- [Malcolm] Thank you, madam,
acting deputy president,
as a servant to the people
of Queensland and Australia.
I note the Moran report cannot
be sensibly refuted because
it presents the government's
own costs from budget programmes
and government agency reports.
The Moran report, which we
released Sunday week ago
titled, "The hidden cost of
climate policies and renewables"
shows that the added
cost of net electricity
is $13 billion each year.
And that's $1,300 per
household every year.
The government says renewable
solar and wind energy,
or as they should be
called, intermittent energy,
is 6.5% of a typical
household electricity bill.
The reality from the
government's own costs is 39%,
six times higher, six times higher.
The government says the
portion is $90 each year
when it is really $536.
And within that, and
with indirect cost added,
a staggering $1,300 each
year for each household.
No wonder the government stopped
providing the consolidated costs.
The policy of funding the
parasitic intermittents
that add costs to other
forms of generation
like hydro, coal and gas,
means that for every solar and wind job,
2.2 jobs are lost in
the productive economy.
Our economy and our lifestyles
are being fundamentally
changed through decarbonizing.
And that is really de-industrializing.
To a UN agenda in accord with
the UN's 1996 Kyoto Protocol,
and the UN's 2015 Paris Agreement.
It's killing our food security.
Killing our manufacturing.
Killing our economic resilience.
Killing our productive capacity.
Killing our economic and
national sovereignty.
It perpetuates our
dependence on other nations,
our loss of security.
Whereas before these UN agreements,
we were as a nation,
independent and secure.
That leads to another report titled,
"Restoring scientific integrity."
That I released yesterday.
In turn,
that raises significant
and fundamental questions
of the basis for the massive subsidies
on renewables and climate.
In 2016, '17, '19, and '20.
I had four presentations from the CSIRO.
And after each I cross-examined,
CSIRO's climate science team.
I'll share what we learned
from CSIRO's own admissions.
And by the way, recently,
I cross-examined 17 internationally
respected scientists in
climatology, physics,
astrophysics, statistical analysis,
geologists, mathematicians,
and computer modelling experts,
meteorology, C-levels, Earth's sciences.
These eminent, capable and
authoritative scientists,
have confirmed the conclusions
that are now shared with you
from our report titled,
"Restoring scientific integrity."
These are some of the
conclusions from the report.
The CSIRO has never
said that carbon dioxide
from human activities are danger.
Never.
CSIRO has admitted today's temperatures
are not unprecedented.
CSIRO has cited papers that do not show
the rate of temperature
rise is unprecedented,
CSIRO relies on unvalidated models,
giving erroneous projections.
CSIRO has never quantified
any specific impact from
human carbon dioxide.
And without that, there can be no policy.
CSIRO has relied on discredited
and poor quality papers
on temperature and carbon dioxide.
CSIRO revealed a little understanding
of the papers they cited.
And that was very embarrassing for them.
CSIRO admits to doing no due diligence
on reports and data they cite.
Some of those from overseas,
some from within Australia.
CSIRO allows politicians
to misrepresent CSIRO without correction.
So they participate in
perpetuating the scam.
CSIRO misled parliament.
Let's look at something in
particular, one of their papers.
CSIRO admitted that today's temperatures
are not unprecedented after we tore apart
the Marcotte paper.
It failed under our cross examination.
They submitted the Marcotte
paper as showing something
unprecedented in its climate
in the last 10,000 years.
That paper was admitted
by its lead author,
that he said that the 20th
century temperature uptick that
they put it, that they show in the paper
is not robust and not representative
of global temperatures.
It was fabricated.
Initially the author himself as a pH,
in his PhD thesis, showed
no temperature uptick.
He was then joined by two UN authors.
And that produced the Marcotte 2013 paper.
And that's where the temperature
uptick was fabricated.
And that's what CSIRO relied on.
Willie Soon, who is an astrophysicist
and geo-scientist said,
"two weeks after publication,
"this Marcotte paper was
completely destroyed.
"And yet someone as high up as CSIRO
"trying to say this paper is
legitimate and can be used
"as a supporting scientific evidence
"is scientific malpractice."
He also, the paper also admits
that its process that it uses,
cannot find temperature
trends shorter than 300 years.
And yet here's the CSIRO
citing this as proof.
And so they withdrew the paper.
I could go on and talk
about the Harris paper
that they submitted about carbon dioxide.
That shows that the carbon
dioxide today is unprecedented.
Well, that is false because
the current 60 year blip
of carbon dioxide levels rising.
In fact, is just a rise of 0.009%
from 0.032% to 0.041%.
I'll say that again.
A 0.009% rise in just 60 years.
When the gaps in the ice cores
that Harris cobbled together
are 1000 years minimum,
and up to 6,000 years,
you would never see this rise.
Then after they withdrew Harris,
CSIRO submitted a paper
to us, Feldman 2015.
And that paper confirmed
that Harris was poor.
It was poor science and
identified the same problems
that we identified.
I mean, the CSRO is putting out a paper
and then another paper
that contradicts it.
But none of the papers CSIRO
sided, specified the amount,
if any, of human causation.
CSIRO had not even read the papers
or understood the papers
nor done its due diligence.
Thirdly, when it all is stripped away,
the CSIRO relies on
unvalidated computer models
based on limited and incomplete
understanding of climate
and giving erroneous projections.
They forecast, these models forecast,
that the upper troposphere will warm
and get moister, more moist.
And yet it actually is
the reverse of that.
It's cooler and dryer.
The models cannot understand,
cannot comprehend,
cannot portray anything about clouds.
And that's a significant
climate variable variability.
That can not resent updrafts.
And yet this is what the
government relies upon for policy.
The only thing they rely on
because CSIRO has not got the evidence.
The empirical evidence
that should be used.
Models are not science.
They're not empirical evidence.
They don't produce any
confidence levels at all.
So there's no validation of these models.
They're in fact, they're
unvalidated models, full stop.
Professor John Christie,
one of the world's leading
climate climate scientist and
the climatologists at
the Alabama, has said,
that he has closely
examined CSIRO excess models
and found them below
par, as the projections
simply do not match what we
actually see in the real world.
"Climate is so complex.
"Our ignorance of the climate
system is enormous and the
"myriad of models have not
even agreed on a key variable,
"not even agreed on carbon
dioxide sensitivities."
Dr. David Evans, one of
the world's top modellers
and an Australian says,
CSIRO climate model
should not be used for policy
as they are not right yet.
I have done a freedom
of information search
and a parliamentary library search
that proves no CSIRO or
Bureau of Meteorology document
has been given to ministers
or MPS over the last 15 years,
that contains evidence that
we are affecting the climate.
I'll just go to now, the
CSIRO response to my report.
Get this, The CSIRO
chief executive came out
with a response to my
report before the report,
before my report was released.
And that's his report,
his response to my report
is not even based on observation or facts.
It doesn't bother with the facts CSIRO,
the CSIRO's chief executive
response yesterday
simply recycled his letter
to me dated 4th of March
in response to my letter
of 28th of February.
The chief executive attempts to use
nine substitutes for science, that are,
there instead of science, and
then masquerade as science.
He uses pseudoscience.
He diverts into implying my
letter smears CSIRO's people
when it does not.
I mean, this was last
February and it's false.
He appeals to a name or a brand
or an authority, in saying
that CSIRO is a prestigious organisation.
Well, that is not science.
There's no data.
There is repeatedly, no
data, no data, no data.
His comments are unsupported
and therefore unfounded.
He ignores completely
the facts we've provided.
The chief executive has
already dug himself into a hole
and his responses to dig deeper.
And we can say that now
the onus is on government,
which is where it should
be to provide the empirical
evidence, the science that
justify their policies.
We can also say to them, it's
futile for the government
because we have the data and
it will eventually break.
Data always prevails.
Truth eventually emerges,
it will drag a Lamaze kicking
and screaming into reality.
And One Nation will be there to protect
the people of Queensland and Australia.
- Thank you, Senator
Robert its your turn--
