I draw your attention to an article published in the Australian today[1], which states that “CSIRO and several Australian universities have engaged in at least 10 joint projects with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past decade, a laboratory that US intelligence has linked to the Chinese military and which is suspected of being at the centre of the Covid-19 outbreak.”
The same article states “a spokesperson for Mr Hunt said he had ordered a review of “gain-of-function” research in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council.”
Concerningly, this article points out the roles of CSIRO and Australian universities in research and development at, and/or with, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, roles which CSIRO at first denied in Senate Estimates.
What is worse is that the CSIRO trained Chinese infectious diseases expert Shi Zhengli’s protege, Peng Zhou, who is now head of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunity Project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Further, there are links into many universities, one being the University of Queensland, including Dr Hume Field[2] who is one of many academics from Australia engaged with the EcoHealth Alliance as a Science and Policy Advisor for both China and southeast Asia regions. Dr Hume has been working on emerging diseases, environmental science and infectious disease epidemiology. On 12 May 2020, the Washington Post reported that EcoHealth is a “longtime partner” of the Wuhan Institute of Virology[3].
Minister, so called “Gain-of-Function” (GoF) is a euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the virulence and lethality of pathogens and viruses. GoF research:
is government funded and supported by CSIRO and Australian universities and academics.
academics may not understand the underlying political or military agendas of such research.
its focus is on enhancing the pathogens’ ability to infect different species and to increase their deadly impact as airborne pathogens and viruses.
ostensibly, GoF research is conducted for biodefense purposes in many countries.
GoF experiments are extremely dangerous and there is evidence of outbreaks[4].
these deadly science-enhanced pathogens can and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people – it is biological warfare.
Government officials and the recipients of government grants and contracts for GoF research argue that these experiments are critical for understanding the subtle changes that can make a virus a pandemic threat. GoF experiments have neither prevented a pandemic, nor provided useful information about safe and effective pandemic countermeasures.
We believe these high-risk experiments deviate from morally justifiable research, and these experimentally altered viruses and pathogens have put the entire human race at risk. Especially given the potential for a country such as China to ‘weaponise’ the products of Australian supported and funded research.
If you, and/or your government support these programs then it is time to stop.
The risks posed by influenza/virus GoF experiments include frequent documented escapes of deadly pathogens into the community, which have a potential for triggering a pandemic. These risks far outweigh any speculative benefits. What’s more, as Dr. Marc Lipsitch of Harvard and Dr. Alison Galvani of Yale argue:
“the creation and manipulation of potential pandemic pathogens are too risky to justify…there are safer more effective experimental approaches that are both more scientifically informative and more straightforward to translate into improved public health.” [PLoS Medicine, 2014][5]
The risk of laboratory enhanced transmissibility of influenza viruses is obvious. Dr. Andrew Pavia, Chief, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah stated:
“A readily transmitted H5N1 virus could be extraordinarily lethal; therefore, the risk for accidental release is significant, and deliberate misuse of the data to create a biological weapon is possible.”[6]
Many everyday Australians are asking why your government is not being proactive and protecting us from viruses by having both an end-to-end plan for managing the COVID-19 outbreak, and by cancelling support for research and collaboration with nations that may weaponise a virus and harm everyday Australians. Australians deserve to be safe.
Minister: can you advise what you and your government know about this GoF research and of the participation of CSIRO and Australian academic institutions?
Additionally, I have submitted a question on notice (QON): I have requested a copy of the terms of reference of your proposed review as well as detail on the composition of the review group, meeting times, how submissions may be made, attendance at meetings and importantly an undertaking from you that this will be a public inquiry with published results. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further and await your advice.
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/08/06/12/shutterstock-editorial-4240298r.jpg?width=990&auto=webp&quality=75743990Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-25 16:05:392021-06-25 16:09:42Letter to Minister Greg Hunt: Stop Gain of Function Research
Senate Estimates is a great chance for me to grill these climate agencies and get very specific about the evidence that they base their policies on.
This year, we saw yet again that they love to duck and weave, but won’t actually provide me with the evidence. I talked about this on Marcus Paul last week.
[Announcer] Now on “Marcus Paul in the Morning” Senator Malcolm Roberts.
[Marcus] All right, 17 minutes away from eight o’clock. Good day, Malcolm. How are you, mate?
[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?
[Marcus] Good, good, good. Now I see, you’ve got the Bureau of Meteorology, and also Malcolm Turnbull, and also the CSIRO in your sights this morning. Who do you want to pick on first?
[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.
[Marcus] All right. What do you have to say about them? Of course, this argument about renewables costing us, what, 13 billion bucks a year or $1,300 per household.
[Malcolm] That’s in addition to the electricity bill, that’s the additional cost per household, $1,300. Marcus, there’s some really simple figures to understand. The median income in Australia is $49,000, so after tax, what’s that, 30 something?
[Marcus] Yeah.
[Malcolm] The chief executive of the CSIRO is paid a total per year, every year of $1,049,000.
[Marcus] Not bad.
[Malcolm] The group executive in charge of overseeing the climate area, the climate research, is on $613,000, more than the Prime Minister of Australia.
[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.
[Malcolm] I put to them very basic questions about their so-called science, they refused to answer. These were the first time that I had asked questions about these pieces of information that they gave to me last Senate estimates. I’ve never had an opportunity to ask them questions before about this. This is the first time. They refused to answer. The basic things were that they gave me five new references, in senate estimates in October, I asked them questions about this.
They refused to answer. They refused to answer a representative of the people. And the papers that they provided to me, Kaufman 2020, for example, this is the sort of crap that CSIRO dishes up, when the authors of that paper input their data on climate into their calculations, they omitted the first data point and put it in in reverse order, complete false. The second reference they gave me directly contradicts the claims that the CSIRO says that it’s supposed to be supporting.
The third reference said they made conclusions on one data point, and they took it out of context and went against the CSIRO’s own advice to me last October. So what I’m saying to you is we are paying someone $1,049,000 a year, we’re paying someone else $613,000 a year, people in Australia cannot afford this nonsense, and now we’ve got no evidence whatsoever.
The CSIRO has admitted that they have never said to any politician that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to our planet. That’s what politicians are saying. Why is this, Marcus, people are paying dearly for destroying manufacturing all because of this rubbish?
[Marcus] All right, now tell me about the Bureau of Meteorology.
[Malcolm] Well, here we go again, another government bureaucracy that’s claiming about climate. When they measure data, temperature, rainfall, et cetera, at a weather station, they also have metadata about the weather station that tells you, for example, how many times a station has been moved, because when it moves, it can have an effect on temperature and other recording devices. Townsville has been moved eight times.
The Bureau of Meteorology’s metadata says it’s been moved once. Metadata as well at Rockhampton moved four times, the Bureau says it’s been moved once. Cairns moved six times, the Bureau says it’s been moved twice. Charleville been moved four times, the Bureau says twice. The Bureau of Meteorology and its own peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these glaring inaccuracies.
How can we rely on the Bureau of Meteorology which says temperatures are increasing, but they haven’t increased since 1995 globally, which is about almost 30 years, and our temperatures today are lower than in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia. I mean, we’re being fed this nonsense, people are paying for it, it’s destroying our manufacturing capacity all because of atrocious governments and people won’t hold these people accountable.
[Marcus] Well, there are some grave consequences, as you say, for these glaring errors and policies devised on numbers that are given by the Bureau of Meteorology, along with the CSIRO. So there we go, I’m glad we got you there asking these hard questions, Malcolm, but you don’t seem to get much support from those that are in power.
[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.
[Marcus] Why don’t you?
[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.
[Marcus] Yes.
[Malcolm] He admits now, two or three weeks ago he admitted that he is afraid, he’s scared of what’s happening, with our reliability of power supply, security of power supply, the cost of power. He’s admitted all this. I know for a fact, in conversations with Angus Taylor, that he’s a sceptic about us affecting the climate, but he is peddling this nonsense.
Mark Butler, the former spokesman from the Labour Party, I’ve challenged him to a debate, ran away from me. I challenged The Greens 10 and a half years ago, and every day since I’ve been in the Senate, sorry, almost weekly since I’ve been in the Senate this time they’ve failed to provide the evidence.
There’s just a whole lot of groupthink. I wrote to about 20 MPS in senior positions, Labour, Liberal, National, and Greens, not one of them was able to provide me with any evidence that we have to have these policies, not one.
[Marcus] Now let’s move to Malcolm Turnbull. Hang on, there, Malcolm Turnbull, of course, former Prime Minister of Australia, claims that the demand for coal is declining, but no one has told Africa they’re building 1,250 more coal plants by the year 2030. Mines are devastating the landscape in the Hunter Valley. Well, is that true?
Reportedly more about his opposition perhaps to the Mount Pleasant coal mine and the extension plan for it which happens to be near Malcolm Turnbull’s own interest including a grazing property. The mining industry is shortening lives by reducing air quality, and taxpayers, of course, you say are left with huge environmental remediation bills covered by mining bonds. Now last week, I don’t know what was going on in the New South Wales government with the Liberals and Nationals appointing Malcolm Turnbull to this role.
You know, zero net emissions by 2050, we had Matt Kean at the centre of it all, and for some reason, somehow both John Barilaro and the Premier of New South Wales went along with this. There were a couple of dissenting voices, but Malcolm was apparently tipped to take this job. Then there was a massive back flip whether it came from pressure from the media or from One Nation’s Mark Latham. I’m not sure. I think it’s a mix of all of those.
[Malcolm] I think you’re right. Malcolm Turnbull has a lot of personal interests, of benefit to him and his family, from pushing their renewables bandwagon. He’s got no evidence, never has had any evidence for pushing their renewables. He’s got no evidence for having to shut down coal mines. And he himself attributed the dumping of his new job to Mark Latham and the right-wing media, but you know, that’s typical Malcolm Turnbull. He can’t look at his own policy and he can’t look at himself, and he’s become a pariah.
[Marcus] Yeah, look, I understand what you’re saying, I get that, but let’s be honest, he’s half right.
[Malcolm] In what way?
[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.
[Malcolm] In what way?
[Marcus] Well, until people down the road from us 2GB and the Telegraph and a few others started jumping up and down about it this was gonna go through. I mean, I would tend to think that unless there was a by-election just around the corner in the upper Hunter, perhaps this bloke, Malcolm Turnbull, might’ve gone on.
[Malcolm] Well, I’m not gonna argue with that, I think that you’re making some pretty good comments, but Malcolm Turnbull himself blamed Mark Latham for standing up and speaking the truth. That’s the pressure that Mark brings. Mark’s a very good speaker, he gets his facts and he went straight into bat. Barilaro and Berejiklian are the ones. How could they possibly sign off on this man, Turnbull, being put in this position? But think about this, Marcus.
[Marcus] Yeah.
[Malcolm] Australia’s total electricity coal-fired power station capacity in this country was 25.2 gigawatts in 2017. So it’s less than that now with the closure of a couple of coal-fired power stations in Victoria, it’s less than that. China alone opened 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired plants last year alone, so almost double what our total capacity is. The world has opened up 50.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity last year alone. India is opening up on average around 17 gigawatts. India itself and China are opening up combined about three times our total capacity of coal-fired power stations.
[Marcus] And the argument, of course, is, Malcolm, I do need to go, the argument, of course, is that if they don’t get our coal, they’ll get it from elsewhere.
[Malcolm] Correct.
[Marcus] Yeah, all right, mate, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.
[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.
[Marcus] Talk soon.
[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.
[Marcus] See you, mate. Bye-bye. There he is, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Of course, David Lazell…
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.
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.
[Marcus] Yes look I mentioned that story about Australia Post just a moment or two ago. I mean those ridiculous costings being discussed in Senate estimates and Malcolm Roberts is also involved in all of this. He joins us on the programme, hello Malcolm.
[Malcolm] Good morning Marcus, how are you mate?
[Marcus] I’m okay, busy time in Canberra at the moment, with these estimates going on.
[Malcolm] Yes it is we’re doing a combination of written submissions, written questions on notice, as well as personal appearances. So there’s a lot on–
[Marcus] Good.
[Malcolm] In Senate estimates. It’s a matter of making the best use of the time.
[Marcus] All right good work, because we need questions to be asked about really important issues, like why the government paid $30 million for the land that was later valued at just under $3 million. The previous owner now leasing back the land at a value of $1 million.
The land was owned by the Liberal Party donors, Tony and Ron Perich’s Leppington Pastoral company. What can you tell me, about this so-called Golden Leppington Triangle? Well there must be There must be gold in them there hills, there has to be. I mean I’d love to have my, any asset that I have. I’d love somebody to pay me 10 times what it’s worth.
[Malcolm] It’s more than 10 times, in overall I guess, yeah 10 times, but yeah, it’s just staggering. The land was valued without even entering the site. It just displays typical poor governance from government and federally. You know, the federal government is far too big.
It needs to get back to handing back most of its responsibilities back to the States, because they stolen from the state. And you’re not going to get accountability in government like this. And you know what’s happening Marcus, is that we’ve seen a disregard of taxpayer’s money and a bypassing of data, making decisions based upon what looks to be like mate’s needs. And we know we need an ICAC, Federal Government ICAC. The attorney general has promised one two years ago, draft bill–
[Marcus] Yup, yup.
[Malcolm] Since December, 2019, but it’s just a weak, toothless proposal. We need real governance, we need real accountability. And we need above all, a restoration of government’s primary responsibility which is to serve the people not steal from the people.
[Marcus] Yeah I mean Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, you support a federal independent commission against corruption, we absolutely 100% need one. I mean how? Look at this for poor governance. I mean, it’s typical, a disregard for taxpayers money and bypassing data.
I know you love using data, but I mean how on earth can this land be valued without anybody even entering the site for goodness sake?
[Malcolm] Well you’re absolutely correct. And you know this is big as it is. It’s tiny compared to what is going on, say in the rorting of our energy, which is destroying jobs, exporting jobs overseas. That’s why we want to chase the CSIRO, yet again in Senate estimates and I’ll be holding them accountable.
I’ve written a letter ahead of time to make the best use my time saying I want certain questions answered. This will be the fifth opportunity for the CSIRO to produce evidence that climate policies are needed. And without that, we need to scrap these policies. Why hasn’t the government done it’s due diligence at the site where the land transaction–
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] Took place, why hasn’t the government done its due diligence on the CSIRO? We’ve given the CSIRO four opportunities, this will be the fifth, they have not come up with the goods we’re destroying not $30 million worth of wealth. We’re destroying trillions of dollars worth of wealth–
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] In this state, in this country because of these climate policies that have got no basis in science. So we’re giving the CSIRO yet another attempt, a fifth opportunity to provide the evidence.
[Marcus] All right, well, as I’ve discussed with you before, I mean, in order for our economy to continue for all, in order for investment to take place whether it’s in renewables, whether it’s in nuclear, whether it’s you know in coal or anything. There needs to be something on the table from the government.
There needs to be direction right now it’s a rudderless ship and we need, you know, if you want to attract investment into any energy source, renewable or otherwise, you need to let those who may be willing to invest in our energy needs. You need to let them know a roadmap, what’s happening. There’s nothing going on at the moment.
[Malcolm] Exactly and you know the reason why Marcus? Is because there’s no basis in fact, or science or data for their climate policies, there is none at all. The CSIRO has never proven that four times to us, because they’ve failed four times. And that’s the reason why there’s so many rudderless moves, so many rudderless direction’s going on or lack of direction going on in this state–
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] In this country, because there is lack of data underpinning the policies. And therefore people just get pulled from one side to the other in parliament. They don’t know where they’re going. They’re lost, they’re in a fog. Canberra is the most destructive city in the country. And I mean that sincerely.
[Marcus] Okay.
[Malcolm] Because they’re paid enormously and they add no value. The fastest growing income in the country is in Canberra. The fastest growing population of a city is in Canberra.
[Marcus] Yes.
[Malcolm] And the lack of accountability is there. And when government, federal government is the source of your growth, then you’re on a really downward slide slope into oblivion as far as this country is concerned. It’s just ridiculous because there’s nothing there that drives this, and this state, as in the state government, the government.
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] Is out of control.
[Marcus] All right, let’s just move on to youth crime, if we can now, now there’s been some suggestions that if the opposition in Queensland get in, they’ll put a curfew on youth up there in Townsville, and also in Cairns. I mean, what has led an increase in youth crime?
And that’s your neck of the woods up there in Queensland, I mean, what’s going on here? Is it poor parenting, high unemployment, lack of maybe consequences, you know, revolving door through courts, what is it? All of that?
[Malcolm] There’s a really positive story here Marcus, a wonderful story. There are community groups now in Townsville who are so concerned about the crime, that’s gone out of control in Townsville. It’s similar in Ipswich, in Caboolture and in Logan. These areas that have been traditional Labor Party Strongholds, Labor Party’s taken for granted and neglected them.
But the really positive sign is that there’s a group of, they’re actually a couple of groups in Townsville. They’re coming together now, both indigenous people and European descent. One for example is called One Community One Standard. And they’re saying, ‘We’ve had enough.
You people in government are not doing your job in the state government under the Labor Party machine. And we want to make sure that we put in place active community responses to the crime.’ And they’re not just saying let’s punish kids, because a lot of this is crime from juveniles.
They’re saying, let’s look at the root causes of this. Let’s get parents to stand up and say, we’ve got to look after the kids, learn and teach them responsibility which means parents have to take responsibility.
Let’s get energy policies correct, So that we get a return to cheap energy, which means more jobs instead of exporting jobs to China and having our kids on drugs and out of control on the streets, let’s give them work something meaningful.
And there are also some wonderful people up there who are Jeff Adams for example and Ross Butler, who has, coming up with juvenile boot camps that have been proven over many many years. And the government is just sitting on his hands. You know what the first initiative these people want Marcus?
They want a simple, confidential survey of all the people involved with these kids because the state government won’t let them speak. They can’t get the facts out. So government is now not only actively condoning this violence and this crime, they’re encouraging it by suppressing any doubt on it, again government just wanting to abandon people for the sake of political correctness and looking good rather than doing good.
This is a really positive story coming up in Townsville
[Marcus] All right.
[Malcolm] Because, One Community, One Standard.
[Marcus] But look Jacinta Pryce will be speaking more and Mundine. Yes tell me about this CPAC, that’s the U-S election day. Tell me about yeah okay, tell me about CPAC.
[Malcolm] CPAC stands, the philosophy is basically conservatism is the political philosophy which States that sovereignty resides in the person. It’s about restoring freedom in our country.
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] I spoke there last year.
[Marcus] Okay.
[Malcolm] It’s a wonderful gathering. I spoke there last year, I shared the stage with Jim Molan.
And it’s on this year, just one day this year, for Wednesday, the 4th of November, hopefully to celebrate Trump’s re-election, but they’ll also be handing out the CPAC Keneally Cup, which will be presented by Craig Kelly, because Christina Keneally won it last year for trying to stop this going ahead because Christina Keneally is one of the controls of politics and she wanted to stop free debate, stop free speech.
And she got so much publicity for CPAC, that CPAC was sold out. So I really strongly recommend anyone in Sydney to go there. But I can’t go this year because of the border closures
[Marcus] Sure.
[Malcolm] But it’s a wonderful display, wonderful forum.
[Marcus] So just on this, I, this is going to be cheeky. So the 2020 picks for this so-called Christina Keneally Cup will be what, Kevin Rudd, why? I mean, all he wants is for Murdoch not to control all of the newspapers up there in Queensland. Come on you’ve got to agree with that surely Malcolm
[Malcolm] Look and that’s Kevin Rudd just wanting to intimidate free press–
[Marcus] No he’s not.
[Malcolm] By promoting Royal commission to . We don’t need that, we just better a marketplace. If people don’t need Murdoch papers, they just don’t have to buy it.
[Marcus] Yeah but hang on, that note, Malcolm we’re going to have our first disagreement and you know how much I respect and admire you, but come on if Murdoch owns all of the papers in Queensland, what other choice do they have? There’s no other choice.
[Malcolm] Well, there are plenty of choices because we’ve never, it’s like the ABC up in the Pilbara Marcus.
[Marcus] No don’t try the ABC in Pilbara at me. I’m talking about Queensland, stop distracting. I thought you were better than that Malcolm.
[Malcolm] No what I’m saying is in the eighties, they only had the ABC and the–
[Marcus] Now he’s going back to the eighties, here we go.
[Malcolm] But hang on, hang on, give me a go.
[Marcus] All right.
[Malcolm] What’s What’s happening is that we’ve now got media from all over the world. You can get it on the internet. You don’t have to watch Murdoch. You don’t have to watch the ABC.
[Marcus] Yeah but now I know that. And people yeah that’s true, and hopefully they do, but people, you know, a lot of people aren’t as savvy as you they are stuck in their ways, older people and they buy newspapers. That’s what they’ve done all their lives. And a lot of them aren’t on the internet, funnily enough Malcolm.
And what they’re getting is the one source of news in the sunshine state. And I just, Malcolm I like you, but I can’t agree with you on this.
[Malcolm] We’ll agree to disagree.
[Marcus] All right then.
[Malcolm] I don’t see that we have to buy anything from Murdoch it’s up to people to choose whatever they want. Most of Murdoch’s stuff is on the net now. He publishes hardly any regional papers because they’re just not viable. So, you know, if you can get him on the internet, you can get anyone else on the internet too. So, you know, if you don’t like Murdoch, go elsewhere.
[Marcus] It’s not about not liking Murdoch. It’s about having a variety of sources in which to get your news and information all right mate. But anyway, we’ll talk more about this. We’ll have another disagreement but I do appreciate you coming on the programme mate. Thank you so much.
[Malcolm] You’re welcome, pleasure to be here, Marcus.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GovernmentWaste.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=110801920Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-10-22 14:13:532020-10-22 14:14:01Government wastes $27 million on one piece of land
When policy development is at the mercy of the political whims of which ever party is in government, it cripples industry and Australia’s future economic prosperity.
Instead of reputable evidence, policy makers defer to political beliefs and vested interests, resulting in a policy failure that wastes an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money.
Senator Roberts said, “We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) to scrutinise science, protect scientists from politicisation, and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just.”
Politicians often ignore the vast uncertainties in many areas of science used for policy development, and true scientific oversight will enhance public debate and transparency.
“Australia’s climate policies are a stunning example of policy determining the scientific “evidence”, rather than science informing policy,” added Senator Roberts.
The diminishing trust in government’s use of data for policy development is being felt across a range of industries.
In the area of science governing Queensland’s reef regulations and farming, Dr Peter Ridd says, “It’s not until we can get our scientific institutions to be trustworthy that we will finally be able to trust science again.
Evidence-based policy making is not a new concept, though it needs more prominence in Australian political debate. The design of good policy depends on a solid foundation of reputable science.
“I am committed to more transparency in justifying policy, and welcome contributions to the development of an oversight body, such as the Office of Scientific Integrity,” concluded Senator Roberts.
This week Senator Malcolm Roberts revealed CSIRO’s complete lack of scientific justification for climate policies and CSIRO’s only response was to state their world ranking.
Senator Roberts said, “CSIRO’s response to my findings came before my report was even released, which reinforces the academic arrogance that comes from believing they are above questioning.
“We all know CSIRO is an iconic and esteemed Australian institution in many areas of research, which is why its track record on climate science is so worrying; it’s not up to standard.”
Three levels of government base expensive and far reaching climate policies on CSIRO’s advice, which largely comes from inadequate and unvalidated climate models.
“Rather than address the obvious flaws in their climate research, CSIRO chose instead to deflect to a lame appeal to authority, instead of citing credible science.”
The absence of a scientific response from CSIRO can only mean that they stand by the discredited and contradictory papers they cited and later withdrew, because the papers failed to prove their claim.
“Let me make this very clear, all politicians need to be seriously questioning the science that they glibly use to make climate policies, and Parliament must scrutinise the quality of this science.
“The CSIRO’s flawed climate models have not been validated, they contradict real world measurements and should not be used as the basis for spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money on damaging policies,” added Senator Roberts.
A team of 17 acclaimed climate scientists reviewed CSIRO’s evidence and were sadly disappointed with CSIRO’S lack of scientific rigour.
Senator Roberts will travel to Queensland’s major regional centres next week listening to people across many industries that poor science and damaging policy have ravaged.
“We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity that will scrutinise the science, protect scientists from politicisation and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just,” concluded Senator Roberts.
