- Hi this morning,
I did a media conference here in Brisbane,
and I explained why we're
calling on the resignations
or the second subject to investigation
of the CSIRO's chief
executive, Dr. Larry Marshall
and another CSIRO executive
Dr. Peter Mayfield.
Have a look.
- Well, good morning.
And thank you for attending today.
I call them the CSIRO's chief
executive, Dr. Larry Marshall
and the CSIRO's executive director
for environment, energy and resources,
Dr. Peter Mayfield to
resign or to be stood down
pending an independent investigation.
Both are complicit
in economically destructive
climate policies
and renewable energy subsidies
that are based on CSIRO's claims
and that are adding $13 billion each year,
every year to the cost of electricity.
That's $1,300 per household every year
I commissioned the Moran Report
By an expert economist, Dr. Alan Moran
to assist these costs
and they use the government's own data.
They cannot be sensibly refuted.
Now we know that many people
are concerned about climate.
Those afraid as a result
of scary alumna's claims,
and those who disagree with
doing anything about climate
and who are concerned about
decarbonizing our country,
because it will de industrialise
and fundamentally change the
very structure of their society
and livelihoods and their lifestyles.
As representatives of the people,
Senator Hanson and I see
our role serving the people
includes checking and debating policies,
especially in the Senate,
the house of review.
Our responsibility is to assess the basis
for these policies.
As a Senator,
I have held CSIRO accountable
with four presentations
from CSIRO in answer to my request
for the empirical evidence
proving that carbon
dioxide from human activity
is causing anything unprecedented
in climate or causing
statistically significant
change in climate.
CSIRO responses led to
surprising conclusions
that stunned my team,
and that would check
with 17 internationally
respected climate scientists
here and across five of
the nations globally.
These are some of the conclusions
from our report that we present today.
CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide
from human activity is a danger.
CSIRO has admitted today's temperatures
are not unprecedented.
CSIRO's cited papers that do not show
the rate of temperature
rises unprecedented,
CSIRO relies on unvalidated,
computer models,
giving erroneous projections
and that conflict with reality.
It has never quantified
any specific impact
from human carbon dioxide, never.
And that's fundamental for policy.
It relied on discredited
and poor quality papers
on temperature and carbon dioxide.
Some of which it withdrew once we showed
that they wilted.
CSIRO revealed little
understanding of the papers
they submitted to us.
It admits to doing no
due diligence on reports,
cited and data used.
It allows politicians to misrepresent
the CSIRO without correction.
The CSIRO has misled parliament
and international scientists
verified our conclusions
and are stunned.
People like John Christy,
Nish Aviv, Neil's Mona, David Legates,
Ian climber, Will Harper.
Honest, effective policies
are based on firstly,
defining the problem with
accurate measured impacts
from our current behaviour.
So we know what we have to do,
then define specific changes and actions
so we can cost the alternatives.
Then measure specific impacts
and costs as we implement.
None of this has been done.
None of it is being done.
CSIRO has provided no basis
for policy whatsoever.
Scientists around the world,
admit that the models do not work
because scientists lack understanding
of climate and climate processes.
That's why models can not
be the basis for policy.
The onus is now on the parliament
to justify the policies
because politicians
are lying about the science,
supposedly the basis of their policies.
If the people knew that
governments are telling people
and governments are telling
scientists what to think,
then the people would be angry
and we're getting to
make sure they get that.
In December, 2016, the father
of the Senate at the time,
Senator Susan MacDonald,
a liberal from North
Queensland stated to the Senate
that the Senate has never
debated climate science,
never debated it.
There has never been a critical assessment
of the climate science in parliament
and I remind you that on climate,
we have seen the last six prime ministers
dumped largely because
of the climate issue.
And my report provides
the people with evidence
that will help the people and policymakers
to question the basis for
the hugely costly spending
on climate and renewables.
Before entering the Senate, for 11 years,
I held members of parliament
and bureaucrats accountable.
Not one, none could give me the
evidence for their policies.
Members of parliament though,
did cite the CSIRO as the
basis for their policies.
That's why I invited CSIRO
to present the empirical scientific data
in a scientific framework
that proved carbon dioxide
from human activity affects climate.
And that is the basis of
climate and energy policies.
CSIRO not only failed on climate policies.
It has let down our nation,
embarrassed our nation
CSIRO has misled parliament
on climate science.
CSIRO is complicit because
it never held politicians
and media accountable
for misrepresenting their
statements on science.
That is why I call on
CSIRO as chief executive,
Dr. Larry Marshall and executive director
for the environment, energy and resources,
Dr. Peter Mayfield to resign
or for the government to stand them down
pending independent investigation.
The onus is now on parliament
to justify all climate policies
and renewable energy policies.
We need the debate that
has never been had,
and to justify spending,
because there has been no evidence.
Details are in the report
and contain a link to
extensive technical details,
peer reviewed and
recognised internationally.
Now we know that people are disillusioned
with the shenanigans of
politicians, aren't we?
So we sought the truth for the people,
the data, the evidence, the proof.
Senator Hanson, One Nation, and I
know from listening closely to people
across our state and across our country,
that people want relief
from high cost of living.
They want security and
reassurance, they want hope.
We all want integrity, truth and honesty.
We want a fair go.
And we want parliamentary representatives
to serve the people.
People are hungry to be heard
and to be treated respectfully
and truthfully with the data.
And to know that politicians
are holding bureaucrats
accountable and enacting policies
for the benefit of their nation.
That is our commitment to the people.
We have recommendations that
I'd be happy to go through
on the last page of the report.
At this point, I'll just pause
and ask if there are any
questions on this item,
on this issue before I start
discussing the details.
So I'm open to questions on this report.
- [Georgie] Okay, so what are you hoping
comes from publishing this?
- I don't know your name?
- [Georgie] Georgie.
- Georgie we're hoping that we get
the start of a debate and
we get integrity restored
back to climate science.
And we coming up with a number of issues,
number of policies that will
restore integrity to science.
That's what we want, restoring
scientific integrity.
This is not only affecting
climate energy policies,
it's affecting the great barrier reef.
It's affecting the Murray-Darling Basin.
It's affecting farmers property rights.
This is a very serious issue
and while it's $13 billion
added to our electricity costs
that $1,300 per year per household,
it's hundreds of billions of dollars
to farmers and to tourism
and it's trillions of dollars
in destruction to our economy
over the next few years.
- [Georgie] Sorry, what are you saying
is affecting the great barrier reef?
- Corrupt science, corrupt science.
- [Georgie] How is it affecting?
- Well, the policies that the
Queensland Labour Government
has put into place, Georgie,
and not based on science.
Senator Renick and I worked side by side
in the recent inquiry here in Brisbane,
and we showed that.
I'm happy to go into the details later,
but this is about this report.
Well, I'm happy to go into details
about the fact that after 50
years of climate research,
the CSIRO in response to my request
for evidence empirical evidence,
that we are affecting the climate
and that there has been anything
unprecedented in climate.
After 50 years, they produced
one paper, MACADADE, 2013,
and that doesn't contain the evidence.
They actually withdrew the paper
when we cross examine the Monat
and that paper was withdrawn
because of a number of
faults that are inherent,
and that were known within
two weeks of its release
back in 2013,
the CSIRO gave us a pile of junk
that even the lead author of that paper
admits the 20th century
temperature projections
on which the CSIRO base
their claim are not robust.
Even the author admitted that
and the CSIRO didn't realise that.
The CSIRO, the paper, sorry,
admits that the process they used
for finding temperature trends
cannot find temperature trends
less than 300 years long.
The current temperature
trend was about 30 years long
and stopped 25 years ago,
the PhD thesis that was
written by Mark God himself
doesn't have a 20th
century temperature uptake,
but when he was joined by two UN authors,
it's suddenly fabricated a 20th
century temperature uptake.
And the CSIRO didn't even know
that they gave us rubbish.
The carbon dioxide paper,
they gave us one paper
on carbon dioxide levels.
The current blip of carbon dioxide levels
rising 0.009% from 0.32 to 0.041
cannot be detected on the methods used
by the Harry's paper that CSIRO submitted
and its temperature gaps, sorry.
It's carbon dioxide measurement
gaps of a thousand years
to 6,000 years cannot possibly measure
the current 60 year gap, 60 year trend.
Then CSIRO submitted a second paper
to ask Feldman and Feldman itself
refuted some of the Harry's claims.
So we had a paper from CSIRO
refuting the previous paper.
These guys don't know what they're doing.
This is the rubbish that
our policies are based on
$13 billion a year, $1,300 per household.
And then ultimately, ultimately
they have only one thing.
And that is unvalidated models
that are based on limited
and incomplete understanding of climate
and have already been proven to be wrong.
The upper transfer, upper troposphere,
where we radiate more than half
of the heat from our planet.
There is no understanding there
because the models predicted
that the upper troposphere would get warm
and more moist.
In fact, the reality is the measurements
for millions of balloons,
where the balloons going
up through the atmosphere
show that it's got colder
and dryer, the exact reverse.
They don't understand
that the effect of clouds,
they don't understand
the effect of updrafts.
They don't even agree on
the fundamental question,
fundamental question, which is,
what is the impact of carbon dioxide?
This is the rubbish they
rely upon for policy
and models are not science,
they're not empirical data.
They are just a tool and
when the basis is wrong,
the whole thing is wrong,
Professor John Christie,
who looks after the data
from NASA satellites,
he has said he has closely
examined CSIRO's access models
and found them below
par as the projections
simply do not match what we
actually see in the real world.
Quote, 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
carbon dioxide sensitivities,
Dr. David Evans,
one of the world's top modellers
an Australian in Perth says,
"CSIRO climate models should not be used
for policy as they are not right yet."
CSIRO has nothing and the
government has fallen forward.
The previous governments
have fallen for it.
So with that, I'll hand over to questions.
And then if you're finished
with questions on this,
then I'm happy to take
questions on any other topic.
- [Jess] If the CSIRO scientists
that you're pulling on
to resign do resign,
and they bring new scientists
in who presented similar
or the same information,
is that still going to be an issue to you?
Do you have a problem with
the information itself.
Not necessarily the people
who are presenting it.
- I don't have any issue with
the people presenting it.
What's your name?
Jess I don't have any problem
with the people presenting it.
They are who are they.
I have a problem when
they don't present it
accurately and truthfully,
that's my problem and competently.
And so I would expect that we
would see new people come in,
who were vetted properly,
and wouldn't do this.
- [Jess] By being very,
probably what sort of
standards do you expect
the new people who come in the object?
- I would expect the new people
to be doing the fundamentals
of science, the scientific process,
which is to base all their decisions
and claims and statements
on empirical scientific evidence
within a scientific framework
that proves cause and effect.
That is fundamental to the
scientific method, yes?
That's all we want.
We just want to restore
scientific integrity.
And if you see on page
12, the recommendations,
you'll see quite a few points there.
- [Georgie] I've got a
question just regarding
for yourself and to the Henson
as well, regarding masks.
I guess yesterday,
the chief health officer
called for more people
to wear masks, what are
your thoughts on that?
- You want to get this?
- [Woman] Oh no, go on.
- It depends on the circumstances.
There are certain circumstances
where I haven't gone
extensively into this.
There are certain circumstances
where I think most would be useful,
sensible precaution as a mining engineer
and as a mine manager and general manager,
I know that personal protective equipment
is essential in certain areas.
It doesn't have to be one in all areas.
So it depends on the
circumstances, Georgie.
- We don't have a COVID
pandemic in Queensland,
Tory mask in hospitals,
nursing homes around the edge,
the sick, great, but it's
an individual choice.
If they wish to wear a mask, or don't,
when I'm out in public, I'm
not in fear with COVID-19.
- [Reporter] And I guess
on public transport
or something like that,
would you expect people
should be wearing masks then?
- The number of COVID cases that you have
in Queensland is very minimal.
If you go up north of
Queensland we don't have it
in a lot of places you don't.
So if you're going to
impose wearing masks,
especially in rural and regional areas,
I think it's ridiculous.
- One of the things I'd like
to add to that, Georgie,
is that the fundamental issue here
is one of incompetence in governance.
I'm talking not just about COVID,
but also about climate and a lack of trust
and a lack of data.
We were told initially
by federal government
and I think by the state,
I'm not sure about the state,
that there's no need to wear masks.
And the reason I said that Georgie
was because they didn't
have any bloody masks
and I couldn't own up to that.
All of a sudden, we
come out with the masks
and they say it's important to wear them.
The fundamental thing that's
so important in the countries
that are managing COVID successfully,
far more successfully than we have
is trust with the leadership.
The leaders have the data,
they have the plan and
they trust the people.
And the people respond with trust,
Taiwan, Israel, Singapore,
all trust the government.
And those countries are
under threat quite a bit,
but our country, we have
been loose with the truth
so far as federal and state
politicians have been concerned.
And we don't have the trust of the people.
I don't think the federal government
and state governments do,
my department, my office wrote a letter,
or I wrote a letter to the
Queensland Premier saying,
where's your data premiere
on which you base your plan.
She said two locations.
We check them no data.
We are stumbling from crisis to crisis.
Taiwan is that is the standard bear.
That's what we need to do like Taiwan.
- [Reporter] Senator Hansen,
why do you and Canberra
averting when the drop
for extension this week?
- I am part of the parliament
and I'm doing it from my office,
like a lot of other
senators around the state.
So we are doing our job.
- And I've read to JSI, wrote
to the Queensland Premier,
requesting exemption for enabling me
to continue my constituency services
in the two weeks starting
next week and the week after.
And we didn't even hear back from them.
So, I mean, this is the
way they don't have respect
for federal parliament.
The Pella Shea Government
has just not shown respect
for the people nor to the institutions.
- In saying that Senator,
wouldn't you support restructuring
the parliamentary city calendar
to avoid having to travel back and forth
to Canberra and being hit
with quarantine demands,
for example, like having
back-to-back stating weeks
for five weeks at the
end of the year, maybe?
- No, I don't.
I don't support that at all.
It is difficult to do
palette from your office.
I'd rather be in parliament
itself is more effective
that we are doing the best that we can.
And this is because the
demonstration at Palace Trey
said that I'd have to come back
and go into a two week quarantine
self-isolation at home.
But my staff would have to go into a hotel
at their own expense for two weeks.
That was unacceptable.
So I'm working with my staff,
I'm here at CPO to do my dearest part.
Can we talk about this?
I just delivered a speech
on the floor of parliament
this morning in my office.
And it's about indoctrination
of our educational system,
basically about gender fluidity,
but also about climate change.
What we are teaching our
children is not the true facts
and that's where it's very important.
So it goes beyond of our politicians
that have no understanding,
now our microphone player,
that Senator Roberts is
the only one in the Senate
that I know of that has the experience,
knowledge and expertise to
talk about climate change.
And we're not denying climate change,
but what we are saying, we want the truth.
We want to have scientists
in this country.
We want the facts put
out because the policies
that either side of politics
and even the greens are pushing,
it's destroying our country economically.
It's putting a huge expense
on every household, business
and if we keep going down this track,
we will not be able to
have their living standards
and the way of life that we
have now in this country.
So what we're doing is
we want the answers.
We want the truth, isn't that
what the people expect of us,
of their politicians, we're
not just easily led like sheep.
We will question everything as I do
on every bit of legislation
that's put forward.
I want the best for this
nation and best for the people.
And I will not sit back and
I will send it Robertson.
I'm so proud of him to
bring this to the forefront,
that we are asking for the truth
and these people that whether
they're employed the CSIR
or members of parliament,
if you can't do your job,
then get the hell out of it
and let other people in who will.
- [Jess] Sorry, just on
that two week quarantine
that's going back and forth from Canberra.
If you only have to do that once,
and you had a five week
back-to-back city all at one time,
would you consider going
down to Canberra for that?
Or is the constant two week
quarantine an issue for you?
- Do you do it five week
back-to-back in parliament,
you have to understand that
there is a lot of members
of parliament with their
children, young children at home,
and you have to consider
that they want to be with their families.
- Jess, I'd be open to
any way we can do that.
But I think fundamentally
we have to get back
to what I was saying to
Georgia, a little while ago,
we have to come up with a plan
that manages COVID at the moment,
we are slaves to COVID
and we need the data.
It's now available around the
world in the first single day,
sitting in March 23rd on a Monday,
I raised the fact that
Taiwan's got it right.
I raised it again the next
month I raised it again in June,
we raise it all the time.
Some of the journalists
are now starting to wake up
that Taiwan has done it well.
Taiwan has got seven deaths from COVID.
There are a country with
the same population as ours,
24 million, we've got 25.
They're much more
densely populated country
so that they can spread disease
disease much more quickly.
And they're very close to mainland China
and have a lot of interaction
with mainland China.
If they've had seven in the
time we've had going on 600,
the other thing that's significant.
So they'd done a far
better job security wise.
But the other thing that's significant
is that their economy
has not been impacted.
It's hummed along.
What we've done is we've
shut down our economy
and that is the experts
in our forecasting.
We will have more suicide
deaths than deaths from COVID.
Our economy will be trashed.
You'll be picking up the
bill long after we're gone.
And that's not acceptable.
We want to get back to the basics
to let people get on with their lives,
the livelihoods and their
work in a way that is safe.
Other countries have shown
that, that's what we need to do.
We need to start telling the
truth and federal government
and state government
and get back to the data
and get back to a solid
plan, real leadership.
That's what we need and
then on top of that,
if we need precautions
of how we run parliament,
we're happy to do that.
I've suggested it to the state government
and the federal government.
We introduced them with a letter
to the federal government.
The federal government has
mimicked some of those policies
in the way it runs parliament now.
- First code, guys tell us the truth.
What did people actually die from?
Was it with COVID or because of the COVID
because there's underlying health issues.
And I think we have been lied to,
and I want the truth
because it's really scared.
Many Australians who have no need
for that scare mongering that's going on.
So tell us, let's say the autopsy reports,
did they die from the COVID or with COVID?
- [Georgie] Do you understand
that in making those statements
that you are fueling, sort
of conspiracy theorists
that don't believe COVID exists at all.
- Oh, I'd love to answer that question.
I'd love to answer that question
because whenever someone
talks about conspiracy theory,
it always identifies the fact
that they haven't got the data.
They can't refute us on data
and with a sensible logical argument.
So they come up with smears, labels,
like conspiracy theorists, denial.
I take no notice of that.
This is the lady who tells it as it is.
And we do the same and
people eventually wake up,
they're starting to wake
up about Anastasia Pella,
Shay and Scott Morrison
already in Queensland.
The murmurings are there,
so we just tell the truth.
And if you want to
believe it, that's fine.
If you don't, that's fine.
Just don't label us because it exposes
that the people that do
labels don't have any data.
- Surely you've heard that people
even when Daniel Andrews was
asked about the 30 year old
that died in Victoria, what did he have?
Underlying health issues,
oh, that's private.
That's for the family, he
wouldn't even announce that.
What we've heard is that
he died from cancer.
So other people have
died from other causes,
not necessarily because of COVID.
And this is what we need
to try to understand
what we are dealing with with COVID.
I'm not saying that COVID
doesn't exist, of course it does.
It does exist and people
do get sick from it,
but we can't shut down our
whole country because of it.
And that concerns me greatly,
the impact it's gonna have on
people's lives, which it is.
- [Georgia] To be clear,
I didn't label you conspiracy theorists
I labelled people don't
believe COVID exists.
- And I want to make clear
that I corrected myself
in the second sentence.
I wasn't referring to you, Georgie.
Not at all.
- [Georgie] I shall leave it with here.
- Alright, thank you.
Any more questions on
restoring scientific integrity?
- [Reporter] I was just
thinking the term papers
you're referring to are
they policy documents
or documents for debate?
- MACADADEL 2013 and Harry's 2001?
- [Reporter] Yes.
- They were so called
peer-reviewed scientific papers
that CSIRO had not even checked
and they tended it to us
and it was complete rubbish
and they wilted under cross-examination.
And withdrew the paper from market.
The Harry's paper was refuted
by the next paper they gave us
on carbon dioxide, the Feldman paper.
These guys don't know what they're doing.
And this is what the government
is basing it's policies on.
They were peer-reviewed scientific papers,
which shows that the
peer-review process has failed.
There are no more scientific
than witches in Salem.
- [Paul] So, but my point is though
that the government we're
never going to re-institute
those policies because they were documents
that were refuted.
- No, what's your name?
- [Paul] Paul, it's worse than that.
They weren't policy documents.
They were the basis for CSIR's
recommendations on policy.
- [Paul] That's my point.
The government was,
it's important, I think
government to make a determination
that was there.
- Yes, Paul, and one
thing that surprised me
after years of being told
that carbon dioxide is
from human activities,
a danger to the planet,
a danger to people,
the CSIRO admitted to us,
they repeatedly refused to say
that carbon dioxide is a danger.
So I said, how can that be?
Politicians have told us
about the danger from carbon
dioxide and they said,
"Well, you'll have to go
and ask the politicians."
- CSIRO's not said that carbon dioxide
from human activity is a danger,
the politicians have.
- [Paul] So with that in mind,
then if that's the case
then why would you want to
sack the CSIR work people
if they've not made their say in this?
- Because they have claimed
that made some other claims
that are false and not
supported by empirical evidence.
And a scientist's fundamental duty
is to make sure that he or she
has the empirical evidence
to prove their point
and they haven't got it.
It's basic incompetence or possibly worse.
