Senator Malcolm Roberts Speaking at CPAC Australia 2022

Senator Malcolm Roberts Challenges the Aussie Government to Prove CO2 is a Problem

Essay by Eric Worrall

An inside view into what it is like being a climate skeptic politician who is determined to get answers out of both his colleagues and government scientists.

… Our earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Historical, empirical, scientific evidence shows there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current temperatures or weather events.

Climate science has been hijacked. Special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent- seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for easy new ways to tax citizens, are hijacking our nation’s governance and sovereignty. Alarmingly, once highly regarded agencies such as the CSIRO and BOM, have allowed themselves to become a part of the climate change industry and have failed to provide government with robust, competent science advice upon which to base policy.

There is no logical, scientific point with empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide from human activity as the cause of climate variability. No entity or person has ever proven that the ongoing natural climate variability is not entirely natural.

This lack of vigorously tested evidence has allowed governments to create policy that is permanently damaging our once cheap and reliable electricity system. Our manufacturing industries are disappearing overseas, families are struggling to pay their exorbitant power bills, farmers are under pressure and our once reliable electricity system is on its knees, due to government regulations forcing intermittent wind and solar into the electricity grid.

Even our children are not safe from this alarmism, with eco-anxiety finding its way into the innocent world of our children.

Nor is the environment safe, due to the lack of recycling of many solar, wind and battery components with relatively short working lives, and due to other inherently damaging aspects of solar and wind.

I implore you to apply the utmost of analytical and sceptical scrutiny to the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy. The effects of climate policy are historic, and Australia has never before faced such a fundamental and arguably monumental change to our way of life and lifestyle.

Your extra scrutiny on the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy could be the difference between millions of Australians suffering if the proposed legislation is passed or alternatively, having a more prosperous nation if existing climate and related energy legislation is rescinded. …

Read more: Submission by Senator Malcolm Roberts to Australian Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications

Senator Roberts’ document was submitted in August, but a link to the submission has just become available to me.

The document is well worth a read if you are interested in a very complete dive into what is wrong with modern climate science and climate politics, from the perspective of a politician who is pushing for clarity. Senator Roberts has captured a wide range of issues, including some obscure issues which are not widely known.

Although the focus of the document is Australia, much of the document is applicable to everyone – climate alarmists worldwide all tend to use the same scientific talking points to push their case.

For example, Senator Roberts caught the curious issue of the Marcott 2013 et al paper, which is used by alarmists to push the idea that the current temperature rise is unprecedented. But Marcott’s paper differs from his PHD thesis. The difference? Marcott grafted a hockey stick onto his published paper.

One of the most intriguing elements of Senator Roberts’ analysis is his interaction with Australia’s premier government science body. The CSIRO, in my opinion may be leaving themselves a large escape hatch for when today’s political climate hysteria collapses.

According to Senator Roberts, “… CSIRO admitted that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger. Instead, statements of danger came from politicians …”.

One day historians will look back on today’s climate hysteria. They will struggle to understand how politicians and voters ever mistook such a flimsy house of cards as a solid edifice of evidence and sound policy – especially with politicians like Senator Roberts sounding the alarm.

Update (EW): Re the Marcott 2013 et al paper, Marcott himself dissed his own hockey stick addition. He admitted the “… 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. …”. His words.

4.9 60 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Shewchuk
November 11, 2022 2:05 pm

Finally — fighting back. Just ask them how much has “man-made” CO2 warmed the earth last year.

John Shewchuk
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 11, 2022 2:36 pm

I have asked this question hundreds of times via social media discussions and during my many local talks to the public — and no one has been able to reasonably answer that question — especially when you ask them to define the “man-made” CO2 fractional warming and separate any temperature changes from the ongoing thawing from the Little Ice Age.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  John Shewchuk
November 11, 2022 2:43 pm

It is a good question that has NO answer. Three reasons:

  1. Not all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic from fossil fuels.
  2. The surface temp data is not fit for purpose; microsite, UHI, and sparse coverage in many places are all biggies.
  3. Even IPCC (AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4) said there is significant natural variation also.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 11, 2022 4:06 pm

Whatever happened to Marcott? Did he get his doctorate. Did he then go on to become a professor of Climate Science at some university?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 11, 2022 4:06 pm

Sorry – this comment is to Rud’s comment below.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 12, 2022 12:00 pm

Got his doctorate. And then a tenure track position at U. Wisconsin Madison.

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
Reply to  John Shewchuk
November 11, 2022 11:20 pm

A tiny fraction of temperature increase is from fossil use combustion and land use change see: Hermann Harde, What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations, Earth Sciences. Volume 8, Issue 3, June 2019 , pp. 139-159. doi: 10.11648/

Reply to  John Shewchuk
November 14, 2022 6:30 am

I wonder how many could even tell you the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere.

John Shewchuk
Reply to  gezza1298
November 14, 2022 6:55 am

Exactly. During most of my debates with these people, most can’t, and most importantly they have no idea how tiny the warming is. In fact, I’m giving a talk today and will again use this question to illustrate the lack of awareness of CO2 reality — and talk about the important of understanding the Schwarzschild Equation.

Nick Graves
Reply to  John Shewchuk
November 12, 2022 6:13 am

To be fair, Malcolm Roberts has been banging on about it for many years.

It’s just that the science deniers pretend they cannot hear him.

He’s also seen through the covid craziness and has had a go about that, too. Crickets…

I do feel however that the proponents of both have so widely over-stepped the mark, that traction may be gained as more people are waking up to what’s going on.

If The Powers That Ought Not Be aren’t running scared yet, they soon will.

Reply to  John Shewchuk
November 12, 2022 6:59 pm

“Just ask them how much has “man-made” CO2 warmed the earth last year.”

Sorry, but what good will it do? They’ll either lie or regurgitate what they have been force-fed. And if you politely start to point out all the problems and contradictons between fact and model fiction – you get shouted down and labeled a denier.

John Shewchuk
Reply to  PCman999
November 12, 2022 7:19 pm

It does very well at pointing out what they refuse to acknowledge, and why Al Gore (and others) refuse to debate. I have had hundreds of online and personal debates with this question, and in all cases they exit the dialogue for lack of information. All important issues of our times are well known to the decimal point — such as stock market changes, fuel price changes, and CO2 concentrations. However, even though they for sure know “man-made” CO2 causes global warming — no one can say how much.

Rud Istvan
November 11, 2022 2:16 pm

With respect to Marcott 2013, a clear case of academic misconduct which I pointed out to Science, which they acknowledged (in writing) receipt of then ignored. The details of what Marcott did that Science ignored are in essay ‘A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. A draft was also posted over at Judith’s at the time. It was simply a detailed comparison of his thesis to the Science paper to find the compelling smoking gun.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 11, 2022 3:30 pm

Eric, you may be right. My belief is he badly wanted to join the Mike Mann climate club, and his thesis wasn’t ‘good enough’ to do so. So he voluntarily and obviously knowingly committed academic misconduct in the big name Science paper. And it paid off. Based on his Science paper he got a nice tenure track prof position at U. Wisconsin Madison, aka Oregon east. Climate crime pays.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 11, 2022 2:48 pm

I was completely unaware until now that the Marcott misconduct had been so clearly exposed. (McIntyre and Curry: selective time-shifting eh?) I had thought it was suspected as being down to carefully splicing incompatible time-series, but it wasn’t, so I am updating my perception.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  suffolkboy
November 11, 2022 3:38 pm

On top of all that, many of the proxies are temporally very coarse. Meaning many wouldn’t even detect changes of any type over hundreds of years. Our modern climate wouldn’t even register.

November 11, 2022 2:29 pm

Lot of good material linked. Great example of “the emperor has no clothes”.

Keep asking the simple questions and putting the ‘experts” on the spot.

CD in Wisconsin
November 11, 2022 2:29 pm

Finally! Finally! Someone prominent in Aussie politics is pushing back. It’s about time. Now if someone prominent in U.S. and/or European politics would to the same, but I am not holding my breath.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 11, 2022 4:09 pm

What does “prominent” mean in this context? Anyone, politician or not, who speaks out is trashed in the establishment media or ignored into oblivion. This triggers the autonomic response conditioned into every true believer; they can’t be effected by anything said in opposition to their conditioning. The climate mafia is mostly not really acting in ignorance of any scientific aspects; they know what the want, where they hope to be able to go, and know that the story is a big part of how they get there.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  AndyHce
November 11, 2022 5:58 pm

“What does “prominent” mean in this context? Anyone, politician or not, who speaks out is trashed in the establishment media or ignored into oblivion.’


Whenever someone gets treated like a religious heretic or Orwellian thought-criminal while challenging the CAGW narrative, it only goes to show that the narrative is not about the science of the Earth’s climate and CO2 emissions. Everyone in politics, the mass media and activism demonstrate their scientific illiteracy and the religious, Orwellian and political nature of the CAGW narrative with such behavior.

And it’s all I need to know before I even looking at the science. Kudos to Malcolm Roberts

November 11, 2022 2:32 pm

IIRC back in 2013 one tactic based on the ease of faking a hockey stick by grafting a high-time-resolution series on to the end of a low-resolution one, because the hi-res has much more vertical “noise” than the smoothed one. However, whether you get an up-tick or a down-tick and of what size is random, unless you carefully select the splice point to choose one that meets your needs. I don’t know if this arithmetical feature was exploited. In 2013 if you submitted a global temperature time-series graph without an uptick to a climate journal it would not have been accepted.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  suffolkboy
November 11, 2022 2:56 pm

That is what Mann did in 1999 with his ‘Nature trick’. It not what Marcott did in 2013. Despite his Science paper saying he used published core top datings, he redated at least 19 to fabricate his 20 century hockey stick. Pulled old upticks forward to the present. I illustrated all 19 in my essay mentioned above. Unequivocable academic misconduct.

His statistically irrelevant comment followed because he made another unforced error, saying in an interview immediately after the Science publication that his seafloor core time resolution was poor—on order of 25-50 years or so. (Time Resolution depends on core type (box, tube) since coring disturbs layers, especially near core tops. After all, the cores are just mud.)

November 11, 2022 2:41 pm

COVID shut down the global economy and the trend in atmospheric CO2 wasn’t altered one iota. That message should be the very first statement made in any global warming discussion.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 12, 2022 2:56 am

Thanks a million for that link.

November 11, 2022 3:08 pm

statements of danger came from politicians …”.

As they did with the COVID “vaccines”.

Pfizer & Moderna had explicitly stated in their FDA submissions (which were attempted to be withheld from public release by Fauci’s cabal for 70 years) that their “vaccines” would NOT prevent contraction of COVID, nor transmission of it between people.

Yet we had legions of politicians and bureaucrats telling us every day that getting “vaccinated” would save us from getting it, or passing it on to our families & friends.

And still it continues.

Goebbels would be chuffed that his tried & tested lesson in propaganda was used so effectively in the 2020s

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mr.
November 11, 2022 5:13 pm

And the last couple of booster shots were tested on mice.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 11, 2022 5:36 pm

Not mice, Patrick, all of US.

We’re all their LAB RATS.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mr.
November 11, 2022 7:21 pm

True, but the initial vaccines did have human trials (Except for testing transmission). Not anymore. Straight from the factory in to your arm.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mr.
November 14, 2022 2:21 pm

I was at my local pharmacy yesterday getting some real medicine and a young chap walked in and as bold as brass stated he wanted his 3 booster shot (Moderna). I asked if he knew that booster shots were tested on mice, no human trials at all. He just looked at me, laughed and said “Oh yeah?”

Clearly he was working as fast as science..

Joseph Zorzin
November 11, 2022 3:11 pm

But- will many Australians read Roberts’ comments to that committee? Will his nation’s media talk about it?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 11, 2022 3:33 pm

No; as it will be considered ‘inconvenient’ by compliant Media marching to the step of the Alarmunists.
NO CRISIS? Where is the scary Clickbait story in that?

John in NZ
November 11, 2022 3:17 pm

I like this statement. “The CSIRO, in my opinion may be leaving themselves a large escape hatch for when today’s political climate hysteria collapses.”

I have been saying for some time that at some point the politicians and the media will eventually ask the scientists, “Why didn’t you tell us you didn’t really understand what was happening?”

And the scientists will reply, “But we did tell you. It’s all there in the IPCC reports.”

Foe example, according to the IPCC WG1 AR5 Chapter 7 page 574,

“Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud
feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the
impact of warming on low clouds. ”

In other words, they don’t know if the net effect of clouds causes warming or cooling.

From the same page,
” Low clouds contribute positive feedback in most models, but that behaviour is not well
understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so we are not
confident that it is realistic.”

In other words, observation of the real world contradicts the models.

Or from NASA where they admit that the models do not really understand clouds.

from (

“When contemporary models are given information about Earth’s present condition…their clouds and rainfall are only accurate to within about 25-35%.”

“Unfortunately, such a margin of error is much too large for making a reliable forecast about climate changes, such as the global warming will result from increasing abundances of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent.”

“If a 2 percent change is that important, then a climate model to be useful must be accurate to something like 0.25%. Thus today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy,”

“Atmospheric scientists have been aware for nearly two decades that the complex effects of clouds on radiation and water exchanges pose a major challenge to the understanding of climatic change.”

“In some models, for instance, clouds decrease the net greenhouse effect, whereas in others they intensify it.”

Reply to  John in NZ
November 11, 2022 4:10 pm

But that is the difference between the Working Group reports (sciency) and the Summary for Policymakers (pure politics).

John in NZ
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 11, 2022 4:59 pm


John Galt III
November 11, 2022 3:26 pm

400 private jets in Cairo – $100 a plate dinners

I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves……

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Galt III
November 11, 2022 4:21 pm

It definitely is a crisis for them, but not the same crisis they bleat about. For them, the crisis is the drying up of their gravy train.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John Galt III
November 11, 2022 5:28 pm

While those at COP27 are demanding every else eat bugs they tuck in to prime fish and steak meals.

November 11, 2022 3:57 pm

Special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent- seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for easy new ways to tax citizens

He left out what is probably the most important part
It is the best politician’s excuse ever to divert your attention away from their stupidity, ignorance, and malfeasance, thus to let them get on unimpeded with their real raison d’etre: insuring long term power in order to enrich themselves, their families, their major supports, and their friends from your labor and property.

Reply to  AndyHce
November 11, 2022 4:12 pm

By demonstrating “their stupidity, ignorance, and malfeasance …” in another realm.

Chris Hanley
November 11, 2022 4:29 pm

There is no logical, scientific point with empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide from human activity as the cause of climate variability …

At that point Senator Roberts has targeted himself as a ‘denier’ or even a ‘screwball’ enabling his subsequent views to be dismissed out of hand.
The climate wars have moved on, Roberts and his ilk are like the Japanese holdouts in the Pacific after WW2, the overriding issues now revolve around energy policy.
It is sad because there is no need to make such a categorical statement, all that is needed is to modify it such as ‘there is no logical, scientific point with empirical evidence that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main cause of climate variability’.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 11, 2022 6:51 pm

Past climate fluctuations are irrelevant as to whether increasing CO2 is currently a climate forcing factor; of course natural climate factors didn’t stop in 1950 when the IPCC claims most of the subsequent warming is due mostly to human emissions.
My point is that Roberts’ much-repeated statement is unnecessary and counterproductive as it provides ‘the other side’ (for want of a better description) ample ammunition to reinforce their agenda, they love him for it.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Chris Hanley
November 12, 2022 11:00 am

There’s nothing wrong with his statement; there is zero empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature.

There is, to the contrary, a good deal of empirical evidence that indicates atmospheric CO2 does not drive the Earth’s temperature.

Before you get so dismissive about what he said, perhaps you might like to reveal the evidence that what he said is wrong. And I mean EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that shows CO2 to be the “climate control knob.”

Chris Hanley
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
November 12, 2022 12:32 pm

You simply haven’t read or understood what I wrote.

Robert Kernodle
November 11, 2022 5:02 pm


November 11, 2022 5:11 pm

I am able to add a postscript to Senator Robert’s submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee inquiring into the Climate Change Bill 2022 and the Climate Change ( Consequential Amendments) Bill(now legislated as the “Net Zero 2050” Acts
The Senate Committee ignored Senator Robert’s submission and a few other submissions to like effect treating them contemptuously as a handful of ratbag deniers.
These included The National Party submission from the former Coalition government Partner and that of the Institute of Public Affairs(IPA) and a few others.
The questioning by the Chair Senator Grogan of the IPA’s submission revealed how deeply ingrained the concept of a “climate crisis” was with her and the ALP.
It is an article of faith with the Labor Federal Government and she asked Morgan Begg and Daniel Wilde of the IPA if they thought there was no “climate change” or whether they thought there was no damage accruing. She treated incredulously their answer when they accurately explained their dissenting opinion.
To the point.
The 148 page report of the Senate Committee contains two findings which I photo shopped as they were so unbelievable-
(1) There is no “Financial impact” for the Net zero legislation to the Australian public.
(2) The “settled science” is not only settled but in Australia it is “unanimous”.
Both of these propositions are obviously false.
On (1) even if true which it is not, the claim that $82 billion of Federal Government is “off budget” because it is an “ investment” to bring positive benefits over the next four years ignores the fact that the interest at 4% for the Government is decidedly on budget as several financial commentators like Ticky Fullerton and Terry McCrann have noted in The Australian.
As they say, you can go a long way on a bus with the interest on $82 billion and the interest in Queensland on $62 billion for its hydro project and green hubs!
As to (2) it is so ridiculous suggesting no scientists exist who contradict the settled science.
Apparently the fake 97% consensus is now the 100% consensus.
When the Office of PM and the Cabinet signed off on the Net Zero 2050 proposal they are required by law to present a Regulatory Impact Statement( RIS).
Further the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) within the Cabinet must by law oversee this process so I wrote to them asking to see the RIS given before the legislation went forward.
It relevantly replied-
“Rather than requiring a RIS for the introduction of the Bill,OBPR has assessed that the analysis of delivery mechanism( such as the reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism ) is a more appropriate point for undertaking a RIS.
This is because that subsequent decision point to establish such mechanisms is where obligations and impacts are created for the Australian community…”
The changes to the Safeguard Mechanism are highly controversial and unresolved with the Federal Government somewhat internally conflicted on the introduction of carbon taxes or other imposts on the 215 major corporate “polluters” in Australia.
So now what happens if at some future point after amendments to the Safety Mechanism occur, the OBPR says, well, this is going to cost the Australian taxpayer billions?
I will continue to monitor in case this gets buried.
This can go badly awry.

Patrick MJD
November 11, 2022 5:14 pm

Unfortunately Malcolm will be shouted down and told to shut up. Australia: Stupid one day, dumber the next.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 11, 2022 7:25 pm

With people like Bandt and Bowen in positions of power and influence I am not convinced it’ll make a difference.

R L Moore
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 12, 2022 2:40 pm

At last it is an attack on the “scientists” and the nexus between science an politics. As such it is a welcome development.
Sooner or later a responsible scientist will be forced from “cover”.
A small but very significant step in the search for truth!

Tom Abbott
November 11, 2022 5:18 pm

From the article: “There is no logical, scientific point with empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide from human activity as the cause of climate variability. No entity or person has ever proven that the ongoing natural climate variability is not entirely natural.”

That’s exactly right. There’s no doubt about it. Climate Alarmists cannot prove what they claim about CO2 and the Earth’s weather.

It’s about time a common-sense politician asked the Climate Alarmists to put up or shut up..

John Shewchuk
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 11, 2022 5:36 pm

And that is why they can not answer this basic question … how much has “man-made” CO2 warmed earth’s temperature last year. This should be on the front page of the NYT — but it’s not.

November 11, 2022 5:38 pm

I have followed the BoM at Senate Estimates at times for over a decade and Senate estimates is 95% a GreenLeft festival even with the previous Fed Gov. Without getting into Greenhouse effect esoterics – there are plenty of questions BoM could be asked about shortcomings in their weather data but it is too difficult finding a pollie to ask them.

November 11, 2022 6:52 pm

The CSIRO, in my opinion may be leaving themselves a large escape hatch for when today’s political climate hysteria collapses.”

Global carbon emissions at record levels with no signs of shrinking, new data shows. Humanity has a monumental task ahead “


  1. comment image Pep Canadell Chief Research Scientist, Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO

Or not.

High Treason
November 11, 2022 7:41 pm

The CSIRO relied initially on Marcott, which was debunked. Other than that, Dr Larry Marshall had no other evidence, even on notice. The CSIRO basically has NO sound evidence to back up their climate policy advice to government. They dredged out 3 more feeble papers after that. The evidence is flimsy at best-certainly insufficient to warrant “climate action” that threatens our economic and political stability. If the economy goes full ultra green, we are left militarily defenceless…..
Senator Malcolm Roberts has been at the cutting edge of knowing what a load of rubbish the entire catastrophic global warming narrative was for over 15 years. It is a blessing to have him in our Parliament. If we had an entire Parliament full of people of Malcolm’s calibre, Australia would be an economic powerhouse.

Geoff Sherrington
November 11, 2022 9:46 pm

Senator Roberts,
If you read this far, please be assured that every scientist with whom I have discussed ‘climate change’ in person has deductions quite similar to yours.
There is likely to be more support for your position that at times, it seems. What is lacking is a mechanism, a platform, for informed people to stand up and be counted.
This is shameful, because it is an essential part of what used to be named “democracy.”
Geoff S (scientist).

November 11, 2022 9:47 pm

Marcott himself dissed his own hockey stick addition. He admitted the “… 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes”

The proverbial ‘Lump of Coal’ for all of the trollops’ delusional beliefs about “Marcott” proving manniacal’s hockey stick.

Thank you!!
November 11, 2022 10:56 pm

An almost honest man in Parliament? How did that happen?

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
November 11, 2022 11:12 pm

One in a million Malcolm. What a wonderful world we could have with a few more Malcolms!

November 12, 2022 12:54 am

Politicians are not obliged to answer scientific questions in scientific language – they are ;politicians. And nobody has the right to receive scientific answers from politicians.

The duty of politicians is to find out what citizens in their respective countries wish, and formulate legislation to suit these citizens – even if it can be argued the legislation goes against what is accepted science.

Andy Espersen

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 12, 2022 9:13 pm

Eric Worral – I think you (and my many detractors!) misunderstand me. I absolutely agree with you that Senator Roberts is the kind of politician we ought to elect – and exactly the candidate whose opinions we should follow. But ultimately it is the voters who decide who become our legislators. The majority wins – and that is as it ought to be. We, the voters, get exactly what we ask for.

I repeat my assertion : “Politicians are not obliged to answer scientific questions in scientific language – they are politicians. And nobody has the right to receive scientific answers from politicians”.

And I am an optimist : Senator Roberts is the courageous sort of person who will stick to his guns – and keep telling the same message to voters. And next time round, with increasing evidence showing that his science is the correct one, the majority will back him up, all the scientific idiots will be turfed out – and fresh legislation will be enacted.

Andy Espersen (New Zealand).

Reply to  andersjoan
November 12, 2022 8:07 pm

That’s how Populists view politics. I thought Populists were considered unacceptable now days. Populists claim to represent the common people. Populists would implement very different policy choices, such as plentiful, cheap, reliable energy.

Reply to  JamesB_684
November 12, 2022 9:24 pm

JamesB_684 – Democracy equates populism, does it not?.

I love true democracy – where there is completely free speech, and where it is perfectly OK to be a “populist”.

My biggest wish is that a powerful populist would appear who is clever and able enough to seduce us all to opt for “plentiful, cheap, reliable energy”.

Andy Espersen (New Zealand).

November 12, 2022 3:58 am

Climate “science” does not reside in reality. CAGW theory and Extreme Event Attribution (EEA) exist in a hyperreality created by “modelled” simulation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SteveG
November 12, 2022 4:29 am

In other words: A False Reality.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 12, 2022 5:01 am

Fantasy. Fixed it.

AGW is Not Science
November 12, 2022 7:58 am

We need about 50 like him for the US Senate! What a terrific summation of the mountain of shit they call “climate science.”

Stuart Baeriswyl
November 12, 2022 10:12 am

Senator Roberts gets my vote …only that I am a US citizen.

I don’t think I can name one US politician who has critically articulated the problem like Robert’s here; the need for a sound scientific and governmental discourse for addressing climate change.

It seems like 80% of our citizenry believes (to one degree or another) that there is a climate change crisis – but likely only 5% of them could even come close to articulating their viewpoint about an anthropogenic cause. We are illiterate because we’re lazy in not exploring and critiquing what other people are telling us – we are sheep.

Brian Mead
November 12, 2022 11:27 am

Why o why cannot we have an MP here in the UK stand up in parliament and put across what Senator Roberts has said and written so succinctly down Oz! Fat chance I suppose..

Mervyn Sullivan
November 12, 2022 4:31 pm

Why has no government posed a simple question to the IPCC, namely, for the IPCC to point to any IPCC publication in which it has cited just one peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates carbon dioxide drives atmospheric temperature and the climate?

The answer is simple. It cannot because no such study exists.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights