Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have heard some discussion that the only effective action that can be taken is through the introduction of an ETS tax. Let us look at ETS taxes. They certainly have not been a sterling success in Europe, where they have been in operation for a while. I do not see too many of the European nations that have had an ETS on their books for quite a while achieving anywhere near their Kyoto goals, for the most part. In fact, even the originator of the ETS—and remember that the ETS was originally for sulphur dioxide emissions—says that an ETS is not viable for reductions in carbon dioxide on a global scale. You are certainly seeing that in the European context, where $126 billion was traded on the carbon market last year. To what end? There were no reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and they certainly did not reach Kyoto goals.

The member for Isaacs talks about denial of climate change. The reality is that this is typical scaremongering and resorting to holocaust type comparisons. The fact is that the member for Isaacs and the majority of people in this House would know that there is no such thing as settled science on this issue. So it is just typical nay-saying—‘We will call them climate science deniers,’ in an attempt at fearmongering. As I have said, there is no settled science and particularly in climate change science, but here we have the unquestioning acceptance of one side of an argument by a barrister. You would think he would have some idea about examination of evidence, but, no, it is: ‘That side are deniers and this side are purer than the driven snow.’

Let us have a look at the science that is ‘purer than the driven snow’. Let us have a look at the Climategate emails, for example, and Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, one of the senior members on the IPCC and head of one of the major repositories of global climate data. There were a couple of papers that he did not like in the peer-reviewed literature and he wrote in an email:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Boy, he was not kidding! The IPCC excludes genuine peer review—for instance, those papers—but now accepts, for example, with Glaciergate, a report in New Scientist based on a couple of telephone calls between a journalist and an obscure scientist working on glaciers. That New Scientist article was then regurgitated by the WWF in a propaganda piece, and that suddenly became peer-reviewed science that was accepted by the IPCC. Subsequent to this all blowing up, coordinating lead author Professor Lal—a seriously senior person in the IPCC—now admits he does not know much about glaciers. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has a pecuniary vested interest and lied about the period he became aware of this glacier problem. In fact, this glacier problem was known at the time of the fourth assessment report but was included as the IPCC wanted to pressure governments in the subcontinent into action. This is IPCC scientists as activists. Scientists are supposed to be independent in examining the evidence, and all they are doing is acting as activists in this case.

Then we have Africagate. Apparently, reduced rainfall will reduce African crop yields by 40 per cent by 2020—more peer-reviewed science, you would have thought. No; it was based on an article by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, an advocacy group, and it was based on a report on three countries. It was written in an article that was not peer reviewed, an article that was written by people who were not scientists.

Then there was Amazongate. An advocacy group associated with the WWF, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, predicted ecological catastrophe in the Amazon. In the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, they stated:

Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.

And they refer to ‘Rowell and Moore, 2000’. Who are Rowell and Moore? One of them is an ‘expert’ on government legislation—not a scientist—and the other is a journalist associated with Greenpeace and the WWF. Interestingly enough, the report does not reference a 40 per cent reduction at all.

Then there was Insurancegate, based on a paper by Muir-Wood which was not accepted in the literature when the IPCC report came out. But guess what? It was accepted anyway, despite the IPCC having ruled that papers be peer reviewed and accepted about six months prior to the closing date of review—and this was not accepted by the time that the full report came out. The full report that was accepted found insufficient evidence for the assertion of increased insurance imposts due to climate change. Roger Pielke Jr, one of the expert reviewers, questioned the assertion by the IPCC of increased insurance imposts, but this was basically ignored by the IPCC.

Then you have Mountaingate, with reduced snow cover on mountains, according to the IPCC, already demonstrating climate change effects. But guess where that came from? It came from a magazine called Climbing, which was for rock climbers and mountaineers—certainly not peer reviewed—and a masters thesis that quoted mountain guides in the Alps and their anecdotal evidence of snow reduction. Then you have Antarcticagate, with the IPCC report saying:

The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability.

But guess what? It was based on a paper submitted to the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. It was not peer reviewed and there was no discussion in the article about climate change. These are in the fourth assessment report—supposedly, the most thoroughly checked document in scientific history. It is absolutely unbelievable.

But let us have a look at what has actually been occurring in the time periods and contrast that with IPCC projections. Temperatures have been dropping since 2001. One of the ministers was talking about 14 of the 16 hottest years or whatever, but the reality is that the trend line is down. It has been dropping since 2001. Let us talk about trends. We hear about this upward trend and human beings causing it. The reality is that, yes, there has been an upward trend over 150 years of measurement. Certainly if you go back through paleoclimatological data, it goes back a few hundred years. Basically, it is a bounce off the little ice age.

But the fact is that the IPCC acknowledges that most of that warming is natural. They are basing it on a 23-year period from about 1975 to 1998, when they say, ‘Guess what: our models don’t kind of explain this warming without human activity.’ Well, guess what: their models all projected an increase in global temperatures this century, even for a case where carbon dioxide was held constant at year 2000 levels. We all know that carbon dioxide levels have increased since then. The IPCC said that the urban heat island effect is negligible. This was as a result of a paper by Jones—once again, the guy who said we will change the definition of peer review. This was accepted by the IPCC, despite the fact that evidence was fabricated by co-author Wei-Chyung Wang.

In Northern Australia there was another falsehood: the IPCC report showed significant increases in temperature over the last century. The problem is that you get the raw data and it shows no increase at all. In fact, if anything, it shows a slight decrease.

Lyman et al and Loehle et al show cooling of the global oceans, despite the IPCC projections all showing that the oceans should be heating up. In fact, we were given some evidence by Will Steffen and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, referencing a paper by Church, amongst others, who said, ‘You should be referencing this, this is the latest one.’ The problem is that the data ended in 2003, which is when the Argo network was introduced. The Argo network has given us more data about ocean temperatures since 2003 than we have had in the rest of human recorded history combined. We need to have a full audit of the IPCC and include an audit by sceptics of data—including data from Australia. If everything is aboveboard, no-one should have any problem with this.

Given the government’s history of spin and no substance, it is no wonder that they simply take at face value everything that the IPCC says and see it as beyond question despite evidence of significant corruption. The government’s ETS tax has no solutions for how to achieve cuts. Merely have a look at the lack of success of the ETS in Europe to see that the ETS tax in itself does not solve anything.

The coalition policy makes sense, as it has benefits even if—as I have maintained for years—humankind are not having, and will not have, a major effect on global climate. The policy that we have is the responsible thing to do, particularly in light of the fraudulent science, the corruption and the collusion evident in the IPCC process. The IPCC process is supposed to be peer reviewed, but the reality is that the lead author can choose to accept or reject the reviewer’s comment. That is not peer review. I have written peer review papers, and peer review is where you actually have to directly confront the reviewer’s comments, not simply choose to ignore them.

Let us think about another thing. Let us think about what happens if the consensus position on the science changes and they say that there is no longer global warming. Let us just assume that. The question then is: once you have introduced an ETS, how do you unscramble the damn thing? Should it be that many others and I are wrong, our policy has the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions, but if I am right then it has benefits in other areas—environmental areas. There has been scant discussion on environment in this—it has been discussion of carbon dioxide and tax. It does not lock us into a tax forevermore regardless of whether the consensus science is right or wrong.

We had to go to Copenhagen with CPRS passed—an emissions tax imposed—because this was going to show the world. It shows how much authority the Rudd government has as far as the world authority is concerned. Just have a look at the countries that have decided that they do not want to act: India and China. Very shortly they will be the No. 2 and No. 1 emitters in the world. Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out that it is in China’s interest—if the IPCC position is correct as far as warming is concerned—not to have an ETS and to have that warming. It will give them a competitive advantage. Industry bodies used to go along completely with the government’s position, saying, ‘We accept a CPRS, and we need certainty’—but guess what—‘don’t hurt us.’ Now they have been given an alternative and, quite frankly, they prefer our policy.

The member for Bonner was talking about underground power cables. Here we are talking about major high voltage—(Time expired)

See this speech in context