Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am being relevant, because at the end of the day, whether it's a 43 per cent reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere or a 75 per cent reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, it's convection that drives heat transfer in the atmosphere, not radiation.

Honourable senators interjecting—

You don't believe me? Then take Albert Einstein's word for it, because, at the end of the day, carbon dioxide absorbs and emits photons at only two frequencies. One is at 2.8 microns, which, according to Planck's law, has five times more energy—and that's incoming solar radiation. And the other one is outgoing long-wave radiation at 14.8 microns. The whole point of this discussion is to debunk the junk science behind climate change. I did this last night, but I'll just run you through the five different laws that prove that this disproves climate change.

Number 1 is the first law of thermodynamics: conduction. Basically, all carbon dioxide does is absorb and emit photons that come via the sun. That law is actually Einstein's special theory of relativity, E equals MC squared. As I said last night, he came up with that in 1905. Interestingly enough, he didn't get a Nobel Prize for that. He actually got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, which is one of four papers he wrote in1905. The photoelectric effect impacts the fact that every molecule has a specific vibrational frequency, and it's at that frequency that it can only absorb heat.

The other law that I also used last night was Wien's Law. That describes the frequency at which the CO2 molecule will emit heat. As I pointed out last night, that law says that carbon dioxide only emits heat at 192 degrees Kelvin, which is negative 80 degrees Celsius. So the only place where carbon dioxide will actually release heat is either at the bottom of Antarctica or about ten kilometres up in the troposphere. This matters because this disproves the science; the science is bogus.

I'll continue. What I have here is an energy budget from the Australian Academy of Science. They want you to believe that downwelling radiation averages on a 24-hour period over 342 watts per square metre. Funnily enough, the CSIRO says that the downwelling radiation from CO2 is 333 watts per square metre. That is a difference of nine watts per square meter. What does that tell you? These guys can't measure downwelling radiation. They can't even measure it. We're told the science is settled, but they can't even measure it. Guess what? The IPCC says that the increase in downwelling radiation since 1750, from the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, is only two watts per square metre. Get this. Their error in measurements has a margin of error of 400 per cent. You can't even properly measure what it is you're supposed to be spending billions of dollars on. How is that going to work? Not too well.

Here's the other crazy thing. They want you to believe that the downwelling radiation from carbon dioxide is actually stronger than the incoming solar radiation from the sun. That's absurd. As we know from Plank's law from 1902, solar radiation effectively has a higher frequency of about up to 100 times in the ultraviolet range and the visible light range—the visible light range is about 30 times stronger than 14.8 microns in the infrared range. They want you to believe that infrared has more energy than ultraviolet and visible light. This stuff is pathetic.

Here's the real doozey. What's missing in this energy budget, people? I will tell you what it is. I'll give you a bit of a clue here. A bloke by the name of Isaac Newton hypothesised this back in the 16th or 17th century. That, of course, is gravity. These guys want you to think that photons aren't influenced by the gravity of the earth, which happens to be 5.6 trillion billion tonnes. They seem to think that that's not going to have a pull on a photon. So the whole thing is totally debunked.

My question to the minister is: why are there 40 different models to calculate net zero, if the science is settled? That came from the head of the CSIRO, who said there were 40 different models used to calculate net zero. The science is not settled if the head of the CSIRO in this country says there are 40 different models. Which model are we going to use here in Australia, and how do we know there isn't going to be arbitrage with the different models between different countries to exploit the confusion in climate change and to milk Australia dry?