Watch an Aussie Politician Squirm as Malcolm Roberts demands Evidence Climate Change is a Problem

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

One Nation federal senator Malcolm Roberts wants a simple answer from the Aussie CSIRO: what is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change?

So far, the answer appears to be CO2 is a problem, because other people think other people think CO2 is a problem.

Malcolm Roberts also provided an interview with “The Outsiders”, describing the background and allegedly shoddy CSIRO science behind this question and squirm session, including the CSIRO’s alleged utter reliance on the discredited Marcott 2013 paper as the basis of CSIRO claims of “unprecedented temperature rise”.

Marcott himself said the following about using his paper to draw conclusions about industrial era temperature rise;

20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Marcott’s original Q&A which contains that quote is available on RealClimate.

The CSIRO published the following statement on their website.

Statement in response to comments made by Senator Malcolm Roberts. 

CSIRO stands behind its researchers and the integrity of the research produced by them. CSIRO’s demonstrated record of scientific excellence is underpinned by our commitment to the full and transparent participation in the scientific peer review process which results in evidence-based science of the highest quality, including making data publicly available.

CSIRO is in the top 0.1 per cent of the world for its four core fields of science, and in the world’s top 1 per cent for the other 14 fields. We rank in the top 3 of the world’s national science agencies for our impact. 

CSIRO’s climate briefings to Senator Roberts as well as subsequent responses to his questions are publicly available on the Senate website  .

Read more: https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2020/Response-to-Senator-Roberts

From Senator Malcolm Roberts description of his senate video (top video):

This afternoon I asked questions to the Prime Minister via Senator Corman.

And even though I had just told Senator Corman that the CSIRO has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy, he still supports them 100%.

In fact he gave them a glowing endorsement.

QUESTION 1. Thank you, Mr President.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In 2016, 17, 19 and 20 I cross-examined CSIRO’s climate research team on four presentations to me.

That revealed:

• CSIRO has never said CO2 from human activity is a danger;
• CSIRO admitted today’s temperatures are NOT unprecedented;
• CSIRO’s cited papers do NOT show rate of temp rise is unprecedented;
• CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact from human CO2;
• CSIRO relies on unvalidated, erroneous models;
• CSIRO relied on discredited papers;
• CSIRO showed little understanding of papers cited;
• CSIRO admits to no due diligence on reports & data;
• CSIRO allows politicians to misrepresent CSIRO without correction;
• Fifteen highly respected international scientists verified our conclusions What is the basis for the government’s climate and energy policies?

QUESTION 2. Your ministers for climate and energy and preceding Lib-Nationals and Labor-Greens govts claimed that climate and renewable energy policies are based on CSIRO advice, yet CSIRO’s climate team admitted to me that CSIRO has never stated carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and when asked for the source of that political claim suggested I ask politicians and ministers.
On what basis is your govt claiming we need to cut the carbon dioxide from farming, industry, transport and driving cars?

QUESTION 3. The CSIRO climate research team’s position ultimately relies on unvalidated and erroneous computer models that are not suitable as a basis for policy. In implying, falsely, that they have confidence in the models yet have never assigned a quantitatively calculated confidence level, CSIRO has misled you. Will your government hold an independent inquiry into the so-called science that is supposedly the basis of your climate and energy policies?

When future historians try to trace the chain of events which led to the squandering of trillions of dollars on green boondoggles, when our descendants try to identify the chain evidence which was used to justify such expenditure, they will fail. Because there is no actual evidence to be found.

Our descendants will recognise the climate movement for what it is; one of the great collective mass insanities, like Tulip mania or the South Sea Bubble. They will marvel that millions of people as a group abandoned common sense and followed the herd, for reasons probably even they could never clearly explain.


Additional information from Dr. Willie Soon:

Here is the report:
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/200831-Examination-of-CSIRO-Evidence-for-Climate-Policies.pdf  

Here is the press release: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/senator-roberts-calls-on-csiro-head-to-resign/

Here is the media conference: https://youtu.be/QIWZSjQ18CY

Here is one single coverage I can see from Sky News: https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6185920949001

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

255 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 1, 2020 11:25 am

As an old school atmospheric scientist who retired many years ago from the EPA’s Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory, I favor the author of this blog. I trust his honesty. You can check my credentials by googling “Fred H. Haynie”. If you wish to discuss science, visit my WordPress site, Climate Changes It is a waste of time and space to call each other names on WattsUpWithThat.

Reply to  Fred Haynie
September 1, 2020 11:24 pm

Hi Fred!
You could check my scientific site (pjcarson2015.wordpress.com) for
Chapters 1: Showing the non-influence of the IR absorbing gases on climate.
Chapter 2: The major causes of changing climate.
(Largely variable heat escaping from tectonic boundaries.)
Chapters 4: Cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons.
(Largely variable heat escaping from tectonic boundaries.)
Chapter 5: Ocean pH.
(Largely affected by variable H2S => H2SO4 emissions from tectonic boundaries. Does wonders to coral reefs!)

You might guess my PhD is in physical chemistry.

Reply to  Peter Carson
September 2, 2020 6:07 am

It seems that we share much in common. I will review your web site. Pleases “peer review” my web site and make constructive commits.

ResourceGuy
September 1, 2020 2:27 pm

Here is a sample of what it will look like when the climate change crisis models are quietly debunked years from now after the carbon taxes have been permanently embedded into social spending budgets.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-reserve-we-got-it-wrong-on-postcrisis-rate-hikes-201428730.html

PaulH
September 1, 2020 3:50 pm

That politician could be replaced by an MP3 file playing on an iPod and no one would notice any difference.

Loydo
Reply to  PaulH
September 1, 2020 4:24 pm

Roberts?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
September 1, 2020 5:51 pm

No, Gorman.. you mindless twit…

Like you, he had absolutely no answer to the FACT that CSIRO, or anyone else for that matter…

…. CANNOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE for warming by atmospheric CO2

Reply to  fred250
September 1, 2020 6:04 pm

???????

Think you have the wrong guy!

fred250
Reply to  fred250
September 1, 2020 6:44 pm

Cormann, not Gorman !

Typo and spelling error in one word…. LOL !!

Herbert
September 1, 2020 4:35 pm

There are a number of additional questions that Malcolm Roberts could ask CSIRO which would drive home his points-
1. Q: Is today’s temperature warming or cooling ?
A: How long is a piece of climate string. Whether one perceives a warming or cooling trend depends upon the period of time chosen, from the dawn of time to now.
2.Q:Is climate changing?
A: Climate is always changing. Despite wide currency, the phrase “ climate change” is a tautology.
3.Q:Is there such a thing as a global climate?
A: Notionally,yes; but mainly for technical scientific use at a high level of abstraction.
These are not “ trick questions” but the answers from the CSIRO would be instructive.

fred250
Reply to  Herbert
September 1, 2020 5:52 pm

I suspect you would get NON-answers.

Seems to be an alarmist way of coping.

leitmotif
September 1, 2020 6:33 pm

Cormann didn’t squirm, did he?

He played the Geoff Boycott straight bat.

Malcolm Roberts is a truly great hero for common sense but don’t pretend this is some sort of victory for sceptics. It’s not. It was ignored.

fred250
Reply to  leitmotif
September 1, 2020 6:46 pm

Yep, he politically avoided any actual answer to the questions.

September 1, 2020 11:07 pm

A basic question to ask anyone commenting that “Climate Change” is due to increasing carbon dioxide levels is,
“Although a vast majority of folk believe that increasing carbon dioxide levels are causing the observed increase in global temperatures over the past decades, do they know this to be true? “

A dead giveaway is the answer often given is that we must err on the safe side!

The reason that this proposition cannot be supported is that it can be shown easily to be untrue – via simple and unequivocal Thermodynamics; it’s so much simpler than arguments framed around IR. See my site’s Chapter1B and even more simply in the one-page 1C.

A cut-down version follows:-
ALL gases are greenhouse gases as, like all substances, all absorb heat, not necessarily by absorbing IR, which is only one method of transmitting energy. (Others being convection, including wind, and conduction.) Therefore CO2, methane, etc, are very minor greenhouse gases.
pjcarson2015.wordpress.com

Chris Hoff
September 2, 2020 9:44 am

Once you understand how a debt based currency works it all makes perfect sense. Since money is created whenever debt is created, and since you need more money to pay off the principle plus interest, more debt must always be created. It’s a vicious circle that demands short term prioritization of everything and progressively more irrational spending schemes, finally wholesale plundering and destruction of everything.

John Endicott
Reply to  Chris Hoff
September 3, 2020 7:23 am

That simplistic rant assumes debt is the only source of money. Money however is just a stand in for productivity (IE money is exchanged for labor/work), so no, debt is not the only source of money and as such the entire chain following your simplistic assumption fails as long as debt is not excessively greater than productivity.

We can easily see this in action at the business level. Most every business has a line of credit (IE debt), when a business is run well making something of value to their customers, they can and do make enough money to keep operations going and sometimes even expand them, cover their debt obligations and still have some left over (IE profits) to provide money to their shareholders. When businesses aren’t run well and/or fail to make something their customers value, they don’t make enough money to do all those things and eventually go bankrupt.

Could businesses run without debt? Sure, but that would slow down economic activity considerably. Business person has an idea, doesn’t have the money to implement the idea so has to wait months/years before to getting enough money to starting production at a much smaller scale (all the while hoping some other, richer business person doesn’t beat them to the punch) . Once up and running, again will have to wait until acquiring enough profit (which, as a small scale will also be a small amount of profit so can be a very long wait) before attempting to expand.

In short, debt in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Many a good, solid, profitable business has debt, after all. It’s how it’s managed that’s important.

Mervyn
September 2, 2020 7:43 pm

All these politicians do is spew a load of bull about “climate change”.

This whole subject derives from the work of the UN’s IPCC. Yet, to date, in none of the IPCC’s reports published over the past three decades has the IPCC ever cited a single study demonstrating that human activity CO2 emissions causes catastrophic global warming, and is the key driver of climate change. Why?

This is the core question everyone should be asking. And why are politicians not demanding an answer to this simple question of the UN’s IPCC?

Tom Abbott
September 3, 2020 8:44 pm

All these WUWT articles say they were published three days ago, even the one posted about an hour ago. Odd.

Just thought I would mention that.