2022 09 Climate Change Bills / archived / read-only

 
  • Part of: Points on Climate Change
  • Overall Direction
    • AIMS:
      • Narrow the debate and extend it to the next step while keeping the current participants in the debate:
        • Make true serious grave accusations that CSIRO, BOM, McAllister are forced to refute
      • Reinforce specific quantified effect as the only basis for policy, CBA of options, & measuring implementation progress. Make it impossible to argue against. Tight, solid.
      • Entwine all three (CSIRO, BOM, McAllister) as being part of a botched politico-science approach hijacking science & governance
        • Combine the parliamentary and scientific approaches:
        • Combine response to McAllister’s senate speech We.08.09.22 & CSIRO/BOM/academics responses to my senate inquiry submission
        • Expose the lack of rigour in the scientific and parliamentary processes
        • Embarrass CSIRO & expose their attempt at trying to avoid argument
        • Politicians have no basis for policy. No formal advice from CSIRO, BOM
        • Corruption of parliamentary process due to misunderstanding of what is science
      • Set a basis for court case and appeal for funding
    • Audience:
      • Public:
        • The people/voters – being the people who will pay for unfounded policies
        • Employers, industry bodies propagating the climate myth. eg, AICD
      • Politicians
        • The Howard-Anderson government that deceitful bypassed the constitution to steal farmers' rights to use their land as a way of complying with the UN's 1997 Kyoto Protocol yet later in 2013 John Howard admitted that on climate science he is agnostic. Where's the specific basis for his government's dishonest and crippling policy?
        • Prime Minister, Opposition Leader
        • Energy Minister Bowen and Shadow spokesperson for Energy
        • Science Minister overseeing CSIRO
          • Contempt of the senate. Getting in the way of the senate and inquiry doing its job and fulfilling its responsibilities. If it obstructed the committee’s deliberations.
          • High level: in CSIRO's response to my submission CSIRO provided no specific rebuttals and no Logical Scientific Points. Instead implied smears and omissions. Mayfield misled senate on the point of CSIRO providing LSP & ESE proving there is any statistically significant change in climate.
            • Explain what science is in pure terms (LSP with ESE) and in relation to policy being the specific quantified effect of H-CO2 on temperature.
              • Science basics: explain Logical Scientific Points LSP and Empirical Scientific Evidence ESES responses to my all avoid these:
              • Empirical scientific data as evidence
              • Within a logical scientific framework
              • That proves cause-and-effect
              • And that specifically quantifies effect - as the basis for sound policy
              • No one has any specific quantified advice of H-CO2’s affect on climate. If disagree, please provide
          • • CSIRO tell us specifically where you disagree and refute us
            • Temps not unprecedented. Please explain why periods during the past 10,000 years were warmer. Current climate not unprecedented.
            • No specific quantified effect of H-CO2 on temperature
            • Chinese and Indian production of CO2
            • Invite CSIRO to comment on each of key points revealed about CSIRO failures
              • Marcott
              • Kaufmann
              • Lecavalier
              • Statistically significant ESE proving there is change in climate.
          • CSIRO’s response is not fit as a comment on a major bill. Major as costs specified in Moran report reveal
          • BOM provides no LSP / ESE
            • We agree with many statements yet they prove nothing and are distractions from the key points
            • Refute their key statements:
              • Direct
              • Implied misleading statements made as distractions
              • BOM no specific quantified effect of H-CO2. Kaufmann, Harries, Feldman
            • List our points BOM failed to refute. H-CO2 affecting climate & consequences
            • Ernst Georg Beck
            • We would be pleased to have an independent inquiry into BOM’s corrupt tampering of temperature database. GHCN temperature database McLean. Yet, because CSIRO admits temperatures not unprecedented, it's moot.
            • Affirms natural variability in climate: Current climate not unprecedented
          • Questions on Notice. Submit in writing, respond in writing.
            • 6 weeks to reply. If no reply, speak in senate
            • Put on line. Make a public database of answers
        • Leader of govt in senate (Wong) and Manager of Govt business (Gallagher) and senate opposition leader (Birmingham) and manager of opposition business (Ruston)
        • Environment Committee Chair and Members
          • Contempt of the senate. Getting in the way of the senate and inquiry doing its job and fulfilling its responsibilities. If it obstructed the committee’s deliberations.
          • High level: in CSIRO's response to my submission CSIRO provided no specific rebuttals and no Logical Scientific Points. Instead implied smears and omissions. Mayfield misled senate on the point of CSIRO providing LSP & ESE proving there is any statistically significant change in climate.
            • Explain what science is in pure terms (LSP with ESE) and in relation to policy being the specific quantified effect of H-CO2 on temperature.
              • Science basics: explain Logical Scientific Points LSP and Empirical Scientific Evidence ESES responses to my all avoid these:
              • Empirical scientific data as evidence
              • Within a logical scientific framework
              • That proves cause-and-effect
              • And that specifically quantifies effect - as the basis for sound policy
              • No one has any specific quantified advice of H-CO2’s affect on climate. If disagree, please provide
          • • CSIRO tell us specifically where you disagree and refute us
            • Temps not unprecedented. Please explain why periods during the past 10,000 years were warmer. Current climate not unprecedented.
            • No specific quantified effect of H-CO2 on temperature
            • Chinese and Indian production of CO2
            • Invite CSIRO to comment on each of key points revealed about CSIRO failures
              • Marcott
              • Kaufmann
              • Lecavalier
              • Statistically significant ESE proving there is change in climate.
          • CSIRO’s response is not fit as a comment on a major bill. Major as costs specified in Moran report reveal
          • BOM provides no LSP / ESE
            • We agree with many statements yet they prove nothing and are distractions from the key points
            • Refute their key statements:
              • Direct
              • Implied misleading statements made as distractions
              • BOM no specific quantified effect of H-CO2. Kaufmann, Harries, Feldman
            • List our points BOM failed to refute. H-CO2 affecting climate & consequences
            • Ernst Georg Beck
            • We would be pleased to have an independent inquiry into BOM’s corrupt tampering of temperature database. GHCN temperature database McLean. Yet, because CSIRO admits temperatures not unprecedented, it's moot.
            • Affirms natural variability in climate: Current climate not unprecedented
        • Senator McAllister
          • Letter to McAllister, Govt senate leader, President re McAllister’s evidence
            • Include copy of letter to CSIRO Board
            • McAllister said in Committee stage she’s not aware
          • 20 references – none are LSP’s with ESE. No understanding of cause and effect. Listing references that mention climate is not LSP/ESE proving causation and/or problem and action. Explain.
          • Paris does not mention Net Zero
          • Sinks and sources – by arithmetic. Peter's graph.
          • McAllister’s response did not include poverty as the Paris Agreement defines. Raising electricity prices guts energy usage and that createss poverty.
          • UN’s specific temperature goal yet no specific quantified effect of H-CO2 on temperature
          • Australia absorbs more CO2 than H-CO2 that we produce
          • In Senate Question Time on Thursday 08 September 2022, Wong failed to identify a single nation whose renewables energy proportion has increased and whose energy price has fallen.
          • Affordable energy eradicates poverty. UN goals are conflicting. Inherently opposed, mutually exclusive
        • Minister overseeing BOM? Or restrict it to CSIRO and McAllister
          • BOM provides no LSP / ESE
            • We agree with many statements yet they prove nothing and are distractions from the key points
            • Refute their key statements:
              • Direct
              • Implied misleading statements made as distractions
              • BOM no specific quantified effect of H-CO2. Kaufmann, Harries, Feldman
            • List our points BOM failed to refute. H-CO2 affecting climate & consequences
            • Ernst Georg Beck
            • We would be pleased to have an independent inquiry into BOM’s corrupt tampering of temperature database. GHCN temperature database McLean. Yet, because CSIRO admits temperatures not unprecedented, it's moot.
            • Affirms natural variability in climate: Current climate not unprecedented
      • Government Agencies
        • CSIRO
          • CSIRO Board Members
            • Letter to CSIRO board and minister holding CSIRO, Chief Executive accountable
              • CSIRO board members have been executives. In the important issues they have explored within their previous significant organisations would they accept something like this? ie, no logical evidence, no cost-effectiveness comparison of options, no logical discourse, ...
          • CSIRO CEO
          • Dr Peter Mayfield
        • BOM
        • Australian Research Council
        • Reserve Bank
        • APRA
        • AEMO
        • ASIC ACCC??
        • Climate Change Authority
      • Departments
        • Department responsible for Climate Change and Enviroment
        • Treasury - responsible for the cost effectiveness of all budget items and the effect of all budget items on the economy.
        • The department responsible for the funding and quality of Australian science.
        • The department responsible for the provision of affordable energy to the Australian population and industry.
        • The department responsible for the viability of Australian farming and grazing.
        • The department responsible for keeping the Australian workforce in gainful employment.
        • The department responsible for educating Australian students in independent critical thinking and analysis.
        • The department responsible for the welfare of Australians unable to find gainful employment.
      • Industry Institutions
        • Minerals Council of Australia
        • ACTU
        • CFMEU
        • ETU
      • Academics
        • Write to university boards (Plimer idea). Remind them that their funding will eventually be cut and reputation tarnished. Not likely to be effective due to dependence on govt grant funds.
        • ANU Institute For Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions
      • Media
        • ABC
      • cc: Steve Koonin Will Happer Journalists
    • Options for taking action to hold accountable
      • Contempt of the senate. Getting in the way of the senate and inquiry doing its job and fulfilling its responsibilities. If it obstructed the committee’s deliberations.
      • Questions on Notice. Submit in writing, respond in writing.
        • 6 weeks to reply. If no reply, speak in senate
        • Put on line. Make a public database of answers
      • Matter of privilege. Hugh? Richard?
      • Table CSIRO response in senate – seek Whips’ agreement which would be highly unlikely
      • Court case. Prepare basis for appealing to public for funds
      • Court of public opinion. Future book. Get supportive media to convey
  • Framework (Common Core):
    • Open with a strong point to get attention of Minister, CSIRO board members, journalists. Key point is: CSIRO is lying in its response to my submission and govt departments and Ministers have not done any due diligence. All the rest is supporting information and exposing what is needed for scientific justification. A lesson in lay terms for every reader.
      • How will you, as a relevant policy maker, answer questions under oath to a Royal Commission on your lack of due diligence?
      • Key point is: CSIRO is lying in its response to my submission. Mayfield misled the senate.
      • Ministers and govt departments have not done any due diligence.
      • Every senator and MP who voted for the climate change bills is responsible.
      • Academics have not done due diligence.
      • Every audience member has not done done due diligence. eg, journos have not checked their sources and not reported objectively.
      • This letter provides supporting information and expose what is needed for scientific justification.
      • The key point now is deceit, hypocrisy and cowardice. Lack/Breaches of integrity. Failed governance and ceding sovereignty.
    • The key questions on climate and energy policy
      • Is the current climate unprecedented in the last 10,000 years?
        • The state of the climate over just the last 100 years is meaningless in terms of whether or not it is unprecedented over a realistic and relevant time span such as 10,000 years. In responding to our request for same, CSIRO implicitly acknowledged the relevance of a 10,000 year period.
        • Periods of warming greater than the current climate have occurred many times before any human hydrocarbon use.
        • CSIRO have conceded the current temperatures are not dangerous or unprecedented.
          • CSIRO have admitted they have never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger
          • CSIRO said it is up to others to attribute danger. Others being politicians or the public
      • Given the actions of China and India, will Australia's climate change & related energy policies have any detectable effect on global CO2 production, on atmospheric CO2 levels, and on temperatures?
      • What are the expected effects of the Climate Change Bills on the Australian economy, fuel costs, standard of living? Cannot be assessed without specific quantified effect of human CO2.
  • Past discussions.
    • Characteristics of a rational discussion
      • A logical point is a simple sentence that can be assessed as true or false depending on the balance of supporting and opposing points or empirical evidence from a linked study with a specified page number and with quoted text.
      • In an attempt to establish causation, do not use a logical point whose text does not include both the alleged effect and the alleged cause.
      • Do not look for logical points to justify a preconceived opinion. First discover all relevant logical points, then you are entitled to have an informed opinion.
      • Do not reference as "scientific", authors who do not abide by Richard Feynman’s Principles of Scientific Thinking as they are merely academic hacks.
      • Do not reference as "scientific", authors who have a clear conflict of interest. This may be because of employment by an organisation whose income depends on the outcome of this point.
      • Do not smear other speakers.
      • Do not introduce points irrelevant to the current topic.
      • Do not change the subject to avoid answering questions as this implies conceding the current point.
      • Do not introduce points that contradict any of your other points.
      • Do not use logical fallacies.
      • Do not make baseless assertions and assume that are immune to cross-examination.
      • Do not introduce emotion and rhetoric.
      • Do not attempt to make a policy point without seeing the cost effectiveness of all alternative points.
      • When the discussion includes incompetent speakers, a moderator or judge may be needed to enforce these rules
      • Discussion that is not in accordance with these principles is likely to be irrelevant and illogical drivel. And is certainly not science and is clearly not part of the scientific debate.
    • Politicians, agencies, academics can say anything without LSPs/ESE and cross-examination.
    • CSIRO and BOM have never provided formal scientific advice on CAGW to the Federal Government. CSIRO has never provided Logical Scientific Points including empirical data within a scientific framework proving causing and effect between carbon dioxide from human activity and any climate or weather variable.
    • Nor has CSIRO ever quantified the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or on any climate or weather variable such as temperature, air temperature, ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, ocean salinity, rainfall, storm frequency/severity, droughts frequency/severity/duration, flood frequency/severity/duration, snowfall, ...
    • The routine State of the Climate Reports have not contained any empirical evidence that human CO2 production is the major driver of the Australian climate. It has never shown that CO2 from human activity is a driver of Australian climate.
    • CSIRO and BOM have both allowed media and politicians to misrepresent climate and weather events.
    • There are only 3 known attempts at a logical discussion (with cross-examination) of Climate change.
      • Dr Steve Koonin's sub committee of the American Physical Society which was shut down by a higher committee. A transcript of its proceedings is available.
      • A public debate between Dr Steve Koonin and Dr Andrew Dressler.
      • The three rounds of interaction and cross-examination between Sen Roberts and CSIRO arranged by the then Ministers for Science. Full details are available and have been repeatedly provided. The last CSIRO offering abandoned any pretence of rationality. CSIRO now refuses to respond meaningfully.
    • The senate inquiry into the climate change bills invited responses from climate academics on Sen Roberts' statements made in his submission to the inquiry. None responded by challenging any logical scientific points nor introducing any logical scientific points of their own. All responded with logical fallacies principally appeals to authority or subtle and/or implicit smears of Senator Roberts. This confirms that they lack any solid rebuttal.
      • The logical fallacy Appeal to Authority was apparently not known by those who thought that merely listing the own voluminous qualifications was a valid debating point.
      • Others said they had already answered the questions but did not give any evidence of having done so.
      • None declared any conflict of interest by working for an organisation which derived a significant part of its income from the Climate Change narrative.
  • Reinforce the primacy of energy – impact of energy prices on people, families, economy, industry, manufacturing, security
    • Moran Report
    • This is not an energy emergency crisis. It is a crisis of common sense and stupidity
  • Working references
    • Maurice Strong as fabricator of climate change, his alleged criminal activities & glaring conflicts of interest (CCX) together with Al Gore, forming of UNEP and associated anti-human banning of DDT, formation of UN IPCC.
    • Board members - CSIRO
  • Richard Feynman’s Principles of Scientific Thinking
Loading page ...

Print options

Expand or collapse list branches

Want checkboxes? Change the list style

List style:

Display or hide list attributes

x

Expand & collapse ec

Import im

Examples and details

Word count wc

Current selection
Words: #{js-wc-sel}
Characters with spaces: #{js-cc-space-sel}
Characters without spaces: #{js-cc-sel}
The whole list
Words: #{js-wc}
Characters with spaces: #{js-cc-space}
Characters without spaces: #{js-cc}

List view options oo

  • hc
  • hf
  • sd
  • List style
  • om

Any email, forwarded to this address, will appear in beginning of this list.

Send an email to yourself and add the sender to Contacts for future use.

  • The email subject becomes the list item's text.
  • The email body becomes the list item's note.
  • All attachments from the email are attached to the list item (PRO only).
  • In the subject, you can also add #tags, ^due dates, and @assignees with Checkvist's smart syntax.

You can also set up voice integration on mobile devices