Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts claims that Climate Change has no scientific basis. It is just the latest tax for our governments to transfer wealth elsewhere. Senator Roberts has just made available his submission to the Senate. He calls for the Senate to reject the Climate Change Bill 2022 due to the complete lack of cost-benefit analysis. His arguments and documentation are extensive. These are some of the extracts we found compelling.
What Australia Currently Pays for believing in Climate Change
“Australia is spending far in excess of the $1.4 billion a year that Treasury estimates. The true annual sum for energy alone is at least $19 billion a year, comprising:
• Government subsidies to wind and solar and AEMO management — $7 billion
• New transmission to accommodate increased intermittent supplies — $3 billion
• New private spending on wind and solar — $9 billion “
“By 2030, at this annual rate Australia will have wasted some $200 billion and may not hit Matt Kean’s 50 per cent reduction in emissions, which would require 50 per cent renewables as well as subsidies for methane reduction from animals and plants, and the subsidies to accelerate any trend that exists towards electrifying the vehicle fleet.”
—From the Australian Spectator
Where it all started
Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts in his submission, Attachment 1 referred to the following: “Climate and associated energy policies often contradict science and have their origins in politics not science as the following points reveal:
To comply with the United Nations 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Howard-Anderson Liberal-National coalition government introduced the Renewable Energy Target (RET). They were the first large federal party to have a policy calling for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS or Carbon Dioxide Tax).
They deliberately bypassed the constitution in a deal with state premiers to steal farmers’ rights to use their own land in order for the Liberal-Nationals federal government to comply with the 1997 UN Kyoto Protocol.
In doing so, the Liberal-National government got around our constitution’s Section 51, Clause 31 requiring farmers to be compensated for loss of their rights to use their own land.
Yet in 2013, six years after leaving office, former Prime Minister John Howard delivered the annual address in London of the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation in which he confessed that he was agnostic on climate science, meaning he did not have the necessary climate science to justify his party’s policy and his government’s legislation. Thus, the government that started and entrenched climate and associated energy policies did not do so based on science;”
The “4000 scientists” in white lab coats that gave evidence to the UN for climate change… turned out to be just FIVE (Massive Deception)
” Kevin Rudd’s government in 2007 followed the Howard-Anderson government’s lead and turbo- charged climate and energy policy. In doing so he cited his false claim that 4,000 scientists in white lab coats had provided scientific evidence as the basis for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (UN IPCC) 2007 report.
In correspondence with him and his office I referenced the UN IPCC’s own data that showed only five UN IPCC reviewers of the UN IPCC report’s sole chapter claiming warming due to carbon dioxide from human activity endorsed the claim.
There is doubt they were scientists. None of the UN IPCC’s six reports contains logical scientific points proving carbon dioxide from human activity causes damaging climate change, yet all have summaries for policymakers stating or implying the reports do.
None of the many UN IPCC reports provide logical scientific points quantifying the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather factor”.
—Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts. (Submission attachment)
Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts has called on the Senate to reject the Climate Change Bill 2022 due to the complete lack of cost-benefit analysis.
The following has been lifted from the transcript of a recent interview with Chris Spicer from the Primodcast. It is a deep dive on Climate Change hysteria and why the upcoming Climate Change Bill for Australia should not proceed.
An Australian Scientist’s view of The Green Argument
Senator Malcolm Roberts explained: “What the argument is, their argument, the climate alarmists, they’re saying that the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas is causing catastrophic global warming and it’s going to destroy the planet and freeze us and fry us and everything. The storms are going to increase. “
“So let’s just have a look at the basic message. Hydrocarbon fuels contain atoms of hydrogen and atoms of carbon, hydrocarbon. And when they burn in oxygen in the air, they use the oxygen. So the hydrogen atoms react with the oxygen atoms to form H2O, which is water.”
“And the carbon atoms react with the oxygen to form CO2, which is carbon dioxide.”
“To be perfectly clear and complete, sometimes if it’s not burnt properly, you’ll get carbon monoxide, CO, that’s one carbon and one oxygen, carbon monoxide. And that’s a toxic poison, but that’s not what their issue is. If you burn it efficiently, you get very little carbon monoxide, but still don’t put the exhaust from your car into your car because you kill yourself. That’s carbon monoxide.”
Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts went onto say:
“But the majority of gas that comes out is carbon dioxide and water vapour.
Now and then when you find hydrocarbon fuels, they’re found in nature is coal, oil and natural gas, they have impurities because of the way they were formed in nature. They were laid down millions of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago. So you might have sulphur in it, you might have other elements in it. And when you burn sulphur in oxygen, you get sulphur dioxide, which is a pollutant. You might get nitrous oxides, which are pollutants. You might get particulates, which are pieces of soot basically, they’re pollutants. That’s what used to cause the smoke. You’ll notice these days in most cities, they don’t have much smoke anymore. That’s because the particulates get scrubbed out at the power station. The sulphur dioxide gets scrubbed out at the power station. The nitrous oxides get scrubbed out.
So that’s why these days at a coal fired power station or a gas fired power station, you’ll see a chimney with nothing coming out of it because water vapour’s invisible except on a cold day when it forms steam, and carbon dioxide’s always invisible. “
“So what they’re saying is that the carbon dioxide which is coming out of smoke stacks, coming out of industries, coming out of power stations, coming out of cars, coming out of cows farting, cows belching, coming out of your nose right now because your carbon dioxide, the air has 0.04%. It’s got bigger all of it…”
“They’re about limiting the carbon dioxide because carbon dioxide is in everything. Now what’s their science based on? It’s based on bullshit. There is no science at all that they have ever cited.
What they do, Chris, is they say, “We had a storm last night. That was due to mankind’s climate change. Nothing different. They had hurricanes going to New York. That was due to climate change.” Bullshit. Because they’ve had hurricanes going, tracking all the way to Canada. They know that from human civilization and when the United States was developed, we know that there’s nothing unusual at all going on in the climate.
But what they do is they tell lies about the Barrier Reef. You’ve probably just seen the article that says the Barrier Reef’s in fine shape. It’s got record coral cover in the north and the central regions and the south, they’re only affected by Crown-of-storms starfish, which is entirely natural and cyclical. So there’s nothing happening in the Barrier Reef.
There’s nothing happening with storm activity. It’s no more frequent storms, no more severe storms, nothing happening with droughts. They’re no more severe than in the past. The biggest drought we’ve had, most severe drought was 1901 in our recorded history and perhaps 1920s to 40s. There’s nothing changing in snowfall. They just vary. And what they’ll do is they’ll pick a year or a month when we have natural variation, it’s up, and they’ll say, “Oh, this temperature’s high.” But they don’t tell you when the temperature’s low. So there’s nothing. They’ve got no evidence.”
No evidence of climate change
Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts went onto say: “We’ve had 25 years, the most authoritative temperature record for the whole planet is NASA’s satellites. And they’re showing that since 1995, 27 years ago, if you remove the El Nino and La Nina cycles of temperature, the temperature has been flat globally. Flat.
If you look at the temperature records for our country, the temperatures were warmer in the 1880s and 1890s. I said 1880s, 1890s, than today.
United States, it was warmer in the 1930s, 1940s than today.
So they’re fabricating this. They’re just telling lies. And so what they use though, is they make lies up about the Barrier Reef, about the polar bears, the pandas, the cuddly koalas, all the bullshit that they can come up with.
There’s nothing there that they have ever presented any evidence. It’s based on nothing it’s based on just simply wanting to control the agenda, to control your energy, control your food, control your water, and control your property.”
Two accidental global experiments that proved humans don’t affect carbon dioxide levels
Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts: “We’ve had two natural experiments. In 2008, we had the global financial crisis, which you’d remember. The following year around the world, except for Australia where we were exporting record amounts of minerals, we had a major recession in most countries.
So when you have a major recession, you use less industrial fuels. So the use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas decreased, which meant the amount of carbon dioxide that humans produced decreased. And we know that for a fact. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing.
In 2020 we had the almost depression around the world due to government restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government restrictions on COVID. And we had the same decrease in fuels, same decrease in human carbon dioxide, but the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing.”
Nature Swamps Human Activity
Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts: “So what that tells you is that we do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature does. Nature alone. It produces 32 times more every year. We don’t even know how much carbon dioxide is produced by nature in some years, it’s just phenomenal. It swamps human activity.
But the second thing is nature alone controls the level because there’s more carbon dioxide in dissolved form in the oceans, 50 to 70 times more in the oceans than in the entire earth’s atmosphere. Slight changes in the sun’s activity lead to slight changes in the ocean temperature, which lead to either carbon dioxide being absorbed or being expelled from the oceans.”
Summary in Part
“So we’ve had two experiments which prove that if we tax people, shut down industry, it won’t matter a damn, because nature controls the level in the atmosphere.
But it’s very important to talk about carbon dioxide and human carbon dioxide. They’ve never been able to show any impact whatsoever from human carbon dioxide.
The whole of these policies are built on bullshit. To have a good policy what you need to do is you need to say, for every unit of carbon dioxide from human activity, it has this effect on temperature, or this effect on snowfall, this effect on droughts, this effect on storms.
They (Climate Change Alarmists) have never been able to specify that. If you haven’t got that specific quantified effect, you can’t make up a policy about what you’ll do to cut it.
And you can’t cost the benefits, you can’t cost the cost to industry.”
Climate Change is just a tax
Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts: “So what’s happening is we have gone ahead with a policy that has never, ever been specified, never.
And the other thing about it is that without that specific quantity of human carbon dioxide and its effect, you cannot tell how your policies are being effective or not.
You just don’t know how you’re going. So it’s based on bullshit and it’s based on an objective to take money out of your pocket and to control what you do, what you eat eventually, what energy you use, how you use it, what you spend your money on.
That’s all of this, it’s a tax.
The costs to industry are huge. The cost on families is enormous. And the cost to our inflation is stupendous, because electricity is used in everything. It’s used in services, not just manufacturing and transport.
Government is now the largest transferor of wealth from the poor and from the middle class to the wealthy. And it’s deliberate.”
The Conclusion to Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts‘ submission:
“After 14 years studying and investigating climate science, along with in-depth research into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and profound cross-examining of CSIRO and BOM, we know there is no empirical scientific data as evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity has changed or will change temperature or any climate or weather factor.
Importantly, the effect, if any, of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variable has never been quantified.
In its presentations to my team and I, the CSIRO stated that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity and that there is nothing unprecedented about our planet’s temperature. Therefore, there is no scientific justification for any government to introduce policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide from human activity.
We are calling for all climate-based policies and subsidies for renewable energy to be rescinded. The consequences of climate alarmism cost the Australian economy in productivity and growth, and in our ability to compete in the highly competitive international arena.
Clearly, it is time to change our approach to climate change. These Bills must be rejected.”
EDITOR: No-one in Parliament has wanted to debate this Australian Scientist, Senator Malcolm Roberts. Nor has any elected official or Government instrumentality provided tangible evidence of Climate Change.
Everyone is on the bandwagon of wanting to look like they are doing the right thing for the planet. Thank God for people like Senator Roberts.
We were impressed by the submission above made by Senator Malcolm Roberts. Blind Freddie can see this is just another wealth transfer lark from the Australian Government to elsewhere and for no ultimate purpose. It is true, Climate Change is just a global tax and we are being sold a lie. We are warned that as we approached End Times it would be a time of great deceptions. This deception is truly on a global scale and has almost taken on the fervour of a religion.
Sources:
Photo: ROBERT SHAKESPEARE
Information:
