As the grandson and son of coal miners I grew up fascinated by mining. I accompanied dad to work, built model mines and loved listening to his stories about his work underground. The coal industry has provided for my family over three generations and to this industry I owe my existence, as does most of humanity who enjoy prosperity.
Coal miners, by nature, have a deep sense of justice. We seek the truth, and I cannot abide injustice. It pains me when I see coal mining, the industries associated with natural resources, and the families who rely on mining and manufacturing destroyed by the agendas of so-called scientists, who contradict the facts and empirical evidence.
Eight years ago my desire for justice got the better of me after government decisions were being made on the advice of the CSIRO and other government agencies who supposedly were obliged to use science, not opinions, as the basis of their work. On the initiation of a number of ‘angel philanthropists’, we started the Galileo Movement to assist in our work. We toiled researching, writing a lot of letters, demanding answers. We were usually stonewalled.
The coal industry had provided well for my family, we had enough savings to enable us to continuously devote our lives to the work of protecting Australian industry. My work for the Galileo movement was always voluntary. Our work was important to the livelihoods of fellow Australians who were not as lucky as us. Mining and industry is our heritage, so we have an obligation to our culture and nation to defend where we came from and provide for those generations to come. Australia’s wealth has always been in our natural resources and agriculture. Current government policies place the prosperity from these resources at risk.
The risks to our prosperity posed by climate alarmists are existential, omnipresent and frightening.
My election to the Parliament as a Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party Senator has ensured the continued work of exposing climate change lies started 8 years ago. Specifically there is now an office from which I have the ability to demand answers on the behalf of the many millions of Australian who have questions about climate science, have lost their jobs because of the Green’s policies, are forgotten by the major parties, and have been stood over if they dare to speak out about what is happening to our nation.
On Monday 26 September 2016 in Sydney my team and I went face-to-face with senior staff from the CSIRO. We had requested a presentation on the empirical evidence — the measured data, physical observations, and hard facts — proving that carbon dioxide from human activity detrimentally affects climate.
As a result of our meeting with the CSIRO we produced a report titled On Climate, CSIRO Lacks Empirical Proof. Some startling admissions were made by the alarmists at the CSIRO which were catalogued. Billions of dollars have been wasted on mothballed white elephants such as useless desalination plants and other public policy failures, making our report the start of a journey to dismantle this destructive and terrible industry.
The heart of science is objectivity based on data and logic. Empirical evidence decides science, not whims, unfounded beliefs and opinions, votes, fashion, bullies, money or emotion. Dr Marshall of the CSIRO agreed on the need to provide empirical evidence and to do so with logical reasoning that shows statistical significance.
Previous CSIRO reports based on computer models contain the following disclaimer:
This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real world that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility is accepted by the CSIRO for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions, or actions in reliance of this report.
Australians should be able to rely on the information from their government bodies and institutions such as the CSIRO. Everyday Australians have lost jobs, paid higher taxes, wasted opportunities, lost businesses and frittered away scarce resources on climate related policies.
How can there be confidence in the CSIRO and its research if their models are not, in their words, to be trusted or used? Escalating the concerns about the failure of modelling is the admission of CSIRO at our September 26 meeting that they would not use the word ‘danger’ to describe human release of carbon dioxide. ‘Danger’ and ‘catastrophe’ are words of policy makers according to the CSIRO. We had unearthed the startling discovery not only could their models not be trusted, that even if they did make claims, those claims could not be reasonably classified as posing any ‘danger’.
Ultimately it’s policy makers who are using the language of ‘danger’ and ‘catastrophe’ to frighten the public into their unscientific way of thinking. The simple act of using hyperbolic language has distorted science and ensured the shutdown of debate about climate reality.
Inflamed political language aside, we turned our attention to the actual information that is provided by the CSIRO. The CSIRO relies on unscientific Australian and overseas remodelling of data that have made warming trends from actual cooling trends. Ultimately they failed to do their due diligence on the data on which they rely. The CSIRO’s approach on climate has serious scientific deficiencies.
At the core of our concerns was always how the CSIRO’s evidence presented to us contradicted empirical climate evidence. There is no justification for saying that human carbon dioxide output determines carbon dioxide levels in the air.
On a seasonal and annual basis changes in carbon dioxide levels follow changes in temperature. This means that carbon dioxide cannot drive temperature and that temperature likely drives carbon dioxide levels. This is consistent with and supported by Henry’s Law and an understanding of the spatial distribution of the oceans across the southern hemisphere versus the northern hemisphere as explained by Professor Lance Endersbee.
On every empirical test, the CSIRO fails to remotely explain any human causation of earth’s temperature variations.
Assisting in my CSIRO enquiries were people such as internationally eminent Canadian climatologist, geographer and environmentalist Professor Tim Ball. Also assisting was American scientist, engineer, investigator and researcher Mr Tony Heller, and Australian scientist, engineer and inventor Mr Peter Bobroff who was made a member of the Order of Australia for his services to research. One Nation has built a network of international connections who will bring to our nation’s attention the dangers and follies of the government’s green agenda. The Australian public are calling for action on these destructive policies.
The Australian public’s needs include, collectively: safety and security of self, family and society, care of self and for others, contribution to protecting our planet. And, individually: truth and accuracy; reassurance on climate; validation and belonging. Sound policy meets these needs and is based on solid cost-benefit analysis. All parliamentarians’ responsibilities must pass a test; congruency with the best interests of the people they serve and ensure human needs are met.
The policies emanating from the work of the CSIRO do not meet any human needs, and run counterproductive to human development and prosperity. It is incumbent on our government and parliament to ensure we change the course of our nation and protect the needs of our citizens.
The next step in our research into climate change alarmists will be a focus on the devastating economic impacts their policies are having on everyday Australians, including higher taxes, destruction of industry, removal of sovereignty and implementation of appalling control mechanisms limiting personal freedom.
Malcolm Roberts is a One Nation Senator for Queensland
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.