Watch as Senator Malcolm Roberts proves beyond the doubt that the stated reasons for the economy-destroying energy policies at every level of government are unjustified. Even the Australian scientific body CSIRO has nothing to give.
TRANSCRIPT:
(This is derived from an automated process. The video recording is authoritative.)
Thank you so much, jewel, and thank you all for being here. It's a, it really is a pleasure to be with people who are lions. And I mean that because you wouldn't be here if you weren't a thinker and you wouldn't be here if you had the courage to go against the narrative.
And I want to acknowledge, first of all, Camillo, if you could stand up and, and any other doctors in the room who are with Camillo. I know that people took an injection on Covid for a variety of reasons.
Most were compelled. We know that. So whether you are part of the experiment or whether you're looking on the experiment, like Camillo and I, because Camillo refused to be mandated right from the start, he tossed in his job right from the start, even before it was needed.
So he's a man of conviction. We know that the, in this society, we have been bullied and coerced into taking injections. Good day, Abby. Um, anyway, Abby's done a wonderful job. If you could stand up, please.
Wonderful job organizing protests and meeting. And there's an example of an everyday woman who's arrived here from overseas just saying this is wrong. And quite often in, in the country, in the, around Australia, as I've been speaking, it is the women who've been organizing things against covid, against the government restrictions.
So I want to thank all the women who've been doing that and thank all the doctors who've standing up. And so I'm gonna start with the words jewel and voting matters, because I'm gonna end on the words jewel. And voting matters.
As I said, we're all lions in this room, but members of parliament have a fundamental responsibility of doing one very important thing before they vote on legislation. What is it? Come on.
Research, research, research. And then listen. Listen. Yes. What else? Do what the constituents want. Serve the constituents. Yes. What else? Be ethical, transparent. Yes. And I don't see these things in parliament very often, by the way.
I'm serious. But fundamental to policy is having a reason for having that policy, having the facts to back it up. So in the case of carbon dioxide, and I'll add a few more facts to jewels facts in a minute, but in the case of carbon dioxide, that means being able to quantify the specific effect of human carbon dioxide on any climate variable. Whether it's temperature, snowfall, ocean alkalinity, ocean acidity, ocean, well alkalinity, ocean salinity, uh, storm severity, frequency, any aspect of climate. You must know what carbon dioxide from human activity will do specifically to the climate and the weather. You can't go anywhere. If that's not the case. You don't know. You can't. The next step, once you know that the specific effect of human carbon dioxide, the next thing you must do is you must come up with options. If it's a problem, come up with options. That means doing cost benefit analysis.
So you can't have a policy without knowing the impact of what you're trying to cut without costing it to make sure it's cost effective. And you can't track the implementation if you don't know the specific effect.
They do not know the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate variable whatsoever. And I'm gonna show you proof of that tonight. Now, what Jewel said about that credit card being three quarters of that thickness of the credit card and all the other facts serves to tell us quite correctly that carbon dioxide from human activity is minuscule. In fact, carbon dioxide full stop is nature's trace atmospheric gas essential for all life on this planet.
It's a trace gas because there's bugger all of it. It's a scientific classification. It's a trace gas. We are not, some people on the alarms side will say, oh, but arsenic can kill you with such a small amount. It can.
But we're not talking about a chemical effect here. We're talking about a physical effect. And you cannot get that out of carbon dioxide. But then if you look at where, where it forms, when you burn a hydrocarbon, which has liberated the whales from being killed, which has liberated the forest from being slaughtered for providing warmth and heating and cooking and lighting, when you stop all that, because of the use of oil petrol, pe, uh, oil, coal,
and natural gas, you liberate so many things. You give us this standard of living that we've had in just 170 years. We were scratching around in the dirt dependent on weather until 170 years ago.
And now look at us. And we have less of a human footprint on the environment when we use coal, hydro, coal, uh, oil and natural gas. It's the truth. Far less. So when you burn a hydrocarbon, and hydrocarbons are the real name, not fossil fuels.
Hydrocarbon is the real name because they're composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms. When you burn hydrogen and carbon in oxygen, the air, you get the hydrogen combining with oxygen to form H to o, which is water vapor essential for life on this planet, the carbon molecule, the carbon atoms combined with the oxygen to form c o two, if it's burnt properly, carbon dioxide, you are exhaling carbon dioxide.
Now you're taking it in at 0.04%, and you're exhaling it at 4 to 5%. You've increased it a hundred times. The trees are thanking you for it because the whole world goes around on that.
So you form carbon dioxide essential for all life on this planet, and you form water vapor when you burn a hydrocarbon. Now, hydrocarbons are come, are found in nature. They recycle sunlight, they're found in nature, and they come with pollution. Sometimes sulfur, nitrous oxides, particulates, we recognize them, but they're scrubbed outta modern vehicles.
They're scrubbed outta modern power stations. When you see a coal fired power station, there's nothing coming out of the chimney. Sometimes on a cold day, there's steam condensing, but you can't see the water, the carbon dioxide, because it's colourless it’s tasteless. Now, here's what I'm gonna add to what Jewel said. Jewel's correct, but it goes way beyond that.
0.04% of the earth's atmosphere consists of carbon, is carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in earth's oceans is 50 to 70 times the entire carbon dioxide in the entire atmosphere.
And slight changes in water temperature change the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans. So slight decreases in the, in the, um, water temperature will lead to absorbing of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And what happens? The carbon dioxide goes down, and when you increase the temperature of the water, it releases carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide goes out and it increases in the atmosphere.
We have had two natural experiments in the last 14 years. Remember the 20 2008 global financial crisis? Yeah. 2009 was a recession everywhere around the world except for Australia, because we are exporting mineral products. Yes. Yay.
Now, what happens in the recession is we use less power. So we use less hydrocarbon fuel. So we produce less human carbon dioxide. And what happened to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere kept increasing. We had another experiment, natural experiment. In 20, in 2020, we had a covid restrictions, government restrictions not, it wasn't due to covid, it was due to stupid government, dishonest, incompetent in human government. We cut the, we had a massive recession, almost a depression around the world, and we cut the use of hydrocarbon fuels again. So the amount of carbon dioxide from human activity decreased. And what happened to the amount in the atmosphere, it continued increasing because nature controls it.
So all the stuff they're telling us, even if we cut our carbon dioxide dramatically, it means nothing because all that would happen is the earth oceans would release a little bit more carbon dioxide to maintain the balance for that temperature.
It's all for nothing. But I, I'll, I'll continue. So, so there is no basis for policy. So that means they're gonna make mistakes. Who pays for mistakes? Do thank you. Who's in charge of this country?
They are, they are at the moment. But why are they in charge? Because we let them Who's in charge of this country? We are. Thank you. Because the only people who can change our country's constitution are the voters. Us. We are the sovereigns of this country, but we're not doing our job.
And that's why they're feeding you with b******t on covid, on land, theft of rights to use land on energy, on overregulation things after things, after things control. That's what it's about. So when you have policy, you need logical scientific points. And what's a logical scientific point?
A logical scientific point is empirical data, a hard measurement within a logical framework that says, if this happens, the result will be this. In other words, it proves causality. No one has proved causality with carbon dioxide from human activity.
No one ever, any, anytime. So we'll also have, um, a policy requires, as I said, a specific quantified relationship. So that if you have this much carbon dioxide from human activity, it has this effect that's never been done.
And then you define policy based on that. Now, I'll go through the costs of, um, of these carbon dioxide reduction policy. So far, it came from, I commissioned a study from Alan Moran, who is a first class economist.
Does anyone know what the median income is in Australia? Half the people are earning less than this figure, and half the people are earning more. 51,000 after tax. That's about 46. The additional cost, this is not the cost of electricity.
The additional costs of solar and wind subsidies add about $1,300 to the typical average household in this country per year. That's not the cost of electricity. That's in addition to the cost of electricity due to, due to subsidies for solar and wind. How the hell can someone on 45,000, $46,000 afford that?
How the hell can we afford to send out manufacturing overseas? The, the most, the highest cost component of elec of manufacturing today is not labour. It's electricity. So when you increase the cost of your most important component, you shut down your factory here and you go to China, what does that do to jobs? What does that do to families?
If you're in the Labor Party, you get someone like, um, Dan Rappa, who's the member for Hunter saying promising before the federal election. No, we are not gonna do anything to the Hunter Valley after the federal election.
He supports the shutting of a coal mine. That's what happens in politics in this country. But the costs are not just to the individual households. The costs to the country are about $19 billion a year. Direct subsidies about seven to $9 billion a year.
We are subsidizing at a time when they claim that our, that our weather is becoming variable and we can't rely on it. They're saying, let's turn our electricity sector over to the weather again, it's insane. And would drive jobs outta the country, seven to $9 billion a year for, and then the studies in Spain and other elsewhere show that for every solar job and wind job, 2.3 jobs are lost in the real economy.
Lost. You know, that figure, David, we'll come back to some more examples in Q and A. What I'm saying is that the communities cannot afford this. But who's making money outta this? Billionaires.
Billionaires and China who make the solar panels and the wind turbines from our country. It's coal. In addition, we've got the fact that, and this, this tells you everything you need to know about solar and wind.
For a unit of electricity coming out of a coal fired power station, you need about 35 tons of steel for the same unit of electricity coming out of a wind turbine.
You need 546 tons of steel, which is gonna be more expensive. Add to that then the fact that the low, very low electricity output and you get very low energy density.
Add to that, the fact that it only lasts 15 years. Add to that, the fact that they don't have to pay bonds for every solar and wind installation. So at the end of it, when it's finished its life in 10 to 15 years, what happens?
Who pays for the dismantling? Who pays for the re? Oh, sorry. You can't recycle. So we've got enormous environmental costs, enormous manufacturing costs, enormous household costs. And then we've got children being terrified that the world is about to end.
So this is what's happening. So that's the cost of these policies, part of the costs. And then the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement came out of the Paris Conference from the United Nations, Ingo, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Paris Agreement was not an agreement. It was so embarrassing to see them fight and not come to a resolution when China and India said, stick it to the rest of the world from the previous Copen, uh, Copenhagen Conference.
That what they did when they went to Paris was they did things differently. The leaders flew in at the start, not the end to avoid any embarrassment, and then they tried to hammer out an agreement and the leaders left.
And then they continued arguing. China said, we're not doing anything until 2030, and we might think about it then. India said, pretty much the same, stick it. What did our dopey government do under Turnbull? And sadly, Tony Abbott, they signed our country away.
The Paris Agreement basically says, you'll do whatever you want to do. China says, stick it. India says, stick it. Brazil says, stick it. Russia says, we'll make money outta this.
We'll charge the Europeans for the gas they're gonna need. And then they're now doing it. So that's the Paris agreement. It's our government that has done that. Not the, not the not the world.
And again, who pays if it's wrong? So let's give you some background. I'm just trying to keep track of time, give you some background of what I've been doing. In 2007, an outstanding man, very, very capable. Viv Forbes came to me and said, would I help him tackle this rubbish on climate? I said I would.
And after a little while helping Viv, I had to get the science. That's the way I am. I can't say anything unless I factually know it's correct. So I went into the science. And prior to that, at university, I studied, um, atmospheric gases. Because I'm a mining engineer, I have to keep people alive underground.
So I have to know the composition of the atmosphere. And I know that this was crap, but I still had to get the, the science. And then I thought, it's wrong.
Who's little old me to go against thousands of scientists and thousands of politicians? I must I can't be right. So I kept studying. I am right. And I since learned that the thousands of scientists don't exist. It is a few charlatans, academics, crooks who are stealing money from us.
And it's, that's basically it. The United Nations intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is said to have 4,000 scientists, according to Kevin Rudd. B******t. He then toned that down to 2000. Some of the experts say 1200, no, in 20, in 2000 and 2001, 2007, 2013.
In each of those reports from the intergovernmental panel on climate change, there was one chapter claiming carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. And there's not one skerrick of evidence in those chapters. Those chapters.
In 2007, there was chapter nine in 2007, that chapter was reviewed by about 62 scientists, five endorsed the claim. Five. And there's doubt they were scientists. That's what this is being peddled on.
So it's completely wrong. But anyway, we'll continue. So I started exposing the climate science. Then I wanted to know why it was so corrupt. So I started understanding the United Nations, and then I started understanding who formed the United Nations and why it was formed.
It's a political organization formed to destroy national sovereignty, to get a put in place, a global governance. Don't believe me. Go and ask them. It's written, they've said it. Marie Strong, who concocted climate fab, fabricated the climate alarm.
He said that he had two objectives in the wor for the world. One was to put in place an unelected socialist global governance. His words, not mine. And the second one was to de-industrialized western civilization, because humans are evil, greedy, rapacious. Uncaring.
Are we? He he is. Yes. He's dead now, fortunately. Exactly. So, so, so what happened then? I started peppering the politicians with the information. I started peppering them with the motivation. Who was making money out of it?
How many were interested? Virtually none. One person came to me, she has red hair. She came to me and said, I heard you've been talking well about this. Can you explain it to me?
Then she asked me to stand beside her in parliament in the, in the Senate election. And we got in That that woman looks for the truth and she'll speak it. No matter what happens.
She's a joy to, to work with. So in 2016, I got into the Senate and I did the complete reverse of what I had been doing before. I was pushing the science and the media and politicians would get it and take it a little bit outta context and smear me with it and ridicule. So I said, where's your science? Where's your science? Where's your science?
And no one's got any. This is the first time, I'm just saying this to brag. I'm saying it because it should terrify you. This is the first time anyone, anywhere in any cong, in any congress or parliament has put a government science agency, the c ss i o in my case, under relentless cross-examination, first time.
So what did that tell you about every other nation that has a parliament or a Congress where they're spouting this b******t? They're gutless. But not only that, David, they don't know what's going on.
They're ignorant. That's correct. So what I did was, the very first thing I did, I walked outta the Senate after being sworn in, and I signed a letter I'd already drafted saying, I want a presentation that led to three presentations from CSIRO.
I'll give you the background first presentation. We didn't put any restraints on them. We just said, we want to know the empirical scientific evidence that shows that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut.
In that first presentation, they eventually admitted under our cross-examination that the CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger, Really. So we also hold in the chief scientist and the chief scientist gave us a presentation, and after 20 minutes of letting him talk, we said, hang on a minute. We asked him a simple question and he went, whoops.
These guys know what they're talking about. Then the chief scientist at the time was Dr. Allen Finkle. He said to us about a meter from me across the table, he said to me, I am not a climate scientist and I don't understand it.
Why did that man previously run around the country telling us we had to cut our carbon dioxide? And why did he continue to do so after admitting that? So we said to him, okay, we want a fair income presentation for four hours at least.
And as we were finishing up, he said, can I bring a scientist? I said, you can bring anyone you want. So we lined that up for a couple of weeks later.
A couple of months later, I'm sorry, and just before that presentation was due, we got news that Dr. Finkel was overseas. He's not coming back. He did come back, but they took him out of that and they put the CSIRO in there in the second.
And again, we didn't tell them what to produce, what evidence they could use entirely up to them. And they produced two more papers and we dismissed them as well. And they admitted climate change catastrophism started with global warming. They admitted to us that today's temperatures are not unprecedented. Not unprecedented. What? And they failed completely to prove any association, specific association between human carbon dioxide and global temperatures, or any global climate factor. So then we told them, okay, let's make it really easy for you.
Just show us anywhere in the last 10,000 years of Earth's history, where, where you've had a a, you've had a change in climate, and it's due to carbon dioxide from human activity, failed again, failed completely. Then in senate estimates, I asked them, just show me any evidence that there's been a change in climate, just a change failed. Again, there's no change. What you see is normal cyclical climate, uh, variability.
It's just variability. So that's the process we went through with the CSIRO. The very first presentation they made to us after 44 years of research and climate science, they gave, and they could give us whatever they wanted.
They gave us one paper by Marotte one paper that was written in 2013, within two weeks of that paper released back in 2013, and we are now in 2016. That paper was completely trashed by Canadian scientists completely trashed.
So much so that the lead author said that you can't rely on the 20th century temperature projections. And yet that's the one point the CSIRO was using for their, for their unprecedented warming. So they stopped talking about Marotte, effectively withdrew it from the discussion.
They gave us one paper on carbon dioxide, Harry's et al 20 2001. We trashed that and they had to stop talking about that. Then they came back with another, the next meeting, they came back with another paper, the Cavalier on Carbon on uh, temperatures.
We trashed that completely. They stopped talking about that. They gave us another paper on carbon dioxide Feldman 2015. We showed the dis discrepancies there, and they stopped talking about that.
Then they gave us five broad papers, no specific reference to any specific area within that. Some of those references contradicted. The first two they admitted, I, I'll tell you what they admitted.
The CSIRO admitted that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger. Instead, it said, danger statements come from politicians who told us it was due to the car, to the CSIRO. So the politicians are lying.
The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variables such as temperature, rainfall, droughts, floods, storms, ocean alkalinity, ocean salinity.
Yet that's the fundamental basis for policy. CSIRO admitted that today's temperatures are not unprecedented. CSIRO then claimed unprecedented rate of temperature rise. We expose the blatant inaccuracies that discredited the papers CSIRO had provided as evidence.
CSRA's Climate Team then stopped discussing those papers and effectively withdrew from the discussion. CSIRO then failed to provide the logical scientific points showing that carbon dioxide from human activity causes climate change and needs to be cut no science back in them. CSIRO instead relied upon unvalidated, erroneous and discredited computer models, which we know are wrong.
They also relied on models for covid management. Mismanagement. CSIRO has failed to provide statistically significant evidence of any change in any climate factor. CSIRO initially relied.
I told you about relying on one paper on temperatures and that being discredited by the, by its author CSIRO admits to not doing due diligence on data relied upon from external agencies. It just takes, it doesn't check.
CSIRO admits to not doing due diligence on reports from external agencies nor on supposedly scientific papers. It pro it provided. CSIRO revealed little understanding of the papers it gave me as evidence.
CSIRO allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO without correction. And CSIRO misled parliament. That's what your taxes are paying for. 17 internationally respected climate scientists from six nations, including Australia.
I've interviewed them for as long as two to three hours each. They agree that the CSIRO has got nothing. We have made a rebuttal of the CSIRO's presentations using peer-reviewed scientific papers.
We have a research scientist who's got an order of Australian metal for services to research in this country, has scraped 24,000 data sets on climate and energy from around the world. There's nothing happening. Just natural variability, freedom of information requests and parliamentary library searches that I've put on bomb and the CH and the CSIRO chief executive and the CSIRO have shown that never has any politician received evidence from carbon, from CSIRO or BOM stating that showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. No one ever, the Bureau of Meteorology produces with the CSIRO. Every two years, a state of the climate report, politicians walk up to me and say, here's the evidence. So in senate estimates, I checked and I said to the head of the, the head, the director of the Bureau of Meteorology, this state of the climate just does natural variability.
It doesn't do anything about proving carbon dioxide from human affects climate. He said, you are correct politicians swallow this b******t and feed it out who pays. We Do. I've told you about the chief scientist, the Australian Institute of Marine Science that looks after the bureau, uh, well tries to look after the barrier. Reef says that it, it has never produced the logical scientific points, including the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate that needs to be cut. That's Australia.
Let's look at the politicians. Yeah, we have to, okay. This is gonna surprise you. Well, maybe not, but this, this will surprise most people. I was a fan of John Howard. Remember Johnny Howard? Okay.
When he got booted out. Yeah. That's the way I'm now, when he got booted out, I wrote him a letter saying, thank you for being a top politics in this country for 30 years.
Got a lovely letter back from him saying Thank you for you. Thanks. Okay. So that was 2007. Then I started doing my research. I found that the leader of the first party, major party to put in place a carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme was John Howard, a carbon tax.
I found that the person who introduced a renewable energy target was John Howard that is now gutting our electricity sector and our manufacturing and herding agriculture. But this one really got me to comply with the UN's Kyoto protocol. 'cause that's what he said we would do, wouldn't sign it, but we'll comply with it. What he did, what his government did was they said to the un, we can comply by shutting down factories, power stations, cars, agriculture, but they're not gonna buy that. The people aren't gonna buy it. So what we'll do instead is we'll stop the clearing of land because trees absorb carbon dioxide. Right? So if we stop the clearing of land, then we deserve credits instead of shutting the down. And they said, yes, he had a problem. Ben knows what I'm talking about. I think we, he then had a problem. Section 51, clause 31 of the federal constitution says, if you interfere with someone's rights to use their property, you pay just terms compensation. You're looking now at a hundred to $200 billion of compensation. Can't afford that. So what we'll do is we'll go to the states who don't have any restrictions and we'll get them to steal the farmer's land.
It's in hand side in Queensland Parliament correspondence between Beaty and Howard doing exactly that, saying that Beatie would take the land off farmers in exchange for money from the federal government who's paying that money, right?
But it actually started before Beatie. It started in 1996 with a memorandum of understanding signed between the liberal nationals in federal parliament under John Howard and John Anderson and, and, uh, Rob Borage, the National Party Premier in this state In New South Wales. It was Bob Carr.
And Bob Carr was on video on YouTube gloating laughing that he stole farmers' property rights without paying compensation so that John Howard could comply with the United Nations Kyoto Protocol.
What the hell are we doing complying with the United Nations? What the hell are we doing stealing property rights? There is nothing more sacrosanct to true li liberal than secure property rights.
Correct. He, his government stole 'em. No compensation went around the constitution to deceitfully steal them in six years after he got booted out of office. I wrote him another letter because I heard what he said in London at a global warming policy foundation. It's a skeptic think tank.
He was invited to deliver the annual lecture as a skeptic. And in that lecture he said, on the topic of climate science, I am agnostic. He did all of that without any evidence.
And then two years ago, he stood up in public and said, when the, when the, uh, renewable energy target is around 24%, oh, I only wanted two b******t. Rudd came in and turbocharged everything.
Liberals laid the foundation and the Labor Party took it off further, and now it's going. And then Morrison has changed on 2050 Net Zero with no evidence. I asked Senators Zel, in, in federal parliament, where is your evidence for changing your policy from opposing Net Zero 2050 to supporting it? Um, uh, shuffled and shuffled and that was it. No evidence. Who's paying, right? So let's continue. The father of the senate at the time, Ian McDonald, said, looked up at me one day in 2016 and said, I don't always agree with Senator Roberts, but I've gotta give him credit for starting the debate on climate science that this parliament has never had.
Did you know that the parliament has never debated the science you've been told? It's been debated up uphill and down Dale. They've never debated it. That's from the longest serving parliamentarian, uh, uh, Senator Senator McDonald at the time. It's still not debated it.
Back in seventh of Mar 7th of October, 2010, I was on a, on a forum with Larissa Waters at the Powerhouse Museum in Brisbane. And I challenged her as a member of a panel fellow member to debate me on climate science and the corruption of climate science.
She jumped to her feet and said, I will not debate you. When I turned around and finished for the, for the night, she said, she came straight to me and said, I will not debate you in 2019.
On the 9th of September, I think it was, I challenged Richard d the Green's leader. Yeah, stop smiling and, and Larissa Waters to a debate on the corruption of climate science and on the science itself. And I challenged them to produce their evidence.
Never have they done that. And I've repeatedly reminded them. So that's the politics. No evidence. Kevin Rudd's government, they're the ones who talked about 4,000 scientists in white lab coats.
Remember that statement, David? Five academics reviewers endorsed the claim. That's it. They're not my figures. They're the United Nations figures on their own authors. On the 24th of July, 2020, I wrote to senators and men and members who stated that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut and asked them for their logical scientific points as the basis for that claim. All failed to provide that.
Their senators, Matt Canavan. Yes. He actually said that carbon in a speech in the Senate that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut because it's affecting climate. He said, you know who told me? He said it. And I checked the speech.
Liberal Senator McDonald, Ian McDonald. So Matt Canavan, Zali Stegel, Larissa Waters, Simon Birmingham, Jenny McAllister, Penny Wong, and MPs Trent Zimmerman, Mark Butler, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Barnaby Joyce, Anthony Alban. And just years before, he was the most colourful and effective speaker against this b******t.
Anthony Albanese, Adam Bant, David Littleproud. Now the new Nationals leader, Josh Frydenberg, Angus Taylor, Karen Andrews, Greg Hunt, Tony Burke and Tanya Ekk. Four people replied to me. All of them failed to provide any evidence. But I'm gonna go to the other side.
And by the way, met Matt Canavan is an example along with Barnaby Joyce of what politicians do. He was a skeptic when he got into parliament and into the Senate and then became minister.
He all started voting with the liberals on this climate. Rubbish talking, the climate rubbish. Then when he got out of cabinet, he started talking softly about maybe there's something wrong here.
And Barnaby Joyce is the same skeptic, alarmist, wasted $400 million on wind turbines in his electorate to get his vote, get votes, then became mildly a skeptic again. But they won't talk loudly. I want to compliment, uh, nine senators and MPs 'cause I wrote to them knowing what they do, because these are men of integrity and women of integrity. I asked them for their evidence. They came back and they said in writing that they've never been given any evidence in Parliament or by their party.
They are Mr. George Christensen. Mr. Bob Catter. Yes. Mr. Kevin Andrews. Mr. Craig Kelly, Senator Jared Rennick. Senator Pauline Hanssen, Senator Connie, fear of Andy Wells. Yes, Mr. Lu O'Brien, Senator Eric Abets. That's it.
But they deserve credit because they have stood up and be and and been counted. And that's, that's what we need in parliament. Zali Stegel came to our offices, Pauline and and myself, and I always remember this, pushing her 2021 attempt to persuade us to vote for her proposed climate change legislation. So I just looked at her from meter across the table and just said, where's your evidence that we need to do something Uhhuh.
Now she's intelligent as a lawyer, but there was nothing there. She couldn't justify it. End of story. When I repeatedly asked the Morrison government senate leader, Mathias Corman, for the evidence in question time and elsewhere within the Senate, why are you doing this? His answer was, every time to fulfill our global responsibilities.
What the hell? I didn't elect the UN. I elected, um, people to represent Australia's interest in parliament. I did the same in the interest of speed. I've done the same with the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change. They have not got, they have not got the evidence.
The late Maurice Strong, anyone heard of him? Yep. Yep. That grub, he's dead now. He's the man who concocted global, global warming and climate alarm. He formed the United Nations intergovernmental panel and climate change in 1988.
He's a marvelous networker, incredible intellect, and just a very good organizer and convinced her of people. He's the one who led it all. He was also the one who had shares and a directorship in the Chicago Climate Exchange. You know what that does? Trades, carbon dioxide credits. He was gonna make a bucket load of money outta this.
He was also involved with the food for oil scandal in the United Nations. He was also involved with dodgy dealings and criminal activities, allegedly in Colorado and other parts of the United States.
He went to China. That's correct. Exiled, because the American police were after him. That's the cap. That's the, this character, the calibre of the man who started this whole scam.
So that's who pays. He was also under Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program, which he formed. Yes. He, which he formed in 1972. The United Nations Environmental Program banned the use of DDT, even though it was highly successful in killing, stopping malaria.
When they banned it, it stayed banned until 2006 when the United Nations World Health Organization restored it. In the interim, 40 to 50 million deaths are thought to have occurred.
We're talking about the second biggest genocide that the world has seen, and the reports from the scientists acknowledged that DDT was not dangerous to the environment, was not dangerous to humans if used wisely and was highly effective with malaria. So they caused the deaths of 40 to 50 million people, more than Hitler, more than Stalin, not as many as mao.
So we are looking at an inhuman organization. Ross Ano, remember him? He's a cli. He did a climate change review for, for Kevin Rudd. Second chapter was titled, understanding Climate Science. It states the review takes as its starting point on the balance of probabilities and not as a matter of belief, the majority opinion of the Australian and international scientific communities.
That human activities resulted in substantial global warming for the, from the mid 20th century. And that continued growth in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human induced emissions would generate high risks of dangerous climate change.
Matter of belief, not a matter of science. Who pays? We do. I I I could tell you, but I won't. And at the moment I'm happy to do it in question time, how I held NASA accountable. A tiny part of NASA accountable, because most of them are not this way bent in NASA.
I've also, I can also tell you about, um, individual scientists, academics that I've held accountable. No one can provide the evidence. We've already dealt with the, with the major experiment that we've, uh, shut down carbon dioxide production from humans. And, um, there's been no decrease in the increase in carbon dioxide at all.
So there you have it. Why are they doing it? Money. Money, money. Bigger one. What's that? Control. Control, control and power is why they're doing it. They've stolen farmers' property rights.
They now tell the farmers what they're going to do on their land. That is fundamental to communism. Steal property rights. They do it because they wanna impose a carbon dioxide tax.
They do it because they want to control energy. They're not interested in you driving electric vehicles. What are they interested in you driving? Nothing but public transport and bikes and walking.
They're not interested in your energy use other than to eliminate it. That's what the UN has said. Julia Gillard said the same thing. What do you have to do to stop people using something? Raise the price.
The price of real terms of energy. Since 1850 has continued decreasing until three decades ago when it deliberately started artificially increasing. We used to come into our house and flick on a switch. Now people think about it.
We've got people shivering in the, in the winter, people starving because they can't afford food and electricity that's happening in this country. We are going back to third world status. So who's paying?
And the other thing, they're doing it for control, but they're also doing it for global sovereignty. The global control, destroying national boundaries and having and seeding our sovereignty to the UN.
We have now so many things that are tied up in UN policies that you didn't vote for, you didn't vote for. I didn't vote for. You didn't vote for. You didn't vote for. They didn't even tell you that it was the UN.
So not a single politician has got any evidence. Not a single government agency has got any evidence. This is based on b******t and lies. Thank you. Thank you.
