Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. Senator McLucas and Senator Cameron both introduced the science of the issue into their contributions to the debate. I do not know what they were doing over the summer, whether they are just in denial or whether they seek to misrepresent things—I do not know what it is—but what they said about the science is utterly wrong and misleading and must be corrected. I am not the only one saying this. The British government’s Chief Scientific Adviser has been saying that we now have to have a bit of honesty in this debate on the science. He said:

The impact of global warming—

had—

… been exaggerated by some of the scientists and there—

was—

… an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change.

Australia’s Chief Scientist told the Australian newspaper that she supported the British Chief Scientific Adviser; that we ought to have more honesty in this debate—at least a little more research that is not coming from the other side. Senator McLucas spent some time in her contribution to the debate on climate change policies talking about the Great Barrier Reef. She said that it was bleaching and she claimed that we would not have a Great Barrier Reef if the current conditions continued. That has been utterly debunked. Moreover, the very day she made that speech it was debunked in the Australian newspaper by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which reported that mass coral bleaching was ‘unlikely this summer’, had not occurred the previous summer and that they could not see it into the future. That is my summary of the matter. Time does not permit me to go through the whole article laying down the science. The Great Barrier Reef is not in danger.

We all know that Senator Cameron will say anything at any time, but what was he doing? He raised the issue of the melting glaciers. We know that was debunked. That was clearly debunked over the summer, so much so that the IPCC, which ran on this issue, has issued an apology on the matter. Yet those two leading speakers for the government raised two questions of science—icons, if you like, of the climate change debate—in their speeches and expected to get away with it. They expected those listening to believe that these are still issues on the agenda. But the glaciers in the Himalayas are not melting, certainly not by 2035; nor is the Great Barrier Reef under threat from climate change. And so it goes on, as we all know, with the debunking of the so-called science.

The claim that the Amazon would be reduced by 40 per cent under current climate change conditions by 2035 has also been debunked. There has been another IPCC withdrawal on that issue. It is the same with the sea levels. I could go on and on, but time does not permit me. I have the science on these matters and it is accepted. Senator Cameron mentioned in his contribution to the debate that the Antarctic is melting, but it is not. Our own Curtin University of Technology has proved that. I have material here as high as this ceiling to debunk any of these claims coming from the other side.

The point is that Minister Penny Wong comes in here along with those who support her—that is, all of those from the other side—ridiculing the science that we put forward. It is not so much that they support her; it is more that they just will not speak out. But it is all coming out now. I am challenging the extremism that comes from the government. The evidence is highly credible, and it is coming from scientists of great credibility.

Take the sea-level issue. Kevin Rudd says 200,000 houses on the eastern seaboard of Australia are in danger of being swamped. That is backed up by the New South Wales government, so it sounds more like a good idea for a coastal tax from them. That is their claim: the eastern seaboard is in danger of being swamped, probably by 2035. But that is debunked. Who has debunked it? I can tell you: someone a bit more credible than Kevin Rudd and the New South Wales government.