The idea that one Voice can speak for every indigenous and Australian is flawed and fundamentally racist. The Voice will just be more well paid bureaucrats in Canberra that will do little to help Australians in remote communities.
Transcript
Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe has broken ranks with her colleagues. Again. She’s declared the party won’t support a referendum on the indigenous Voice to Parliament unless the government meets her demands.
I disagree with Lidia Thorpe on a lot of her ideas and conduct, and this latest disagreement shows how ridiculous the proposed Voice to parliament is.
There is no single Voice or opinion for all the indigenous or all Australians. What Torres Strait Islanders need is completely different from what mainlanders need. What people in Cape York need is different from Melbourne and that’s different again from country Tasmania, the Alice, the Pilbara or musgrave park.
Just look at Lidia Thorpe. There’s only a handful of aboriginal greens senators, yet on the Voice they can’t even make their mind up on whether they support or OPPOSE THE VOICE. The idea of the Voice is that some over-paid bureaucrats sitting in Canberra can speak on behalf of every aboriginal person and that they can’t think or vote for themselves.
There’s nothing more racist than dividing us on race. Vote no to the Voice.
Lidia Thorpe has a pattern of disrespect for the Senate, the Australian people and Australia itself. She must be accountable for those decisions. Yet, the only choice that bothered the left was her opposition to the indigenous voice to Parliament. It is only when she opposed the voice that the left and media pile on started.
Transcript
Conservative values, including freedom, mean we embrace diverse opinions within our wider embrace of the rich tapestry of God’s creation. From free debate of different opinions comes strong policy, fair policy. Yet our opponents on the control side of politics play the person, not the argument. This is second nature to the Left, the control side of politics, with hubris and intolerance covering for ignorance and driving their personal attacks.
In discussing Senator Thorpe’s behaviour, we see that, unlike the control side of politics, conservatives embrace differences of opinion. Could it be that the Left’s own attack on Senator Thorpe is political payback for her opposition to the voice? Remember how an old social media message from Lidia Thorpe, asking for Senator Hanson’s support in fighting the voice, was dredged up?
That dredging up was the warning shot Senator Thorpe did not heed. Now we have the bikie boss scandal. Adam Bandt reacted quickly, with an immediate sacking—as if it was orchestrated. One Nation asked what Adam Bandt knew and when he knew it. A head may roll, yet not the one intended. Listening to confidential briefings on bikie gang criminality while in a secret relationship with a recent boss of a bikie gang deserves strong censure. Cheating on one’s significant other deserves censure in another place, not here. One Nation hopes, in future, to see less petulance and better judgement from Senator Thorpe.
Australia needs the control side of politics, the Left, to demonstrate decency and tolerance towards competing viewpoints. We must work hard with everyday Australians across our nation to stop the Left’s lynch mob mentality—made worse in this case because the lynch mob is Senator Thorpe’s own party.
The Left do not debate. The control side fears debate. Instead they abuse and ridicule, silence and divide, and then seek to destroy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and conservatives celebrate difference of opinion.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/xbo2h3k-skg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-10-25 18:11:072022-10-25 18:12:15Left turns on Lidia Thorpe for opposing the voice
The Greens profit from division and discrimination. You cannot label someone an oppressor without making a victim, so it is not in their interest to actually save victims.
Transcript
I want to refer to speeches that you gave yesterday and also Senator Thorpe. In your speech, you mentioned the term far-right extremist or extremist, every third or fourth line that enshrines separation. Five times in just 18 lines. Senator Thorpe used the term white privilege 11 times on average every fourth line, driving hate and conflict.
Now in private talk with Senator Thorpe, and not meant to be kept private but personal talk, she recognises to me that the Aboriginal Industry is doing enormous damage, but she doesn’t say that in public. What we’ve got is gutless, woke bureaucrats shovelling money continually to keep the gap open so that the people in the Aboriginal Industry, both black and white, can make money off it.
Care requires data and facts, not emotive slogans and labels. Care requires understanding. Senator Thorpe talks about climate and Aboriginals, the UN and Aboriginal, property rights and Aboriginals. They are not the same. These very things are hurting the Aboriginals, but not as much as the resort to labelled. Keeping people locked in victimhood makes them dependent so that The Greens can control them.
I’ve never heard anyone condemn you for your race, your gender, your background, only for your incitement to division and hatred. You have the privilege of being in the Senate and representing Australians. But your rhetoric is dividing on basis of race. Yet every Australian recognises we all have red blood, regardless of our skin colour. We all have a human spirit that we share with every human regardless of ethnicity, regardless of background, regardless of prejudices. And it’s about time that people in this Parliament, especially in The Greens, started to recognise that we should be united, we are one people.
I have always said I will debate anyone in the country or overseas about the evidence on climate change. The truth is, there is no evidence that CO2 from human production directly causes changes in the climate and needs to be cut.
Transcript
Forward to this all weekend, all week, the great climate change debate. Gee, I’m nervous. I shouldn’t be, I know. But I’m a little nervous. The first time I’ve ever done something like this, live on this programme. Malcolm Roberts from One Nation and also regular caller, Mark. Mark’s the only one, it seems, with the kahunas to take on Malcolm, particularly on a live radio debate. We put it to some Labour MPs to come on, I won’t shame them at the moment by naming them, and they said, “Nope, nope!” But Mark is up to the challenge. Gentleman, are you both there?
G’day, Marcus.
Hi.
G’day, Mark.
All right, now this is the way this is going to work, gentlemen. You will both have two minutes to start. So Malcolm you’ll go first. You’ll plead your case against climate change using, no doubt, your empirical data, all the rest of it. Then Mark, you will respond. You’ll get two minutes. You’ll be on a clock. And then after that, you’ll get two minutes again each for a rebuttal, okay? That sounds okay to you?
Yep.
Sounds good.
All right, now. A couple of rules, no name calling in the rebuttals. All right. Straightaway that’s a no-no. No name calling,
Okay.
Obviously not that you will, but we just have to be a little clear here. No name calling. And if I think you’re getting a little off topic, I’ll pull you up. Are we ready to go?
Yup, we’re ready.
Yeah.
All right, gentlemen. Thank you, the great climate change debate is underway. Malcolm, you’re going to go first, okay? Because I say so, and I will roll your two minutes from now. Climate change, you say, is not real. Tell me why.
I don’t say climate change is not real, Marcus. I say that carbon dioxide from the use of hydrocarbon fuels does not change climate. That’s the core point. What people have to understand that the core point is that they want to tax and cut our carbon dioxide from human activity, farming, agriculture, driving, transport, industry, power stations. So what has to happen? Always, science is decided by the empirical evidence in logical scientific points. What that means is that you have to have empirical data, hard data, within a logical framework that proves cause and effect. And empirical means measured or observed. Actual solid data. So before we can justify cutting human agriculture, driving, industry, power stations, electricity, raise their prices, we have to have hard evidence that temperatures today have been unusually high and continue to rise unusually.
One minute left.
There is no such evidence. Secondly, the cause of any temperature rise is increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Third thing, they have to prove that the carbon dioxide rising in the atmosphere is due to human production of carbon dioxide. There is no evidence to that effect. Number four, even if everything is correct, and someone provides the data that shows that temperatures are rising unusually in continuing to rise, and that it’s due to human carbon dioxide, they then have to prove that warmer temperatures are harmful to humans, harmful to the planet. Scientists classify earth’s past far warmer periods
20 seconds.
far warmer periods as climate optimums, because warmer periods have been booms for human civilization, nature, and individuals. Cold periods kill more people than warmer periods.
10.
So the next thing I point out is that I’ve done extensive work with the Parliamentary Library, with freedom of information bills, with parliamentarians-
Three.
Themselves. No one is able to
Two. provide that evidence. No one.
All right, okay. Okay. So Malcolm stated his points. Mark, are you ready, mate? You’ll get two minutes on the clock.
Just before I start-
Oh god.
on time.
Yes.
Do you recycle Malcolm? Or do you put it all in the same bin?
Hey Mark, we’ll get to that. We’ll get to that.
No, just out of curiosity. We’ll get to that. Your two minutes is up and in your rebuttal, that’s when you can ask questions of each other, okay?
All right.
All right. All right, Mark. Your two minutes starts now.
Righto. Let’s go back 450 million years. The earth was barren. It’s being bombarded by solar radiation. There was fissures and cracks pumping out carbon dioxide and methane gas. I’ve got a Kelpie chewing up my foot while I’m talking to you. The seas were swarming with jellyfish, and fish, and sharks with big bony plates. The first algae, at that time, began to creep up onto the rocks. Come forward another 50 or 60 million years. They’d turned what they call the Gilboa Forest. They were about five metres high. They had a base like a palm tree with multiple roots. They had a straight trunk. They had fronds like a tree fern. There’s fossil evidence of these from Belgium to New York state, a town called Gilboa funnily enough. Then go back to to about 349 million years ago. We started the Carboniferous Forest. These massive forest. These huge rainstorms, probably like we’ve never seen before, that filled up swamps, carved out canyons, rivers flowing up and everywhere it was just to intense-
One minute. One minute.
And then glaciers begin form ’cause there’s so much oxygen in the atmosphere. But the downside of that was every time there’s an electrical storm, because there’s so much oxygen, there’s these massive fires. And that’s what they reckon kept the forest going because forests, obviously, need carbon dioxide. Then by the end of that time, 299 million years ago, the begin to split up.
30 seconds.
And then we got back to now. Now we’ve got, the atmosphere has changed. In 200 years we’ve dug up so much carbon and burnt it, we’ve changed back to what it was 3 million years ago. So what you’re saying is, Malcolm, it took 200 years to go back to what it was 3 million years ago.
10.
And now you’re saying it doesn’t really matter because we’ve changed 3 million years in atmosphere in 200 years. That doesn’t compute.
All right. All right. Well said. All right. I think that’s pretty good from both of you. Great for a start. So the way this now works, you both had your opening arguments. Now it’s time for rebuttal. Another two minutes for any of the points that Mark’s brought up, Malcolm, you get to rebut. Then Mark, you get your chances as well. You ready to go there, Malcolm?
I am, Marcus.
All right. The clock starts now two more minutes, off you go.
I’ll say it again. What determines science is the use of logical scientific points and that’s the beauty of science. It gets rid of all the crap, all of the opinions, all living emotions, and just says, “Show me your data.” And that data, hard empirical data, has to be provided within a logical framework that proves cause and effect. Mark has done none of that. He has not proven the temperatures are higher than in the past. He has not shown that the carbon dioxide that man produces drives temperature. He has not shown that higher temperatures are dangerous to humans. Now, he’s then talked about carbon dioxide levels. In the earth’s past, fairly recent past by earth standards, carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than today. Carbon dioxide levels today are closer to the limit of 0.015% in the atmosphere where plants shut down. We need far more carbon dioxide, not less.
One minute. One minute, Malcolm.
Now, I’m the only person in the world from a Congress or a Parliament who has cross-examined the government science agency. I’ve cross-examined CSIRO over a period of five years. They have admitted to me that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger. Never. They have failed to show me, in the last 10,000 years, anything unprecedented in climate. Not just temperatures, anything at all, rainfall, snowfall, etc, nothing at all. They have failed to show me
30 seconds. any statistically significant change in climate. None that all. The chief scientist, after I questioned him, broke down and said to me, he is not a climate scientist, and he doesn’t understand it. Yet, that man was around the country spreading this misrepresentation of carbon dioxide and climate.
10.
No one anywhere has identified any quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity and climate. And thus, there is no basis for policy whatsoever.
All right. Well done. Malcolm. That’s your rebuttal. How you feeling Mark, by the way? You feeling okay? What was that?
Bored.
Bored!
I’ve heard it all before.
Oh really? Okay.
So start the clock.
Hang on there. I’ve just got to re set it. Give me two seconds. Here we go. All right, you’re ready, boss? And again, you’ll have two minutes to state your rebuttal and off we go. By the way, gentlemen, I won’t be making a decision on who wins this. My listeners will. Both on air and online. So we’ll put it up a little later for those who aren’t listening live. They can listen back to it, etc. We’ll leave it up for a while. Malcolm, if you wouldn’t mind, perhaps share it as well. And we’ll get some feedback from your followers. Mark, off you go.
Okay. Now what I was getting at there is all those processes took millions and millions of years to happen.
Yeah.
Now what we’re doing now, we’re clearing land the size of the United Kingdom, every year. We’ve got this corrupt fool in Brazil that’s cleared a fifth of the Amazon jungle, which pumps out oxygen and absorbs carbon dioxide. Now in 1857, a scientist named Eunice Newton Foote, a lady scientist, she couldn’t understand why when the carbon dioxide was in… Looking at the earth’s history, everything began to heat up. So she did an experiment. She put a sealed jar of oxygen, a jar of, I think it was hydrogen or helium, I can’t remember what it was, and a jar of carbon dioxide and put them in the sun. And she noticed when she took measurements, the carbon dioxide absorbed, and attracted, and retained the heat, more than the other gases in the atmosphere. They were three sealed jars.
One minute.
And then years gone by. In the late ’70s, the Nixon government, they started making warnings about climate change caused by carbon dioxide. All the insurance companies in the US all got together and said, “We’re going to have to do something about this. It’s going to cost us a heap.” Now, the track were going on now, we’re clearing so much land, and we’re cutting down all the trees, it’s turning into heat sinks. I noticed that Rob Stokes this morning, announced a thing where no more houses with black roofs ’cause the cities are taking the heat sinks.
30.
If you look at new housing develops now, they’re hot because there’s no trees, all got black roofs, and because we’re pumping out so much carbon dioxide now that it’s getting hotter and hotter. Systems are starting to collapse all around the world now. And if you take any notice or if you care, we need nature.
10.
Nature doesn’t need us. We need nature. And the thing is all these right wing gits all around the place say, “Oh, so what, who cares? It’s not our problem.” I heard some fool yesterday on the radio say, “Who cares what happens in 30 years.”
All right. That’s it. Mark, all right. Well done. Well done to both you gentlemen. Any questions between each other, let’s be respectful. You had a question of Malcolm just before, Mark. You can ask it now.
Do you recycle, Malcolm?
Yeah, I recycle.
Well, hello. That’s what the earth’s atmosphere does. We have forests to recycle carbon dioxide and turn it back into oxygen.
That’s right, and-
Yay!
Nature alone produces 32 times, every year, 32 times the amount of carbon dioxide than in the entire human production around the planet. And whats more, Data shows that the-
Hang on.
Human production cannot-
We’re burning so much-
And does not change the-
fossil fuel we’re changing-
Level of carbon dioxide-
The balance.
In the atmosphere.
Okay. I think you spoke over each other. Malcolm, just again.
Again what?
Just repeat what you were saying ’cause Mark, I think, spoke over you. We couldn’t hear you properly.
I believe in recycling and-
Yeah.
Nature itself recycles through the carbon cycle, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon is essential to all life in this planet. Every cell in Mark’s body contains carbon. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this planet. It and water vapour are essential for life. All forms of life on this planet. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas at 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere. It has no physical effect on temperatures at all.
All right, Mark?
Air, and also oxygen, blankets out the heat that’s being bombarded into the planet. We’re just changing the balance so much. These people just don’t get it. I just can’t believe people can be so thick as a society.
Hang on, lets be nice.
We need more carbon dioxide.
Let’s be respectful. It’s not about being thick. We’re talking ideology, we’re talking science, we’re talking-
All right.
It’s an important debate because it’s effectively divided our-
I’ll finish up with this.
Yeah?
I’ll finish up with this. Remember the smoking debate. They used to trot out all these people with white coats and clipboards saying “Oh, it’s not smoking. Two twins, one smoked and the other one didn’t. The one that smoked didn’t die, but the other one that died had cancer, so explain that.” They try and confuse you with figures. That’s what it is. But we’re changing the balance. And as I said before, all these things happened over millions of years, not the rate we’re doing. Not 200 years-
Yeah.
Millions of years.
All right, Malcolm?
Yeah, sure. Marcus, the use of any label like thick indicates that Mark-
Yeah.
Hasn’t got an argument that he can put together to counter the data.
Well, I think he did put an argument together, but.
The second thing, Marcus, is that raising smoking, which has got nothing to do with this. just shows that he hasn’t got an argument. Temperatures today are cooler than the 1880s and 1890s, when they were warmer 140 years ago. The longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was from the 1930s to 1976 when temperatures cooled. Since 1995, for 26 years, that’s more than a quarter of a century, temperatures have been flat yet China, India, America, Brazil, Russia are producing record quantities of carbon dioxide. When you consider nature’s El Nino cycles, there has been no warming trend at all for 26 years. And that conclusion is confirmed in NASA satellite temperature data.
All right, Mark? There is nothing unusual happening.
Mark?
Look at the extreme weather events that we’re getting now. As we talk, did you know last week in Canada, a place called Merit City, they had to evacuate 7,000 people because of the floods. Do you know in India last week they evacuated 200,000 people because the floods? This is what’s happening here. All these extreme weather events, and these people keep living in denial.
So Malcolm, Mark is suggesting climate changes has led into catastrophic floods, and we look here in Australia at the fires. Are you suggesting, Malcolm, that climate change has nothing to do with these severe climb of the severe environmental challenges faced by flood, fire, and?
Mark himself has failed to provide the evidence.
But there is evidence there.
Hang on, Marcus, I’m answering your question. The area of land burned-
Yeah. In the 2019 fires was much, much smaller than in the past. Even in the 1970s and much smaller than a hundred years ago. Much, much smaller. That’s the first point. The second point is that Antarctica has just had the record coldest six month period in its records, ever, ever.
Yeah.
And you can’t just go off… You notice, I don’t raise things like that, because that is weather. And the same with Canada having floods, we’ve always had floods. And if you look at the records from the Bureau of Meteorology, and you hear it on the news every night, oh, this is the heaviest flooding since in the last 50 years, what happened 51 years ago?
All right.
It was greater.
30 seconds each, just to finish. Mark, you first.
The weather events are getting more extreme because the oceans… I’ll just tell you. Okay, we’re in Australia. This is what’s happening. Up in Queensland they’ve cleared so much land the fertilizer’s washing into the water, feeding the Fido plankton. Fido meaning floating, plankton meaning plant life. That’s feeding the crown-of-thorns starfish. They’re munching their way through the barrier reef. Up in the gulf you’ve got hundreds of kilometres of the, what do you call them, mangroves have died off because it’s so hot. You’ve got Leeuwin Current floating in the coast of Western Australia was five degrees warmer-
All right.
than what it usually was. Five degrees!
Malcolm, last 30 seconds please.
Mark has failed to provide any evidence. Look, before we can provide any policy, you need to be able to quantify the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. No one anywhere in the world has done that. No one anywhere has quantified any effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. And thus, there is no basis for policy. Mark is just clutching at straws. Crown-of-thorn starfish come and go in cycles. And we’ve known that for decades and decades and decades.
All right.
We need to respect nature, not vilify nature.
Gentleman, thank you both. This has been very enlightening. Very interesting. I hope the people listening at home, and those that listen back to the podcast online, enjoy it. Thank you, Mark, and both of you for being a really good sport. I think Mark deserves kudos for taking you on, Malcolm considering others, including federal members of parliament, have refused to do so. So I think kudos to him.
I agree. I agree. Kudos to Mark. But one of the sad things is that Mark has failed to provide the evidence. What we need, Marcus-
All right.
Is to understand-
Yes.
That you need to provide the empirical data, proving the link between the human carbon dioxide and climate variability.
All right, guys.
No one has done that anywhere in the world.
All right, I have to go. We’ve got the news coming up. Thank you, gentlemen, both for your time. That’s the great climate debate.
Unreliable, intermittent wind and solar energy will leave Australian families sitting in the dark without coal-fired power to back them. ‘Renewables’ only farm taxpayer money, not energy.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note this government’s turn to the dark side. Pushing a zero carbon dioxide economy is gaining steam. ‘The dark side’ means sitting in the dark, because unreliable technologies like wind and solar will cause us all to be sitting in the dark, as is proven repeatedly overseas. These green boondoggles exist only to farm taxpayers’ money, not energy. It’s the ultimate irony that, when the Greens talk about a farm, they don’t mean one that grows food and fibre; their wind and solar farms are made from communist China’s industrial processes creating steel, fibreglass and concrete, the very things you can’t make with green power. The Greens vision for Australia has no integrity because they claim so-called science has no integrity. It does not exist.
It is 772days since I first challenged the former Greens Leader, Senator Di Natale, and the current Greens Leader in the Senate, Senator Waters, to provide the empirical scientific evidence justifying cutting carbon dioxide from human activity—nature’s pure, clean trace gas essential for all life on our beautiful planet. I challenged them to debate me on the science and on the corruption of science. Senator Waters has been running from my challenge for 11 years—since I first challenged her as a joint panellist at a Brisbane climate forum.
The Liberal Party should know that there’s no compromising with the Greens, who responded to the Prime Minister’s gutless, unfounded major shift in the way that any extortionist does: the Greens upped the ante. Rewarded, the Greens now call for 2035 carbon dioxide output to be 75 per cent of 2005 levels. Today, the media is reporting that a deal has been done between the Nationals and Prime Minister Morrison so he can jet to Glasgow with net zero and get his pat on the head from the elites, from his globalist masters. Mark my words, net zero will become ‘Nat zero’. Minister Hunt won’t even be able to claim the resulting death of the National Party as a COVID death; it’s very assuredly suicide.
As a result of the government’s capitulation to green lunacy, many things will happen. Prime agricultural land will be put over to farming carbon rather than food, increasing feral animals and noxious weeds on productive land. Abandoned. The Howard-Anderson Liberal-National government’s theft of property rights to implement the UN’s Kyoto protocol will now be buried, so it cannot be restored, and there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation. Buried. Farmers will experience more green tape and more blue UN tape, stealing more of their rights to use the land they bought and own. Family farms will disappear, a process well underway already. No new base-load power plants will be constructed. Mining industries will shut down and regional cities will be gutted.
Already, the cost of renewables to Australian taxpayers is $19 billion a year—$1,300 a year for each household. To implement this agenda, this burden will more than double. It will savage the poor as a capricious, regressive tax. Every job created in the green economy costs three jobs in the productive economy—jobs lost to communist China. I expect we’ll hear more about so-called clean smelting using hydrogen, an exhibit in the sideshow alley of green dishonesty. It will never be feasible without taxpayer subsidies or extreme inflation in the cost of building materials and housing. Adding the reduction in government revenue from a devastated regional economy, new energy subsidies and new subsidies for industries producing green boondoggles, the net zero policy’s mountain of taxpayer debt will be visible from space. Net zero will require as much taxpayer money as we are now spending on health or education. What will that do to the health and education budget? Or is the Prime Minister planning to ‘borrow, tax and spend’ in the worst traditions of the Labor Party?
Unreliable, expensive, parasitic malinvestment in so-called renewables—monstrosities that only last 15 years before they become toxic heavy metal industrial waste that cannot be safely disposed of. Every solar facility and every wind turbine in existence will need to be replaced before 2040. What a windfall that will be for the corporations that own this parliament—tens of billions of dollars in construction and operational subsidies to rebuild the national generating capacity from scratch, for no impact on earth’s temperature! It is a great reset not just of electricity generation but of our entire economy. We’re not transitioning from dirty industry to clean industry; we’re transitioning from a somewhat free economy to a controlled economy. The winners will be large corporations; the losers will be every Australian trying to get ahead to survive. It is madness, it is inhuman, it is insanity. We will continue to oppose this nonsense.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/mG4S1OWB33I/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-10-22 14:14:172021-10-22 14:14:29Net-zero means dark times ahead, literally
A broken and smouldering Australia is hidden beneath the Greens’ lies about a solar powered utopia. If we buy into this nonsense, the country will be destroyed.
Transcript
How would Australia fare under a Greens government? In ‘Greensland’, water will be limited to 120 litres per day, per person. After that, smart meters will shut the water off. With no water allowed for gardening, home gardens will die. Rural restrictions will shut down family farms. Productive land will be used to farm carbon, breeding feral pests and noxious weeds, not food.
The Greens’ policy of a smaller farming footprint will lead to big corporations centralising near-city production of food-like substances sold through corporate supermarkets. End-to-end corporate supply chains will exploit this monopoly to create deliberate shortages and raise prices.
The Greens’ policy of unlimited immigration will make these shortages of everything worse to enable more government control. Family homes will be turned into so-called environmentally friendly small homes—boxes—stacked in high-rise blocks in megacities with mass transit replacing the freedom of private car ownership. Travel for recreation will be limited to interurban travel; the bush locked up and returned to the gyre. Electricity will be rationed. Smart meters will remotely switch off unauthorised activity. Real wages will fall as businesses increase prices to meet rising power bills, brown-outs and green imposts.
In Greensland, gender is not related to genitals and can change daily unless a child permanently changes their gender from one to the other using gender mutilation surgery. The inconsistency of that logic escapes the Greens. Sex education will start in kindergarten and drive the Greens war on gender. The Greens are blindly advocating forced vaccinations that enrich foreign drug companies. My Body, My Choice is no longer a Greens’s value. Greens-land is a world of total corporate control without freedom, without joy, without opportunity—a dystopian nightmare for our families and our communities.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/mG4S1OWB33I/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-10-22 13:58:322021-10-22 13:59:38‘Greensland’ just a bad fairytale
The one thing we have never had in the Senate is empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut.
I have repeatedly challenged the greens to debate me on climate change. They refuse to because they don’t have the facts.
Transcript
So far we’ve had a global warming emergency, then a climate change emergency, then a climate catastrophe emergency. Now we’ve got a climate collapse emergency. One thing we’ve never had is any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. I first challenged Senator Waters to debate me and to provide the scientific evidence 10½ years ago. She immediately declined. She declined again in 2016 and again 602 days ago in the Senate. There has been nothing since, because there is no such evidence justifying the collapse of our electricity sector. What is threatened with extinction here is not our planet; it is our civilisation and it is science.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JbOQ3oto85k/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-17 12:24:392021-05-17 12:28:33Debate me on climate – Challenge ignored for 602 days
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I need to say clearly that the climate change agenda seeks to mislead well-meaning Australians with pseudoscience to introduce and hide an economic and social agenda that Australians would otherwise reject. Senator Rice’s motion does mischief. Australia does not have a carbon budget. The Senate has not voted for a carbon budget. The coalition’s supposed climate action plan cap that underpins government policy does not include a carbon budget.
Our international agreements do not include a carbon budget. The only place one can find a climate budget is in the Greens’ own little parallel universe, where the aspiring elites in the Greens are in control of an economy that is not only green but rancid. The devastation that will be caused to our economy by the measures the Greens propose in order to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will destroy our economy, destroy jobs and steal opportunity from our children.
The insult to real scientists is that Senator Rice calls climate change a science based agenda. No, it’s not—definitely not. The argument in favour of a looming climate disaster is based on unvalidated computer models—nothing else. These are the same models that have failed repeatedly and miserably to predict temperature movement.
The largest single driver of climate is the sun, which has moved into a solar minimum that is tracking the Dalton minimum, when the Thames froze over and crops around the world failed. In fact, crops are failing now. Northern China is experiencing widespread hunger, as exceptional cold destroyed the winter cereal crop. Australia, on the other hand, has moved from a dry cycle to a wet cycle. This is not climate change; it’s a natural cycle.
I have challenged the Greens on many occasions to prove their position with empirical scientific evidence—data—and they have repeatedly been unable to. Indeed, today is day No. 502 of my challenge in the Senate to the Greens to simply provide the scientific evidence for their claims and for their alarm and to debate me on the science. Look at them all, looking at their phones; they won’t look at me. I challenged the current Greens Senate leader 10¼ years ago, and nothing.
That is more than a decade, and nothing. I notice that world-renowned scientist Tony Heller, who relies on solid data, has today challenged the Greens to a debate on social media. That’s not going to happen either. And now we see the Nats. Well, that’s another joke. So the Greens have no carbon budget and they have no idea.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/pxJzs7PYULI/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-02-03 10:41:252021-02-03 13:40:19Greens live in a parallel universe
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.
