can show you that the hurricane intensity hasn’t been increasing. With the 30-second search from this phone, you can see that the Great Barrier Reef isn’t being destroyed. With the 30-second search on this phone, you can actually see that sea levels are not rising catastrophically, that land levels go up and down as well as sea levels go up and down. The information is out there. Your choice is to whether you want to actually look at information.

Ian Plimer:

And for me, the most exciting thing is to put together all of the information. Some of which might grade a little bit, but put it all together to try to get an understanding. And that understanding is a model. Models are not evidence. Models are a really, really naive way of trying to understand how the world works. However, it is models that are driving the scare campaign. It is models that are telling us that in 50 or 100 years’ time, we’re going to fry and die. Yet those people promoting those models are going to be dead anyway. What value is that? There is no responsibility.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, speaking of responsibility, I take responsibility for the executive summary of the report that I wrote along with my Senate office team and our colleague with the Order of Australian medal. We published this in a report entitled, Restoring Scientific Integrity. And I’m going to read out the executive summary. And then what I’d like you to do, Ian, is to give me a comment on the 10 … Overall comment, whatever you want to say. This is the executive summary. The CSIRO has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous.

Malcolm Roberts:

Secondly, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. They withdrew, effectively withdrew by not discussing anything after we discredited the papers that they had provided as evidence of unprecedented rate of temperature change, and then failed to provide supporting empirical evidence. The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity. That’s the fundamental basis for policy. Fifth, they rely on unvalidated models, as Ian just said, that give unverified and erroneous projections as so-called evidence.

Malcolm Roberts:

They relied on discredited and poor quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. They admit, they admit to not doing due diligence on reports and data from external agencies that they use. They revealed little understanding of papers they cited as evidence. They showed us papers, in fact, later that contradicted their earlier papers. These people have no clue. Second last, they allow politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO’s science without correcting the journalists and the politicians. And last, they misled parliament. What a dog’s breakfast, Ian?

Ian Plimer:

Well, it is. And we have some problems here that this is a bandwagon, this is a fad. This is a fashion. This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with controlling you taking money out of your wallet and being unelected and controlling the way in which this world operates. For me, the important aspects are the lack of due diligence. Now, I spend a lot of my life doing due diligence on various projects. If I get it wrong, I actually lose my job. If I get it wrong in a public organisation, a public company, I can go to jail.

Ian Plimer:

But that doesn’t happen with these scientific organisations. And our journalists, I mean, I don’t think we have many journalists left on planet Earth. We have now people who have chosen to be activists and claim that they are journalists and are in the mainstream media trying to change people’s opinions. And most of that attempt is done by omitting information rather than providing information. The good old fashioned crusty journalist who started life as a 16-year-old cadet in the newsroom has ended up writing balanced stories. Those people don’t exist.

Ian Plimer:

There are a few newspapers around the world and a few media networks where you can get this balance. This is why I think a lot of people now are not buying newspapers, they’re not looking at commercial television. They are getting their information from other source because they have realised that the art of journalism has almost died. And journalists now are trying to use a very, very limited dumbed down education to actually push their own political barrier. This is tragic. And we see them also trying to influence politicians, most of whom cannot answer simple scientific questions that when I was 12 years old, I could have answered.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay, Ian, one fundamental point. We’ve got about five minutes before the top of the hour and we go into our news. And we’ll be back after that, everyone, by the way, with Ian Plimer. One really fundamental question for politicians, scientists, and voters. The CSIRO has never presented any robust scientific evidence underpinning their policy, the government’s policy, labour and liberal. The proper basis for policy, and this is what I’d like you to comment on, please, the proper basis for policy, as I understand it, is a specific quantified impact of human carbon dioxide on any temperature factor, whether it’s temperature, rainfall, drought, snow, ocean, alkalinity, anything at all.

Malcolm Roberts:

You have got to show that for a certain unit of carbon dioxide from human activity, this is the consequence in temperature or rainfall or whatever. That’s the first thing. That is fundamental to policy. Because you cannot assess any cost benefit analysis by saying, if we put in place a mechanism for minimising that impact, what it will cost compared with the cost of doing nothing. That’s fundamental. And the third point about this is that if you haven’t got that specific quantified effect from human carbon dioxide, you cannot track, cannot measure how you’re going with implementing your policy. This is fundamental, isn’t it?

Ian Plimer:

Well, very much is. Now our politics is not driven by building the nation. It’s a populist view derived from surveys to try to guarantee that a particular politician is going to get reelected. It’s got nothing to do with making the planet a better place. It’s got nothing to do with helping people in need, and it’s not based on any knowledge, any science, or any data. Policy is to get reelected. That is what drives political views. And this is why I’ve often argued that the best politician is a frightened politician. They have to face an election.

Ian Plimer:

I’ll give you example of a true journalist in this country, Alan Jones, who asked the Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek, what the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide was. She couldn’t answer it. Now, that is a question that if you are going to get into discussions about climate, you should actually know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, which allegedly drives climate change. We had a minister for the environment couldn’t answer that really simple question. What hope have we got?

Ian Plimer:

These people, listeners, you have to make your politicians scared. You have to frighten them. You have to let them know that if you follow this policy, you will not be reelected. And this is the only reason we have politicians create certain policies. It’s got nothing to do with the environment. It’s got nothing to do with saving the planet. It is to get reelected.

Malcolm Roberts:

Hear, hear. And that leads to a very simple point before I continue with another list. The simple point is this, we will never have frightened politicians in this country whenever people blindly vote for labour, liberal, nationals, or greens. Just blindly vote. We have to scrutinise politicians. We have to scrutinise their words, their behaviour, their actions, their policies, and then vote for whoever is correct, whoever aligns with you, not just go with the title party.

Malcolm Roberts:

Here are some conclusions, Ian, that I’ve got from my restoring scientific integrity as a result of our cross examination of CSIRO. CSIRO’s evidence for unprecedented change was easily refuted, and a major breakdown of the peer review system was revealed in Marc or in Lecavalier. We’ll have to come to a summary of this after the break, your comments after the break. Oh, no, no. Let’s leave that till after the break. What I’d also like to mention, Ian, is that they rely on claims of consensus. Isn’t that an admission? Just briefly, isn’t that an admission that they don’t have the science? Whenever they claim a consensus, that’s an admission they don’t have the science. Because if they had it, they would’ve presented it to me.

Ian Plimer:

Oh, yes. Science is married to scepticism. Science is often conducted by lone wolves. Science is not conducted by committees. Consensus is a word of politics, it’s not a word of science.

Malcolm Roberts:

And with that, we’re going to the break. And we’ll be back straight after the break with the news, with Professor Ian Plimer, to continue exposing more of the government’s bullshit on climate.

Transcript part 2

Speaker 1:

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts, on Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from Australia and I’m with Ian Plimer, Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer. So Ian, I’ll read the conclusions from my study, Restoring Scientific Integrity, that summarises what CSIRO has failed to do.

                “First of all, CSIRO’s evidence for unprecedented change was easily refuted and a major breakdown of the peer-review system was revealed in both Marcott and Lecavalier papers. Secondly, CSIRO provided no quantified evidence that humans are responsible for any particular amount of change in any climate factor nor any climate variable, nothing. CSIRO would not attribute danger to carbon dioxide from human activity. And have not provided evidence to allow any politicians, including ministers, to attribute danger. CSIRO stated that the determination of danger was a matter for the public or for politicians.

                Australian climate policies have never been based on empirical evidence and logical scientific reasoning. After reviewing the peer-reviewed papers that CSIRO cited, it is inconceivable that government policy should be based on the unverified assumption that a peer-reviewed paper is accurate and contains the best available research. That’s particularly so when key data has been unscientifically fabricated, as was the case in the first paper and second paper that CSIRO presented on temperature. As Australia’s premier government-funded climate science agency, CSIRO’s gross deficiencies need to be investigated to establish reasons for CSIRO’s deterioration. The fact that CSIRO abrogated claims of danger to government ministers, reveals that it has been afraid to speak out about obviously politically driven deviations from science. That includes journalists driving deviations from science.”

                Ninth point. “Integrity and accountability need to be restored for both research and for presenting scientific conclusions, as well as for scrutinising political claims and policies supposedly based on science. Next, the CSIRO climate group’s pathetic and inadequate case does not justify spending tens of billions of dollars, nor does it justify the destruction of trillions. And I mean that word sincerely, trillions of dollars of wealth as a result of climate policies that hurt families, export Australian jobs and erode our national security.

                Our ability to defend and secure our borders. The onus. Lastly, the onus is now on the federal government to scrap climate policies, unless CSIRO can provide accurate, repeatable and verifiable empirical scientific evidence. Within a logical scientific framework that proves carbon dioxide from human activity detrimentally affects climate variability and needs to be cut. The proposed cuts need to be specified in terms of the amount, the impact and effects, together with the cost of making and not making the cuts.” What do you think, mate?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, we get told that the science is settled. Now, if the science is settled, we say, “Thank you very much, we are now going to disband you. We’ll disband the climate division of the CSIRO. We’ll disband all the climate institutes at the universities. We’ll disband the climate group in the Bureau of Meteorology, but we sincerely thank you for all the work that you’ve done and demonstrating that the science is settled.” I think that’s the easiest way to solve the problem.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well said, let’s continue on with their claims of consensus and their claims of that they haven’t provided the science. So what we then see from the government is that they claim they rely upon 97% of scientists claiming that they have the science. Yet not one of them has produced the science. What I’ve done, Ian, as you know, is I’ve interviewed world leading scientists on my findings of the CSIRO. And they have all justified and endorsed my claims about CSIRO.

                I’ll go through a list of them. Professor John Christie, Climatologist, Mathematician, University of Alabama Analyst and presenter of Global Temperature Data from NASA satellites. The man who does that. Professor David Legates, climatologist and statistician. Dr. Craig Idso as climatologists. These are state climatologists in the United States. They have been appointed climatologists for their state.

                Dr. Nils Mörner world’s number one C-level expert. The late Dr. Nils Mörner. Professor Nir Shaviv, atmospheric physicist from Israel. Professor Will HHapper, physicist. Dr. Willie Soon, atmospheric physicist. Yourself, you’ve done this. Steve McIntyre, mathematician and statistician who tore apart Marcott within two weeks of its release in 2013. Bill Kinmont, a former senior bureau of meteorology official and meteorologist. Emeritus, Professor Garth Paltridge, former CSRIO senior researcher. Dr. Howard Brady, geologist, another one of your kin Ian, and an Antarctica researcher. Dr. John McLean, a climate scientist who did the first audit on the global historical climate network, temperature data.

                It had never been audited, never until John did that. And he found glaring problems with it. And that’s the temperature data that the UN relies upon. And the CSIRO rely upon. Tony Heller, geologist and engineer auditing NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies data. Susan Crockford, polar bear researcher. Professor Lou Milan, Brazil Bureau of Meteorology and Dr. David Evans, who had been working as a climate modeller, and then has realised that it’s all rubbish. I mean, do we need anyone else? They haven’t provided the evidence and we’ve got the scientist.

Professor Ian Plimer:

You used a very interesting word, audit. Now, all public and private companies are required by law to have an audit. Are the books wrong? Is someone tickling the till? Is the company operating while in solvent? Now an audit, a scientific audit should look at very similar things. Are the claims being made, supported by evidence? Are people over icing the cake in order to get their next research grant? Are the people making these claims qualified to make those claims? So if, for example, you in the minerals business make a claim that this mineral deposit is that big or this big, you have to have certain qualifications to make such statements. So the normal due diligence processes that we have operating any other business, besides government, has an audit. Yet these government businesses are dealing with trillions of dollars and no one audits them and says, “Wait a minute folks, we might have got the fundamentals wrong.”

                And this is why I urge you to continue this line about, show me the evidence that human emissions drive global warming. Because if there is no evidence, then the whole white shoe brigade industry of subsidised solar and wind coming off that, shouldn’t be there. Then the next great subsidy stage of having subsidised hydrogen from subsidised wind and solar, shouldn’t be there. And we find that the emperor has no clothes. This to me is by far the best approach, ask simple questions, don’t make statements, ask questions. And that’s what an auditor does. And with my various roles in life at present, I’m constantly dealing with auditors under US law, Canadian law, UK law, and Australian law.

                They ask questions and you have to satisfy the auditors with your answer. If not, you have broken the law and you can be fined or go to jail. And I can’t see why the laws should be any different from someone making an extraordinary scientific claim, which requires a taxpayer to spend trillions. We need an audit and we need audits every year as every company has to have. And I can’t see why we can’t have scientific audits all the time. Now, Professor Peter Wild, did a scientific audit of what the coral reef scientist were stating. And he showed that it was wrong. There was a lot to be desired. Those audits should happen every year. We taxpayers are putting billions every year into science research. Where are the audits?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Right. Now, I’m going to feed you a really a tender morsel Professor Plimer. We have had two natural real world experiments on these climate claims. In 2009, we had the global financial crisis. In 2009, the following year, we had a recession around the world, a very severe recession in most countries, Australia, wasn’t in recession. Thanks to our amazing exports of mineral products from this country. Every other country just about, was in a major recession, not a minor recession, a severe recession.

                When that happens, people use less hydrocarbon fuels, coal oil and natural gas, which meant that the production of carbon dioxide from human activity decreased. In 2009, there was less carbon dioxide produced from human activity than in 2008. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere continued increasing in 2020 we had COVID, almost a depression around the world. Again is very severe recession, most countries around the world. And when that happened, we again used less coal, oil and natural gas. And so the human output of carbon dioxide in 2020 was less than in 2019. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing because nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Isn’t this a perfectly natural real world experiment professor Plimer?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, what it does is it shows us that the common figure that’s thrown around of 3% of all emissions or of human origin might actually be wrong. It might actually be 1%. And I argue this in my book, Green Murder, I argue from volcanic emissions. I argue it used, 2007, 2008 and 2020 to the present COVID crisis, that we have got these natural experiments. And it may well be that human emissions have absolutely no effect whatsoever on global climate. And if it is, it’s probably close to the order of accuracy of measurement. And if it is abled to be measured, then the effect that Australia has in emitting 1.3% of the world’s annual admissions, which is 3% of the total planetary emissions. Is nine parts of one 11th of bugger all. So why are we having conniptions about a fractional amount of carbon dioxide emitted by humans?

                Why are we having conniptions when we cannot show that this has any effect on global climate. And shouldn’t we be spending our hard earned dollars on other things rather than spending billions every year on climate research. Trillions on putting in infrastructure that we know already will fail. So I think once you get a populist idea like this, it takes a long time to grind through the system before people realise it’s wrong.

                Populous politics, isn’t very sensible. And we see that ultimately this culotte mania, which we’re undergoing, leads to tears. We’ve seen it before, South seen [inaudible 00:12:41] Dutch culotte mania, and we’re right on that path again. And there’s something rather fundamental about our opposition, our position won’t argue data. As soon as we raise a point, they attack us with hatred and with venom. And why do they do that? They do that, I think for two reasons, the first is that they’ve been beneficiaries that have dumbed to down scientific education whereby they haven’t got any science. And they can’t argue because they haven’t been taught critical thinking. So the only response they’ve got is to be angry. And the second thing is, there’s no evidence. So we are seeing all these clues that we are being fed, probably the greatest policy damaging process for a very long period of time. The one before that was communism.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Here, here, and just think about this too, everyone at home. Hard earned dollars is what professor Ian Plimer just mentioned. Our hard earned dollars. If we cannot by cutting our carbon dioxide production, human production of carbon dioxide, severely as in two major recessions in the last 14 years. If that had no impact on reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, why the hell do they want to steal our land, raise at taxes, impose gut wrenching regulations on us. That’s what we have to ask. The natural experiment in 2009 and 2020 showed that our massive cutting of carbon dioxide from human activity had no impact whatsoever. Neither will taxes. Neither will regulations. Neither will continue to steal. Neither will the continued stealing of farmers’ land.

                Let’s move on. This was this climate sham was first raised by a liberal politician, Baume, in federal parliament in 1975, he was the first one to raise the possibility that human or the claim that human activity, carbon dioxide from human activity affects our climate. The first prime minister to raise it was Bob Hawk. He raised it sometime after 1983. And he first raised it himself as an MP in 1980. And then we had John Howard go on the bandwagon. And what they quite often claim is that it based upon UN intergovernmental panel on climate change results. Ian, I’ve analysed the UN reports.

                1990 was the first, 1995 was the second one, 2001 was the third one, 2007 was the fourth one, 2013 was the fifth one, 2000 and… Just recently 2020 was the sixth one, sorry, 2022 was the sixth one. In each of those papers. They have one single core chapter that is supposedly showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. In 2001, it was chapter 12. In 2007, it was chapter nine. In 2013, it was chapter 10. In those so chapters and in the latest one, the same applies. There has never been any evidence presented that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. But instead, what we have is a summary for policy makers. That’s dumbed down for politicians and journalists that is full of crap. It has no evidence whatsoever in it. What about the UN IPCC, Ian?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, the UN IPCC is not a scientific organisation. It is a political organisation. It’s brief is to show that human emissions drive global warming. That brief comes out in a report, which has two parts to it. One is a summary at the beginning, and that’s the journalists and politicians, most of whom are ill educated. And it’s written in a very alarmist language. And that summary is normally totally unrelated to the scientific text, which in the latest one was just short of 4000 pages. And that is again, baffling people with bullshit. And there’s just so much information there that it’s very hard for the average person to work out what’s going on. So they have to actually trust it. Now I don’t, because there is a huge amount of information out there that has the contrary view. The book that I put out 10 years ago, Heaven and Earth. I had three and a half years-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, marvellous. Marvellous book.

Professor Ian Plimer:

… of scientific papers, which show that human emissions don’t drive global warming. And the latest book, I’ve only got 1700 scientific papers that show that humanly emissions don’t drive global warming. Those papers are not listed in the IPCC reports. Those IPCC reports omit any contrary information whatsoever. And so it is very much a partisan view, fulfilling the requirements of their brief. And that is to show we’re all going to fry and die. And it’s very much the view of an anonymous group of rather shady people who love their joints and conferences and write a few words every few years. And for that, there’s fame and fortune and there’s power. And there’s these faceless people who are creating a power structure whereby we pay.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Here, here, we’ll go to an ad break now, and then we’ll come back and we’ll listen to more from Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts. Welcome back. And I’ve got my special guest, Ian Plimer. Before I move on with Ian, this is TNT radio. Where the only thing we mandate is the truth and you’ll get the truth from professor Ian Plimer. Ian, we have a fabulous researcher in Australia, an IT specialist, also a climate scientist with peer-reviewed papers published. And he pointed out that in an analysis of the UN IPCCs own data, only five reviewers endorsed the claim that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and it needs to be cut. Only five and there’s doubt they are even scientists. Yet we are told there are thousands of scientists what’s going on?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, we’re not told the truth. And I know who you’re referring to. That was a magnificent piece of work he did for his PhD. We’re not told the truth. Many of these reports are written by activists. Many of them are written by green peace officials. Few of them are written by scientists and very, very few indeed are written by eminent scientists. So this is propaganda at best, at worst it may well be indeed are written by eminent scientist. So this is propaganda at best, at worst it’s may well be part of a great reset. So you used the word truth. Now you are regarded as controversial. I am regarded as controversial. Why? Because we use facts and speak the truth. And if you speak the truth, you never have to remember what you said. And this is why when you challenge those activists, they get very, very angry because they have to argue from first principles and justify their statements, which they cannot do.

                They don’t have the methods of argument, logic analysis, and they certainly don’t have any repeatable facts. So you get called controversial because your facts do not agree with their emotional opinions and the use of language. And the capture of language now has been a major weapon in attacking the average person to make sure that they do not use certain words. Unfortunately, and I must have a lot of Broken Hill lead in my blood. And I worked at Broken Hill for decades. Unfortunately I don’t abide by those new social constraints. And I will use the vernacular to describe things that we have used those words for half a century. So part of cancelling you and cancelling me and shutting us down, is control of the language. And calling us nut cases or controversial or extreme or right wing. This demonstrates that our opponents cannot argue.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly. And another thing that demonstrates our opponents cannot argue is their claims that there’s a 97% consensus of scientists who claim that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. When you look at their figures and you analyse it, and there’s been a peer-reviewed papers led by Dr. David Legette with scientists and statisticians. Who analyse this claim by John Cook, a false fabricated claim, misrepresenting science, misrepresenting nature. David Legette’s and his co-authors analysed John Cook’s 97% consensus claim and found out when you go through the actual data, there is a not a 97% consensus. There is a 0.3% smattering and not one of those 0.3% smattering has any evidence that carbon dioxide from human activity as bad.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Yes, you’re being very kind. That worked by was fraud. There were 10,000 people who were sent a survey. These are people who put bread and wine on the table from frightening witness about climate. Out of those 10,000, who received Cooks survey, only 3000 replied. He chose 77 of those 3000 replies to publish. One reply wasn’t really in agreement. And that’s was the 3%. So this was a very, very selective survey, picking out certain information and then telling us that 97% of scientists believe this or that.

                Well, belief is not a word of science. It’s a word of religion and politics. The second thing is that science is not like politics, where we all put up and say, “Yes, we believe that the earth is flat. And we believe that the sun rotates around the earth.” Science doesn’t work like that. It works on reproducible evidence. That was fraud. Now, Australia exports, a lot of black stuff. That’s called coal. A lot of that comes from your state Queensland, but John Cook was in Queensland and we exported not black coal, but he’s black soul went to another country. We’ve got rid of him. Thanks be to the Lord.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well said, then let’s move on to the NASA’s Goddard Institute Space Studies. It’s a tiny group within NASA. And then there’s a tiny, tiny group within the Goddard Institute Space Studies that is responsible for climate studies. We’ve heard so many times that NASA is saying that this climate claims, that climate sphere is all justified. And yet I had correspondence when I entered the Senate as a Senator in Australia. And I held director Gavin Schmidt accountable for some of the work that NASA was doing in corruptly modifying temperature data to raise temperatures artificially. And in his first response back, he made a slip and he showed that inadvertently, he made serious contradictions.

                So when I held him accountable for these contradictions. He stopped writing to me. And then later they reversed their claims about Iceland, temperature data tampering, and reduce them down again. I mean, NASA itself has never said that the climate is a problem. A tiny group of people, activists within the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has said that. And these people need to be held to account. It’s just fraud again, that NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies led by Gavin Schmidt and the previous alarmist James Hansen have spread this nonsense. We’ve got letters from NASAs senior administrators, astronauts who’ve had to rely on science, stating that these guys are speaking bullshit.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, we once used to have respect for an institution. Be that the CSIRO, be that a university, be that the church, we once had respect for an institution. We now live in a society where anything goes, this is the attack on Western civilization and climate change is only part of it. But we are attacking Christian religions. We are attacking parliament. We saw that recently in the Senate in Australia, where one Senator being sworn in, gave a Black power salute and wanted to insult the queen. This respect for institutions is disappearing. They are always under attack. And in some cases like NASA, they do it to themselves. In some cases and I would argue, it’s part, the churches have done this. They’ve done it to themselves. So we are living in a society where anything goes, where all opinions are equal. There is no informed opinion. There is no respect for anything or anyone. Yet the same people want to be respected. I think respect has to be earned. I don’t think because you are an oxygen thief that you automatically qualified to get respect.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Here, here. Let’s move on now. Some people I know you have heard about the Stern report. That’s a fraudulent document that was developed in Britain for the government to push this climate rubbish. We had our own equivalent version of the Stern report in Australia. It was the Ghana report, which from memory was released in 2008. I think it was initially a state initiative but then when Kevin Rudd entered power as a prime minister in 2000 late, 2007, he adopted it as well. And I think he pushed it. And I’ll just go to that because a lot of people in our country think that the Ghana report had scientific proof that we need to cut human carbon dioxide. So I’m going to read from chapter two of Ghana’s report, which was used to push the narrative that we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. Chapter two is titled, Understanding Climate Science.

                It states, key points. “The review takes as its starting point on the balance of probabilities. And not as a matter of belief,” I’m sorry, I can’t help laughing. I’ll start again. “The review takes as its starting point on the balance of probabilities and not as a matter of belief, the majority opinion of the Australian and international scientific communities that human activities resulted in substantial global warming from the mid 20th century. And that continued growth in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human induced emissions would generate high risk of dangerous climate change.” No evidence anywhere and yet the media, the politicians run around saying the Ghana report is scientific proof. Ian, what the hell is going on?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Oh, it’s very simple. We’ve had every major institution taken over by activists. We have activists in the church. We have activists in universities. We have activists in schools. The public service is absolutely full of activists. These people are driving the ship because politicians get reappointed every couple of years. These people can outlive them. These people can outstay them. So we’ve had the march of the left. It’s been a 40 year march into all of the institutions. The biggest damage they have done is to dumb down the education system, such that all of the people now in middle level, be they in government be, they in business, have undergone this activist education. So we’ve totally been taken over by activists. And for me, it’s not a war that you can fight. You can fight as we are doing as guerrilla fighters, but we have to wait for the inevitable. And the inevitable will be a financial crisis.

                And then ultimately people will say, “Well, wait a minute. What used to be a very wealthy nation? What happened?” So this is why it’s extremely important to keep fighting the fight. We’ve lost it. We haven’t infiltrated the system 40 or 50 years ago. The left did that, but ultimately there is a price to pay. And the price to pay is going to be very, very nasty indeed. So we have to keep these arguments on the record. We have to keep arguing. We have to fight everything. Now, for example, we have this absolute trivial argument now about the burping and farting of cattle. So just heal out a very simple argument. Grass grows by using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, that cattle eat that grass and burp and fight out. Some of the carbon is methane and carbon dioxide. And the rest of the carbon ends up in the meat, in the skin and in bones. We eat that meat that’s sequestered for a little while. The bones, the carbon is sequestered for a little while and in the leather that we have, it’s sequestered for even longer, in say our footwear.

                So if cattle are so bad and eating this grass and farting out methane, belching out methane, what happens if we took the cattle off the ground? If we took the cattle off the field, then the grass would rot. And the grass would give out methane when it rots. And the same number of atoms of carbon that went into growing that grass, the same number of atoms of carbon, that either are extracted by cattle or extracted by rotting of the grass.

                Now that is a total furphy that we’re being fed by our climate activists. So what’s happened is the vegans have got in to the climate activists groups. And they’re trying to tell us we shouldn’t be eating meat and we’re destroying the climate. So we’ve got all these sorts of crazies now, have attracted themselves to the vegan groups in the climate groups. Now I’ve had a bit to do with vegans, when I used to take university field excursions. These geological field excursions were interesting because the meat eaters were the first ones to the top of the mountain. The vegetarians were about halfway up and the vegans were still trying to work out how to get out of the vehicle.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay, I want to continue that line in a minute, but first I’m going to go to the InterAcademy Council. If I can collect my thoughts after that, the InterAcademy Council. You’ve heard of that as a noted scientist Professor Plimer?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Yes, yes. Well, I’m in one of the major academies. But they represent my view and don’t listen to my science.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. Well, we could talk about the Australian Academy of Science, which is completely lost the plot on climate science. But anyway, the InterAcademy-

Professor Ian Plimer:

Those academies stay alive by government funding. And they have to play in the same key from the same musical script as the government, otherwise they don’t get funding. So this is not fearless and free information that the academies are giving. It’s already contaminated.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Right. And so we’ve been told many times that all the major science academies around the world support this rubbish about climate being affected by carbon dioxide from human activity. None of them have ever provided the evidence. But the InterAcademy Council, which is the combination of many of these national bodies, put out a damning report about 10 years ago. An absolutely damning report about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change. It is the UN’s climate science body, was just shown to be completely incompetent and dishonest and unscientific. And no one raised an eyebrow. Now, I also want to talk about what I call the rats nest of climate alarmist academics. These people in my mind are not scientists at all, but they’ve been paraded as scientists. They’ve been funded by government taxpayers. Funded by us to misrepresent the science. I’m going to read their names out, because these people will be very familiar to some. Tim Flannery, many faults forecasts, which have caused enormous damage, including costing people’s lives.

                Professor Will Steffen, a chemical engineer. Professor David Karoly, a former meteorologist. Ova Goldberg. And I’ve challenged Ova Goldberg and Tim Flannery to debate. And poor old Tim didn’t know which way was up. And his publisher just dragged him away from me. Ova Goldberg, would not debate me. John Cook would not debate me. Another one of these academics. They’re not scientists because they don’t follow the scientific principle. A scientist is someone who follows a scientific process. Matthew England, a climate modeller, mathematician, I believe. Leslie Hughes, Kurt Lambeck, Andy Pitman, Ross Garnaut.

                And then we have a man called Stephan Lewandowsky. And Stephan Lewandowsky is a, I think he’s got something to do with the behavioural scientist. And he made claims that if you don’t agree with these people, then you’re a nut job. So, I mean, these people have been funded by government. They’ve been appointed to the climate commission by the Gillard Government. They’ve been fated by the liberals. They have been funded to spread misrepresentations of climate. I’m trying to find a comment. Would you, if you could make a comment while I’m looking for a summary assessment of Tim Flannery’s report.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, just the very brief comment. These people are funded to put us out of work. Therefore, the amount of revenue collected by taxation will be less. So why not save ourself the pain and not fund them now? And then we do not decrease taxation by having people put out of work by their processes. Now, can you imagine trying to run a foundry and you are trying to pour some bronze and the power goes off. If that freezes, then you have a real problem. Can you imagine how your electricity bill, which you have in an electric arc furnace, you have an electricity bill that’s just gone through the roof. Ultimately you are going to close that business and put people out of work, or you might shift the business to Thailand or somewhere like that. This is what’s happening. Those climate policies, which are catastrophic for the average person are driven by the elites, funded from the taxes of the average person. It is time to say, enough.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Right. And I’m going to read some figures before we go to the break, we’ll have the ad break the last of the hour. And then I’d like you to, when we come back, Ian, if you could talk about the fact that Australia is already at net zero and beyond it, because our sinks of carbon dioxide absorb more carbon dioxide than all of our production. But I want to read these figures, Dr. Wes Allen wrote, what is the first known detailed review of Tim Flannery’s book entitled, The Weather Makers. Dr. Allen’s review reveals that 307 statements in Tim Flannery’s book created 577 problems with some of Tim Flannery statements, creating multiple problems. This Dr. Allen as a meticulous researcher, and he’s put it out there in public, listed them, shown them.

                And what he’s done is he said that, “Baseless, extreme comments in Tim Flannery’s book 14. Baseless, dogmatic comments, 103. Suspect sources of his points, 51. Half truth, 85. The claims that there’s absolute no uncertainty in what he’s saying, 48. Misrepresentations seven. Misinterpretations, 26. Exaggeration, 78. Factual errors, 70. Confusing or silly statements, 43. Contradictory statements, 31. Fail predictions, 11. Mistakes, 10. A grand total of problems, 577 in a book that’s about 200 pages long. This is what passes for science amongst the labour party, the liberal party, the national party, the greens. And amongst these climate activists who are masquerading as scientists, when they’re really academics and not scientists.” So we’ll go for the break and then we’ll come back and listen to Ian Plimer.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Over to you, Ian Plimer. We’re with Ian Plimer and this is Senator Malcolm Roberts in broadcasting from Australia. We are now going to hear one of the best scientists in the world, discuss why we are already at net zero and beyond.

Professor Ian Plimer:

We are very lucky in Australia to have a continent with very, very few inhabitants. We have a large area of grasslands, rangelands and forests and a lot of crop land. And the few people that live in this country live in a coastal fringe and mainly in cities. We are not a country of Crocodile Dundee’s out in the bush. We’re a country of people who absolutely live in cities. So when we look at the amount of carbon dioxide that we release from heavy industries in Australia. And we smelt a lot of the world’s aluminium and zinc and lead and copper, that puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The bulk of our energy comes from hydrocarbons, be it diesel, be it coal for electricity. And when we look at the amount of energy that we create, we could not run this country without coal.

                However, when we look at how much of a carbon dioxide is absorbed into these grasslands, rangelands, forest, crops and the continental shelf, we absorb about 10 times as much carbon dioxide than we emit. We should therefore go to Paris and say, “Pay up. We want countries like Mauritania and Chad and poor countries of the world to pay us because we are absorbing their carbon dioxide emissions.” The whole system of net zero is bonkers. Net zero is a vocabulary invented by people who want different ways of taxing you. It’s got nothing to do with the environment. It’s got everything to do with power and money.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that leads on to something that I want to raise. The core problem here is shitty governance, comprising gutless politicians seating our sovereignty. There is no scientific data or framework on which they base these policies. The policies today in Australia are based on looking good, not doing good. Looking after vested interest and globalist predators. And Ian, I think you are well aware that the man who started this climate fraud was Maurice Strong from Canada. I haven’t got the time to go into the details. He was a criminal who exiled himself. Wanted by American authorities, the police law enforcement agencies. He was exiled in China. He came back to Canada to die in Ottawa in 2015. His policies, his scam that he initiated. He was a part owner and a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where billions of dollars of carbon dioxide emissions trading system credits would be funnelled through. Al Gore, the company he owns, Generation Management Investment is also a part owner of the Chicago climate exchange.

                We are taking money from poor people asking age pensioners to make a choice between staying warm and eating. And these bastards are stealing money to live like Riley. No science, enormous crippling costs imposed on people. And the people pay with their wallets, with their jobs, with their lifestyle, with their lives. For no benefit to the environment, no benefit to humanity and these grubs steal billions of dollars. And then we’ve got other billionaires who are sponsoring people into parliament, so they can keep their subsidies for solar and wind going. This is a complete scam and it is an inhuman scam. What do you say to say Professor?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, that’s exactly right. This is probably the biggest scam we have seen in the history of time. In terms of science, it’s probably the greatest delusional science that we’ve seen since the times, just before Galileo. In terms of morality, we have sunk to new depths and in terms of responsibility, there is none. In my scientific career, I have been working in universities and outside universities. When I was outside universities, I was funded by industry.

                If I got it wrong, I lost my job. When in a university, if I got it wrong, it didn’t matter. I was able to publish and move on. In science, if you get it wrong, there are no consequences. In sociology, if you get it wrong, you get promoted. So we have lost the ethical basis of science. And I think this structural breakdown of institutional ethics is one of the reasons why your Maurice Strong and these others have been able to thrive. And there’s a whole army of acolytes there feeding off those who pay them. And eventually they are going to kill those who pay them. This is why I called my latest book, Green Murder. This process has taken 40 or 50 years to get there. And the only way I can see we can get out of this mess is to have a deeply destructive recession.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that’s a very sad thing to say, because I’d like to finish on a positive, which you’ll come to in a minute. I’m with Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer, one of the world’s best scientists, highly awarded, a prolific author. We have been discussing my letter to the four Amigos on climate, the previous prime minister, the previous deputy prime minister, the previous opposition leader, and the then and current Greens leader, Adam Bandt. You can find that letter at Malcolm Roberts, qld.com.au, just scroll down to the climate fraud icon, click on that, and then scroll down to letter to the leaders, the climate change scam. And you can see what we’ve been talking about. I want to mention Professor Plimer, some from Professor Plimer’s books, these cover of huge gamut of interest, everything from serious scientific to discussions about humanity. To basic books like mineral collecting localities of the Broken Hill district, for people who are interested in rocks.

                Now I’ve got another book, Telling Lies for God. Let’s just think about the diversity of this man’s ability. Next one, A Journey Through Stone, Mineral Collecting Localities of the Broken Hill, Tibooburra and White Cliffs areas. This man gets down into the details. Milos: Geologic History, A Short History of Planet Earth, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science. How to get expelled from School, now that is a ripper. So is that Heaven and Earth. Not for Greens and then Ian has taken up the cut of protecting humanity. Heaven and Earth again, Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Rip-off, Green Murder, a life sentence of net zero with no parole, go to Connor Court Publishing. They have been your publishers, I think all the time, Professor Plimer, anything to add to that because I find your books fascinating.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, I’ve published a number of best sellers in the past, through major international publishers, like Random House. And I had also published stuff through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And when I had the manuscript of Heaven and Earth ready to go, no publisher would touch me because I was questioning human induced climate change. It was eventually a very small husband and wife publisher that took it on. It made them a fortune. It was an international bestseller.

                So for those of you out there who are thinking of publishing your ideas, it’s quite often not the major publishers that will touch you. They’re not interested at all in the issue. They’re only interested in making money. And when Heaven and Earth was really humming away and selling very well. I had a publisher ring me and say, “Look, we’d like to republish your book, A Short History of Planet Earth.” And I said, “Well, that book came out 20 years ago. And the science has moved on. That some of these science that I wrote there now has been replaced by better science and there are better ideas. I’m not prepared to republish something that is knowingly wrong.” And they were persisting telling me I’d make a fortune. I wasn’t interested in that. I’m interested in facts and speaking the truth. That makes me controversial.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And we appreciate you so much because there are so few scientists these days. So few politicians who will do that. I’m going to lead the final word to Professor Plimer. But before I do that, this is Malcolm Roberts, Senator in Australia. I am staunchly pro-human and a believer in the inherent goodness in human beings. Please remember to listen to each other, love one another, stay proud of who we are as humans. Take a minute to appreciate the abundance all around us. Ian, over to you. You have one minute to tell us why we need to get back to basics and be so positive about Australia. We have the people, the resources we have the opportunity, the potential. Mate, what do you want to say? And thank you so much.

Professor Ian Plimer:

There are very few people, very few people on this continent. We are blessed with resources. If we look at history countries or nations with very few people and a lot of resources, inevitably got invaded. Go and talk to the Carthaginians or the Thracians, go and talk to those that Alexander the Great invaded. The only way this country can be strong is to use its resources and its humans to have a vibrant economy, a big defence system and people who are great lovers and supporters of their country. And when I finally shuffle off, I just hope someone will in the eulogy say, he gave the cage a bloody good rattle.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you so much, Professor Ian Plimer, well done.

There is a fundamental problem with climate change alarmism. In the two recessions of the last two decades where carbon emissions were hugely reduced, there was no difference to the CO2 in the air and temperature of the world.

Transcript

As an engineer, I respect and consult scientists, because lives have depended on it, and still do. As an engineer educated in atmospheric gases and as a business manager, I was responsible for hundreds of people’s lives, based on my knowledge of atmospheric gases. I listened to scientists, I cross-examined scientists and I debate the science. I have never found anyone with logical scientific points based on empirical scientific evidence that shows we have anything to worry about at all.

The basics are these: when you burn a hydrocarbon fuel, you burn molecules containing carbon and hydrogen with oxygen and they form CO2, carbon dioxide, and H2O, water vapour; that’s it. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life. But let’s go beyond the science and have a look at natural experiment. We’ve had two natural experiments, global experiments, in the last 14 years. The first was in 2009, when the use of hydrocarbon fuels reduced in the recession that followed the global financial crisis. There was less carbon dioxide produced from the human use of hydrocarbons. What happened to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It kept increasing. What happened in 2020, when we had a major recession, almost a depression, around the world as a result of COVID restrictions put in place by governments? We saw the same reduction in hydrocarbon fuel use by humans and the same cut in carbon dioxide output from humans, and yet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase.

Those who understand the science understand that it is fundamental: humans cannot and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; it’s controlled by nature entirely. I’ve cross-examined the CSIRO three times now in the last few years. Under my cross-examination, which is the first of its kind in this country and the only one of its kind in the world, the CSIRO admitted that they have never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous—never stated it. This is all rubbish that’s being talked about. Secondly, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. Thirdly, they never quantified, in three meetings, any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity. Never! That is the fundamental basis for policy. What’s more, they showed their sloppiness because they withdrew discredited papers which they initially cited to me at their choice as evidence of the unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide the empirical scientific evidence. They withdrew the two papers they put to me on temperatures, the two papers they put to me on carbon dioxide.

There is no danger. Temperatures are not unprecedented. We need to come back to the science, not the so-called experts the Greens talk about, not the pixies at the bottom of the garden. We need to come back to the science, the empirical scientific evidence, and base policies on that.

Peta Credlin nails the lies from Premier and PM that the latest floods are because we don’t have enough wind and solar. People who have lost everything, some of them three times over, are being lied to and hijacked for a political cause. From Sky News Australia.

Whenever I ask politicians to prove climate change is real and caused by humans they always point to the Bureau of Meteorology report, State of the Climate. But the report only publishes temperatures and observations, it doesn’t link any changes with carbon dioxide created by humans.

BOM admits in this questioning that the report itself simply confirms that the climate is variable without attributing a cause for it. If this is the case, why do politicians and so-called experts keep claiming this report proves carbon dioxide from humans is a danger and must be cut?

Transcript

[Metcalf] Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Mr. Metcalf and Dr Johnson and Dr Stone for being here tonight with us. My questions are fairly simple and they go to one of your documents that you’ve produced jointly with the CSIRO, namely, the State of the Climate reports that come out every two years. What is the purpose of these reports?

As I say, Senator, that report comes out every two years. It’s something we’ve been doing with CSIRO for many years now. The genesis behind both agencies for coming together to produce the report is to provide an authoritative summation of the state of Australia’s climate from arguably the two most trusted sources of scientific knowledge on our climate, so the purpose is really to provide the most up-to-date and trusted reporting of the various parameters that contribute to Australia’s climate.

Thank you. The reports confirm that climate varies naturally, or at least that’s my conclusion. Is my conclusion valid?

I think there’s a lot of variability in the world’s climate Senator.

Thank you, yet the document seems to be written, Dr Johnson, in a way that subtly and implicitly reinforces the notion that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. Now I see no empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework proving cause and effect within the State Of The Climate reports. What are you doing to stop people drawing that misleading conclusion from your report?

Well, Senator,

I think it’s important for the record to note that none of the State of the Climate reports in any way whatsoever make statements with respect to global emissions.

Dr Johnson, Bureau of Meteorology at Senate Estimates 16 February 2022

They merely report on the state of various climate and ocean parameters over time. So, if you look at the reports, and I know you get a copy of them, they chart a trajectory around a range of parameters: temperature, rainfall, so on and so forth, sea level, ocean temperatures, and so on, over time, and they show, quite clearly, that on all of those parameters, or most of those parameters, the trend is increasing, so whether it’s temperature or sea level rise or air temperature, ocean temperature, and so on and so forth, it does show for a number of parameters that there’s quite a degree of variability across geography, for example, around tropical cyclones, rainfall and so on, so it merely reports what we’re observing, Senator. And I think it’s very well established now, and I think this is the view of the Bureau, or at least they strongly agree with us, that the cause for that increase in temperatures is absolutely, or predominantly, due to the activities of human beings. I think that’s well established, Senator, and it’s not for argument.

So there’s nothing in the report, I’m sorry I cut you off.

[Dr Johnson] No, no, I was finished.

Okay. Thank you. So there’s nothing in the State of the Climate reports that proves that, but you rely on other documents and other work to prove that connection between human activity?

[Dr Johnson] Clarify, prove what?

Proof that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. So that is not the purpose of the State of the Climate reports?

Well, no, it isn’t the purpose, but the State of the Climate reports clearly show the trajectory of CO2 in the atmosphere for many, many years, well over a hundred years, I think it’s a very well established fact, Senator, that the predominant cause, not the only cause, but the predominant cause, of that warming trend is human activity.

Well, yeah, I’m not asking about that, you have that view, but I’m asking whether the State of the Climate reports actually show that: scientifically prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut?

Well, I’ve got the report in front of me. I don’t believe there’s a section in there that, well, that’s right, it’s not the purpose of the report.

[Roberts] Thank you.

The purpose of the report is to report on observations that we are taking on or around a range of parameters in Australia’s climate. That’s all it does.

Thank you very much for clarifying that. That’s fine. When I asked for empirical scientific evidence proving, proving, that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger and needs to be cut. ill-informed MPs refer solely to these documents on occasions, as do some ill-informed media journalists and citizens. Is it the intention of the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO for the document to do that implicitly, even though that’s, Dr Stone just said, that’s not the purpose of the document?

I’m just wondering whether you can clarify what your question is, Senator. I think we’ve made it really clear what the purpose of the document is: it’s to provide a synthesis of our observations of Australia’s climate and oceans. How others choose to interpret it’s up to them, but the report is very clear, it lays it out very clearly and has done it pretty much in the same way for the best part of a decade.

I accept that. You’ve repeated that three times now. Thank you for that clarity. I’d like to know about the intention behind the wording, because so many people misleadingly come to the conclusion that the State of the Climate reports prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Is the wording deliberately misleading or is that just their lack of scientific understanding?

Well, I can’t speak on behalf of others. I can only speak on behalf of us, which is the wording is, I think, crystal clear and great effort has gone into making sure the wording is clear. It’s simple to understand in its reporting of the observations that we’re making. It does nothing more and nothing less than that.

[Roberts] I agree with you and –

How others choose to interpret it, Senator, is for them, but I think you read the report, it makes it very clear what we’re reporting on, and I think right up the very front of the report, if I’m correct, it makes it very clear what the report isn’t.

[Roberts] Can I just ask?

Did you want more?

No, no, no, that’s fine, actually. I don’t need to ask that question. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson, much appreciated.

Transcript

Speaker 1:This is a Malcolm Roberts Show. On Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT.  
Ian Plimer:Today’s News Talk Radio, tntradio.live.  
 This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from down under, fresh from my COVID bed. Yes, I had COVID. Now I have the world’s most powerful immunity, natural immunity.  
 Thank you very much for having me in your car, your lounge room, your men shed, picnic. I hasten to say that I’m not contagious. I know that some people think that telemarketers and telehealth people have to get injected before they can speak over the phone, but I can assure with 100% confidence that you will not catch anything from me over the phone, other than a dose of the truth and some outspoken speech.  
 My session on the radio is governed by two things, freedom. Specifically, freedom versus control. That is basic for human progress and livelihoods. And we’re going to have a very special guest today to talk about that.  
 The second thing that drives me is personal responsibility and the importance of integrity. That’s the basics for personal progress and livelihood.  
 Before getting to our guests, let’s just cover my show’s aims, themes, and the focus. I’m fiercely pro-human. Yes, you heard that. I am fiercely pro-human. I believe in humanity. I am tired. I’ve had a gutful of the media and politicians ragging on humans and humanity. I am proud to be one of our planet’s only species capable of logic, and capable of love and care, and quite often giving that love and care.  
 I’m also fundamentally positive. I get excited by good things that are happening, and I want to contribute to that. While we are dealing with issues that people face today, and they’re concerned about, I will encourage guests to provide solutions, lasting meaningful solutions. Instead of what’s wrong with politics, what’s needed in politics? Instead of what’s wrong with politicians, and there’s plenty, what we need in politicians? Instead of what’s wrong with the media, what’s needed in media? And we can start that with the truth.  
 We will get to the core issues, whats and all to develop solutions, because it’s only by getting into the real issues can we have real faith in the outcomes.  
 We’ll cover the human aspects, strengths, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, failings, highlights. What makes people real?  
 The second thing about anything I do, it’s got to be data-driven. It’s got to be factual, truthful, and honest.  
 And the third thing, be blunt. We will be speaking out, calling it like it is. And I’ll be welcoming talkback callers in the near future. Currently, tntradio.live is betting down many systems. This is a truly global operation. It’s a gift to the world from the world. We’ve got hosts all over the globe, broadcasting from Belfast, London, Los Angeles, New York, Tel Aviv, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, The Bush in Australia.  
 And I want to express my deep and sincere appreciation to Mike Ryan for restoring integrity to media and to politics.  
 This radio network, this global radio network will serve the people, not control and con the people. We will serve with truth, and we will be blunt.  
 Before getting to my first guest, let’s just cover a couple of things that have happened today in the news. First of all, right around Australia, to all the people taking part in freedom marches, whether it be in Newcastle din-making, or people in Brisbane, people in Melbourne, people in Sydney, people all over, country towns, regional towns, thank you very much. And, Robert F. Kennedy, and your supporters in Washington, D.C. tomorrow on their freedom marches.  
 I have brothers-in-law coming from the Southern United States and the Northern United States meeting in Washington. They’re going to tell Biden what we think about his mandates and his coercion.  
 I’ll see people in Maryborough tomorrow because we’re having a peaceful protest in Maryborough.  
 I want to express my condolences to the family of Meat Loaf. Meat Loaf was a big part of my life. He had such a wonderful voice. He could go down so low, and then belt it out so strongly, so powerfully. He brings back many, many fabulous memories of my time listening to his music and with friends.  
 For those listening outside Australia, you probably don’t know that it’s Australia Day this coming Wednesday. That’s when we celebrate our country, or some people try to.  
 A friend of mine sent me this. “On the Mornington Peninsula, this year, they have cancelled Australia Day celebrations, yet they have not cancelled the Invasion Day celebrations. Invasion day events …” he goes on to say, ” … are free for the indigenous and $39 for the non-indigenous. They’re setting up two countries, one against the other.”  
 Another news item. China coal production in the month of December alone, 384 billion tonnes in one month. China is by far the world’s largest producer of coal now, and it’s thriving because of it. Australia producers just under 500 million tonnes in a year. Our production is around 11% of what China’s is, basically, one tenth, yet we’re trying to gut our economy, thanks to the Liberal Labour Nationals and Greens. What the hell is going on? China will produce 10 times as much coal as we will. And our politicians want to gut our country. This is ridiculous. And my first guest will be talking about this and many other things.  
 Then we’ve got news that the Bureau of Meteorology has, wait for it, remodelled Australia’s official temperature record for the third time in nine years, and found things to be warmer than thermometer readings had measured.  
 The Bureau did not announce the changes, but details of them were published on the Bureau’s website. So we’ve got to sneak around trying to catch them out, because they won’t talk about it boldly.  
 Jennifer Marohasy, a noted scientist in this country, a fighter for truth has said this, “The bureau has now remodelled the national temperature data set three times in just nine years.” Do they have no confidence in their own revisions and modelling? They have to keep cooling the past and warming the present? Why aren’t they doing an independent open transparent scrutiny of all of this work that they’re supposedly doing to fabricate global warming?  
 My first guest, fittingly, is a true scientist and a remarkable human being with a remarkable sense of humour, and engaging lively real personality, and a wicked sense of humour. He’s won many international awards and recognition, but this man is no ivory tower preacher, no ivory tower academic. He’s a real world man, who gets down in the mud, wrestles, argues, debates in the bush, pubs, exploration camps, politicians offices, street corners, corporate headquarters, media, academics, anywhere. He’ll take on anyone anywhere. This man, Professor Ian Plimer has dismantled frauds wherever they appear. Welcome, Ian.  
 Well, thank you for having me, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Always a pleasure, mate. I’ve known you for a few years now. I always start with something, and we’ll talk about the reasons for this later, what do you appreciate?  
Ian Plimer:Being alive. I’ve had many chances to die, but I think the devil has taken a good look at me and thought, “My God, the competition’s too great, so I’ll leave that one.”  
Malcolm Roberts:Right. Now, you are famous as a scientist, and as a speaker, and as a fighter for humanity. What is science?  
Ian Plimer:Science is married to evidence, and that evidence comes from experiment, it comes from observation, and it comes from calculation. It comes from, basically, collecting data. Now, that data, if it’s collected in Peru, or Poland, or Chad, or Canada, it makes no difference. It is data. And that data has to be reproducible. It has to be in accord with all other validated data.  
 And if it’s not in accord, then any conclusions based on the data are rejected. So science has a habit of rejecting old theories and building stronger, more valid theories. It is a way of understanding how the world works. And it is very much different from religion, which is an understanding of the world within, and science is an understanding of the world without.  
 And scientific ideas are always challenged. There is no such thing as consensus in science. There is no such thing as agreement in science. There are fads, and fashions, and fools, and frauds in science, the same as in any other area. And just because someone arrogantly struts around with a white lab coat, stroking their beard, and trying to look intelligent, doesn’t mean that what they’re promoting is correct.  
 Now, science is always changing, and so, to have a scientific concept wedded over time is non-scientific. And I argue that there are many things in today’s world that are not scientific.  
Malcolm Roberts:Well, Ian, fabulous discussion by the way. But perhaps we can bring it back to every-day lives these days, because a typical person today living on welfare, a welfare recipient … that’s not being denigrating, that’s someone saying is down on his luck at the moment, or her luck … a typical person on welfare today lives better than a king or queen did 200 years ago, longer lives, easier lives, healthier lives, safer lives, more comfortable lives, more entertaining lives, more diverse lives. Science gave us this, didn’t it?  
Ian Plimer:Yes. By every measure, we are living better than we did hundreds of years ago. The world’s gross domestic product and per capita GDP has gone up. The global population in absolute poverty’s gone down. The food supply has gone up. The tree cover’s gone up. The global urban population has gone up. Democracies, a number of democracies around the world has gone up. The deaths from natural disasters has gone down. And the list is a very, very long one.  
 We are living in far better times now than our great-grandparents did. And the reason for this is, that we’ve created potable water, we’ve created good sewage systems, we’ve created employment such that animals and humans don’t do the backbreaking work, that we have machines to do that now.  
 And so, we are living in an age where we have benefited from science … and you are an engineer, trained as an engineer … and from the application of science, which is engineering. And we are living in a far, far, better world than any generation has.  
 Now, we’ve had about 20,000 generations of humans on planet earth, and it is only the last four generations, where we’ve had an increase in longevity, and that is due to better science. But, not only medicine, due to the fundamentals by having a sewage system, by having drinking water that doesn’t kill you, these are the fundamentals.  
 And for people that moan and grown about how terrible the planet is, and how we’ve ruined it, should actually take a look at history. We have never, as humans, lived in better times, we’ve never eaten better, we’ve never had more shelter, we’ve never had more ability to travel. And that doesn’t matter, whether you live in Africa, or India, or the West, we are living in the best times ever to be a human.  
 And, yes, we have plenty of humans that need to be dragged up to the level that those in the West have, but the best way to get out of poverty is to get wealthy. And one of the ways of getting wealthy is to have a very cheap and reliable energy system. The West has done this, the UK, the U.S., and Europe have all gone from miserable poverty to living comfortable lives by having cheap reliable energy.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, science to me is something profound, something beautiful. It’s done, not only what you’ve just said in terms of our health and our opportunities, but it’s given us something even more fundamental, and that is freedom through objectivity. It is fundamental for freedom, isn’t it? Science.  
Ian Plimer:I think so. It provides you with the absolute tools that you need for freedom, and that is criticism, analysis, argument, and these must be unconstrained. And this doesn’t happen in some areas of science today. And we see that with the science on COVID, the science on climate. There is no freedom there. There is no ability to be able to express different views. That’s what we had in the past.  
 And we saw that with Lysenko, in Russia. Lysenko was a peasant. He managed to get into the establishment, and he established a concept called vernalization, and this is where seeds of plants must be persuaded to take on the communist characteristics, where they’re all equal.  
 And Stalin absolutely fell in love with this idea. The end result of that was that tens of millions of people died in famines. Those people who were engaged in genetics, those people who were engaged in trying to create better plant yields by using science were banished to the Gulags, some of them were killed. And this is a very good example of where science has not allowed freedom, where we’ve had one concept rule, and the end result was poverty, and tens of billions of people starving to death quite unnecessarily.  
Malcolm Roberts:I think we’re going for an ad break now, Professor Plimer, and we’ll be back in just a minute or so.  
Malcolm Roberts:This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, coming to you from Gold Coast in Queensland’s remarkable playground. And I have with me a special guest, Professor Ian Plimer.  
 Ian, science is more than just a word, it’s a process, a method, and as you’ve said, it never ends. We used to have science-driven policy, we now have, as you alluded to, policy-driven science, can you explain why that’s dangerous?  
Ian Plimer:Well, I think it’s extraordinary dangerous, because you do not get an independent conclusion on reality. And a lot of policy is driven by fairly young people in government offices who have gone straight from university into a government office, or into a union, or into a political office, and these people have absolutely no life experience.  
 And science is a constant questioning. Once you have a policy set in concrete, you are incapable of questioning it. The system doesn’t allow you to do it. And we have that with a couple of aspects in today’s modern world. So I very much reject the idea of policy-driven science. I would rather have facts, and I would rather have facts that are underpinned by the scientific method.  
 Now, policy-driven science is, in fact, having an opinion. I don’t have an opinion, I don’t have an opinion at all. I have facts. And if you want to challenge me on the facts, then we come to an argument about how we collected those facts, who collected those facts, where they were collected, what instruments were used, what was the order of accuracy? What corrections might have been used in collecting these facts.  
 So, I think we are facing fairly bad times when we are not looking at facts. When we have one group of people saying, “Oh, well you have your facts, and I have my facts.” I’m sorry, facts. There’s only one thing. It’s a fact. And that fact is reproducible. That fact can be validated. And if it’s not validated, then it gets thrown out. That is the basis of science.  
 And we have abandoned the scientific method in so many areas of our life. Medicine would be one of them, climate change would be another one of them. And if we had policy-driven engineering, you can imagine how many bridges would fall down, or how many aeroplanes  would crash. I mean, this is just absolute nuts.  
Malcolm Roberts:So you’re a scientist of the real world. Now, you are one of the most qualified scientists in the world. You’re esteemed. You’ve been given awards. You’ve been showered with praise for, not only your scientific integrity, but your guts, because you are a scientist who gets out in the pubs, and actually talks to people, listens to people. Above all, listens, because that’s another form of observation. You get into debates … you don’t hide from these things … you get into debates, where you flesh ideas out. What are your greatest qualifications, life qualifications, Ian?  
Ian Plimer:My greatest life qualifications is that I’ve worked underground. I absolutely love working in underground mines. And, there, you’ve got safety constantly in the forefront of your mind, but you are dealing with real people, and you can’t afford to be dealing with anything else. But, reality, when you are underground, these are real people, these people know how you convert a rock into money. It’s the same as if you’re on a farm, you’re converting soil into food or fibre. These are the real people. And I spent a lot of my time with real people.  
 Yes, I spent a lot of my life in the academic world, but that was also pretty uncomfortable because I was a square peg in a round hole. And none of the academics loved me, but the students absolutely loved me because I told it as it is.  
 So, when you’re underground, you’re in a totally different world. It’s a three-dimensional world. If you want to find some more oil, you have to use basic principle of physics, and chemistry, and geology. You have to understand how the rocks move. When you’re underground there’s always a bit of noise, the rocks are creaky and groaning. The miners say the rocks talk to you. So that was probably the greatest learning experience for me.  
 The other was working out in the bush and getting my hands dirty out in the deserts. And I have a great affinity for desert. I have a couple of places, houses out in the desert, and I absolutely love the desert. And this is unforgiving, if you make a mistake, you are dead. If you make a mistake underground, you are dead. If you make a mistake as a climate scientist, you get promoted.  
Malcolm Roberts:What an absolutely amazing explanation. And I share it with you, because when I graduated as a mining engineer with honours in 1976, I decided I better go and learn something. So I’ve worked as an underground coal miner and one open cut mine, but mainly underground around the country, mixing with people, learning about people, learning about underground.  
 And it is such a challenging place to be. It is such a wonderful teamwork environment to be. Surface mining, large open cuts, that’s just dirt shifting, Ian. We know that. But underground, that’s real mining.  
 And where did you learn to have your love of argument, because you just love argument. I’ve seen you run away from nothing. Why do you love an argument?  
Ian Plimer:Well, that, of course, goes right back to my childhood. I was always a little bit of a rebel with a number of things. I had relatives, and grandfathers, and great-grandfathers who were scientists, but also quite argumentative.  
 And my life was opened up when I was married, and my wife saw the potential, and gave me the freedom to argue and to fight. And this is how freedom, and argument, and science all come together.  
 Now, in terms of having debates, the one group of people who will not debate me are climate scientists. They will not debate me because I don’t use political policy, I don’t use opinion, I use facts. And you cannot get a climate scientist to stand up in public, and debate me, and then face questions after the debate. They will not do it. And I know why, because they are being funded to pursue the biggest scientific scam we’ve ever seen in the history of the planets.  
Malcolm Roberts:Correct. And I saw you and Viscount Monckton dismantle two members of the media in Brisbane several years ago. I think one of the poor fellows, Graham Readfearn, I think that was his name, just absolutely hopeless, you just tore him to shreds, so much so that his employer, The Courier-Mail, I think sacked him not long afterwards. Absolutely disgraceful presentation from him.  
Ian Plimer:But he’s still employed. He’s employed by The Guardian, and still writes the same codswallop that is going on with there. So there is the warning, no matter how hopeless you are, there is always something for you. And if you’re really hopeless, the left will look after you. If you’re absolutely extraordinarily unbelievably hopeless, the extreme left will look after you. And that’s what’s happened to Graham Readfearn.  
Malcolm Roberts:That’s absolutely so accurate, what you’ve just said. You have mentioned empirical evidence, the hard data, the observations, because your advice sometimes leads to the expenditure of billions of dollars, and your employers are not happy if it’s wasted. And you are held accountable because you’re working in industry, you’re working in academia, and you’re working in the community at large. You’ve worked in the global community.  
 What we’ve seen now is that science has been reduced to a label. It’s no longer a process, it’s no longer a methodology. It’s a label to justify policies that contradict hard data.  
Ian Plimer:Well, let me give an example. We have had trillions spent globally dealing with human-induced global warming. And what you do in science, is ask really simple questions. You don’t need to use nomenclature, you don’t need to use complex words, you don’t need to hide behind a lab coat and pretending you’re important. Just ask a simple question. And you’ve got to be polite. The simple question is, can you please show me that the human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming?  
 Now this has never been shown. You have pursued that in senate’s estimates committee meeting with Australia’s premier scientific organisation, the CSIRO.  
Malcolm Roberts:Premier?  
Ian Plimer:Well, they were ones-  
Malcolm Roberts:Bloody hopeless on climate, Professor Plimer.  
Ian Plimer:They were once a premier organisation in things like genetics, and wheat, and water, but they have now suffered from being woke, and they have suffered from being dragged into getting extra funding by following the climate line.  
 Now, that question, can you please show me that the human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, it has never been answered. I have asked people who claim to be scientists, just give me half a dozen scientific papers showing that? I have asked journalists, can you please show me that? They can’t.  
 Now, of course, the next question is, if they could, you would then have to ask the next question. And 3% of all emissions of carbon dioxide are from humans, the other 90% is natural. And you then have to ask the next question, can you please show me why the 97% of natural emissions do not drive global warming? So it’s checkmate before the game even starts.  
 Now, these people who call themselves climate scientists, and these can vary from anything, from influencers, to lawyers, to sociologists, to historians, to mathematicians, and on we go, the whole basis of human-induced global warming has never been challenged. And as a result of that, we’ve had this massive waste of trillions of dollars.  
 Now, what flows on from that are these monstrosities like wind turbines. Now, to make a wind turbine, the amount of energy to make that is more than it will ever deliver in its workable life.  
 The second thing is, that the amount of carbon dioxide to make it and maintain it, is more than it will ever save. So why bother? And then when you’ve got these wind turbines, which have a fairly short life of about 15 years, they need to be disposed of after their working life.  
 And when you dispose of turbine blades, you start to contaminate the environment with some dreadful toxins. So you cannot claim that these burden, bat munching, scenery destroying monstrosities have anything to do with the environment. And the way to understand the way that climate industry works is follow the money. Just have a look at who is behind these wind turbines. If one country starts with C and finishes with A.  
 And then we look at the solar PV systems. Now these destroy huge amounts of [inaudible], and you have to clear a lot of [inaudible], that’s surely not environmental. To make them, again, use far more energy than they will ever release. They also emit, in the making of them, more carbon dioxide than they’ll ever save.  
 You can’t have solar power 24 hours a day. We can, but I’ll come to that in a second. When you dispose of those, you start to contaminate the environment with all sorts of toxins, of gallium, and germanium, and arsenic, and selenium, and tellurium. All the things that, of course, make your hair curl and kill you.  
 But just to show you what a scam, the whole business is, we have solar power generation in Spain at night. Now, the Spanish are absolutely wonderful, but to generate solar electricity at night? And you scratch yourself, and you think, well, how the hell do we do that?  
 The answer’s simple. In Spain, the solar panels are illuminated with floodlights from diesel generators because the subsidies are so great that they can make money out of generating solar power at night. And that demonstrates that we have got a total scam in solar and in wind power generation. Now that scam is coming towards the end of its subsidy life and solar and wind power don’t generate electricity. They generate subsidies.  
 And towards the end of the life, now the boys have got to think of something else. So they’re thinking of offshore wind, which is wonderful, you reduce the life of the equipment even more with the saline attack. You also now see people saying, “Hmm, I wonder if we can use this gas, hydrogen?”  
 Now people have tried to use hydrogen 100 years ago and it failed. It failed for three reasons. First, it’s super expensive. Secondly, there’re massive energy losses in making hydrogen, which doesn’t occur in large quantities naturally. And, thirdly, it has to be transported at -253 degrees Celsius and 700 times atmospheric pressure. Now, that is a bomb waiting to happen.  
 So the same people who are scamming on wind and solar, are the people now who are shifting into hydrogen saying, “Oh, we’ve got to try this wonderful new fuel.” Well, it has been tried and it has failed.  
 And in my latest book called Green Murder … and check it out on greenmurder.com … in my latest book, I go into all the details on this and other scams.  
 And this is how we’ve wasted trillions of dollars, and it’s been a slimy approach, every single person who’s paying an electricity bill gets a little slice taken off, and that goes to the scamsters. And this ends up in trillions of dollars in subsidies, trillions of dollars getting paid to people who are only interested in making money rather than providing long-term stable electricity.  
 And if it’s cheap, then it generates employment. And if you have employment generated, then you have less people on the dole queues. And if you have fewer people on the dole queues, then your economy thrives. It’s pretty simple. And we have been conned because we’re so wealthy, because we’re so comfortable, and people have said, “Oh, I can afford to pay a few more dollars because it makes me morally feel better.”  
 And in this book, Green Murder, I argue about the morality of The Green position. And I will give you just one or two examples. For example, if you are wanting to put in wind or solar, then the solar panels have a very good chance of being made by slave labour in China.  
 The wind companies and wind turbines are made by Chinese companies who are destroying the long-term, stable, cheap electricity, be that nuclear, be that coal, be that gas, be that hydro, and replacing it with what they call renewable energy, and I call it unreliable energy, because we once had cheap reliable energy. So there is a scam. And that is weakening the West, and it’s seriously weakening countries like the U.S., and the UK, and Germany.  
 And we can see now the disaster that has occurred in Germany. This is one of the G20 countries, yet we have people getting cut off from their power source because they can’t afford to pay the exorbitant prices. They are now going foraging in the forests to get wood, to keep themselves warm, and to cook. That’s in Germany.  
 In England, you have a choice, do I have a hot shower, or do I heat the house, or do I have a warm meal? I can’t have all three, I can only have one of them. That is a G20 country that’s committed suicide on this green murder path they’ve chosen.  
 And if you, as a wonderful Green, if you think, oh, I want to save the environment and drive an electric vehicle, well, start to look at the resources you use. We haven’t found them yet. And I’ve spent a lot of my time in exploration in a lot of countries, and we have not found the resources we need to put all of the U.S. hydrocarbon-driven vehicles off the road and have them as EVs. We haven’t found the resources. We haven’t got the copper, we haven’t got the lithium, we haven’t got the nickel, we haven’t got the cobalt.  
 But assume you are living in Los Angeles, and you want to be a moral virtue signaler, and get yourself an electric vehicle, well, you’re only constrained to the city, you can’t drive any further. You couldn’t drive to Nevada in an EV. You just couldn’t charge it up. And if you did, for a 500 mile trip, you’d have to stop 3 or 4 times to charge up the vehicle. It’s just totally ineffective.  
 But if you are going to moralise about driving electric vehicle, you have to ask a few questions. Where does the cobalt for your electric vehicle come from? About 80% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Congo, and it’s mined by Black slave children underground, in conditions that are extraordinary dangerous, and where there are toxins everywhere.  
 And if you want to claim that you are moral in driving electric vehicle, you also have to be aware that you are supporting Black child slave labour in the Congo. You can’t have it both ways.  
 So I argue that there is no science behind The Greens position on climate, and I argue that there’s no morality behind The Greens position on climate. You can’t have it both ways. And so, we have to, I think, be fairly blunt, and fairly robust when we argue with people who claim that they want to save the planet. What are they saving it from? Who are they saving it from? Follow the money and follow the morality causes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Ian, the fundamental thing, as I understand it, for driving human progress, there are eight of them. First of all, is freedom. That is determined by science because science gives us objectivity. The second one is rule of law. Third one is constitutional succession, so that we have a smooth ongoing form of government and elected democracy. The fourth one is secure property rights. The fifth one is cheap, abundant, affordable, electricity, or energy, both forms, hydrocarbon and electricity. The next one is family. A strong family network. The next one is honest money. And the last is, of the eight, that I carry around in my head, is, a fair, efficient, honest taxation system.  
 This climate scam, as you have talked about it so accurately, is an assault on every one of those eight fundamentals of human progress. In particular, what we’ve seen in the last 200 years, last 170 years, in particular, is a relentless reduction in electricity prices and energy prices, to the point where each reduction in real terms leads to an increase in productivity.  
 That was until about three decades ago, when the lunatics in the West fared by China, pumping wind and solar generators at us, have destroyed our electricity sector. Australia has gone from being the cheapest electricity in the world, to the most expensive. That means that we export our jobs to China, our future to China, our independence to China. We become dependent on China. Isn’t it a fundamental travesty against generations not yet born, to destroy our country’s manufacturing capability, to destroy our country’s economy, when the Chinese themselves are pumping out almost 10 times as much coal as we produce in total each year? This is insane.  
Ian Plimer:Well, there’s a couple of points here. We have a coal-rich country called India. And, yes, they have some rather shabby transport systems, but they have a lot of coal. And there has been a huge amount of pressure on India and on Africa not to have coal-fired power generation. And so, people live in huts, they burn dung, and twigs, and leaves for heating and for cooking. And, as a result, there’re millions of women and children, every year, die because of that form of energy. So the cheap electricity that people in Africa and India deserve is denied by moralising greens, who are actually killing people by their policies.  
 The second thing is that, I’m very pleased that countries like China have had the industrial revolution. The UK, the Europe, and the U.S. have had their industrial revolutions that brought people out of poverty, that enabled people to live longer, that gave a lot of meaningful work. It actually created all sorts of new jobs. China is undergoing that industrial revolution, and undergoing it very, very quickly. And, in China, we’ve probably had the greatest movement of people, and the greatest economic rise that the world has ever seen. And I think that’s fabulous for the average Chinese person.  
 But the greens tell us the downside is the pumping out of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Well, have I got news for you? We have had a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 30 years. And satellite information is showing us that the planet has greened up. Our crops have become more prolific. Now, that’s partly due to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because carbon dioxide is plant food, but it’s partly due to better fertilisers, and better farming techniques. So we have very good evidence that carbon dioxide is good for you.  
 We have evidence from the Second World War, from the global financial crisis, and from the COVID crisis, when we’ve had a backwardation of economic activity, that we’ve had carbon dioxide continue to increase. So there’s been less carbon dioxide coming out of industry, yet we’ve had a global increase in carbon dioxide. And that’s telling us that the dominant source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from degassing of the oceans, it’s not from industry, it’s not from human activities.  
 And, thirdly, in the geological past, we’ve had times when the atmospheric carbon dioxide was up to 100 times higher than now. And what did we have then? We didn’t have runaway global warming, we actually had ice ages. And six of the six ice ages, this planet has enjoyed, was started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So you cannot ignore that huge body of evidence from the past telling us that in geological times, carbon dioxide was much, much higher, and we yet we had ice ages during these periods of high carbon dioxide.  
 And the fourth point is, ice core drilling, it’s shown on one scale that is a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. But when you look on a much closer scale, we see something that we all know from chemistry, but it tends to get ignored, and that is, that, when we have a natural warming event, anything from 650 to 1600 years later, we then have an increase in carbon dioxide. So it’s not that carbon dioxide drives the temperature increase, it’s the exact inverse, the temperature is actually driving a carbon dioxide increase.  
 And this is why I argue, that those who call themselves climate scientists are milking the taxpayer to keep themselves in a job because they’re in effect unemployable. And we are being frightened as humans to accept this concept that we are going to fry and die, yet we’ve had periods of time when it’s been much warmer, yet we’ve had periods of time we’ve had much higher carbon dioxide.  
 And just during the time when we humans, Homo sapiens, have been on the planet, we have experienced many periods of cooling in glaciation and warming in interglacial. And in the last 20,000 years, we have gone from the zenith of a glaciation, where most of the U.S., most of all of Canada, most of Northern Europe, and England were covered by ice. A lot of the southern hemisphere was covered by ice.  
 Those areas that weren’t covered by ice were deserts with howling winds, bring salt-laden air, and shifting sand dunes. And these are the great Loess plains of Asia. There’s a great sand dune country of inland Australia.  
 And we humans have endured that. And we came out of that great glaciation event about 12,000 years ago. And temperature increased, it then suddenly plummeted, and then went up again by about 15 degrees in about 10 years. Now that’s real global warming. Then it stayed static for a while, then it dropped again, then it went up again.  
 And then we had, what was called the Holocene optimum, from about 7,000 to 4,000 years ago. And it was a couple of degrees up to 5 degrees warmer then than now. Sea level was higher than now. And over the last 5,000 years, global temperature has been decreasing. We are coming out of the interglacial into the next inevitable glaciation. We’ve actually been cooling. But during that cooling period, we had warm spikes like the Roman Warming in the dark ages when it was cool. Then another warm spike in the mediaeval warming, then a cool period in the little ice age, and then the modern warming. And we’re coming out of that modern warming into another cool period.  
 So if you ignore the past, and if you ignore all the sciences that deal with the past, you can come up with an unvalidated idea that human emissions drive global warming. I say that is false. I say that the promotion of that is done by people who are modellers, who do not look at the science of the past. And we know, that from 30 years of models, not one of these models is in accord with what we measured over the last 30 years.  
 And if I have the choice as a scientist, between a model and a measurement, I will take a measurement any day because a model is a garbage in, garbage out process. And a model, basically doesn’t deal with the unknown unknowns, whereas measurement can be replicated measurement. We argue about the order of accuracy, but it’s still measurement. So, that’s the answer to your question. God knows what the question was.  
Malcolm Roberts:That was fabulous. I want to remind you of two recent episodes in human history. The first occurred in 2008, the global financial crisis. It led to a downturn around the world. Australia wasn’t hit because we were living off the Chinese minerals boom, but most of the world was hit. And it’s certainly a global recession, very severe recession.  
 So the actual use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, gas decreased in 2009 compared with 2008 in the recession. That meant there was less carbon dioxide produced in 2009 than in 2008. And yet, Professor Plimer, as you have so accurately stated, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase.  
 Then we marched forward to 2020 when we had a global, almost a depression due to the COVID restrictions, the government imposed COVID restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government-imposed COVID restrictions. We saw, again, a reduction in the use of coal, oil, and gas compared with the previous year 2019, we saw a decrease in the human production of carbon dioxide, and yet the global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to increase, which just shows two things.  
 First of all, we have no say in what is the level of global carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. None at all. We can gut our economy and it will have no effect on it whatsoever. So we can gut the West and let China keep producing carbon dioxide, let India keep producing carbon dioxide because they have a duty to their citizens to lift them out of poverty, and to give them the trappings of modern civilization, there’ll be nothing we can do. And besides that, carbon dioxide, as you’ve said, is a plant fertiliser it’s plant food. It is essential to all life on this planet, is it not?  
Ian Plimer:Yeah. Just to add to that, these two examples you gave are examples of the scientific method. We’ve had two great unintentional global experiments, global financial crisis, and COVID, and these were great global experiments. So it’s not that we’ve done the experiment once, we’ve actually replicated it. And in both cases, we have shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide do not drive global temperature. And in fact, global temperature depends upon whether you measure it on the ground, and if it’s measured on the ground, then what a wonderful opportunity you have to cook the books and change results. And that’s what happens almost universally with cooling the past and warmingly the present.  
 But when you look at the satellite measurements, and there are three basic sets of satellite data, it shows a very different story. So I would much prefer to have a uniform measurement at all altitudes around the whole planet that tell me about the temperature rather than having selected people entrusted with looking after a surface measurement, and then changing it over time. And as you mentioned, the Bureau of Meteorology has done that three times over the last nine years, which creates all sorts of uncertainty about whether they’re worth a million dollars a day.  
 So we’ve had these two great global experiments, which in my mind prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide did not drive global warming. So, why bother? Why bother? Why don’t we, as Western countries, say, we are very happy to look after our environment. And the only countries with good environmental policies preserving the environment [inaudible] have become wealthy due to the industrial revolution.  
 And this thing you can do for our environment [inaudible] what you consider is worth preserving. We should be very pleased China [inaudible] ahead and becoming a wealthy country. As a result, they will [inaudible] pollution. And I think China and India should [inaudible] people.  
Malcolm Roberts:What you’re saying, Professor Plimer, is that, we need to restore scientific integrity to protect freedom, to protect our natural and environment, because scientific development and understanding has enabled us to protect our natural environment.  
 Science also then is vital for sound sustainable policy, which impacts people’s economies, and lives, and livelihoods, and security. And it’s also to protect the human spirit by ending the unfounded climate fear and guilt while restoring our connection with nature.  
 Something I think is really important to human progress is strength of character. You display it in spades. Whenever you speak, you’re fearless, but you’re also passionate. Why are you so proud of being a human, and what traits in humanity, are of concern to you?  
Ian Plimer:You’ve asked me 17 questions there, so let me just comment on a couple of things. You spoke about protecting the environment. I’m a great supporter of that, because I’ve bought a considerable acreage of land to protect it. But I’m not conserving it, because how can you conserve the environment on a planet that’s dynamic and it’s always changing? So we can protect what we have and let nature do its bit.  
 In terms of fear, we, humans, are hardwired to fear that grizzly bear that’s behind you and is going to come and get you. We are hardwired to have an adrenaline rush to save ourselves. This is a fundamental trait of humans and of many, many other animals. So fear is still hardwired into our system. And the fear that has been induced in populations, by governments on matters such as COVID or climate, they have been exploiting that fundamental human characteristic of fear.  
 And in many cases, you fear because you do not understand. Science gives you a method of being able to understand. And if you can understand, then you are not nearly as fearful.  
 Now, I am very passionate because my early life I started being interested in the planet and geology, when I was about four. And I had some very good mentors, and I’ve been guided well through life. And I’m mentoring, I think 8 or 10 people now, giving back the same way it was given to me.  
 But if you can understand how the planet works, if you can understand the past, then this is far more exciting than-  
Malcolm Roberts:We’re going to have to call it off, Professor Plimer. This is Professor Ian Plimer, guest of Senator Malcolm Roberts.  
 

Part 2
 

Speaker 1:You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on today’s News Talk Radio TNT.  
Malcolm Roberts:Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT radio.live. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from the Gold Coast broadcasting globally. Fresh from my COVID bed a week ago, I had COVID, now I have the world’s most powerful immunity, all natural. I want to call out to the people marching around our country today. And in fact, around the world for protesting or reinforcing freedom. I’ll see you in Maryborough tomorrow for the protest at Maryborough. And I look forward very much to being up in Maryborough. I want to express my condolences to the family of Meatloaf who died last night. He brings back very fond memories. I love his music, that the way he can go from something, belting something out to just something so soft and tender.  
 We have Australia Day coming up this Wednesday in our country, celebrating our national day. On the Mornington Peninsula, friends send me this: on the Mornington Peninsula this year, they have cancelled Australia Day celebrations, yet not cancelled Invasion Day celebrations. Invasion Day events are free for indigenous and $39 for a non-indigenous. See what people are doing? They’re setting up division. That’s quite often what’s happening around our planet. The globalists are pushing division.  
 Last hour, I had the honour of having professor Ian Plimer as my guest, a highly intelligent, very practical man. I, now introduce another highly intelligent, very practical man. John McRae, his voice is known all over Sydney, all over New South Wales, all over Australia. He’s even tied up Alan Jones in arguments at times. This man has got the knowledge about our country and about our potential and our history. I have enormous respect for John, his knowledge, his passion for Australia. His memory; it’s like an iron trap. I can remember meeting John for the first time around about 2011 and what a character.  
 He opened up to me Australia’s successful past in so many fields. His memory would just showered me in facts. He gave me an introduction to books from people like Anthony Sutton, who wrote three books about Wall Street and the damage that Wall Street does. Above all though, his diverse stories, his practical knowledge of factories in Sydney, banking, his knowledge of farming, his knowledge of our history, his knowledge and introduction to people like Graham Strachan, who has done so much to publicise what the globalists are trying to do to our country to destroy it. He’s made public presentations informing residents across New South Wales. He’s worked in so many diverse industries. He shares with me a time and working as an underground coal miner. John, welcome to the show.  
John McRae:Thank you very much, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Mate, first simple question. [crosstalk] First simple question for you, John, what do you appreciate?  
John McRae:I appreciate what you’ve just done. One thing, what you’ve just done a moment ago, having that brilliant man on radio, expanding the truth, the fact and the science, as opposed to the lies and the deceit that we are being fed from parliament and from so-called academics that are on the gravy train payroll. And he exploded all their theories and I enjoyed it immensely. I should have been brushing up with my own memory, but I enjoyed it. You’ve got to get him back on. You’ve got to advertise it, that he’s on there, so people can get the truth.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, you’ve always been pushing the truth. You just like professor Ian Plimer. You never run away from an argument. You know how to deal with people because you apply same basic strategy that Ian does. You use facts and data. Could you tell us something about past accomplishments? I’m thinking particularly about the Kalgoorlie pipeline and look, mate, we know that sometimes Sydney Radio tries to shut you down because you’re just too good for them. I want you to talk. I want you to spill the goods on this country. So, just do what you’re doing. Just tell it as it is. Away you go, mate.  
John McRae:You want to know about the pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie?  
Malcolm Roberts:Yes.  
John McRae:Firstly, I’ll say this. Australia is the richest country in the world with 75 of the 77 minerals our world requires we’ve got them in abundance, but we’ve a crazy wombats running the joint. The Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline exemplified that. 1896 to 1903, it is still regarded as the greatest hydraulic achievement ever in the world. They pump water from Perth to Coolgardie originally, because a bloke, they found gold at Coolgardie, but then Patty Henon found it in 1892 at Kalgoorlie. And that started the gold rush. And people came from everywhere to get money out of the gold rush and people were dying because they had no water and things like that. So, they were condensing water and it’s replication of what’s happening in Australia today, the money people started condensing water to supply the people at the goldfield, but it was wasn’t enough because it needs a thousand gallons of water to refine one tonne of ore.  
 So, they were opposing the pipeline, the men that come up with this idea , John Forest. So John Forest was the premier and he borrowed money from England, 2,500 Pound… 2,500,000 Pound. Now remember that figure because I’m going to give you a figure later on as we go, that’ll shock you. And they got Alberton O’Connor to do it. He was an Irish engineer and they brought him over to do the railway lines. And they said, “We need water.” Now you’ve got to get over the Flinders Ranges into Barron land desert, but it’s not desert. It’s rich, red basalt soil. Let’s say you’re up in Queensland, you’ve got black basalt soil, that’s the indication of the volcanic reaction and the formation of Australia.  
 He then put together some smart people. This is 1896. It’s got to go 500 kilometres and the first pump up was 390 metres. In actual fact, Kalgoorlie is about four or 500 feet higher than Perth. So it’s going to be pumped all the way over the Flinders Ranges. 3000 people worked on it. Population of Australia was about four and a half, 5 million. So they had 70,000 plates of steel was imported from England and Germany, but what he had to do was build the harbour first to get the ships, in the sailing ships and the steam ships with all the supplies, then he had to design and build the dam, then they had to manufacture the pipes. Then they had to get the pipes from Perth all the way to Coolgardie. But then they found out that they can go to Kalgoorlie, and this whole pipeline was built on budget and on time. So away they go. It all has to be done by man, pick and shovel, horse and cart and camel train.  
 Now, the dam has to be built first and completed first before the rest of the pipeline is completed and the pumping stations and everything. 5,000 boxes of pump parts came out in containers and had to be built along the way. The pipe were built in two halves, 180 degrees, you know a full pipe and cut in the middle, you’ve got two pipes. They had to be sealed. And that’s where the Australian inventor started.  
 They invented the ceiling sleeve that goes along it. Then you’ve got to seal it. There’s no welding back then, only rivets. But this is what people got and said, “No rivets, no welding, no dynamite, only black powder. And you’ve got to build a dam, extract rocks out and everything else.” So they’ve got to make these ceiling machines, make this sleeve.  
 Three Australian… Me and Ferguson, Hodson, and a fellow from Sydney called John Hoskins, the start of the steel mills in Australia. The first steel plates of steel were built down in Murgon, there’s a park built there, Fitzroy Park. That’s where Fitzroy Steel started. He made the first plate steels in Australia and the first piece of plate of stainless steel. They got together and invented how to bend the steel by making the pipes. They had this steel bending machine and they redesigned it. They were making the pipes in the finish in 11 minutes, put the ceiling sleeve on it, it was sealed by lint and rope. And blacksmiths had to make the ceiling rings. They tested them between 320 and 400 pound PSI. The pipes were 23 foot long and 3 feet in diameter. Now that’s the pipe bit going.  
Malcolm Roberts:Excuse me, John. Excuse me, excuse me, John. What you’re really saying there, and I want you to get back to your story as quickly as possible, but what you’re really saying is that they started this project with a vision and with no understanding of how to do some of the details? They relied upon their intuition to come up with solutions and dammit, they did.  
John McRae:They did. They did. Hey, hey, listen, in the overall scheme of things, what I’m about to tell you about doing the dam, that they’d nearly pile into insignificance. So, they’re going to build the dam, they’ve got to build the dam. In the meantime, everyone’s against him because of the sale of the water. Now, there was two senators in the government, on the 26th of the 6th, 1898, G. T. Simpson said, “It is the height of madness to mortgage the future of our state with two and a half million Pound for just one silly project. The gold will run out and we’ve wasted all the money.” And Alberton O’Connor said, “This is rich fertile soil. So who’d want to go there?” The next bloke Wilson said the same thing. No government can justify pledging so much money to plunges into debt, for this.  
 So, they’re going to build the dam. So this is all done with pick and shovel. So they’re building the dam, and when they’re building the dam, they run into what they call a floater. Now, when you get the sandstone bedrock, that’s where you start your foundations. You can’t be on slippery, shifty ground or shifty… They’ve got to get this grounded boulder out. They had to dig down 90 feet further than the original depth. 90 feet hand, pick and shovel, hand drills, and everything else. Out they came again, stopped the project. “This bloke’s an imbecile. You can’t have this going on. It’s going to be further behind time. We’ll never get the job done, or anything else.”  
 What did he come up with? He’d come up with a carbon arc light. That’s the same as what you do with the search light, carbon arc. He rigged it all up. They worked 24-7. I’ve got photos of the vicarious stuff out, how they did it. They dug that granite out. I’ve sent you a photo of them down in the hole. You can hardly see the blokes down in the hole.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah.  
John McRae:Nd there’s no shoring up between the granite sandstone that they dug down. They extracted the granite boulder out, crushed it all up, reintroduced it back as the foundation with the carbon arc. How’s that for ingenious? How is that?  
Malcolm Roberts:Mm.  
John McRae:There’s no electricity over there, no Boeings to get an extension cable and a generator. None of them existed. And they got it back on time. They worked 24-7, and that’s what they did. If he hadn’t done that, they raised a dam wall, remind me to tell you about how they raise a dam wall. So, that dam had to be built, that pumping station had to be built because where the dam is, is 24 kilometres away from Perth, where they’ve got to pump the first pump over the Flinders Ranges. So there’s two pumps there at the dam to go to the pump at Perth, the reservoir in Perth to pump it.  
 Then they’ve got to get all the pipeline going. Then the first lot of pipes that were delivered, were delivered by horse and cart and camel trains. Then he built the railway line and then they could go on the railway. Now they had to… There’s an invention, how he got the rock out. He built a ramp for a steam shovel. You wouldn’t pass his test today because they’d say it would fall in, but they did it. No dynamite, no dynamite. I know they had black powder then, but I don’t know how they would… There would’ve been hand drill, one bloke held the drill and wriggle it, another bloke banged with the sledgehammer, they dug it out.  
Malcolm Roberts:So let me just reframe this for people who’ve just joined us, this is in the days of horses and carts, camels, predated the railway to some extent in some areas. And it was the man who proposed it was vilified for his 2,500 Pound investment. Are you going to tell us about the success of this investment?  
John McRae:Well, the 2,500,000 Pound, it was built in… This only took six years with no machinery. What do you think we could do today? What do you think we could do? We could do it overnight with the will of Australians, because they had the will do, can do and want to. The 2,500 million Pound they borrowed, three years after it was finished, the goldfields, the water, they made 25 million Pound.  
Malcolm Roberts:So that’s 10 times as much. So not only that, John and I’m talking with John McRae here from, used to be Sydney, now it’s central New South Wales Coast. They opened up the gold mining, which continues to this day in one of the richest gold mining areas in the world-  
John McRae:Recognised the biggest goldfield in the world, and it opened up the whole mining industry of this country that we’ve benefited by for all those years. And we still are, but we’re not getting the value that we should have, as Ian Plimer has just told you, we’re not getting the value, we just kept holding our arms up and let them rape us for our money.  
Malcolm Roberts:Didn’t they also open up a farming area?  
John McRae:Oh, there’s 8,000 kilometres now a pipe, 8 million acres of cropping land, sheep and wheat and everything else. And when the English migrants came out here, they put it on the share market and there was a stampede to get shares in this joint and Kalgoorlie mine and everything else. The English migrants come in, they said, “You could grow anything here.” They’ve grown vegetables, everything, everything there.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, so let’s-  
John McRae:You only need heat and water. That’s all Australia needs, water and electricity as we were supplying the whole world commodities, the whole world.  
Malcolm Roberts:Thank you. Thank you, because energy is the key to productivity, which is the key to prosperity, which is the key to wealth generation for everyone in the country. And what we are doing, we’re destroying our energy. But listen to some of these figures, I’ll go through them again. I noted them as you were talking. John McRae, the initial cost was 2,500,000 Pounds.  
John McRae:Yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Within two years, it was 10 times that much paid back.  
John McRae:Yeah. Because you have just identified the component that we need was energy and water is energy because their whole body is 82% of water.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah.  
John McRae:So don’t worry about the water out in the grass. The water in your own body is 82% to give you the energy. So all these wombats that are running around, talking about climate and everything else that the climates just destroyed, they better go back and read this. It’s not very hard to read. I’ve never been to university, but I can read. And most people can read. Don’t listen to the crap they’re telling you. And when they start telling you all this say, “Don’t tell me, show me.” And they can’t.  
Malcolm Roberts:No, they can’t. And we’ve had that repeatedly. Now in addition, they had to lift that water 390 metres to get it over the range. [crosstalk] They then had to continue pumping it uphill for 500 kilometres to Kalgoorlie. I mean, this is in 1896 with no machinery. No machinery. And we can’t even do that now. This would be, with the technology we’ve got these days, John, that would be so easy. Why can’t we do it?  
John McRae:Oh, oh, look, look, Malcolm. It is equivalent to you driving around T Model Ford as opposed to a Mercedes-Benz. That’s the advancement. But what Malcolm, I failed to tell you one thing, there was eight pumping stations and it relied on the push-and-pull system. The same as the sewage does. So sewage is not done with pumping, it’s done with suction. So to get to the first reservoir and they held about a hundred thousand gallons, I think. And then it might go downhill to the next bit, now it’s got to be pumped up to the next reservoir. It’s got to go over the Flinders Ranges. If you see the Flinders, it’s more up and downhills than what the Luna park Ferris Wheel is.  
 And they had to do that. They pumped it. There was pumping stations all along, they had to build pumping stations. They had to build schools. They had to build hospitals. They had to have nurses and everything else going along there. And all the people in the town that were getting money out of this water condensers, they were jumping up and down because they’ve lost their gold mine. Their gold mine was water. They were more interested in water than gold.  
Malcolm Roberts:They wanted to preserve their monopoly rather and open up the country for Australians.  
John McRae:Of course.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yes.  
John McRae:Same thing. What do you think they do with the Murray–Darling water now? Same thing. It’s superannuation for the fire brigade, superannuation fund in New York and a massive amount of water rise. Who did they get the water off in the first place to sell to?  
Malcolm Roberts:John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull and John Anderson.  
John McRae:Yeah but they’re about as helpful as ashtray on a camel.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah. Water Act of 2007, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull, John Howard and John Anderson. And we’re still crippling.  
John McRae:And under our constitution, no one is to be denied water. And that’s what the thing should be taught in the school, our constitution and our rights, our civil rights and what you’ve just been speaking about, it’s music to my ears.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, John, you’ve always impressed me with your knowledge, your depth and your passion for this country. You’ve also struck me, I mean, you’re not a technically educated man. You’ve got a trade certificate. There’s no doubt about that. But you’ve read widely. Where did this love of humanity, this inquisitiveness, where did it come from? Was it your mother? Was it something happen in Kids?  
John McRae:It was my mother. Malcolm, what happened to me when I was little, I got polio and I was crippled. And you are ostracised by society back then, this was in 1948, 49. People didn’t want know you, even my own cousins were not told I had polio because people think you could catch it. You can’t catch it. You can breathe on, you do what you like. You’ve got to ingest it. And it comes from poor hygiene, exactly what Ian Plimer was talking about, poor hygiene. You got to lift people out, give them water and lack of water and end and lift them out of their hygiene standard and their living standard. Look, they are saying, pulling hands and juices a lot of times teach. Give a man to feed of fish today, he eats it. Teach him how to fish and he’ll feed himself for life. Now that’s what you’ve got to do.  
 We’ve got to get the hygiene and everything. Anyway, what happened after that? I crippled up and they operated on me, but I had the most beautiful mother that anyone could ever have. She was talented and not only talented, she was a good looker. Fair Dingham, she looked like, it’s either Susan Hayward or Vivien Lee, one of them, she looked like a one of them. She was a concert pianist, dress maker and milliner, and then become a psychologist. And I went to a lot of her, I was in lucky, I went there. But anyway, one of my grandfather’s best friends was Sir William McKell, the Governor-General. The man that got us-  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell me about that because you have a lot of respect for McKell, why?  
John McRae:Oh, it’s unbelievable, man. Unbelievable. He started off as a five and six fiddly a week boiler maker because his dad, they come from down the South Coast and he was a butcher and his dad died. They lived at Redfin and he detested people calling Redfin congested areas-  
Malcolm Roberts:John, I just want to point out, we’re going to an ad break fairly soon. So I might have to cut you off suddenly, but we’ll come back if I do, so please continue.  
John McRae:That’s okay. That’s okay.  
Malcolm Roberts:Please continue.  
John McRae:Anyway, he started off as a five and six fiddly boilermaker of Maud Stock. That was the place where they first shipped the fresh meat, the over frozen meat to England. Then he went to Eveleigh Workshops. He educated himself. Then he went and become a lawyer. Then he got into local government, then a pilot, and he became the premier of New South Wales. And he was the instigator through with Chifley and Kurton to get the Snowy Mountain Scheme going. But that person they think was a great bloke, Menzies was verdantly against it because he wanted to, I don’t know what he wanted to do, but he just didn’t want to do that because he said, “You’re going to deny people of water in Victoria, South Australia.” He said, “No, they’ll get more water.” He said, “Well, I’m going to stop you with The Constitution.” And McKell said, “Well, you do your best because I’m going to invoke the Emergency Powers Act and see how you travel with that.” He’s a fellow that explained a lot to me, and he explained the Taxation Act to me and things like that. But he-  
Malcolm Roberts:So, McKell did this for you?  
John McRae:Yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Wow, wow.  
John McRae:Just after I left school-  
Malcolm Roberts:What a blessing.  
John McRae:In 1953, that Tax Act that was after Robert Menzies introduced that, and I asked him about the Snowy Mountain Scheme, and he was good enough… He got me an introduction to Sir William Hudson, the engineer. What a genius, what a genius. We had Alberton O’Connor, but what people have got to understand, all that project over in Western Australia, all the knowledge and empirical knowledge and-  
Malcolm Roberts:Okay, John, we’re going to go to an ad break. We’ll be back straight after to hear this continuation of your story. Thank you.  
Speaker 4:If it feels like it’s hot enough to fry an egg on a sidewalk, it probably is. When it’s 86 degrees outside, asphalt can reach a sizzling 135 degrees. Hot enough to cook an egg and your dog’s feet. Be safe. Test the sidewalk with your hand. Avoid midday walks and walk in the grass. Bring along water and rest in the shade at the first signs of heat exhaustion, including heavy panting and stumbling. Go to peta.org for help and information on how to keep your dog safe in hot weather.  
Speaker 5:Good day. Fast Ed here. As a chef, you know what I hear a lot? Wow. That smells really good. Is it done yet? For certain foods it’s important to cook properly rather than how they look or smell. Those foods include hamburgers, sausages, chicken, and leftovers. The rule of thumb is pretty simple: cook those foods to 75 degrees Celsius. Listen, I’m no Einstein, so I use a food thermometer and I reckon you should too. That way you’ll know it’s done without guessing. And no one will get sick.  
Speaker 6:A message from the Food Safety Information Council.  
Speaker 7:The bush fire was so unpredictable. It was important to have a plan.  
Speaker 8:[crosstalk] We stayed up to today with our phones and the radio. We knew it was coming.  
Speaker 9:I never thought it would actually happen. I’m glad we had a plan.  
Speaker 10:You have to prepare your property and your family.  
Speaker 11:And there was nothing we could do. [crosstalk]  
Speaker 13:Hence, why I always had a plan.  
Speaker 14:We can all be bushfire ready. Do a five minute Bush fire plan today.  
Speaker 15:Unlike other health concerns, mental illness is not always easy to see. Depression won’t show up on an eye chart and you won’t find PTSD by looking at a thermometer. Sorting out a mental health concern takes professional diagnosis and treatment. Anxiety won’t just go away under a bandage. If you or a loved one has a mental health concern, call 1-8-0-0-6-6-2 HELP for free and confidential information and treatment referral. Learn more samhsa.gov/support.  
Speaker 1:Today’s News Talk Radio TNT.  
Malcolm Roberts:Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT radio.live. And I’ve got a special guest with me, John McRae. John, continue please with McKell.  
John McRae:Okay. I’ll finish that brief thing with McKell because I’ve got to give you some more information on that pipeline. And I was, speak to McKell about politics and everything else and different things had happened. And he explained to me how we were the supplier for the world, which I knew, after the war because I was aware of it, and the great farmers and the great things we’ve done. Then I learned a little bit about the pipeline. He invigorated that in me. Now, and I spoke politics to him. He gave me forecasts of politics. Malcolm, in this pipeline, there was 60,000 joints they had to seal. 60,000, and there was 63,000 pipes and they had to be done, it had to be sealed with cork, with lead and rope, and they invented a corking machine and that invention, this sleeve situation and they couldn’t be done without blacksmiths because blacksmiths used to make this shrink seal that pulled the pipes together onto these two ceiling sleeves.  
 Remember the pipes are 23 feet long anda metre in diameter, three feet. And they had to be all man handled. And they made this with pipe, this steel bending machine, they got one and modified it. They made the sleeve machine. Then they tested them. It’s between 320 and 400 pound PSI. I don’t know how they did that. I’ve lost that documentation. Off they went. Then what was happening, they started the belly ache because when they started to do them by hand, by 1901 they’d only done 90 miles. And oh, it’s going to fail. It’s going to fail. It’s going to fail. Then the three engineers that I told you about, me and Ferguson, Hodson, and another fellow, can’t remember his name, Stuart Sternum, some name like that. And Hoskins, they come up with this ceiling machine. Well, they could do 30 joints a day then. Why, it went like a rocket. Off they went.  
Malcolm Roberts:So John, this remarkable pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie basically opened up the west, developed so much for the country as well in terms of our steel industry, the technology we use. But ultimately, there was another dam project, the Snowy Mountain Scheme, which was more than one dam, wasn’t it?  
John McRae:Oh, yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:And McKell saved that from being cancelled by Menzies. Is that what you were saying?  
John McRae:Yes. Yes. What happened, Menzies was against it. Chifley was the prime minister and he gave, well, New South Wales has got snowy mountains in New South Wales, but the Murray, the Snowy river and that filters into Victoria and into South Australia. And they thought it was going to cripple their water supply. And he guaranteed they wouldn’t. And Menzies said, “Fight him on the constitution,” I think section 101 or 190, how no one is to be denied water. He said, “Well, I’ll take you on and I’ll invoke the Emergency Powers Act and you won’t beat me.” And McKell is there, you can see photos of when they first started, he pushes the detonator to do the first blast.  
 He was Governor-General then. He was so brilliant as a Governor-General, he was a labour appointee. When he was appointed Governor-General, by the Labour Party, when Menzies won the election 49, it was a stitch up job that. He still retained him. Then he was going to retire and Menzies said, “You can’t retire. I need you.” This is a bloke that’s fought him in the first place, then he admires him in the second place, because he could see at the end of the section, I’m going to get the brownie points for finishing this job.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, Menzies could take credit?  
John McRae:So Menzies could take credit, but initially he’s against it. There was a big strike there once. I’ll also tell you about Sir William Hudson and what a visionary, he was like that Ian Plimer, like that, and they shut the joint down. So William Hudson went to where the strike was and said, “What’s going on here?” And it’s all up, all hell has broke loose. They said, “The moots blown,” and everything else. And he said, “This place should have fly screens and they’re contesting. Why hasn’t that been done?” That was an interference from parliament. We won’t go into that. You can work out where it had come from.  
 He said, “Get the carpenters wherever they are, the air conditioner. I want it all done immediately, right now. Get them all.” Wherever he was, he went there. “You won’t be docked for your day off. You’ll still be paid. Go back to work.” Menzies told him and he said, “I never want you to do that again.” He said, “Otherwise, I’ll take your commission off you,” because he said, “I’ve got to beat the unions. I’ll get too strong. And I’ll lose the election.” See? Money again.  
Malcolm Roberts:Whereas Hudson, what he wanted to do was fix the workers problems so they just get back to work productively.  
John McRae:Yes, and they did. And by the way, all the big mob come out from America, Utah Mining, and all that. And the other mob and from England and everything else. And they thought we rode kangaroos and all this business here, and we have no chance on doing tunnelling and all this has never been done in Australia before. Four blokes come down from Queensland, their name was Feis. They broke all the tunnelling records and they built 25% of the Snowy, they built the largest earth and rock fill dam ever.  
Malcolm Roberts:And they said it was impossible to build an earth and filled dam that big. And yet they did it.  
John McRae:They did it. It was all done. This is Australian initiative. Look, I could go on for hours with what Australia’s done with inventions and how it’s benefited the world.  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell us about a few.  
John McRae:That is the hardest concrete in the world down there, Malcolm. The hardest. And I said to William Hudson, I was fortunate enough to meet him. A lot of people can meet him, when they had tools, you could go and talk to him. He said, “It was pretty simple. We had the best people.” And I said, “But how did you work out the mixtures?” Because if they had to make their own sand. Now, that sounds funny, doesn’t it? They had to make their own sand. Now, I’ll tell you how they did it. They got sandstone and you grind it up. But in sandstone, there’s impurities like silica and mud and you can’t mix with it because it goes like jelly.  
 So that had to be extracted, which they did. I don’t know how they did it, but they did it. And then they’d have to be mixed. Now, when they were mixing it, they mixed it with hot ice and ice. And they put other additives in it. But the granite and stuff they used there, they worked out what aggregate would be the best. And that’s how they did the formula, working out the earth and rock fill dam and that concrete is the hardest concrete in the world and it made Australia world leaders in concrete and highway engineering and things we’ve done with highway engineering and concrete lead the world.  
 I ask people, “Where’s the largest concrete span bridge in the world?” Because they got all the information from the Snowy, how they mix concrete. 25 countries, they tell you. I said, “You don’t even might know what you’re talking about. It’s in Sydney, called the Gladesville Bridge.” At that time it was built, it was the largest concrete span bridge, reason being, they got empirical knowledge and statistic and science from the Snowy, which they got when they did the Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline doing the… So, it keeps revolving along, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Can I share a story with you, John? I’m reluctant to interrupt you because you’ve just got so much. But when I was in America, I travelled through all 50 states. I was fascinated by the country and I came across a story about the development of their early space exploration. And John Kennedy had just become the president in 1960. And he commissioned NASA to do a study on the chances of getting a man to the moon and back safely by the end of the decade. In other words, by 1969. And I’ll always remember this, I bought a poster of it. It’s in every office I’ve ever worked in. I carry it with me. The result from NASA’s assessment of the possibility of getting a man on the moon and back again within nine years, wasn’t yes, it wasn’t no, it was these words: We have a sporting chance. And with that, and I’m getting a little bit teary here, John F. Kennedy said, “We go to the moon.”  
 And then you think about the technology that’s come out of that from electronic ignitions, from medicine-  
John McRae:Everything.  
Malcolm Roberts:So many things, even Velcro. I mean, so many things.  
John McRae:Yeah.  
Malcolm Roberts:And what you are saying to me, John, is that we had people like John F. Kennedy in this country who had vision, people like McKell, people like Connor. And they said, “Get out of my way and let me get on with the job.” And as a result of that, they had so much technology developed in this country that then gave us our steel industry, our concrete industry, so many opportunities and what we’ve got now, we’ve got this whole thing smashed.  
John McRae:Well, the reason being is because people haven’t had the privilege that I’ve had or ignorant and don’t want to do it. See, when I wasn’t allowed to go to school or to go to the pictures.  
Malcolm Roberts:Oh, that’s right. You had polio with your mother. Yes.  
John McRae:I went to older people and I’d ask questions and that’s what I do all my life, ask questions.  
Malcolm Roberts:Can I just interrupt there for a minute? Just want to interrupt there. I want to just tell the listeners here while they’re sitting at home or in their cars or at the picnic, wherever they are, that John is not exaggerating a bit here. I’ve watched this man. He treats people with enormous respect. If he disagrees, he’ll let you know. But he walks up to people and he takes an engaging interest. Doesn’t sacrifice his principles, his morals. He just takes an imbibing interest and people share things with John. That’s why he’s become such a magnet for facts and data. Keep going, John. I just had to share that with you. You’re you’re so impressive, the way you deal with people.  
John McRae:So I would go and ask him things. And everyone used to say to me, “John, look after your pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.” And the director of one of joints, the directors at the glassworks in Sydney, it’s Sydney in Maude Park, largest glassworks in the Southern hemisphere. He said, “Never denounce anyone.” Even the bloke sweeping the street can give you information and tell you something that you don’t know. And I’ve lived by that. When I was growing up, I’d go into engineering, “Why do you do this? Why do you do that?” I was taught how to read a micrometre at the age of 11. By 13 or 14, I knew how to do dynamic balancing. My mate’s father was an engineer, I’ll tell you his name. And-  
Malcolm Roberts:Dynamic balancing of wheels?  
John McRae:I beg your pardon?  
Malcolm Roberts:Dynamic balancing of wheels, lathes?  
John McRae:That’s nothing. Wheels are nothing. No armatures in motors and things like that.  
Malcolm Roberts:Right, thank you. So complex stuff by the time. So complex stuff by the time you were 13?  
John McRae:Yeah, I could work lathes and everything. I helped the bloke build a speedway engine. At 14, I did all the rough turning and I used to, I asked questions, if I go somewhere… Look, this is off the track. I went down to Stéphanoise and I used to go to Shepherd a lot. And I went to visit, [inaudible] They lovely people, these Italians. And they’d telling me different things. They going over the machines, breaking down. I invented this machine that could extract eight types of oil out of the apricot kernel, eight types of oil and one oil can harness one type of cancer a bit.  
 Guess what happened? John Howard sold it to Pakistan. So, we invented this machine. You should have seen it. Unbelievable. So they’re the sort of things, and I’d say, Charlie Bennett taught us dynamic balancing, when you’re balancing an armature… See I’m going from subject to subject.  
 When you’re balancing armature, if you turn it over and balance one end and then balance the other, it’s out of balance again, because you’ve got to keep the harmonics in unison. No one was doing dynamic balancing this way. He invented a machine that could balance the armature at both ends at the one time. And he balanced thousands. And he did it for the army, the Navy, the Heart Research and everything. We learned all that.  
 The rolls in the paper mills, in the newspaper bill, they get out about… He rectified that for them. How does that work, Charlie? How does this work? I worked on overhead valve at T Model Ford Motors. How does this work? How does that work? How does something else work? And I that’s how I got knowledge, but I’ve been blessed with a memory and I’ve been told that come from polio, but I was blessed with the encouragement of my mother.  
 My father was a violent, alcoholic gambler, so that didn’t give me much of an opportunity in life. So, that’s how I’ve learned things. And I appreciate, and when I see someone like Ian Plimer, I pull him up and I’d ask him a heap of questions. And that had enhanced my knowledge. And that’s what people have got to, interaction. From interaction, you get reaction. From reaction, you get action. And that’s what we’ve got to get. And we’ve got all the knowledge in this country here. I could name a few of the great Australians, what they’ve done, that settled the world on their heels. They couldn’t believe it. And then the medical inventions that we’ve had here. Hugh Victor McKay invented the wheat stripper with Headlie Taylor, feed the world, everything. I could just rattle them all off for you. And I knew Jack Brabham and I’ve even got a photo of myself sitting in the car. And that was a handmade motor in his car.  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell us, tell us more about Brabham because the likes of him has never been seen before and probably will never be seen in motor sport.  
John McRae:Never, never, never. There’s been no one ever. No one ever won the World Driver’s Championship and the Manufacturer’s Championship. In the car they helped build, mate, designed himself and raced himself. Now you’ve got to take into consideration, Australia back then, we were only making the whole motor car. So we’ve got to go up against the world of finesse, Mercedes, Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Audi, Jaguar, Honda, Lago-Talbot, Elvis, Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Renault, Citroen, Peugeot, all European. And how do they get their success? On Grand Prix racing. And they built on that Ferrari win. Michael Schumacher and Pangio, driving the 250F Maserati that Pangio drove and everything like that.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, Brabham’s up against the world?  
John McRae:He’s up against it. And they said, “Where did this billy cart come from? From Australia? It’s got a V8 motor. Where does this the local yokel come from?” The same bloke went to American in Indianapolis with a car under powered and showed him a new trick over there with a rear engine car. They’ve never seen a rear engine car before. And it was underpowered and still finished ninth. Other blokes with their big Offenhausers and everything else. Going back to that motor, when he started in the Speedway, Offenhauser was built especially for… That was a racing engine, especially for the Indianapolis. And they built a smaller motor for Speedway. Now, the Americans come out here with the most beautiful looking cars you’d ever see because all our cars were made out of junkyards and bits and pieces.  
 And this car of his was a little, air cooled motor, a Harley Davidson crank case off a motor bike and you build the rest yourself and it beat the Offenhausers. With that technology and his driving ability, he then transferred that into his car racing thing and with the help of the two Australians, Ozzy and Ronnie [Toranecko] another bloke, Ronnie Ward and Repco of Australia. They designed the engine off the 308 Holden Motor aluminium, designed their own heads and everything else. What did he do? Blew them to pieces. And they said it could never be done. Same as Ken Warby. They said they’ll never, never-.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, who was Ken Warby? [crosstalk] Ken Warby’s World Water Speed Record.  
John McRae:Yeah, 1977. It hasn’t been broken ever since.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, so the World Water Speed Record still stands and it’s held by an Australian?  
John McRae:Yes. And he put the first wind curl on a boat. Then Ben Lexcen then copied it, but hang on, here’s the clincher. He had the Naval apprentices from the Naval College, and University of New South Wales, helping him with technology, science, exactly what you’re speaking about with Ian Plimer. And the science they relied on was the temperature of the water, the atmospheric pressure and everything else when they went for the world record. He still said his only chance his son’s going to have an attempt on it in May. Now, Brabham set a world record with a car, never been equaled, built in Australia. Anywhere else in the world, they had to build an industry around it. But what do we do here? Give it away. Same with what they’ve done with all our minerals.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, speaking of giving away industries, tell me about Sydney. I mean, we drove one night and you took me through an area where we had factories after factories, after factories. And we had seafood canneries and fish canneries in Sydney and all of that’s gone.  
John McRae:Well, look, I showed where the glassworks were, that was Georgian’s bit. That was the biggest glassworks in the Southern Hemisphere. There was Crown Crystal. In that area where I took you, there were seven companies making setda lathes, drill shapers and things, and couple of turret lathes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Hang on, hang on. For people to understand, their fundamental for metal working, which is fundamental to manufacturing machinery, fundamental to making any kind of machinery. And we had all of that technology. In fact, some of our technology was world leading, wasn’t it?  
John McRae:Of course, it was. Yeah. Malcolm, before we go any further. Nothing, you’ve got, you clothes, your car, your cooking, utensils, anything has got to be made… Jigs have got to be made by a tool maker. He’s the man, the upper echelon machine in engineering. And if we can’t make the jigs, you’ve got nothing. And we had all that here. There was seven, there was seven lathes. I can name them for you if you want. Seven lathe manufacturers and machinery manufacturers in that area where I showed you. After the war, all those machinery places were working 24-7, supplying Europe and everywhere else to rehabilitate them. When we could go out near Mascot, Botany, up that way, there was all the cotton mills, the tanneries, the woollen mills and working 24-7. We made milking machines. We made shearing machines. We made wall presses. We made everything.  
 Canneries making the tins, the stuff to go in for the canning fruit. We exported all that. We had all that, but that all went by the wayside when we started to lump ourself in with the United Nations. And we signed all these agreements, especially the Lima Declaration. But we still have, all we’ve got to do is get leadership of honesty and morals and with Botany the attitude, we have done it, can do it and will do it. And all we’ve got to do is get water, forget all of this global business, because there’s no country in the world that can produce rural produce 365 days of the year of every variety, every variation, and of every thing you need, no one. They built the Ord River, there’s more tonnes of rice coming out there than what Japan can do with their special rice for their religious ceremonies.  
 We’ve got mangoes growing up there. They get five or $6 a head, a piece of fruit. We get more tonnes per wheat off our ground than anyone else in the world. No one can grow the variation of Barley wheat, corn, that we can. No one, because the Northern hemisphere is constrained by weather constraints. And we are not here. All we need is the power. And the power is water. We’ve got the place, the farmer, we’ve got the greatest farmers in the world, they know that. Look, they brought the sheep in from the Marino. We get more yield per pound per sheep than what they get. Same as the Hereford cows, the Aberdeen Angus. We get more here. There’s a bloke up there in Queensland, Peter Hughes, he’s got 190,000 breeding Wagyu cows, Japan can’t get over how he’s succeeded. And that’s one of their breeds.  
 He’s worked out how to cross breed them. Australian ingenuity, Australian ability, we’ve got them here. We’ve got the scientists. We’ve got every… We’ve got the best machinists. We’ve got the best of everything. Look at the bloke that built our machine gun. Saved Australian up the Owen Stanley Ranges, 1,500 raw recruits went up with the eight and nine divvy and drove back 7,000 jungle hardened Japanese. Why? Because they had the will to win. They had the machine gun. They had what we built. We built aeroplanes  here during the war. Even in the fifties, we built Sabre jets for the Korean War. And they tell you, we can’t do things here.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, John, Australia has a history of punching well above our weight when it comes to war, comes to industry, comes to inventions, comes to sport, comes to arts, comes to science. We’re punching way above our weight. What the hell happened?  
John McRae:What the hell happened? Because follow the money. Follow the money. See, that’s what people have got to understand. Banks are credit creators and asset strippers. And boy, we’ve got to do this and we’ve got to get into the global economy. We don’t have to get into anything. We’re the only totally self-sufficient country in the world, put a moat round us. And we could trade with one another and live.  
Malcolm Roberts:That’s a really important point I want to jump all over for a minute there, John, because Australia was independent. We could stand on our own. We could make our own armaments. We could make our own ammunitions. We could make our own everything, everything. And yet what happens now, is we are dependent on other countries. [crosstalk] Our politicians have fallen for this crap that says we must be interdependent. That was the con job to get the UN agreement signed, which you can talk about, the Lima Declaration, the Rio Declaration, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris agreement. All of these declarations and agreements have undermined us. We are no longer independent. We are now dependent because when you are interdependent, you depend on someone else which makes you dependent. We’ve lost our independence as sovereignty, our economic sovereignty, our manufacturing sovereignty, our economic security. Because politicians in this country have sold our soul.  
John McRae:They have, Malcolm. By the way, I should have included this. We built that pipeline for 1896 to 1903. After that, we achieved the greatest achievement, can’t be equaled. The longest railway line in the world from 1912 to 1917 from South Australia over to West Australia, Northam 2,500,000 railway slip, hand cut.  
Malcolm Roberts:2 million?  
John McRae:140,000 tonne of rail line, all hand laid. Start at one end, start at the other, and they said they won’t meet. It wasn’t even a half inch out. On the 17th of the 10th, 1917, the last secure inch spike on the place that held the dam was put in. Five days later, the train arrived in Western Australia. They never even put a test run on it. They tell you we can’t do it. We built all the trams in Sydney for the tram service in Sydney, it was the largest tram network in the world. We built 2,800 trams. We built the buses and everything else. We built the ferries. We’ve done everything.  
 Now we’ve got to buy more off China and they’re not worth three and six pence, they can’t ever be used. And they tell you we can’t do things. I’ve got a history of stuff. I wish I could get a chance to debate some of these wombats because I’d blow up the pieces, because we’ve got the greatest people with the greatest initiative. And we’ve got the greatest will to win and achieve. All we need is the opportunity to exhibit it.  
Malcolm Roberts:Well said, well said, John McRae. Well said. What we’ve got is we’ve got the people. We’ve got the resources. We’ve got the energy resources, the metal resources, the climate resources, the soil resources, the water resources. What we have is huge potential. We have huge opportunity. We have got the world’s biggest market on our doorstep to the north. And what we’ve got is parliaments that have abandoned the people in favour of UN agreements, seeded our sovereignty. The parliaments no longer work for this country. John, I’m convinced of that. The state and federal parliament have abandoned the people. How do we get them back to serving the country?  
John McRae:For a start, we’ve got to fix up our voting system and our taxation system and our voting system is rigged so that you can tell lies and fraudulent. The best, we could go into that another day. But here’s what we did with our industries. Now, not everyone signed this Lima Declaration. That was in 1975. Whitlam was the bloke that in inaugurated Malcolm Fraser. Malcolm Fraser ratified it in 76.  
Malcolm Roberts:Okay, John, we’ve got one minute to go.  
John McRae:Okay. This is Section 35, that Australia transfer technical and financial resources, as well as capital goods to accelerate industrialization of underdeveloped countries. As Ian Plimer said, “All they do is go into those other countries and rape and build, then walk off.”  
Malcolm Roberts:So basically, the UN’s Lima Declaration that Whitlam signed as Labour prime minister in 1975, and that the liberal national’s prime minister, Malcolm Fraser ratified the following year 76, basically said, “Take our technology, take our leadership, take our manufacturing prowess and set it up overseas and gut our country.”  
John McRae:Well, the bottom line of that is, Malcolm, liberal and labour, it’s either Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber.  
Malcolm Roberts:And we might just leave it on that because the core message, John, you’ve just told me the answer, and we’ll explore that. I’m going to have you back. We’re going to explore that is fix the taxation system that favours foreign countries’ companies at the moment and fix the voting system. So this is Senator Malcolm Roberts. I remind you how I opened the first show this morning. I am staunchly pro-human. I am proud to be of service to you. Remind you, be human, be proud, be loving, care, listen, and appreciate. Thank you very much, John. We’ll have you back anytime. Thank you very much. And thank you for having us as guests in your living room, car, factory, wherever you are today. Thank you so much for listening.  
John McRae:Thank you, Malcolm.  

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.

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.