Posts

COP26 a Cop Out

,

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

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’ve got a deeper question for you.

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Can you ask next time you’re in the–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m still waiting.

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

255 private planes, Malcolm. 250 private jet airlines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Well, there you go, even more.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

But we all are. That’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Marcus Paul]

Thank you, Malcolm. Appreciate it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks mate.

[Marcus Paul]

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

/4 Comments/by

No plan to remove toxic solar panels

, , ,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we’ll have some Commonwealth legislation hybrid?

No, Senator, I’m saying that

I’m just trying to clarify.

it’s more a state issue.

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

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

If there are issues?

Yeah, that’s right.

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

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

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

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

We’ll take that on notice, Senator.

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

On notice, Senator.

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

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

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

Same again?

Senator, we’ll take that on notice

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

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

Does that have anything to do with COVID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thanks Senator Roberts.

/2 Comments/by

Net-zero means dark times ahead, literally

,

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

‘Greensland’ just a bad fairytale

,

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

/by

Climate Nonsense Taking Over

,
https://youtu.be/4Ke2GHOrd14

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

Transcript

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

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

[Marcus] Well.

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

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

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

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

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

[Marcus] Alright.

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

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

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

[Marcus] Okay so what you’re suggesting

[Malcolm] The clear

[Marcus] Hang on you’re suggesting we

don’t pay subsidies

[Malcolm] Correct. to the fossil fuel industry?

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

[Malcolm] First of all,

[Marcus] Course we do.

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

[Marcus] Semantics.

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

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

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

[Marcus] Yeah.

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

Power stations

[Marcus] Yep.

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

[Marcus] Well the

[Malcolm] controlling our water,

[Malcolm] controlling our land,

[Marcus] Well okay

[Malcolm] and ripping us off in taxes.

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

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

[Marcus] Whoa hold on

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

[Marcus] No all that rubbish.

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

[Marcus] Alright.

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

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

[Malcolm] Very very simple Marcus.

[Marcus] Hm?

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

[Marcus] Right okay.

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

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] Fine leaders.

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

[Malcolm] Can I?

[Marcus] action on climate, yeah?

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

[Marcus Laughs] –

[Malcolm] No no

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

/by

Prime Minister backstabs the people who voted for him

,

The Prime Minister has caved on an election promise. After telling Australia the truth to get elected, that Bill Shorten’s net zero target would destroy the country, he has signed up to the exact same promise. Gutless, sellout, liar, there aren’t enough words to fully describe this backstabbing of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:39): Well, well, well, the Labor Party, as part of the precursor to the Albanese-Bandt coalition government, calls this a stunt. The Labor party is exactly correct. It is a stunt. The No. 1 issue here is integrity and the Greens’ complete lack of integrity. They have never provided the empirical scientific evidence for their claims. First it was Greta: ‘We’ll rely on Greta.’ Then it became, ‘We’ll rely on the Queen.’ Now, it’s, ‘We’ll rely on the Pope’—and most of them are atheists. My goodness, what are we coming to in this country? This mob is hijacking jobs—manufacturing jobs, coalmining jobs, farmers’ jobs. This is an absolute disgrace, because they show no integrity towards the people of this country; they show no integrity towards this parliament, none whatsoever. They tell lies and they make up stuff.

We now see them calling for the science. I want the science. I challenge Senator Waters to provide the empirical scientific evidence that proves carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut. She failed to provide it 11 years ago. She ran—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order?

Senator Thorpe: A point of order, Mr President: the senator over here has called us ‘liars’, and I think that is unparliamentary, is it?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, he was referring to the Greens as a whole. My view is that that is not unparliamentary. I will check with the Clerk to be sure, given I’m relatively new to this role. My ruling is correct. Please sit down, Senator Thorpe.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, there is no point of order. Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s make it clear: I did not call the Queen or the Pope a liar. I called them ‘not scientists’. They’re not scientists. But this is what the Greens rely on in the fact that they cannot provide the science. The Greens show no respect for science, no respect for humanity, no respect for the people of this country, no respect for hardworking Australians, and no respect for the farmers that they will gut with this 2050 net zero.

I also remind the Senate that it’s now day 772 since I challenged Senator Larissa Waters and Senator Di Natale in this parliament to a debate on the empirical evidence and also on the corruption of the science. I point out that there is no science that backs this up from the CSIRO, and I’ll have more to say about that next week. There is no science from the Bureau of Meteorology, none from the Chief Scientist—I can tell you a story about the previous Chief Scientist if there is time—none from the Australian Academy of Science and none from the IPCC. In fact, we had the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd dancing around in 2007 saying 4,000 people in white lab coats endorsed his claim. The reality is that only five academics in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed the claim of warming, and there’s doubt those five were even scientists.

We’ll hear more rubbish from the Greens, claiming that they have science, but the one thing that they are always consistent on is that they never produce the empirical evidence to justify their claim. They see a picture of a tree frog, a picture of a koala, a picture of a dolphin, and they say, ‘This is the science.’ That’s it; it’s complete rubbish. This has been going on for 11 years, Senator Waters.

Let me point out, Senator Gallagher, that the issue of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, and the integrity of the people of this country and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to One Nation, and I wish it were of utmost importance to every single person in this Senate, but clearly it’s not.

/1 Comment/by

$19 Billion dollars a year – for nothing!

,

While the Liberal/National party tears itself apart over net-zero and Labor wants us to follow the Greens off a renewable cliff, Australians are paying BILLIONS of dollars for subsidies that are making electricity more expensive and killing manufacturing jobs. We have the best and cheapest coal in the world right here, yet our electricity prices are three times as high as China. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think it was deliberate sabotage from our gutless leaders.

Transcript

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The core issue here is integrity. We see the Nationals Party and the Liberal Party tying themselves in knots, the coalition unravelling, according to some, the coalition all over the place, according to others. Depends who we listen to. But the core issue is the complete lack of integrity from the Labour Party and the Greens. This parliament, according to Senator McAllister, has seen all manner of scrutiny. Oh, really?

I can remember Senator MacDonald up here, standing, Senator Ian MacDonald, when he was a Senator here, standing up saying that this parliament has never, ever debated the climate science. Never. So this is all being done on nonsense. In fact, the science has never even been brought into this chamber that says we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, that we need to go to renewables. Never. Always the parliament tends to go to the second question, how do we do it, rather than should we do it?

The core question, if we’re really being faithful to and serving the people of this country and the taxpayers and the energy users who are being bled dry, is should we do this madness, not how do we do it. How do we do it comes second. The parliament too often in this country goes to the second question.

No one, no one has ever presented the empirical scientific evidence in this parliament, either House, that says carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. It is now day 770 since I asked Senator Richard Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters a fundamental question. Where is your empirical scientific evidence that shows carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut? That’s it. They dodged it. They have never come back with the evidence.

They refuse to debate me. I asked Senator Waters this more than 10 years ago, almost 11 years ago. In fact, it is 11 years ago this month. And she refused to debate me then. Senator Waters then talked about a waste of money. Oh, really? When we’re spending $19 billion a year on this rubbish, destroying our energy sector, destroying manufacturing jobs, exporting them to China.

We send them our coal. They generate electricity using our coal after we’ve shipped it thousands of kilometres. And they sell it for 8 cents a kilowatt hour. We use the same coal here in this country, some of the best coal in the world, and we sell our electricity at 25 cents a kilowatt hour. Why the difference?

Why is it three times as much here? Because of all the renewable regulations, subsidies and climate rubbish. That’s why. Not only do we export our coal, we export our manufacturing jobs, because the number one cost of manufacturing these days is electricity. Not labour anymore. Electricity. We’re gutting jobs, throwing people on the scrap heap. No livelihoods. For nothing. Because no one has ever presented the science that says we need to do this. They run from it.

In One Nation we welcome the debate. We welcome a debate on the science. We will welcome putting both coalitions, the Liberal Nationals and the Labour Greens coalitions, under scrutiny. The policies of the Liberal Nationals coalition are so close to the policies of the Labour Greens coalitions. Where’s the difference, I ask you, other than in slightly in degree?

This is an absolute disgrace with what we’re doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to the taxpayers, what this parliament is doing to jobs of real people, everyday Australians’ jobs getting gutted. And it’s based on a lie. And Al Gore’s making out like a bandit, because the crook has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of this scam, along with several other people, academics, politicians, government agencies.

It just goes on and on and on. This has got to stop.

/2 Comments/by

Cost of climate policies – Productivity Commission Senate Estimates

, ,

WILL ANYONE TELL ME THEY’VE CALCULATED HOW MUCH CLIMATE POLICY COSTS?

Our commissioned report by economist Dr Alan Moran estimates that climate policies cost Australians $13 billion every year. You would think on such a costly policy area the government would have made its own estimates. Well they haven’t, not even the Productivity Commission could give me a figure or tell me where the proof that human CO2 affects climate and needs to be cut is.

Transcript

Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here tonight. I understand the Productivity Commission does analysis of policy sometimes; impacts, so on. Good policy in my view would be based on specifically, particularly in terms of climate change and energy policies, would be based upon specified, quantified impacts of carbon dioxide. In other words, for a given amount of carbon dioxide output from humans, it would have a quantified effect on climate factors, such as temperature. Now you’ve written reports on climate change, I believe. Have you ever identified any specified quantified link between human carbon dioxide and any climate factor? Whether it be temperature, rainfall, droughts, storms, whatever. Specific quantified impact.

So Senator, sorry, Michael Brennan the Chair of the Productivity Commission. I would have to check, it’s a while since we’ve done work that went specifically to climate change or other related policies like energy policy. For the most part, the scientific basis for the work, I think has been based on findings from organisations like the IPCC. So it hasn’t been the practise of the commission to second guess the scientific assessment made by other entities. But possibly to make a judgement about the economic policy response and how best the economic policy response might sit with that science. But as I say, it’s some time, I would have to take on notice the last bit of work we have done that was specifically on climate or a related policy and confirm that response.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ve not been able to identify specific, quantified impacts between human carbon dioxide and temp and climate factors.

Well, I’m really saying that it wasn’t necessarily we would not have seen that as part of our…

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. But you have to, yes. Okay. So I’m not finding you wrong for doing that, but you haven’t seen that. Have you assessed the, you have assessed the costs and benefits of policies?

I’m going to have to take that on notice because it’s a while. And I might even turn to Mr. Latimer because his history with the commission is longer than mine. It’s certainly in recent years, we haven’t done work in this area going back 10 to 15 years, possibly.

2012, we did some work on barriers to effective climate change adaptation, but we haven’t done a lot of work in this arena.

[Malcolm Roberts] Wouldn’t it be difficult to assess a policy if there’s no specified quantified link between the cause, the claimed cause carbon dioxide from human activity, and the impact supposedly?

Well, it could be potentially, but it would be, if we were to undertake work of that nature we would be taking the science as given by what we would take to be the expert scientific community.

Okay.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve had policies now going on at least 25, sorry, not in ’96, 25 years that are impacting energy, generation, agriculture, industry, transport, personal as well as business. And these had billions of dollars of impact throttling us back in our economy, especially relative to our competitors. Could you tell me, on notice, what advice you have given to governments? Not you, but the Productivity commission, has given to governments and MPs and ministers since 1996. Please, just the type of communication, the date, the type of communication, who it was sent to, and what the advice was, please?

You said it all. We can certainly take that on notice. It’ll be predominantly in the form of written reports that we will have published. That that’s our primary end for the most part, the overwhelming bulk of our communications with government.

[Malcolm Roberts] And if you could note the specific advice in there. Just a summary of that advice, please?

We’ll see what we can do. Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Thanks. Thanks Chair. That’s all.

/by

CSIRO Refuses to answer questions at Senate Estimates

,

I have asked CSIRO time and time again to provide the evidence that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is a danger to the planet and they still haven’t given me the evidence. Like I do every estimates session, I sent the CSIRO the questions I wanted them to answer in advance so that they could be prepared. This round however CSIRO was especially belligerent in not answering my questions. I have formally lodged them as questions on notice. That means if they refuse to answer them this time the CSIRO could be held in contempt of the Senate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: While your annual remuneration package, Dr Marshall, is $1,049,000 and Dr Mayfield’s is $613,000, the medium income in Australia is just $49,000. Government policies based on your advice are hurting everyday Australians. You may not feel the impact, yet 25 million Australians do feel it. For some, it is now excruciating. With your pay comes accountability. I’m a representative and a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, and as such it’s my duty to hold agencies that are advising on government policy accountable, particularly agencies advising governments over the past 30 years on policies that are now costing billions of dollars and impacting our nation and all Australians to the extent of trillions of dollars.

Each of my questions is fairly short. In your answers to my questions in person and in writing, on notice, at last October’s supplementary estimates hearings, you cited seven papers, attempting to justify your assertion that the rate of the most recent period of temperature rise was unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. You did not specify the location of the basis of your claim. So, we went through all the papers, and we actually contacted Lecavalier and got the data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues and questions that raise serious doubts about CSIRO’s conclusions, which appear unfounded at best. Detailed examination of your references reveals some startling facts. Firstly, are you aware, for example, that Kaufman 2020, which you cited, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point and then loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Chair, if I may, because the senator has said a lot there—the preamble to the question—CSIRO exists to help all Australians, all 25 million, and we have done so for the hundred years of our existence but perhaps never more so than in the last year, when we’ve protected citizens, we’ve developed vaccines—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about COVID.

CHAIR: No, you had a very long preamble, Senator Roberts—which is unlike you—but let’s just let the official respond.

Dr Marshall: We’ve created personal protective equipment to protect frontline health workers, and we’ve helped government, both state and federal, to better understand the spread of the disease, its longevity on surfaces and how to best protect our people. As a result of all that work, Australia has come through this pandemic in remarkably good shape. There are crop yields that are at record highs despite drought, despite other impacts of a variable climate. So, Senator, we are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of all 25 million Australians. And I can bet that you, Senator, right now have at least three things on your person that were created by CSIRO science that maybe you don’t even know you have but that are benefiting your life.

So, whatever we are paid, which is decided by the rem tribunal, not by us, is because everything we do is designed to benefit Australia. And, like you, Senator, we want to ensure that all Australians, not just your constituents but all Australians, have the lowest possible cost of energy and the best possible life that our science and technology can create for them. And believe me when I say that when we do things like the GenCost report it’s all about helping industry and governments to make the right decisions for the future energy mix so that we can have a lower cost of energy, so that Australian industry can have a lower cost of energy, so that we can produce more products and generate more revenue here in Australia rather than shipping raw materials overseas and buying them back at a 10-times-higher price. So, we have the same mission, Senator, as you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got a lot of information from you but not an answer to my question. Are you aware, for example, that in your response to the Senate committee as a result of Senate estimates the paper that you cited, Kaufman 2020, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Dr Mayfield might be. I’m certainly not.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the answer.

Dr Mayfield: Senator, you’d be aware that we’ve probably met on a number of occasions.

Senator ROBERTS: We have.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve had quite a lot of exchange of information, whether through this forum or through questions on notice or letters that you provided to us prior to estimates. So we’ve done that over quite a long period, and in that time our observation is that you don’t agree with our answers. We can’t change that, but we also can’t change our answers, because we’re very comfortable that they’re based on the best scientific knowledge and scientific process. In the response we gave you earlier today with regard to the most recent questions, which we tabled through the committee, I think we will have to fundamentally disagree. That is the bottom line.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a simple question: are you aware that Kaufman 2020—

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of your argument, but it doesn’t change the conclusions we make.

Senator ROBERTS: in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? That’s what you presented to the Senate as evidence. Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’ve also presented a lot of other information to you, Senator, on many occasions. The bottom line is that you never agree.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. Are you aware of that error?

Dr Mayfield: We know what we believe in. We know what we understand through the scientific methods.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on.

Dr Mayfield: That’s what we’ll stick with. So we won’t be moving away from our answer. We will have to agree to disagree.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that neither of you answered my question. No. 2: are you aware that Kaufman 2020 disagrees with another of your references—that is pages 2K 2013, the reconstruction that has no uptick in recent temperatures? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of all of these claims through the various interactions that we have with you, Senator. We’ve provided our answers. Those are the answers we have. They’re not going to change.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—No. 3—that one of your references, the North report 2006, directly contradicts CSIRO’s claim—your claim—that the latest rate of temperature rise is unprecedented? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: Senator, again, we’ve been through all of this. We can go through every single question that you make, but it’s the same general response: we’ve provided our best response, we’re very comfortable with those responses and the basis of them, and we don’t have any basis on which we would change them. We’ll have to agree to disagree—bottom line.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m happy for you to keep asking if you really need to, but we are behind schedule.

Senator ROBERTS: Next question: Lecavalier, which is one of your key papers, from 2017, makes a conclusion that hangs on one data point from one short ice core, in contradiction to CSIRO’s clear statement last October to me in writing. We obtained Lecavalier’s data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues. In Lecavalier 2017, proxy data was used for recent times, when more accurate thermometer data from many Arctic thermometer stations is readily available. Yet in response to our comments about Marcott 2013, which you cited, in Senate supplementary hearings last October you said that thermometer measurements, when available, should be used instead of proxies. We agree. When the proxy is replaced with an amalgam of Arctic thermometer measurements, there is no period of unprecedented temperature rise in Lecavalier, which you cited. Why?

Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ve been through this many times. We have given you our answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I will go to the next one, because the chair wants me to hurry up. In citing Marcott 2013, how did the CSIRO overlook mentioning the author’s own statement written in the paper:

The result suggests that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability observed at periods shorter than 300 years.

So, for periods shorter than 100 years, no variability is preserved in the data. The authors explain that variability is not preserved for periods shorter than 2,000 years and, for periods of 300 years or less in duration, no variability passes through the process that Marcott used to analyse his data. Given the duration of the most recent period of temperature rise is just 40 years—and that’s Marcott citing Mann 2008 in his own paper and the paper you cited—there is no validity to CSIRO’s claim that the rate of recent temperature rise is unprecedented. All eight of your papers are completely flawed. There’s no evidence in your papers—not one of them. Why are you misleading the Senate and holding us in contempt?

Dr Mayfield: We are not misleading the Senate.

Senator ROBERTS: You are, sir.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve made our responses known to you in a number of meetings.

Senator ROBERTS: Ha, ha, ha! These are simple facts.

Dr Mayfield: And we’ve had climate scientists talk to you, and you continue to ignore our answers, and we can’t change that.

Senator ROBERTS: This is why I don’t accept your answers.

Senator CANAVAN: I haven’t heard the answers and I’d be interested in them, Dr Mayfield. I think Senator Roberts has raised some interesting points. Can we all hear the answers?

Dr Marshall: It might be easier just to look at the State of the Climate report that we produce every two years in partnership with BoM.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one, don’t worry.

Dr Marshall: The data’s in there, you can see it. It’s not theoretical, it’s measured.

Senator ROBERTS: My eighth question: you cited the IPCC, the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change from the UN, assessment report 5, working group 1. This is an irrelevant citation as the UNIPCC AR5 WG1 summary for policymakers itself contains no reference to rates of temperature rise in the last 10,000 years. That’s the only unprecedented change you claim to be in climate. Out of all the meetings we’ve had, all the letters exchanged, that’s the only one you claim is unprecedented, yet it doesn’t mention it at all. There is no reference even to the Holocene period or the last 10,000 years. Most citations in working group 1 are for only the last 1,000 years. Can CSIRO explain the inclusion of this irrelevant citation that contains no logical scientific point relevant to your claim? Can you explain why you’re using that?

Dr Mayfield: Again, you would be familiar with three meetings that we had. We had climate scientists there, we went through the arguments with you. We’ve been there, we’ve done that.

Senator CANAVAN: Chair, can I raise as a point of order? I don’t think it’s appropriate for a witness to refer to private briefings they’ve had with another senator. Senator Roberts is asking a question in this format—

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t mind.

Senator CANAVAN: in this framework. Unless there’s some public interest that’s being claimed here, I think the senator deserves an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I got a lot from his answer, Matt, thank you.

Dr Mayfield: The record of those meetings has been tabled previously, as has the response to your various sets of questions, so there’s a lot of information that’s been tabled.

CHAIR: The fact is that this back and forwards has going on for at least the whole time I’ve been on the committee. I’ve got to say, Senator Roberts, I admire your perseverance, but I think it’s getting to the point of

being unproductive at a point in time when we are more than half an hour behind schedule and we have other important witnesses we want to devote time to.

Senator ROBERTS:   Okay, I’ll wrap up with two more. Your reference, pages 2K2013, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years—we asked for 10,000—and cannot support your claim of what you say is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. The second-half of this question is: your reference, pages 2K2017, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years and cannot support your claim of what is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. Why did you cite those two references?

Dr Mayfield: Again, the climate scientists that work with the CSIRO have an understanding of the science literature. They’re making those references because they add to the argument. As I said earlier, you don’t agree with the answers and we can’t change that.

Dr Marshall: Are you worried that somehow we’re giving bad advice to the government about what’s going to be the lowest cost of energy?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, definitely.

Dr Marshall: Because that’s what you said—

Senator ROBERTS: And on climate policy that’s driving the destruction of our economy.

Dr Marshall: That question has nothing to do with any of the modelling that you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the underpinning advice that’s driving policies on climate and energy—

Dr Marshall: So am I.

Senator ROBERTS: the underpinning climate advice.

Dr Marshall: So am I, and it’s about the cost of solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, gas—

Senator ROBERTS: Dealing with property rights—

Dr Marshall: That’s got nothing to do with climate modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: destruction of our manufacturing sector—that’s what’s underpinning—

Dr Marshall: The future cost of energy is about the economics and the technology and the science that we produce.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking just about energy. I’m talking about climate science that underpins the destruction of our economy, including energy, but also property rights, water resources, right across our country. That’s what I’m talking about. You’re paid $1,049,000 a year in remuneration, and we’re getting this as science. It’s junk.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve made your point. Dr Marshall, I’ll let you reply, but then we are going to call it a night.

Dr Marshall: It is a fact that CSIRO’s science is in the top one per cent of the world, in some cases in the top

0.1 per cent. It’s a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: That is spurious—

Dr Marshall: It is a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: and climate science is not science. You have not given me any of the data, not a bit.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Dr Marshall: I will give you the data to substantiate every word I just said. I will give it to you.

/by

Greens Climate Emergency MOU

,

Transcript

Thank you Mr. Acting Deputy President. And there we have it, a motion and hyperbole, not one bit of science. In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I wanna firstly point out that The Greens last week wanted to declare a climate emergency because New Zealand did.

Not because of the science, but because New Zealand did. The Greens wanted to declare its climate emergency because Japan did. Yet Japan is building coal-fired power stations hand over fist. Now The Greens want to pledge to increase 2030 targets in line with the science.

Yet listen to what the CSIRO has divulged. I asked them where’s the danger? They said, they’ve never said there’s any danger due to human production of carbon dioxide, never. And they said they never would. So why the policy? Why The Greens rants? Secondly, the CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented.

That means we didn’t cause the mild warming that cyclical natural warming that ended in 1995 And it’s been flat since. Then ultimately the CSIRO relied not on empirical scientific data, It relied on climate models. Models unvalidated and already proven wrong. What’s more, the reliance on models means that they have no critical scientific evidence.

/by