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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Zl0kwVT6Z0Y/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-07-28 12:52:062022-07-28 13:26:06Science is for debating, not blindly following
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.
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.
Electric vehicles might be okay for suburb hopping in big cities, but I doubt there is a farm in Australia that would be able to run without any petrol or diesel. The Greens’ calls to ‘rapidly transition to electric vehicles‘ for their net zero economy by 2035 shows they have no clue of the energy requirements in transport, industry and agriculture.
Transcript
Let’s have a bit of fun with some facts. Neither H2O, water, nor CO2, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant. Neither water nor carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The two products from burning hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil, natural gas—are water and carbon dioxide. We have carbon in every cell of our bodies. The term ‘organic’ refers to something that contains carbon. Earth: the thing that makes our planet so livable, the thing that makes our planet so unique, is the fact that we have more carbon concentrated on our planet than is the case across the universe.
Carbon is essential for life, but the Greens don’t understand that carbon is not carbon dioxide. They tell us that we need to cut our carbon dioxide from the use of coal, oil and natural gas, but then they talk about carbon. Carbon dioxide is a gas. Carbon is a solid in every cell of your body.
So let’s deal with some facts. Let’s have a bit of fun. Carbon dioxide is just 0.04 per cent of Earth’s air. That is 4/100ths of a per cent. Carbon dioxide is scientifically classified as a trace gas, because there’s so little of it. There’s barely a trace of it. Now, some people are going to say, ‘Oh, but cyanide can kill you with just a trace.’ That’s true. That’s a chemical effect. But the claimed effect of carbon dioxide from the Greens of global warming, climate catastrophe and the greatest existential threat that we now face is a physical effect. A trace gas has no physical effect that can be recorded, as I’ll show you in a minute.
Next point: carbon dioxide is non-toxic and not noxious. It’s highly beneficial to and essential for all plants on this planet. Everything green that’s natural relies upon carbon dioxide, and it benefits when carbon dioxide levels are far higher than now. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and tasteless. Nature produces—and this is from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. That means that nature produces 32 times more than the entire human production of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide does not discolour the air. Carbon dioxide does not impair the quality of water or soil. None of what I’m talking about is new. I’ve compiled it, but none of it’s new. Carbon dioxide does not create light, create heat, create noise or create radioactivity. It doesn’t distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment, nor impair its usefulness, nor render our environment offensive.
Carbon dioxide doesn’t harm ecosystems and, in fact, is essential for all ecosystems. Carbon dioxide does not harm plants and animals, nor humans. In fact, we put it in our kids’ soft drink. We put it in our champagne. We put it in our beer. We put it in soda water—we carbonate it by putting carbon dioxide in there. It’s essential for all plants and animals. Carbon dioxide does not cause discomfort, instability, wooziness or disorders of any kind. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature’s balance. It’s essential for nature and life on this planet. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, the oceans and natural accumulations. It does not contaminate, apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes of carbon dioxide from some volcanos and even then it’s only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts are far higher than anything humans can produce.
Carbon dioxide is not a foreign substance. In the past, on this planet, under the current atmosphere, there have been times when carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than the concentration in the earth today. In fact, in the last 200 years, scientists have measured carbon dioxide levels up to 40 per cent higher than they are today. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, from the UN ignores those measurements, which were taken, in some cases, by Nobel Prize winners—science prize winners. All they do instead is take one reading from one place over the last 70 years.
As you can see from the list I’ve just read, carbon dioxide is not pollution. The Greens are talking about doing an inquiry into carbon, yet they say it’s the carbon dioxide that’s causing this climate change that’s supposedly going on. Let’s look at something else then, as carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Let’s have a look at this climate change crisis that the Greens are talking about. I’m unique in this Senate for holding the CSIRO accountable. All of the other senators have not done their jobs. Former Senator Ian Macdonald, from the Senate in 2016, pointed that out to me. He pointed out that no-one in this parliament ever debated the science until I arrived. We still haven’t had the debate, because I’ve challenged the Greens and they have gone without responding to my challenge for a debate more than 125 days. Senator Waters has gone more than 10¼ years without responding to my challenge for a debate. They won’t debate me, because they haven’t got the science. Let’s listen to the people that the Greens rely on for their science.
I have cross-examined the CSIRO. I’ve had three presentations and several sessions at Senate estimates. In their first presentation under my cross-examination the CSIRO admitted that they had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a threat or a danger. Never. That means we don’t need any of these policies. Let’s go to the next session we had with the CSIRO. Each of these sessions were 2½ to three hours long. The CSIRO said that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented—that’s referring to the blip that ended back in 1995. We have had stasis of temperatures since then—no warming in the last 26 years. The current temperatures are not unprecedented.
My third point is that the CSIRO admitted that they and other bodies around the world rely, for their predictions, on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. That says two things. Firstly, the models are wrong. They’re erroneous and invalidated, yet they’re using them to make projections. Secondly, it confirms they don’t have the evidence. If they had the evidence, they would have presented it. Instead, they’ve come up with some lame models, which have already failed.
The fourth thing that I will mention about the so-called science is that, when they failed to provide me with the empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut, I gave them a very simple test. I asked them to show me anything unprecedented in the earth’s climate in the last 10,000 years. They failed that. I then gave them the absolutely simplest goal of providing me with empirical scientific evidence showing that there has been a statistically significant change to any factor in earth’s climate. They failed that. They can’t even point to a change in climate, because we all know that climate varies quite naturally, most of it cyclically, but sometimes a combination of cycles makes it look like it’s highly random. That’s the point. Not only that, there are scientists whom I’ve communicated with directly, including members who are lead authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, such as Dr John Christy. He was a lead author until he left the United Nations climate body because of the corruption. He was disgusted and sickened by it. These and many other scientists have confirmed to me that nowhere in the world has anyone ever presented any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut—not NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, not the UK Met Office, not the Bureau of Meteorology, not the CSIRO, not any university, not any academic, not any science paper and not any journal. Check for yourself and tell me if I’m wrong.
The third thing I want to say is that the Greens lunatic policies are not based on science. You’ll notice that Senator Rice, in her comments, never once mentioned any proof of causation. Instead, as substitutes for science, they use emotion, stories, fantasies, dreams and promises. That’s all they have. Policy needs to be based on specific, quantified cause and effect—this much carbon dioxide is growing because of humans, and this much is the impact. That has never been presented anywhere in the world. The CSIRO’s failed three times with me, and it has never been done by anyone. Once we have that measured effect, which no-one has produced so far, then and only then can we shape a policy. Then and only then can we measure the progress along the road of implementing that policy. Without that, it’s fundamentally flawed. Then, if we had the connection, specified and quantified, we can cost it to see the benefits of Senator Rice’s dreams and fantasies versus the impact on our human species of this climate madness that people are going on with. As a result of this madness, both the Liberal-National government and the Labor Party have driven our electricity prices from being the lowest in the world to the highest in the world, all on unicorn farts and rainbows, and nothing else—nothing substantial; claims of carbon pollution.
Then we have this telling factor. The No. 1 factor that drove the rapid improvement in human’s standard of living over the last 170 years was the relentless decrease in the price of energy from 1850 until the mid-nineties. Since then, in Australia, we have gone the other way. We’ve started to increase prices. We’ve now doubled and tripled prices for electricity in some areas and nothing has changed. Coal-fired power stations have become more efficient. Yet we have an increase in price because of the artificial regulations and the artificial impediments on the most productive and efficient source of electricity generation and the subsidies for the dreams of solar and wind, which are inherently high and will never catch up with coal, hydro or nuclear.
We had a relentless decrease in the price of electricity over 170 years until 25 years ago. That relentless decrease in the price of electricity and energy meant an increase in productivity and an increase in wealth. That’s what has led to humans now living lives that are longer, safer, easier, more comfortable and more healthy and having far more choices than anyone could ever have imagined. This Greens lunacy, calling carbon dioxide a ‘carbon’—calling a gas a solid—is driving a decarbonisation that is, in effect, deindustrialisation. Look around us. What will disappear is all the material benefits we’ve had over the last 150 years.
Opinion and emotion are not science. There is no need to have this reference to the committee, because there is no science underpinning the Greens’ call for this reference. We need to get back to the facts, get back to straight logic, stop dreaming, think about the many people who benefit from the wonderful hydrocarbon fuels—natural gas, coal and oil—and look after the people of this planet.
One Nation supports this motion. Cheap reliable hydrocarbon fuels have led to the greatest improvement in human progress in the past 150 years.
One Nation supports Senator Rennick’s proposal to extend the Kogan Creek coal power plant.
Climate policies and renewable subsidies have led to Australia having one of the most expensive power prices in the world and becoming more unstable. Senator Rennick’s proposal is good for Queensland and good for Australia.
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.
Motion 874 – Greens call for more destructive renewables
Speech
One Nation does not support this motion. Australia’s Chief Scientist stated that, if Australia were to reduce its entire carbon dioxide output to zero, it would have virtually no effect on the global temperature.
It’s time that the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens parties acknowledge that implementing layer upon layer of destructive climate policies and renewable energy schemes cannot change the global climate.
If people were serious about reducing the world’s carbon dioxide output, they would be pressuring China, which accounts for 30 per cent of the world’s output and renegotiated its Paris Agreement, allowing China to increase output until 2030 and then only slow the increase. There is no agreement. Yes, you heard that right: China will be increasing its carbon dioxide output for the foreseeable future, while climate policies here in Australia decimate our economy.
What’s more, we are subsidising China to build the appliances that will be installed here and will raise our electricity prices.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to respond to Senator Waters’s speech in which she claimed the need to declare a climate emergency. She’s acting. Her opening statement says it all—’The Greens are moving this motion because the New Zealand government has declared a climate emergency.’ That’s it!
There’s no data, no empirical scientific evidence and no scientific reasoning with a framework proving cause and effect, just, ‘We’re going to do it because the Kiwis have said it.’ That’s it. That is the summary of climate change in this country and globally. Then she raised pollution, meaning carbon dioxide as a pollutant. At the same time, she was exhaling 100 times the concentration of pollution of carbon dioxide that she was taking in.
This is absurd. She’s always exhaling. Does that mean she’s always polluting? It’s nonsense. I see Senator Sterle laughing, as indeed I know he should be, because this is absurd. Nowhere on this planet, under any government, is carbon dioxide defined as a pollutant. There are no criteria specifying it as a pollutant.It is a misrepresentation instead of data. There is no data, just a false statement.
Carbon dioxide, nature’s trace gas, is essential for all life on this planet. Then Senator Waters went on to talk about ‘megafires on a scale never seen before’. False. In the 1930s and the 1970s there were bigger fires, wider fires, and more damage. And then she said the fires were due to a deep drought. That is partially correct. But, in the past, we have had more severe droughts and we have had more severe fires.
The fires and the droughts are not due to human use of hydrocarbon fuels. In fact, the drought we’ve just gone through—and it’s still in place in some places—is confirmation, is evidence, that the weather is behaving naturally. There is natural variation. And then Senator Waters said Fraser Island ‘had a massive bushfire,’ as it does every now and then, and—wait for it—’a 1,000-year-old tree is threatened’.
Really? I know a 10,000-year-old civilisation that is being threatened globally—with no data, just false statements and fear.I remind the Senate that my questioning of CSIRO, my holding of the CSIRO to account, has shown these things. The CSIRO has admitted to me that they have never said there is danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. Never. So why are we going through this nonsense?
Secondly, the CSIRO admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. That means we didn’t cause them. There were warmer temperatures in the past.
Thirdly, when they couldn’t respond properly with evidence to my questions, they said they rely upon climate models. Their climate models show that they are not based on data. Their climate models are invalidated and have proven erroneous. The fact that they have to resort to them—their fabrications—means they don’t have any data.
We have 17 scientists from leading organisations around the world who have shown that the CSIRO is wrong and I am right that the CSIRO has no evidence.Senator Waters talked about the government’s role in letting the country down by not having adequate policies on climate. The government has three basic roles. The first is to protect life. There is no threat to life from current climate variability.
The crippling energy threat destroying our energy sector is a threat to life. Ask anybody who is old and poor. Secondly, government has to protect property. With no data and for no reason, the government has stolen land from farmers, stolen their property rights, and that is a huge threat. The third role of government is to protect freedom.
Again, there is no data, no reason; they are just putting into place arbitrary regulations and policies that have complete control over people. Then Senator Waters said we need 10 years to get climate under control. Oh really! King Canute claimed he could part the waters in the Red Sea. Senator Waters is claiming to be able to control the climate.
These things come and go. This is sheer arrogance, insanity and stupidity.Al Gore claimed that the northern polar ice cap would disappear by 2013. He said that back in 2008. It is still there, as big as ever. There is a joke in which Al Gore is complaining about someone who has just made a statement that there will be no life on the planet, no polar ice caps, in five years.
He says: ‘Really? I’ve been saying that for 30 years. That’s my statement!’ This is absolutely stupid. And then we are told we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was said in 2005. We have had zero climate refugees, absolutely none. This is just a propaganda tool to scare people. Again, the use of propaganda confirms the lack of data and the lack of empirical scientific evidence.
Then Senator Waters talked about pure physics as her evidence—no data, no empirical scientific evidence, not even a claim of the relationship that is supposed to be underpinning this. She had no data, just false statements and fear. And then she talked about ‘abundant, cheap, clean renewable energy’—her words. Let’s look at that. Solar and wind are none of these things.Abundant? No. Intermittent? Unreliable. Cheap? No—the most expensive.
Without subsidies, as Warren Buffett said, they’re dead; they only live on subsidies. Alan Moran, the noted economist, has estimated the costs, using the government’s own figures, of climate subsidies and renewable energy subsidies as being $13 billion every year. That is $1,300 per household per annum in Australia. For nothing! This is on top of energy prices. And for every clean energy job there are 2.2 real jobs lost.
As for clean: they rely upon rare earths that come from child Labor in Africa. They’re talking about the Kilcoy solar panels; cadmium and selenium will leach into the soil and the waterways—into Brisbane’s water supply—if that solar plant project goes ahead.And what about afterwards? What do we do with these windmills after their 15-year life? They’re burying them in Wyoming right now.
That’s extra cost and extra pollution—real pollution: solar panels are a real pollutant and they’re now an environmental legacy. Again, there’s a reason why windmills didn’t last. Again, Senator Waters relies on no data, just false statements and fear. Then she cited nations declaring a climate emergency. Let’s look at some of these. Japan is building coal-fired power stations.
France relies on nuclear energy. Britain relies on the French nuclear energy through an interlinked cable and Britain also relies upon wood pellets burned in an old coal-fired power station—they cut down American forests and transport them across using hydrocarbon fuels. And Germany is now building coal-fired power stations.
Then Senator Waters quoted socialist Christiana Figueres, who is a senior bureaucrat in the UN in charge of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—the governing body for this nonsense.She says openly that the aim of the whole climate campaign is to convert the world to socialism and to change the economic system—change the economic system!
Those are her words, not mine—again, no data, just misrepresentations and fear. That’s all that Senator Waters is relying upon.We don’t have time to go into the motion itself; it’s easily torn apart. But I will remind the chamber that 10 years ago, on 7 October 2010, I challenged Senator Waters in a public forum that we both attended as panellists to debate me on climate science and the corruption of climate science.
She jumped to her feet faster than I’ve ever seen her move and said, ‘I won’t debate you’. Five years later, in May 2016—almost six years later, or 5½ years later—she again refused my public request to have a debate. Four hundred and forty days ago, on Monday 9 September 2019, I challenged her again, and Senator Di Natale. But they continued; they refused to debate me and they refused to provide the evidence to the Senate—no data and no proof.
There was no debate, just shouted alarm—false statements and alarm.If the Senate keeps making decisions without data then this Senate ceases to be the people’s house of review and continues to be the circus of useless gestures—the big top of virtue signalling and the ministry of silly walks. Senator Hanson and I will continue to use the empirical scientific evidence, the hard facts, to continue to respect and restore the house of review for the people of Australia.
There is no climate emergency, there is a governance emergency.
I am shocked that the CSIRO came so unprepared to Senate Estimates when I gave them my questions in advance. For an organisation who claims to have been studying climate science for 60 years, their responses were truly embarrassing.
I will prepare a more detailed response in the next few days, but to be clear, the government should not be relying on the CSIRO’s climate division for advice on climate science.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you chair, and thank you all for being here today. My questions chair, were sent in advance about two weeks, a little bit under two weeks ago, and deal with past presentations by CSIRO. And so my first question is that, as I said in the letter, number one, do you stand by CSIRO’s implied claim that Marcott and Lecavalier, are the best evidence CSIRO has for showing that the rate of temperature change today is unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
I’ll just very briefly say this Senator Roberts, ’cause there’s obviously been an exchange of correspondency. You’ve written to CSIRO and I’ve just received a copy of their response to you and Dr.Marshall–
[Senator Roberts]
I haven’t seen CSIRO–
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
I think it’s just about to be circulated to the committee. Dr. Marshall we are intending for that to be tabled by the committee?
[Dr Marshall]
Yes.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
Hopefully? Okay, all right. Well then in that case we’ll circulate copies to committee members for tabling. Sorry, Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts]
No, Dr. Marshal was about to answer.
[Dr Marshall]
And Senator, I’ll let Dr. Mayfield answer the detail of your questions.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Dr. Peter Mayfield, Executive Director for Environment, Energy and Resources. So Senator, yes we have prepared a response to the letter that you sent us. I do have copies of that here and electronic copy was provided to the secretary. So, there’s an opportunity to sort of look at our response and data. In regard to Marcott, yes we do stand by the conclusions of that paper.
[Senator Roberts]
Stand by Marcott.
[Dr Mayfield]
Yes.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay. And what about Lacavalier?
[Dr Mayfield]
Yes, both papers.
[Senator Roberts]
Lacavalier too?
[Dr Mayfield]
We believe our best evidence.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you, that’s good. Why did… Second question, what did CSIRO rely on before Marcott 2013? Say in the 1980s, when Bob Hawke was the first Prime Minister to raise the issue of anthropogenic climate change, said to be due to carbon dioxide from human activity.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator, so the state of the science in the Australian context is being provided by the volume in greenhouse, planning for the future, which is published by CSIRO in 1988. And it’s still available. And it was already very evident in the 1980s that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide were altering the chemistry of the atmosphere.
[Senator Roberts]
Excuse me, the chemistry of the atmosphere, but not the temperature the earth?
[Dr Mayfield]
Chemistry of the atmosphere is at that point in time and temperature record is also changing.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you. Third question. At what stage did CSIRO start giving significant advice to governments on anthropogenic climate change?
[Dr Mayfield]
So CSIRO has been providing advice to government in relation to greenhouse matters for more than 60 years. So it’s been a long history of us providing advice in this area.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Then I had my fourth question was to Dr. Mayfield. I need Dr. Mayfield to specify one, a slide or slides and specific data to which he refers and on which his answer relies when I asked my previous question, which you’re familiar with, Dr. Mayfield.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator we’ve provided the details many, many times to you. You’d appreciate that in each of these papers which have been published by a peer review. The analysis around statistical substance of the various measurements.
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, I’m not gonna let you off the hook. That’s a dodging of the question. The question is, to which of the specific slides or specific data in the presentations do you refer to when you stood up last time, at senate estimates and said, “It’s in the presentations.” Which of the slides, I want, specifically contain the statistical analysis that proves that carbon dioxide from human activity has the… Sorry, that there is a change in the climate, in any factor of climate.
[Dr Mayfield]
So, as you’re aware of Senator, there’s a number of papers, multiple ones–
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, no. I’m asking you for this specific slide and the specific data to which you refer. I’m not gonna take any more of this vague nonsense. I want this specific slide, specific data.
[Dr Mayfield]
In the slides, you’ll see, there’s a number of different references. Obviously we work with work from Marcott, more recently there’s the work of, it’s coming from… Kaufmann sorry.
[Senator Roberts]
How do you spell that?
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s K-A-U-F-M-A-N-N.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay.
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s a paper that’s been produced in 2020, which also undertakes an analysis of a wide range of methodologies, looking at both the–
[Senator Roberts]
2020?
[Dr Mayfield]
Historical record and the current record of temperature change.
[Senator Roberts]
So I asked you on Thursday, the 24th of October, 2019 a year ago, to provide empirical scientific evidence that shows quote, “Statistically significant variation “that proves there has been a process change.” That is variation that is beyond our outside natural inherent cyclical or seasonal variation over the last 350 years. You stood up and said, “It’s in here, “we’ve given it to you.” That is not correct. I wanna know specifically what the data was and is in those presentations that–
[Dr Mayfield]
Senator, we provided you with a number of references. Those are the references that we believe showed that.
[Senator Roberts]
I don’t know where–
[Dr Mayfield]
You don’t agree with us, but that’s what we believe.
[Senator Roberts]
You have never presented, CSIRO’s, never presented any response to that question, because the first time that question was asked was in the Senate estimates last year. CSIRO’s has never addressed that question. Your statement is false, if that’s what you’re implying.
[Dr Mayfield]
That’s incorrect Senator. The data is in the papers that we refer to.
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, I said show me—
[Dr Mayfield]
Part of pulling that science together is about undertaking that sort of statistical analysis, So that it show meaningful trend.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
So I’ll just briefly intercede here. Senator Roberts, could I ask that you allow the witness an opportunity to finish the answers your questions before you interject or ask a follow up question.
[Senator Roberts]
Chair, he’s not answering the question.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
Well, Senator Roberts you may be unsatisfied with the answer that he’s giving, but that doesn’t give you a right to interrupt him. You have to allow witnesses to conclude their answers and then you can ask a follow up question to challenge that answer if you wish.
[Dr Mayfield]
So as I said Senator, those various papers is part of doing peer review process you go through the statistical analysis. You show what is a meaningful trend versus what is not a meaningful trend, due to the uncertainty of those measurements. And we stand by those papers and those measurements and those peer review processes.
[Senator Roberts]
I want on record that never has CSIRO in any of the presentations to me, made any reference, any statement about statistically significant variation in climate. Not at all. I asked it for the first time, this time last year.
[Woman]
You can ask to read the paper to you.
[Senator Roberts]
Yeah, could you specify the paper?
[Woman]
But let’s not…
[Senator Roberts]
Could you specify the papers?
[Dr Mayfield]
I’ve already specified the papers.
[Senator Roberts]
The exact papers? Because you have never referenced them in any way in any of the presentations. So I wanna know the specific papers.
[Dr Mayfield]
So I’m giving you the papers, Senator.
[Senator Roberts]
Which ones?
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s Marcott, it’s Lecavalier.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay.
[Dr Mayfield]
And more recently Kauffman.
[Senator Roberts]
So let’s go on to the second part, now that you’ve come on that. Specify the statistical analysis techniques that we used.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator there’s many techniques that are used, there’s thousands of papers.
[Senator Roberts]
No, the ones that you rely upon to make the statement that there is a statistical significant change. I wanna know the specific ones.
[Dr Mayfield]
Well, that’s part of the peer review process that’s undertaken for each of these papers Senator. So, if you choose to track the authors.
[Senator Roberts]
All right, thank you.
[Dr Mayfield]
They will be able to talk you through this specific work.
[Senator Roberts]
We contacted the author of Lecavalier which you recommended, and he will not divulge his information. That’s what you rely upon? People who do not divulge their information. So let’s go to the third one then. The relevant statistical levels of confidence from the analysis of the climate factor that you’ve identified. So what is the level of confidence in the analysis?
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator again, I’ve just refer to my previous answers.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Could you specify the time interval of data for which this statistical analysis was applied?
[Dr Mayfield]
Senator, I can’t answer that question. It’s a question that should be directed towards the author of the paper.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Question five.
[Dr Mayfield]
Very much to detail sir.
[Senator Roberts]
Yes, it certainly is.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator Robert, sir might have been remiss last time I think I promised to send you a copy of this and I don’t know if I did or not from my office to you, but if not I bought a copy.
[Senator Roberts]
No, you didn’t.
[Dr Marshall]
And I’ll leave this here with you. It does have a map of the projections for temperature.
[Senator Roberts]
No, I’m after empirical scientific evidence, that’s what I’ve been through all the way along. Not on projections.
[Dr Marshall]
It’s based on data since 1950 and successfully predicted the last 20 years.
[Senator Roberts]
I wanna know statistically significant change Dr. Marshall.
[Dr Marshall]
Well, I think you’ll get it from here and the references here in Senator, but, I’ll leave this to you if I can.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you, good.
[Dr Marshall]
Hopefully be helpful.
[Senator Roberts]
Now, Dr. Marshall, I also said in my letter that I hope you agree that the only valid analysis for such policies, climate change and supporting of renewable subsidies, is specific empirical scientific evidence with a logic proving causation and quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate factors, such as atmospheric temperatures. I hope you understand the need to justify such policies on solid scientific evidence, quantifying cause and effect. Such quantified evidence is needed to implement such policies and to monitor the effect of such policies. Without the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide output and climate factors, it is not possible to do cost benefit cases nor track progress. So my question to you, number five was, if you disagree with this reasoning, please provide me with what you see as the alternative basis for policy.
[Dr Marshall]
So Senator we base our work on the measured changes in climate since about 1950. We have, for example, directly intervened by breeding different strains of wheat to prevent the wheat yield from going down, because we don’t want the impact of drought or increased temperatures or the shifts in rainfall to reduce the productivity of Australia’s weed industry. So, we have data since 1950 that shows these effects are happening. We know that the nation has become drier in the South, weather in the North. And we know that the temperature has come up, that’s not projections, they have been measured. But, because we’ve known that, ’cause we predicted that some years ago, some decades ago, we were able to successfully intervene to help the industry navigate those changes without a loss in their profitability. And that’s why we do the modelling Senator, to try and understand how to help industry navigate changes in our investment.
[Senator Roberts]
So let me put it bluntly, do you or do you not believe that policy should be based on a quantified specified relationship between cause and effect? In other words, this much carbon dioxide with the amount specified leading to this much temperature change.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator, I think policy should be based on the best science available and it should be data-driven, data-driven. And I’ve just given you the data that drive us to make the interventions,
[Senator Roberts]
No you haven’t given me the data. You’ve talked about having…
[Dr Marshall]
Senator it’s in here.
[Senator Roberts]
And so do you agree on or not that policy should be driven by specified quantified relationship between cause and effect?
[Dr Marshall]
I think policies should be data-driven and it should be monitored and measured and evaluated using data.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator, if I can add to that. So science, peer reviewed science does provide that foundation which policy can be built. In terms of the papers that we’ve talked to you about.
[Senator Roberts]
Marcott and Lecavalier?
[Dr Mayfield]
We note that there’s been at least 265 other papers which have referenced Marcott as part of the peer review process. And to date, no one has come up with an argument that says that paper is not valid. So the peer review process is at play there and has basically reinforce that that paper is correct.
[Senator Roberts]
We’ll come back to that but Marcott himself, said that the 20th century temperatures on which you are relying are not robust. Marcott himself. So much for–
[Dr Mayfield]
I disagree with your statement.
[Senator Roberts]
So let’s move on to question six. Australia has already done much to destroy its energy grid, yet, as an overseer of taxpayers’ funds, taxpayers’ resources. I need to know whether this has shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how has it shown up and to what extent? Please provide empirical scientific evidence on the effect of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures from Australia’s cuts to human carbon dioxide output. In other words all the pain we’re going through economically where is it showing up in the global carbon dioxide levels?
[Dr Marshall]
So Senator, as I think you and I have discussed before, Australia is barely 1%, 1.2, 1.3% of the world’s emissions. Therefore, any direct changes we make in this country are unlikely to have any impact on the global levels of carbon dioxide.
[Senator Roberts]
So are we not gonna have any impact on the temperature then?
[Dr Marshall]
Well, 1.3% impact. Senator, however, our science can have an impact. For example, future feed which has solved what seemingly was an impossible problem and reduce the emission from–
[Senator Roberts]
I wanna know the effects of Australia’s carbon dioxide. Because people are paying an extra $1,300 per household Dr. Marshall. On your salary, that’s trivial, but on someone on the median income of 49,000 that is painful, extremely painful. Dan McDonald, a farmer in Queensland and many farmers have lost the rights to use their property because of policies enacted by this government and previous governments. On $800,000, that’s easy for you to wade through but these people are suffering.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator. I’m not sure I understand your question here. Are you saying that there’s some connection between things that CSIRO has done and these people suffering
[Senator Roberts]
Your advice.
[Dr Marshall]
Is a concern if that’s the case
[Senator Roberts]
Your advice has been cited by many ministers, both labor and liberal national for the painful impositions of policies on our country. And people are paying for that through the hip pocket and through the loss of the rights to use their property that they own and have paid for. Your so-called support, according to ministers is the reason for that. And I’m not getting evidence of quantified impact of our carbon dioxide. And you’ve just said, you can’t see any evidence in the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere because of Australia’s carbon dioxide cuts.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator I’ve just said that Australia has a relatively small direct impact on the carbon dioxide levels because–
[Senator Roberts]
Can you show me the evidence that says we are reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?
[Dr Marshall]
The evidence that Australia is reducing.
[Senator Roberts]
Australia’s impacts on energy, on agriculture are resulting in a reduced temperature, reduced levels of carbon dioxide.
[Dr Marshall]
So the reduction in emissions has been reported by the department of the environment. So that would be a question for them senator.
[Senator Roberts]
You’ve just answered my question. Thank you very much.
[Dr Mayfield]
If I could add to that as well. So global CO2 levels are measured through the global carbon project which works from data from their resilience.
[Senator Roberts]
In part they’re measured, in part they’re residual. So my last question have global attempts. So we forget about Australia’s little minuscule contribution. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, and to what extent.
[Dr Mayfield]
So again, Senator the global carbon project measures or captures various–
[Senator Roberts]
Didn’t answer my question Dr. Mayfield
[Dr Mayfield]
Various divisions that are made around the globe.
[Chair]
Give him some time.
[Dr Mayfield]
And that is the numbers that are being captured, when they show that emissions are increasing.
[Senator Roberts]
Chair, when someone’s asked a question and they say something but don’t answer the question that is not answering questions
[Chair]
Order Senate Roberts. In that case, Dr. Mayfield would have been five to 10 seconds into his answer. So it’s pretty early to form a strong view about what he was giving you. And Senator Roberts, I don’t seek to dictate how you ask your questions or what questions you ask, but only that you show courtesy to officials so they can answer your questions to the best of their abilities.
[Senator Roberts]
With respect chair, I deserve the respect of being answered properly when I’m asking questions on behalf of my constituents who had gone through a lot of pain.
[Chair]
Senator Roberts if you’re not satisfied with the answers that you receive, please ask another followup question, but don’t interrupt officials in the middle of their answers.
[Senator Roberts]
I’ll ask it again. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how, and to what extent?
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator in terms of the emissions being made whether there’s attempts to cut them or whether that’s how they are naturally, they are captured through the global carbon project. That’s the accounting process that’s worked to do that. And that shows that emissions overall are still increasing.
[Senator Roberts]
How- emissions are still increasing? We’d just been through–
[Dr Mayfield]
Globally.
[Senator Roberts]
COVID depression and we’d just been through a 2009. We had lower use of carbon dioxide then in 2008 in the recession that was global except for Australia. And in both cases, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to rise, despite human production falling dramatically especially in the last nine months. And yet you’re telling me, you can see it. They’re going up. Dr. Mayfield. So I’ll ask again for the third time, then I’ll leave it. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide, particularly in the recession that was in 2009 when global production of carbon dioxide from human activity decreased and have decreased considerably in the last seven months, shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? And if so, how, and to what extent? Please answer how they show up and to what extent.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator the measure is the CO2 signal that’s in the atmosphere. It’s a well-mixed system so it’s represented well across the globe. If you wanna refer to periods like 2009 which is at the end of the global financial crisis, there were slight changes in the rate of climb of these measurements. So you can see inflexions like that. I don’t have the details on the specific numbers on how that changed, but there are inflexion points. But in terms of the longer term trend, it’s still on the up.
[Senator Roberts]
Could you please send me the inflexion points? I wanna see the data please. Because from what I’ve seen at global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, they’ve continued to rise relentlessly despite no inflexion whatsoever. So I would like to see the inflexion points. I’d like to see how much and I’d like to see when. Is that clear? How much and when? Is that clear Dr. Mayfield?
[Dr Mayfield]
So what we’ll provide you with is the Cape Grim record which is a continuous record of CO2 content in the atmosphere.
[Senator Roberts]
That’s CO2 Cape Grim, could you give me the global?
[Dr Mayfield]
So as I said, CO2 is a gas that mixes well across the globe. There is minor variations but overall there’s a very good indication of the time series of the CO2 measurement.
[Senator Roberts]
Could you show me the global levels? I wanna know how much it’s changed and when.
[Dr Mayfield]
As I said before Senator, that work is for the Global Carbon Project. They report annually. We will provide you with some of that work as well as the Cape Grim measurements.
Hi, we’re between Singleton to the south and Muswellbrook to the north in the Hunter Valley, and we’re next to Bayswater Power Station and Liddell Power Station over here. You’ll notice that Bayswater Power Station has got cooling towers.
They’re the squat concrete structures with water vapour coming out. Now if this was the ABC, they’d be implying that was carbon dioxide, but it’s just water vapour. Have a look at the top of the chimneys.
There’s nothing visible coming out, that’s because carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and tasteless, and there’s water vapour coming out of there as well. And over here at Liddell, which you’ll see from the drone, we’ve got chimneys, the power station is operating, there’s nothing visible coming out because carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and tasteless, and you’ll notice that they don’t have cooling towers because they use the lake for cooling.
This is the way man has adapted to generating the cheapest form of power, reliable, safe, clean, environmentally responsible, stable, and cheap, accessible for everyone. This is what mankind’s development has been based upon, this is what our progress and the future must be based upon.
