All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Australia should leave "the unrepresentative swill" of the UN : Senator Malcolm Roberts

Youtube: Climate Realists of Five Dock

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts' Maiden Speech to the Australian Senate

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:01) 13 Sep 2016 : As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I am here to discuss with the chamber and the Australian people how we will rebuild our great nation. To the 600,000 people who voted for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation I owe a particular debt of gratitude for the privilege of serving our state and country. I will honour all Australians by restoring our Constitution, restoring our national sovereignty and restoring freedom via this chamber and in my everyday life. All of us One Nation senators are going to say the things that need to be said and do the things that need to be done. We are not worried what the establishment says about us. We are not here for the establishment. We are here for everyday people and our nation.
My passion for politics and policy was unleashed during the grassroots uprising of the Australian people against the reviled and dishonest carbon tax-a new tax on carbon dioxide-based on a lie and founded on a dishonest agenda. I became a volunteer spokesman for
the Galileo Movement, working with great Australians such as Jacques Laxale, Paul Evans, John Smeed, Case Smit, Viv Forbes, Judy Ryan, Anne Easby, Jennifer Marohasy, Ian Plimer, Leon Ashby, Joanne Nova, Jim Simpson, Mike Elliott, Michael Darby, Alan Jones, Grant Goldman, the late Professor Bob Carter, and many other scientists and grassroots activists, against the carbon dioxide tax and for restoring our nation’s sovereignty.
As a result of climate policies, Queenslanders, everyday Australians, have lost jobs, paid higher taxes, wasted opportunities, lost businesses and frittered away scarce resources. Nowhere is this issue more important than in our resource-rich state of Queensland, which stands to lose the most out of all our states.
Does it not concern senators that the hyperbolic predictions from the hysterical likes of Tim Flannery, David Karoly and Ross Garnaut have not come to pass? Again and again and again, for nearly 30 years, climate activists have been warning us that we have just five years to act. Every time, nature has proven them wrong. Flannery beclowned himself by saying at the start of this century, ‘Brisbane’s dams will never be full again.’ Aren’t we all sick of it? Because the Australian public certainly is. John Cleese said recently:
I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation, and not a belief system.
But for too long blind faith, contrary to reality, has ruled.
My qualifications include an honours engineering degree covering atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide, from the University of Queensland, and an MBA from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, famous for rigorous statistical analysis. In the real world, I obtained statutory qualifications covering atmospheric gases, with rigorous responsibilities for hundreds of people’s lives. My studies reinforced the importance of on empirical facts-hard data and physical observations-that are essential and needed to prove cause and effect. My area of studies focused on earth sciences and geology.
Australians should be able to rely on the information from Australian government bodies and institutions, but we cannot. I have used freedom of information requests, correspondence and reports from the heads of the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the UN and universities to show there is no data proving that human use of hydrocarbon fuels affects climate-none.
We use Australia’s resources-that is, gas, coal and oil-to produce energy. These resources contain hydrogen and carbon, which produce water and carbon dioxide. Both gases are essential for life on earth, and both are not pollutants. Yet the core climate claim is that carbon dioxide from our human activity will one day, some day, catastrophically warm our planet.
Like Socrates, I love asking questions to get to the truth. So I ask the question: over the last 130 years, what was the longest single temperature trend? Is not the inconvenient truth this-that from the 1930s to the 1970s, during the period of the greatest industrialisation in human history, when our carbon dioxide output increased dramatically, atmospheric temperatures cooledfor 40 years straight? Another inconvenient fact is that temperatures, statistically, have not been warming since 1995-21 years. Records show there have been warmer periods in Australia’s history than the current decade. Temperatures are now cooler than 130 years ago. This is the reverse of what we are blatantly told by the Bureau of Meteorology, which has manipulated cooling trends into false warming trends.
Here are more undeniable facts proven by data: firstly, changes in the carbon dioxide level are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause. That is the reverse of what we have been told. Secondly, we do not and cannot affect the level of carbon dioxide in air. That too is the reverse of what we have been told. That means we cannot and do not affect global climate. Thirdly, warming is beneficial-after all, science classifies far warmer past periods as climate optimums. Again, that is the reverse of what we are told.
It is basic. The sun warms the earth’s surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong. The UN’s claim is absurd. Instead of science, activists invoke morality, imply natural weather events are unusual, appeal to authority and use name-calling, ridicule and emotion. They avoid discussing facts and rely on pictures of cute smiling dolphins. These are not evidence of human effect on climate.
If it is clear that climate change is a scam, and also our prosperity relies on the human endeavours of industry and production, then why is it that, in this great parliament, there are extremist advocates of an agenda to de-industrialise our nation? Let me make it clear: I will stand firm against any political organisation whose primary aim is to destroy our prosperity and sovereignty. Instead of no nation, we need one nation. How are we going to rebuild Australia and hold back any push to de-industrialise our nation? In touring Queensland and Australia with Senator Hanson, I saw firsthand the damage that fraudulent climate change science and policy is doing to communities and families. De-industrialisation is costing jobs, destroying families, bankrupting businesses and making our nation less competitive against other nations.
Queensland’s most important industry is mining. I have run mines around the world. Mining is also vital to Australia. Coal has lifted the whole of humanity out of grinding poverty and propelled us to achievements never thought possible. The wealth created for every Australian has been considerable. While it may be easy to find some rock, or a dollar, to then turn that dollar into two dollars is a very intensive and challenging endeavour. Government policy has not always helped this process.
In all these matters I trust the human mind and heart to make intelligent conclusions. I have faith in people and in our ingenuity. We must encourage honest debate and restore free speech on these issues, because that respects and promotes human spirit. Humans care. Our future civilisation depends on protecting the natural environment, and the future of our natural environment depends on protecting civilisation.
Allow me to say unequivocally: we are taxed enough already. As my dear friend John MacRae publicly says, Australians pay more tax every year than could have ever been imagined by our forefathers crafting our Constitution. Consider this, honourable colleagues, from a chartered accountant who worked on the GST implementation for our Queensland state government: 50 per cent of the cost of a loaf of bread is made up of tax. That is effectively a tax rate of 100 per cent. Young Australians would be most alarmed to learn that almost 50 per cent of the price of a house is made up of various taxes and impositions. That doubles the price of a typical home loan.
Fuel is taxed at the astonishing rate of 230 per cent. We are a decentralised nation, and high energy bills compound the cost of everything. When we reduce the cost of energy, though, we increase productivity, which increases our prosperity. High energy costs really hurt the most vulnerable in our society, the lowest income earners. The renewable energy target and climate policies are highly regressive on the poor, and we will work hard to end such policies. After all, who would have ever thought that governments would create a tax on the very air we breathe, the carbon dioxide tax?
And who pays taxes? The former Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office Jim Killaly said that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no company tax. Former Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey said that Australians pay 50 per cent of our income in taxes. The Australian Bureau of Statistics previously stated that Australians on an average income pay 68 per cent of their earnings to government, as taxes, rates, levies, charges, fees, special charges and other burdens. We work Monday to mid-morning Thursday for the government. The biggest purchase of our life is not our house; it is government.
For too long in Australia we have been strangling the goose that laid the golden egg. It must stop. Economics is about people. Australian economist, lawyer, writer and bush poet Banjo Paterson said in 1889:
It must always be remembered that we are dealing here with the simple question whether we can, by any means, be enabled to make a better living.
Australia’s tax system quashes Banjo’s vision. Instead of no nation, we must have one nation. When our Constitution devolves many powers and responsibilities to our states, why would a central government crave collecting so much tax? It is for nothing more than stealing control over our states and, in doing so, it creates a mammoth bureaucracy that duplicates responsibilities and doubles costs for taxpayers. The challenges of tax and productivity are important to Queenslanders, and I will seek to work in collaboration with the entire parliamentary community in pursuing comprehensive tax reform.
In my view the purpose of great institutions such as this parliament, and broadly politics, is to protect life, protect property and protect freedom. Government has, sadly, transitioned, though, into a beast that only wishes to control people’s lives. And it has very curious bedfellows. As my good colleague Senator Rod Culleton has so ably shown, big government in partnership with big banks is a disaster for ordinary Australians. One of the greatest threats to our liberty and life as we know it is the international banking sector. As American President Andrew Jackson once said:
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.
Worldwide, privately owned central banks have greed as their creed and cannot be trusted to work in a country’s best interests. A royal commission into the banking sector and currency is just one tool needed to expose what the big international banks are doing to trash our country. In 1889, Banjo Paterson identified the core problem very simply when he referred to international banking as:
The trusts and monopolies whereby labourers are robbed.’ 
Australia, again, needs a people’s bank, like the Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher’s Commonwealth Bank, started in 1912. A people’s bank is an established policy of our party-a people’s bank that focuses on building infrastructure and securing capital for Australia’s needs. This people’s bank will boost productivity and shield the country from the manipulation of our economy so often exerted by the tight-knit international banking sector.
Unlocking the potential of northern Australia and regional Queensland is a most pressing issue facing our state and the broader Australian community. A people’s bank would open new opportunities to make these areas the driver of our economy, with better infrastructure bringing investment and capital to the regions. We need to encourage business to move their operations north and focus on our huge potential. Instead of no nation, we must have one nation.
We recently received an excellent presentation from the immigration minister Peter Dutton’s team. Their core policies are protecting our borders, saving thousands of boat people’s lives and enabling thousands of genuine humanitarian refugees, thanks to Senator Hanson’s courageous policies 20 years ago. Australians everywhere have told me and my colleagues, including Senator Burston, how important it is that our nation’s values and culture are protected. People allowed into our country, Australia, must live by our laws.
Growing up, my parents taught me to respect all cultures and religions. I lived with people of all faiths-Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs and Christians. Australia has developed a society where people of all faiths are free to get along. In particular, we must maintain our well-developed standards on the treatment of women and girls, and children in general, and the equal advancement of people from all ancestries and all colours of skin. We should welcome anyone of any background who wants to live in peace. But for those who do not plan to integrate into our culture and laws, we need to protect our borders and keep them out. My hope is that we will have a fairer immigration system-a system that stringently tests individuals in their commitment to Australian values. At the moment, we test people wishing to take citizenship on Don Bradman’s batting average. So, I ask the question: why don’t we test people more properly before they come to Australia on upholding our great nation and our laws?
Australia’s values and way of life are also at risk from insidious institutions such as the unelected swill that is the United Nations. The people of the United Kingdom recently spoke, and I have great admiration for the way they broke free of that socialist, monolithic monster, the European Union. The EU is a template for total socialist domination of Europe through unelected bodies, such as the IMF, forcing their frightening agenda on the people. It is also the UN’s template, and Australia must leave the UN. We need an Aus-exit.
Thanks to many researchers, like my colleague Graham Williamson and Graham Strachan, people are waking to the UN destroying our national sovereignty through implementation of the UN’s 1975 Lima declaration and 1992 Rio declaration for 21st century global governance, often known as Agenda 21-more recently as Agenda 2030. It was signed quietly by the then government and sneakily implemented by ministers of every government since under the guise of biodiversity to steal property rights, sustainability to pass regulations controlling people and climate change to push foreign control using unlawful agreements like the Paris sham.
Let me say: the people of Australia are desperate to regain our sovereignty. We need to rebuild our nation. Australians have had enough of foreign control, enough of tax and enough theft of our prosperity and future. Australia is on a precipice. We can fall off the edge if we continue to become an unproductive nation which hinders enterprise through high taxes and allows gross abuses of power, such as taxing the air we breathe. We once thought we were a poor nation when we were actually rich. Sadly, we now think we are a rich nation, yet we are becoming poor. Instead of no nation, we must have one nation.
People can be confident that I will advocate for them authentically from my heart, always in the national interest. I will show the highest ethical standards in my advocacy. My greatest passion is freeing people to reach their potential through strong leadership to be individuals able to pursue dreams and aspirations as citizens of the greatest nation on earth-the greatest nation on our precious, beautiful little planet. Together, we have a lot of work to do, Australia. I am humbled to be entrusted in doing this amazing work with the Australian people.
Finally, no one can show testimony to my belief in the enduring power of human nature more than the great Pauline Hanson. With the indulgence of this chamber and with the Senator’s permission, I will refer to her as everyone knows-Pauline. Our Pauline, the people’s politician-she is one of us, and we are just like her. She is a woman of great courage to whom I owe being able to stand here today. Pauline listens to understand and is honest, courageous and persistent. Twenty years ago, Pauline, the Establishment ridiculed you. At the same time they quietly started implementing some of your policies. Thank you for saying what you have said and for giving a voice to the forgotten people, and for showing that we really do matter. Thank you, Pauline.
I must thank the amazing James Ashby. As with Pauline, they threw everything at you, mate, and you stayed strong, true to our cause and kept your integrity. You are one of the most capable people I have ever met anywhere. Thank you, mate. You have a great team at One Nation behind you, Pauline, and I thank all of our campaign team and in particular Saraya Beric for your brave and loyal spirit. Thank you, Saraya.
I have been working voluntarily on these causes close to my heart for eight years to shed light on so many injustices. I could not have done this without the strength, the courage, the honesty, the tolerance, the sometimes overwhelming patience and certainly the care of the person I love most, my gorgeous wife, Christine. Together we are blessed with the love of our children, Shane and Kelsey, who have the strength to challenge and who are always close to my heart. I love you both. My parents, who have passed on, instilled in me honesty and strength of character, and I honour them today.
Our nation, Australia, is at its very best when it is united-united as one nation. In the past, our nation faced and overcame great challenges. Now we face enormous challenges. So today I have shown those things important to me, to our great party-Pauline Hanson’s One Nation-and to our magnificent state of Queensland. My role in this chamber will be to ask the questions that need to be asked and to do what needs to be done in finding solutions for all of us.
Mr President and senators, thank you.
- - - - - - - - - -

Thanks to Warwick Hughes and Jim Simpson


  1. Well said Malcolm! To date there has yet to presented one single scientific piece of evidence to link all of carbon dioxide to a driver of climate change or warming. The puny amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activities is not even visible on any scale. The only effect possible is that of increased cooling, but at a mere 400ppm such an effect is not preceivable. Keep the fight up!

    1. You're not wrong Hans. The whole thing is nothing more than an enormous hoax, which is used to drive an ingenious global, social engineering project, where the totally false destructive doomsday scaremongering and propaganda they spread about CAGW / CC is used to mask a very EVIL, socialist Agenda to control ALL of us...
      Hopefully, Malcolm's maiden speech will mark just the beginning of the uprising in the fight to firstly: restore some simple common sense to those CAGW indoctrinated people's minds, then we can take back our freedom before the leftist, green fascists who are planning to form a socialist one-world government based in the UN, takes it all away from us.

    2. Alan - I'm confused - exactly how much money do you think this hoax earns the average climate scientist?

      And by contrast, how much money do you think ignoring the issue earns say - the Sultan of Omar? The CEOs of toyota?

      It's fascinating that folks like you peddle this idea of it being a lucrative hoax - obviously the climate scientists are incredibly wealthy compared to the oil barons.

      This is what you think is happening right? Wealthy climate scientists vs. the impoverished Sultan of Omar?

    3. I was replying to Mr Hans Shreuder, not to some alarmist troll who is too afraid to use his, or her name.
      As I said in my fist comnent, you are like all greenies - HOPELESSLY brainwashed with all that silly, doom and gloom false propaganda about NOTHING, therefore anything I try to say to you, or any of your comrades would only prove to be a complete waste of time. That is my final word to you 'Anonymous'. If you reply again, I will ignore you.
      I don't undersatnd why Geoff even publishes your mindless drivel, or that of other greenie trolls...

    4. Thanks for the comment, Hans Schreuder. Hans has been a long time publisher of a website:

      He was also one of the first to provide a link to this blog when it first started.

    5. I have to say I'm amused at the penchant denialists have for pointing out anonymous people use an anonymous pen name -of course, they dont care when their own ilk to it, but that is just the first of many of their double standards.

      in any case alan - I really dont care what your name is. Unless you're pubishing peer review, I dont care who you are either. Your name, therefore, is irrelevant. You would be equally served using "goofy" asa your nom de plume, and that would make for more interesting reading.

      In any case, the question is posed, and unanswered. Feel free to continue to ignore it. It's still interesting.

  2. Is there any way you could run for office in the US? We need you badly too.

    1. Please, take him. You're welcome to him. Australia has already shipped off a few appallingly educated religious nutjobs to USA, one more wont matter, and most of us sure wont miss such breathtaking foolishness.

    2. Caitie says: "..few appallingly educated religious nutjobs.."

      Surely you are not referring to Malcolm Roberts who gives his qualifications in the above OP:

      "My qualifications include an honours engineering degree covering atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide, from the University of Queensland, and an MBA from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, famous for rigorous statistical analysis."

      We can see who is uttering "breathtaking foolishness" and it is not Malcolm!

    3. An honours degree that "covers" gas?
      Yes, he would have learned about boyle's law in first year. So?

      An MBA that equates to being qualifed to talk about climate science? How?

      Rigorous statistical analysis, and he refuses to actually look at the science?

      It's fascinating to me the number of people who demonise people with real educational qualifications, then wave around their own relatively mediocre ones, as if they command respect - having vilified those with superior qualifications.

      Geoff - if you ignore the science thrust at you on public tv, then all the qualifications in the world aint gonna save you. Please, if you're in the USA, be our guest. take him off our hands. He messes up the join.

    4. "ignore the science thrust at you on public tv" Actually thrown across the studio inan appallingly childish display; a graph that did not show any cause by man's emissions to any minute warming.

      "He messes up the join." He seemed more 'joined' than Brian Cox imho.

    5. Apparently you think the only information mal had available to him was that heft across the room at him - in, I think, appropriate contempt for the twit.

      It't not brian's job to pander to mal's bereft and crackpot ineptitude, I dont know why you think it should be respected. It certainly shouldn't be tolerated any more than the bereft whimpering of a hard-done by child.

      There IS plenty of data - its stupid to beg for it. anyone over the age of 40 who does so deserves all the scorn and derision they get.

    6. "Apparently you think the only information mal had available to him was that heft across the room at him - in" an appallingly childish display.

      No, that was not evidence for Malcolm. It was evidence that Brian Cox had no idea. He did not show that man's CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. He couldn't because there is no evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

      anonymous id the one with "bereft and crackpot ineptitude,"

  3. Excellent !
    I will spread this.. Rulers have sought to exploit the fear of weather from time immemorial ..and always required "tribute" from the peasants for their protection ..
    Usually supported by High Priests , to answer all questions or doubts in the population with the "Mysteries of the Faith" in answer to the doubters.. sound familiar ?
    Speeches like this help prevent these dark age tactics from taking hold

  4. hehe, roberts is one of the more ignorant and actually rather dense examples of humanity in the australian senate - eclipsed in his intelectual mediocrity only by hanson.
    Fortunately, education in australia isn't in such a terrifyingly bad state as other places - ranking somewher ein the top ten of the world (US, for example, ranks lower than cypress in terms of it's education in science).
    Therefore, many australians understand how GW is thought to operate and how and why - it also helps that Australia has been having some of the most incredibly hot weather - breaking previous records now becomes something of a bi-annual event (even the most dull-witted australian can process how this works, from a statistical point of view - although poor old roberts, can not).

    Of course, like any denier, roberts simply will not even for a moment examine any science, as was demonstrated recently by brian cox, live on tv - on the grounds that science is simply wrong.

    Of course, he cant say what is wrong with it, or how it is wrong, but until he does, he's perfectly happy to parasite of the things science gives him.

    1. Your are deluded, Anonymous. Malcolm Roberts was correct.

      You say;"roberts simply will not even for a moment examine any science, as was demonstrated recently by brian cox, live on tv.."

      In fact, Brian Cox dislpayed his own lack of knowledge and he, Cox, has been shown to be flawed across the world.



      and much more - much much more.

    2. malcom was correct in what? refusing to read the literature?
      Are you trying to tell me the best way for a politician to operate - especially one unqualified in the matters under discussin - is to not consult the experts, but to simply make it up as he goes, and reject any data input?

      In which universe does that make sense?

      Cox is shown to be flawed? by whom? by malcom? That's like saying "wow.. that deer sure showed that dodge truck a thing or two.. of course.. stared bewildered at the lights until the hood broke all four legs, but BOY did that deer show that dodge truck a thing or two.."

      Delusions about indeed. And in that at least, you have me beat, hands down.

      oops. that would hav

    3. Poor Anonymous is given the evidence that Brian Cox failed and that Malcolm was right in links above.

      Obviously not willing to even read them. No wonder anonymous is deluded.

  5. roberts is simply unwilling to examine the data - he was shown to be unwilling to glance even at the data he had insisted be given to him - which was, by brian cox, on tv, live in front of any viewers.

    Without making any explicit connections - when one makes claims about the errors of science, one has to be able to show where it is wrong, and why it is thought to be wrong. Roberts, at this point, has simply not done so - and until he examines the literature, and talks to scientists, he will not.

    WE cannot have politicians who are untrained in science, making decisions based on science that they reject from people who DO know science. It's intellectually dishonest and completely contrary to what science and politics really are.

    1. "roberts is simply unwilling to examine the data - he was shown to be unwilling to glance even at the data he had insisted be given to him - which was, by brian cox, on tv, live in front of any viewers. "

      Codswallop. Brian Cox threw a flawed graph across the studio and onto the floor.

      Appalling Behaviour. And that graph only showed a manipulated heating. It did not attempt to address whether the heating was caused by man's use of fossil fuels.


      and as to the flawed "data,"

  6. @Anonymous,
    You really are hopelessly brainwashed, so realizing that anything I say to you will be a complete waste of time, and only because you invited anyone here to ridicule you by leaving your stupid comment, I'll keep it brief and say only this: At least Senator Malcolm Roberts has the guts to get up there and express his views (right or wrong), in full view of the millions of critical eyes of the entire country and a few more from other parts of the world; while in stark contrast to him: YOU, being the typical leftist, cowardly hypocrite you are and your moronic, green friends are all famous for: are too afraid to even reveal your identity on a blog that would be lucky to be seen by any more than about 50 people, over the next week or 2.

    Oh BTW: 'roberts' is only a 'denier' according to you. I am a PROUD, card carrying CAGW nonsense & Climate Change baloney ATHEIST.

    Now go and crawl back to where you belong - under the 'anonymous' rock you just emerged from and wait for doomsday, while us capitalist deniers enjoy our fossil-fuel powered utopia that you and your loony friends want to destroy, but won't, thanks to people like 'roberts' exposing you all as the morbid, misanthropic nut-jobs that you are...


    1. WE cannot have politicians who are untrained in science, making decisions based on science that they reject from people who DO know science...
      You mean from those that DO know science, such as this real 'scientist'?

      Read here:

    2. Malco is as unqualified to babble about the science as pretty much any politician, uneducated as an Australian , and immoral as a human - the job of a politician is not to act on the whim of special interest, funded minority groups, the job of a politician is to seek expert advice where he lacks it, and act intelligently on it.

      Obviously, he has not sought advice from people qualified to give it - indeed he rejects it point blank, instead kowtowing to the ignorant, unsupported and unpublished denialist tribe. Sure he's a denier according to me - he has no idea what the science says at all, and he rejects it point blank.

      malco has nothing resembling bravery, and everything resembling incompetence. He is an ignorant and manipulated coward from the feet up.

      How you manage to draw "doomsday" anything into this is also bewildering - malco is incompetent because he is unqualified to make decisions like this without consulting experts, and he has rejected live on televesion, consultation and input from experts.

      It's interesting to watch you get so precious about it - as if you getting precious about it changes any of the above facts - it does not.

      Any more questions?

      ('atheism', incidentally, means you dont worship a god. What relevance you think it has here is a mystery to me and anyone with a functional dictionary. I acknowledge It would be futile for me to wait for you to grow up a little, and purchase your first dictionary, much less physics textbook).

      If you think the blog wont be viewed often, then revealing myself (or if your anonymous denier pals above) is of zero consequence, but if it makes you feel better, you can call me Caitie. If that means as little to you as your name means to me, then it's pretty much worthless


    3. Caite: Addressing your babble.

      1: "malco" Why do you not use his real name Malcolm? Are you trying, with your lower case abbreviation, to diminish Malcolm?

      2: "unqualified to babble about the science..."

      Are you qualified to babble about the falsified AGW hypothesis?

      Malcolm has done intensive studies of the real science and the "alarmist science." See:

      3: "uneducated as an Australian , and immoral as a human.."

      Sorry, but like many of your ilk, resorting to ad hominems does not glorify your debate.

      4: "the job of a politician is not to act on the whim of special interest, funded minority groups" BIG TICK.

      The job of a politician is to represent his constituents.

      5: "Obviously, he has not sought advice from people qualified to give it.."

      Yes, he has. You would not know if he had, would you?

      6: "malco has nothing resembling bravery, and everything resembling incompetence. He is an ignorant and manipulated coward from the feet up."

      Again resorting to stupid unfounded ad homs does nothing for your argument. And so is the remainder of your babble.

    4. why does it matter what I call him - you understood - and certainly what he deserves most obviously is contempt, not respect.

      Malcom has done studies on AGW - excellent, I look forward to reading them when peer review is complete - in which peer-reviewed journal will I find them? - I DO hope you're not simply referring to a unreviewed bookstore book- these have been vetted for logical integrity exactly as much as a mere blog - i.e. zero. Anything better?

      I didnt make an ad hom - it was an outright insult. Dont you know the difference?

      No, the job of a politician is to act how he interprets the interests of his constituents, and not do anything demonstrably stupid. It would be ridiculous to expect a politician to support things against the law, dangerous or just outright counter productive, simply because his constituents want it. In such a case, the politician would seek expert help - which is what malco has not done.

      Let me know when you can tell the difference between ad hom and insult - until you do, I'll continue to ignore that kind of uninformed comment.

      I'll be sure to use smaller words, if what I write is still confusing you.

    5. anonymous is pettily trying to use pedantry to excuse your contemptuous ad hominem.

      ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

      If it is an insult and you are not addressing the position that Senator Roberts is maintaining, then your are using an ad hominem.

      If you have any evidence (and I know there is none) that man's Co2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming, please put up or shut up.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!