- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


December 2013
« Nov   Jan »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald

I’VE been unimpressed with new Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the nature of the Coalition’s election victory. During the recent election then Shadow Minister, now Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, repeatedly stated that “We agree… on the science of climate change, we agree on the targets to reduce emissions and we agree on using markets as the best mechanism.”

There has been no one prepared to publically put the alternative perspective on climate change, to speak up and explain that of course the climate has always changed, but there is no evidence to suggest we currently have a climate catastrophe or that a carbon tax will have any effect on the climate. Until yesterday. While I wouldn’t consider Ian MacDonald’s speech to the Australian Senate particularly well written, it is inspiring in so much as at last we have an Australian politician speaking plainly in parliament about the nonsense that is climate change and the carbon tax… Ian Macdonald

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:56): There is a long list of speakers on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013. I am one of the few from the coalition who will be speaking. The Labor Party are quite clearly filibustering on this and every other bill to cause as much difficulty as possible to the Australian public. The Australian public want this bill passed before Christmas. They made their views very, very clear at the last federal election. The government is keen to honour its commitment to the Australian people to abolish the carbon tax and all the trappings that go with it, and that is why government speakers will be noticeable by their absence from this debate. We are, thanks to the Labor Party and the Greens, dealing with each bill separately, and I will not have the opportunity of speaking on any other bills, so my remarks, as I indicated earlier, are in the broader way. I am also keenly aware that we want to get on, so I will try to confine my remarks. I have already spoken for about eight minutes.

Before concluding, I just want to emphasise this point: I think this whole climate change debate will go down in history as one of the great frauds on the Australian people—similar to Y2K, I would suggest. The suggestion is that having the world’s biggest carbon tax, which will reduce our emissions by five per cent—that is, five per cent of the 1.4 per cent of emissions that come from Australia—will change the climate of the world. You have heard Senator Milne time and time again telling us all that this climate change process in Australia is what is going to save the world. She cannot possibly believe that. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that.

I have always said the climate is changing. Clearly it is. Australia used to be covered in ice once. The centre of Australia used to be a rainforest. Clearly the climate is changing. Is it man’s emissions that have done it? I do not know; I am not a scientist. But I say again that there are a great number of reputable scientists who doubt it. I acknowledge there are a great number of reputable scientists who are absolutely passionate about the argument, but I might say I am not convinced. But I do accept the climate is changing. But why Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, should be leading the way nobody has ever been able to explain to me. Why Australia should have the world’s largest carbon tax when it is such a small emitter again escapes me, and nobody, in any debate we have had in this chamber, has ever been able to explain to me why it is that we should destroy Australian industry, destroy Australian jobs, for no benefit whatsoever.

As the report I was referring to when I last spoke on this says, it is all pain for no environmental gain. It is clear that Australia acting alone cannot change anything. We will do what Australia committed to do—that is, reduce our emissions by five per cent. We will do it by the direct action method. But I emphasise, even in relation to our programs, that unless the rest of the world does something then it is not going to make one iota of difference. I have heard all the statistics, but I know the other statistics. China opens a coal fired power station every week. India continues to use fossil fuel. I am not critical of them for doing that. All I am saying is: why does Australia put itself at such a commercial disadvantage for something that is not making one iota of difference? The sooner we get rid of this authority and all the trappings that go round the Labor-Green con job, if I might call it that, of climate change, the better Australia will be.

I am quite sure that in years to come people will look back on history and say: ‘Remember how Y2K was going to destroy the world? Remember global warming?’—as it was originally—’Well, we’re still going.’ Whilst the coalition will do its five per cent, as we have always committed to, we are not going to do it at the expense of the Australian people. We took this proposal to the election. No Australian could have been under any doubt. Mr Abbott said many times: ‘This election will be a referendum on the carbon tax.’ Nobody could have been in any doubt…”

Thank you Mr MacDonald.


79 Responses to “At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: cohenite

    Just following on from Le Page’s comment, looking at his links which deal with extreme weather and insurance losses which, normalised, supposedly show both an increase in disasters and their cost.

    However, just like luke who is infamous for linking to papers which CONTRADICT his point so Le Page does the same. Take the Smith and Katz paper:

    This is an interesting paper which does not support Le Page’s hysteria. In fact Smith and Katz put forward many alternative [to AGW] explanations for apparent increases in losses from extreme weather events such greater crop cover. greater subsidisation of crops, greater insurance coverage, greater population and a systemic underestimation of past losses. One interesting point they briefly look at on page 7 is the greater cost which comes from declaration of areas as being prone to natural disasters; they say:

    “Dixon et al. (2006) found that the chances of purchasing insurance are higher for SFHA communities subject to coastal flooding/storm surge (63%) versus communities more at risk to riverine flooding (35%). Flood insurance coverage drops off steeply outside of the high risk flood areas, which is important as 25% of all flood insurance claims come from low-to-moderate-risk areas (FEMA 2011). The Dixon et al. study details how NFIP participation varies regionally inside and outside the SFHAs, showing high degrees of variability.”

    The point here is that declaration of risk is now becoming less a factor of past events and now based on IPCC modelling about future risk. A situation which demonstrates this is Lake Macquarie where the local Green run council has declared most of the Eastern side of the lake at greater risk to future flooding based on IPCC predictions of sea level rise. As a result houses have their insurance rates go up and their nominal value decrease but their actual value, as paid, and their replacement value increases. Any natural event which cause damage, such as a recent hailstorm is going to have an inflated insurance consequence due to these artificial factors; see:

    The second paper by Lott and Ross is even less supportive of Le Page’s position [which is basically head up backside] and is really a chronology of recent US climate events and an admission of faults in the methodology of calculating losses from extreme weather.

    There is a mountain of evidence which shows extreme weather is not increasing including AR5! In respect of insurance losses consider these:

    1 This paper looks at the inability of normalisation to factor in the general increase in wealth so that the damage bill from disasters is greater than in the past:

    2 Do insurance companies seek to profit from the predictions of more extreme weather by adjusting their losses and premiums accordingly? NO I hear you say, how cynical; Pielke Jr looks at Munich Insurance, one of the biggest:

    3 Crompton and McAneney show now normalised trend in insurance losses in Australia:

    4 Goklany shows no increase in death rates from extreme weather events:

    We have seen the Greens and other vultures jump all over recent bushfires and claim them as proof of AGW. This is despite even the IPCC stating this is not the case. There is no point arguing with reason and facts against such people because they BELIEVE in AGW; they are not susceptible to reason.

    In Le Page’s case I have attempted reason but he arrogantly dismisses all contradictions of his religion and always reverts to fake proof and the usual mantras like the consensus etc to ‘prove” his point.

    I’m sick of it; they are nutters and enemies of humanity. At the very least they deserve ridicule, which is what I will do at every opportunity.

  2. Comment from: jennifer

    Hey Cohenite

    Thanks for taking the time to point out the many, many contradictions following on from LePage’s comment.

    I can understand that you are tired. And unfortunately, and increasingly, we are the ones seen by the mainstream as the nutters and enemies of humanity. But now is not the time to give up, or to become uncivil.

    Stay strong.

  3. Comment from: toby

    I don’t suppose Robert LP will return, but if he does from the testimonials to us congress linked to above by Nev the following may help you to wake up to this con…….now ignorance is not an excuse for you spruiking CAGW garbage. The only deniers are those pushing the catastrophic consequences of additional co2. THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR 15-17 YEARS!

    Take-home points from Pielke’s testimony:

     There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.

     Similarly, on climate timescales it is incorrect to link the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.

    Here are some specific conclusions, with further details provided below:

     Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%) and insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.

     Hurricane landfalls have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows for a global perspective).

     Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.

     Tornadoes in the US have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.

     Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

    The absolute costs of disasters will increase significantly in coming years due to greater wealth and populations in locations exposed to extremes. Consequent, disasters will continue to be an important focus of policy, irrespective of the exact future course of climate change.

  4. Comment from: Toby

    “they are nutters and enemies of humanity. At the very least they deserve ridicule, which is what I will do at every opportunity.”

    hear hear Cohenite, if your destruction of his points cant wake him up then its hard to imagine what actually will?!

  5. Comment from: Debbie

    Good grief!

    ” the Climate Council says climate change is hampering fuel reduction burning, and causing more frequent high-fire-danger weather.

    “Professor Steffen says the fire season in southern Australia is starting earlier and finishing later, meaning there’s less time for fuel reduction burning.

    He says the longer bushfire seasons are a direct consequence of the climate becoming warmer.

    “So you are getting warmer periods earlier in the spring, you are getting warmer periods later in the autumn as well,” professor Steffen said.

    “It’s that effect that is lengthening the fire season.

    Professor Steffen says the warming climate is also leading to increased bushfire fuel-loads in some instances.

    “If you have periods of warm, wet weather, for example in the south-east, and get good growing seasons you tend to get more fuel.

    “But on the other hand, those conditions can flip and change the condition of the fuel the other way as well.”

  6. Comment from: Robert

    Since there is no such things as climate science – with most of the hydrosphere and lithosphere unknown and unvisited you tell me you have a science? – I don’t mind pointing out to Will what’s obvious to an aphid. He’s probably never been told.

    Fire season in much of northern NSW starts in August, or whenever winter westerlies start to have effect after the normally drier mid-year. When you’ve had good summer/autumn dumps with plenty of regrowth you may have probs if those inland winds are particularly strong and there have been no control burns for some years. The strength of pounding 3-day winter westerlies in the early 1990s meant big fire danger before winter even ended. (July 1990 after the Big Wet!) In many years September has been the peak of the fire danger. There should also be no surprise when you get mid-spring infernos such as in 1951, 1980 and 2013, just to name some recent NSW events. Think westerly winds, Will.

    This explains those “record” (to borrow a highly scientific term from our Green Betters) NSW fire conditions experienced in August…of 1895!

    Will, control burning has always been tricky, and bound to be more so when the task has been neglected – or bureaucratically hindered – over several years of regrowth. Let us know what analytical or philosophical problems you have with “always” and we will try to help out.

  7. Comment from: bazza

    Senator McDonald ought to get off his high horse and worry more about the good ship Esperanza checking out the Reef. Hope is on the way – it docked in Brisbane last week. Queensland is a perfect storm candidate for Greenpeace action with one of the world’s biggest coal ports underway. Where else could you get a 30 year Government plan with no mention of climate change. And where emissions/capita are extreme from a combination of coal, cattle, cane and cars. Couple that with extreme impacts from that part of the world where El Niño has first landfall and where climate variability is already as high as anywhere.

  8. Comment from: cohenite

    You see what I mean Jennifer, hysterical guff:

    ” Where else could you get a 30 year Government plan with no mention of climate change.”

    Anywhere sane adults are in charge.

    “and where climate variability is already as high as anywhere.”

    Anywhere except between your ears; go and take your meds, you’re hyperventilating; or taking the piss.

  9. Comment from: Robert

    bazza, while 1982-3 was savage in Qld – worse for drought than 1951-2 – we sure don’t want to go through a repeat of 1901-1903, the loooong one. They kept motor cars off the road and the rains finally came back a bit in 1904. Not sure how they got the rains back after 1983. Maybe it was all those anti-nuke demos? It’s always activists contemptuous of other people’s profitable activities who save the day. That’s been proven in multiple Jane Fonda movies.

    Anyway, as a man with an eye to “extremes”, you can take comfort in knowing that the 1890s haven’t been repeated in Qld – yet!

  10. Comment from: Davefromweewaa

    Wow Bazza,
    What would you have them do with all that coal and cane, all those cars and all them cattle ?

  11. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    Sorry for the OT but just heard on the news that they predict 100 K jobs to go because Holden closes!

    I mean how irresponsibly alarmist can you go? WTWT

  12. Comment from: Neville

    German scientists calculate that the planet will be cooler by 2100. In fact it will be like the temp was in 1870.
    Seems like they agree with some of the latest Russian research. But who knows?

  13. Comment from: hunter

    Greenpeace pirates and criminals should be treated exactly as they are.

  14. Comment from: Debbie

    Excellent question Dave!
    I need that like button.

  15. Comment from: Neville

    Some interesting thoughts on future SLR from Prof Robert Brown of Duke University. This is in response to another what if, or maybe or could or perhaps study on SLR. Geeeezzzzz.
    His comment starts below.

    rgbatduke says:
    December 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    Of course it does, but who says that this pace will stay that way over the next 300 years? Perhaps sea level rise also goes in 60 year cycles so a linear extrapolation may not be warranted.

    Yes indeed. In fact one could look at the historical tide gauge data to see that this is precisely the case, and that SLR was as even more rapid than it is today during the first half of the 20th century in good alignment with the thermometric record of post-LIA warming. Gravitation-corrected SLR is currently lower than what the satellites appear to be reporting IIRC, at around 2mm/year, which is almost exactly the long term post-LIA average rate. There is no sign of “acceleration” due to supposed anthropogenic CO_2 effects.

    What amuses me about all of these predictions is that they are all — without exception — predicated on some sort of ill-defined mean increase in GASTA predicted by the various GCMs and on a whole raft of assumptions about things like how rapidly Antarctica and the Greenland ice pack are supposed to melt. It’s sort of like “If GASTA increases by 5 C by 2100, and if that increase suffices to cause the melting of a kilometer or so of Antarctic ice pack, and if the ocean expands by thus and such amount due to the warming, then we’ll see X meters of SLR by 2100″. Frequently the claims are literally absurd — melting Antarctica on a timescale of decades shows some sort of serious problem understanding latent heat of fusion (which is huge), high albedo, six months of night and low high-tilt summertime insolation, and surface to volume ratios.

    They also seem absolutely impervious to empirical data. “Boiling seas” Hansen was publicly making his wildly speculative 5 meter SLR by 2100 guess well over a decade ago (which is as irresponsible for a scientist to do as showing “fire” in a crowded theater because you have linearly extrapolated the temperature increase inside due to being recently filled with warm bodies to the ignition point of paper in 100 years). Here it is, 2013, one eight of the way through the interval from 2000 to 2100 and the total SLR of the last decade is (drum roll please) at MOST an inch. More likely 3/4 of an inch — a couple of lousy centimeters.

    So we have Yet Another Paper — one that lacks even an effort to pretend to analyze the physics of icepack melting on high-latitude plateaus but instead equates things like melt rates in mid-interglacial transition to melting rates today — calling for as much as 80 cm by 2100 and lord knows what by 2200. Hey, I should be glad — at least it’s down from the meter previously being called for in papers of this type as people are beginning to twig to the fact that if we’re going to see SLR of this magnitude it has to start sometime and gee, it hasn’t started yet. Nor is it likely to be starting, as the planet has experienced no significant warming since the burst associated with the 1997/1998 Super ENSO even, and may even be quietly cooling a bit in spite of recent attempts to rewrite the temperature record yet again, this time at the very tail end of inconvenient stasis, so that one can compare infilled kumquats to multiply-adjusted modern era oranges to sparsely sampled, non-infilled thermometric apples in the more distant past (all to get an ANOMALY as we can’t for the life of us actually compute the global average surface temperature TODAY to within a degree K).

    Some arithmetic: 80 cm by 2100 is roughly 0.9 cm a year or an inch every 2-3 years. It is over three times the greatest rate observed (on several occasions, not just in the recent past) in the entire reliable historic record (tide gauge data). Every year with only 2-3 mm of rise tacks on an extra 6-7 mm that have to be made up in the following years. Measuring SLR is actually enormously complex — simply determining the current “sea level” is highly nontrivial because it has to be extracted from sparse measurements on a fluid surface with both systematic (but imprecisely predictable) time variation and with an enormous amount of multiple-timescale fractal noise and then corrected for the motion of the Earth’s crust and slow variability in the near-surface gravitational field (both magnitude and direction). The sea level could be rising even if there is no contribution from melting icepack, or it could be rising far more slowly than one would expect from melting icepack because land uplift or subsidence could be cancelling the effect. We barely have the tools to start seriously examining the issue of SLR, and have a pitifully short data secant based on those tools, which are still in the process of showing mutual (e.g. gravitometric) inconsistencies in the whole system.

    Why do referees permit the publication of doubly conditional speculation like this? At the moment, the GCMs are busy failing, although there is a widespread effort to pretend that this isn’t the case. Basing physics-free multiply-conditional papers asserting that we are going to have all sorts of SLR that is going to start any decade now because the GCMs say so is a waste of time unless and until the GCMs start exhibiting any predictive skill at all!

    So far, they have no predictive skill at all. That doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future, but in the meantime, the paper above is like publishing a paper that says “If superluminal neutrinos are observed, maybe we can build time machines” without even including a single actual equation to explain why, but relying on the fact that in medieval times clocks often ran fast or slow by as much as an hour a day.

    Sure, and if pigs had wings, then they could fly, and I’ve got a predictive model for evolution that states that if we continue to throw pigs out of helicopters and breed only the survivors, pigs will have wings in less than 100 years. Maybe I should go ahead and found a pig-hunting club that only shoots pigs on the wing. Yeah. Why not?



  16. Comment from: Neville

    Just to back up the SLR problems for the alarmists here are the ALL MODELS graphs AGAIN as used by the IPCC. This is from the Royal Society.

    This accounts for about 99% of the planet’s ice, 89% in Antarctica and 10% in Greenland. Antarctica is negative until 2300 and Greenland is positive.
    So where is all this future SLR to come from? Yes perhaps some thermal expansion and the 1% from melting mountain glaciers.
    But the problem is the much bigger Antarctica ( 89%) will be storing more ice for centuries to come and act as decelerator for future SLR.

  17. Comment from: bazza

    Greenpeace forward agents aboard Esperanza must be quaking in their sandals as they check out the GBR. Not! They will be checking out the intellectual firepower of the disappearing denialist cabal and falling about themselves laughing . But they will enjoy the recycling on this ‘evidence-based’ blog as they search in vain for an original argument from the dozen despairing denialists trying to dint a dent in AGW.

  18. Comment from: Jennifer Marohasy » At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald | Cranky Old Crow

    [...] Jennifer Marohasy » At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald. [...]

  19. Comment from: Robert

    “dozen despairing denialists trying to dint a dent”

    bazza, I like it. It’s up there with “nattering nabobs of negativity”. Spiro Agnew and Rush Limbaugh would be jealous.

    Incidentally, I hope those Greenpeace forward agents yearning for originality can save Qld from a rerun of those multi-year droughts flanking the very strong double La Nina of 1916-17 – which ended with Cyclones Mackay and Innisfail, two of our all time biggies. Who wants all that again? It’s too extreme, don’t you think?

    Have faith. With enough taxes, activism and reality adjustment anything is possible for stunting narcissists like Greenpeace.

  20. Comment from: toby

    The only denialists visiting this site are those advocating insane policies such as a carbon tax or ETS as a fix for the worlds climate. That is insanity because you and I both know our efforts will have no impact.

    I might add that given that temp has not risen for 15-17 years, you either have to be ignorant, a zealot, a liar or a denier to be able to keep a straight face and say its worse than we thought and the science is in….or just suffering from theory induced blindness.

    However you dice it there really is no excuse for such stupidity.

    Just how many years of no warming will be required to falsify this pseudo science?…can anything show it to be false/ exaggerated ?

  21. Comment from: cohenite

    Oh ok, bazza is taking the piss.

  22. Comment from: Debbie

    Looks like it Cohenite,
    I would also suspect that McDonald hasn’t wasted any time considering what Bazza thinks he ‘ought’ to be worrying about.
    But perhaps Bazza could offer his services as a speech writer? He has no problems with composing sentences with lovely examples of alliteration, analogy, imagery, rhetorical questions etc. His English teacher must have loved him.

  23. Comment from: bazza

    Alliteration is as cheap as chips. So the price was right for this audience.

  24. Comment from: toby

    We need the savings to pay for the NBN debacle and to clean up the damage done from the carbon tax etc. Not like a socialist to be worried about money though Bazza, must have been hard for you?…must have been your money you were spending not “ours”?!

  25. Comment from: Debbie

    While basically I agree with what has been done here….why is my BS meter going off?
    BTW…good to see you attempting a bit of humour ALMOST (!) devoid of sarcasm Bazza. There is hope for you yet.
    I’m willing to bet I’m right about your English teacher. I’m sure your English teacher loved your ability to compose and phrase and employ literary devices?

  26. Comment from: hunter

    It would be awesome if the Greenpeace thugs were harassed, their vessel blockaded, and they were publicly taunted as they go ashore. Greenpeace is not green except for money, and has nothing to do with peace. They are parasites who disrupt legitimate people working, seek to harm civilization and and demand payoffs from governments and corporations and duping the weak minded or like minded. They deserve push back, if not prosecution.

  27. Comment from: hunter

    As to bazza’s bloviation. Like most AGW kooks, he is maths challenged and is having difficulty counting election results.

  28. Comment from: Debbie

    Well yes Hunter,
    If Bazza thinks there are numbers on his ‘side’ for the carbon tax, then he must be struggling with the math.
    McDonald does mention that here:

    We took this proposal to the election. No Australian could have been under any doubt. Mr Abbott said many times: ‘This election will be a referendum on the carbon tax.’ Nobody could have been in any doubt…”

  29. Comment from: toby

    “Nobody could have been in any doubt…”…. unless you are a denier!?

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All