One step away from total fascism (part 2)

Q: What is more threatening to a democracy than a fascist? A: A…

First Among Equals: The Voice


Imperial Visits: US Emissaries in the Pacific

For some time, Washington has been losing its spunk in the Pacific.…

Denying First Nations people a voice will achieve…

For some reason, I find myself yet again writing about this referendum.…

From Balloons to AUKUS: The War Drive Against…

When will this hate-filled nonsense stop? Surveillance balloons treated like evocations of…

It's frightening when you join the dots in…

By Andrew Klein In 2023 we see violence against segments of the…

Solar industry feeling the heat over disposal of…

University of South Australia Media Release The renewable energy sector is facing a…

Hocking tells Charles, "apologise!"

Despite her early childhood in England skipping through a host of golden…


The so-called Senator

Earlier this week, in response to a request by One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, innovation and science minister Greg Hunt set up a meeting between the CSIRO and the Senator.

“My core aim is, as always, to get the empirical data that underlies their claim that carbon dioxide is affecting global climate, because they’ve never provided it before,” Roberts said.

One can only assume he means they haven’t provided it to him, because there is a wealth of data on their website.

Roberts described the meeting as very interesting and said he would treat the CSIRO with respect by going through the material it provided him, which included information on climate change and vegetation levels.

He issued the following the day after the meeting:



Senator Roberts to meet CSIRO in Sydney

Senator Malcolm Roberts and his team of climate change realists have now met with the CSIRO in Sydney so as to be provided any evidence the CSIRO has to prove any link between so-called climate change and human action.

The Senator’s meeting coincided with the Climate Institute’s release of an opinion poll which showed only 60% of Australians believe humans are the cause of so-called climate change, leaving a sizeable swathe of Australians who don’t accept humans affect the earth’s temperature.

Senator Roberts said he wouldn’t be surprised if a large proportion of those who do not accept human action are Queenslanders who have endured significant economic hardship at the hands of climate change policies.

The meeting with the CSIRO was crucial, as climate change policy is grossly affecting the cost of living, jobs, energy prices, environmental policies, bureaucratic roadblocks and government spending.

“People all over Australia tell me that climate change polices are destroying agriculture, closing factories, driving up prices, making life more difficult and putting people out of jobs,”

“The only people profiting from these scams are the well-connected rich elites, who have never had concern for how people make ends meet,” he said.

“Our meeting with the CSIRO will go a long way towards unravelling the contested science behind the advice government has relied on to start the de-industrialisation of our nation”.

Senator Roberts will report back to the Australian people on his CSIRO findings after he is advised by his expert panel.

Apparently it didn’t take long for the Senator to dismiss the decades of research by climate scientists that he was provided with because, in an interview with 2CC’s Tim Shaw this morning, he said:

We must question completely this climate scam, this climate fraud that is being perpetrated on us because human production of carbon dioxide, it’s not carbon, human production of carbon dioxide, a colourless invisible gas that is essential for all life on this planet, has had no impact on global climate whatsoever. The empirical data proves that Tim, absolutely no proof at all that we are affecting the climate and what we are seeing now is that so-called renewable energies, or alternative energies, are actually an alternative to energy.

One can only imagine how excruciating that meeting must have been for the scientists who graciously gave up their valuable time to meet with Roberts and his “team of realists”. How much time did they spend printing off reports for him that he could have accessed himself, only to have him reject them all before he could possibly have read them.

This is a man who had not been in paid employment for eight years before hitching onto Pauline Hanson’s coat tails. He travelled to the US to attend the Heartland Institute’s climate skeptics conference in New York in 2008, co-sponsored by Australian free market think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs. In keeping with his belief that central banks are involved in a plot to fabricate climate data and impose a “new world order”, he has declared a stockpile of gold and silver bullion on the register of MPs’ interests.

Roberts has also said that Section 18C “needs to be addressed because [it is] curbing free speech” adding that he was not responsible for other people’s feelings.

“You can call me short, you can call me fat, you can call me a Queenslander, you can call me a cane toad,” he said. “Whatever you want to call me, the only person who decides whether I’m upset is me.”

Apparently I must have upset Mr Roberts by posting some factual evidence on his facebook page today because he has removed all my comments and blocked me, as did George Christensen. These guys exist in an echo chamber where facts are not welcome, as shown by Robert’s disdain for the CSIRO’s attempt to educate him.

Well here’s some ‘empirical evidence’ for you – the so-called Senator only got 77 votes. If he is going to ignore the advice of experts and all evidence provided then he should stop wasting their time and our money and he should be denounced for the charlatan he is.

 4,416 total views,  4 views today


Login here Register here
  1. Jaquix

    Yes Kaye, very depressing, but the empirical evidence that Malcolm Roberts was not taken seriously by voters is that incontrovertable figure of 77 votes. A supposedly brilliant personage named Malcolm Turnbull, masquerading as Prime Minister, with the aid of the probably well meaning Greens, have delivered him unto us.

  2. Matters Not


    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 atmosphere cools the surface . Got that. You can prove it for yourself. Wet your finger and then blow on it. It feels cooler. With so much water in oceans, rivers, lakes and the like and with wind constantly blowing the earth will always be cooling. QED.

    The laws of thermodynamics have now been confined to the dustbin of history. It’s a whole new scientific paradigm. Kuhn, Lakatos, Popper and the like have been displaced by Roberts. Or is he just the latest Milan Brych?

  3. Florence nee Fedup

    His expert panel????? #auspol

  4. diannaart

    Toe-nail fungus has more understanding of climate change than these human amoebas, as single minded as they are singled celled.

  5. Matilda Lawson

    The man is ineducable. He does not understand what he is being told or shown. Willful ignorance. Shameful.

  6. Kaye Lee


    That may be why he removed my comments because I was talking about how the ppm CO2 had increased by 43% in the last 150 years (faster than ever before) and how spectroscopic analysis shows that energy is being reradiated back to the earth at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases when I should have just listened to someone in a Queensland pub about how the breeze makes it cooler.

    Silly me.

    After all, Malcolm tells us in his declaration of interest “For many years people’s lives depended on my knowledge of atmospheric gases.”

    though I’m not sure how as Wikipedia says Roberts was on the board of a montesorri school and has worked as a mining engineer and general manager for various companies such as Peabody Coal Company, Consolidation Coal Company and Atlantic Richfield.

  7. win

    mattersnot; come, experience our inland Aussie hot north winds , THEN argue that the atmosphere always cools. In any case it is RETENTION of the sun’s energy that is the issue, CO2 is the ‘blanket ‘ that holds the energy in just like your winter bed blankets. So are methane, water vapor and some other less significant atmosphere contents.

  8. Keith

    Roberts is a fool.


    Professor Roger Jones, of Victoria University, Australia, has worked on several IPCC climate reports, which naturally will make Roberts uneasy. But he told me:

    “There is so much wrong in these few sentences that it is almost beyond parody — it turns the Senate Chamber into the theater of the absurd.

    Malcolm Roberts broke the first law of thermodynamics, which is the simplest — the conservation of energy — and then broke the rest of them.”

    The expert broke all the laws of thermodynamics in his maiden speech!

    A further quote:

    “Professor Matthew England, at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Climate Change Research Center in Australia, told me:

    “Where do you start? This denies that the atmosphere has any heat storage capacity, or that greenhouse gases re-radiate heat back down to the Earth.

    This really is high school geography that Malcolm Roberts has messed up here. We have known about the greenhouse effect since about the middle of the 19th century.

    We have directly measured warming of the oceans, for example, where about 90 percent of the human-caused heat has gone. You can measure that heat. And we know with absolute certainty that this heat has come from the atmosphere.

    Anyone in public office, as a Senator speaking about something as important as climate change, should be across these basic facts.””

    The Dunning-Kruger effect says:

    “The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden.” #sthash.AdkMUJL2.dpuf

  9. Matters Not

    come, experience our inland Aussie hot north winds

    win, actually I have experienced the ‘hot north winds’. Maybe you could tell me where their heat came from? Surely they took it from the earth and, in so doing, caused the earth to cool a bit? (PS Don’t try to answer that.)

    Or should I be discussing radiative forcing and the like? You know the definition used by the IPCC:

    Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in Watts per square meter (W/m2).”

    win, it’s pointless having an argument with people like Roberts. Just take the piss and move on.

    I thought the reference to the Laws of Thermodynamics and their abandonment might have provided a clue.

  10. bobrafto

    The empirical data proves that Tim, absolutely no proof at all that we are affecting the climate and what we are seeing now is that so-called renewable energies, or alternative energies, are actually an alternative to energy.

    Now that is deeply profound!

  11. Kaye Lee

    Most news outlets had stopped covering the views of climate science deniers in regular reporting. There is a clear scientific consensus that the world is warming and that human carbon emissions have caused it, so reporting the views of a few non-experts who push fanciful theories with no credible evidence is seen as “false balance”.

    But journalists are in a different position when someone in an important office holds such views. Some have argued the media should ignore the views of Roberts. But as a senator his views may affect legislation and the terms of the debate that influence it. ….to avoid repeatedly having to debunk Roberts’ views, we have produced a handy reference list of his main arguments

  12. totaram

    Sadly, I fear we will see more and more such people emerge as we continue to progress in science and technology. About two centuries ago, a person of intellect could have a broad knowledge of many areas of science. Today, any expert only knows and understands just a few of the technologies we use everyday. When the average person has no possibility of understand most of the technology surrounding her/him it is too easy to retreat into a defensive posture of “dismissing” the experts and relying on “home-grown ideas” (AKA common sense). When modern physics, and indeed the GPS system allows for the fact that “time runs more slowly” for a satellite than on the surface of the earth, any “commonsense person” will tell you that has to be nonsense. And so it goes. We won’t go into Quantum Mechanics at all. The situation is not helped by our politicians using this lack of knowledge to score points. Witness the statements about the power failure in South Australia. I suspect the human race has got a serious problem of its own making, the solution to which is not visible at all.

  13. Matters Not

    Roberts presents a real political problem. Sure he’s a fool of the first order but many people (voters one and all) identify with him. Sometimes, it’s because they know no better. Sometimes it’s because the ‘elites’ are ‘picking’ on him. Sometimes it’s because he’s saying what they want to hear. In the lyrics to “The Boxer” song by SIMON & GARFUNKEL:

    A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest …

    In Queensland we’ve had a long history of politicians who have prospered because of the ‘ignorance’. Joh is a good example. He stumbled his way through press conferences, murdering the language, treating the press with disdain and yet (for years) the voters returned him. Sure he benefitted from a gerrymander but that doesn’t explain his political longevity. While Roberts only received a miniscule number of votes this time, that’s no guarantee he won’t be elected next time as well. Although his task with the need for a full quota will make his task monumental.

    While his nonsense ought to be exposed. Beware the sympathy vote.

    Also he does have a crucial Senate vote and he may be ‘needed’. What will Turnbull trade for that?

  14. Kaye Lee

    Watching the Deniers, in a 2013 article about Roberts, made what has turned out to be a prescient warning.

    “What I fear in coming years is the rise of a vicious form of right-wing populism, with demagogues riding a tide of conspiracies and hatred to positions of power. Our public debates are toxic enough when it comes to refugees and marriage equality. The climate debate is equally toxic, if not more so.

    The work of Roberts falls squarely in the tradition of both conspiracy culture and right-wing populism: for this reason I’m neither laughing nor dismissive.”

    Toxic legacies: Malcolm Roberts, his CSIROh! report and the anti-Semitic roots of the “international bankers” conspiracy theory

    It makes for an interesting read about a disturbing/disturbed man.

  15. johnlord2013

    It’s the fault of people who vote for people like him.

  16. Steve Laing -

    Now that we’ve sorted below the line voting for the senate, its high time that above the line voting for the senate disappears. We really need to stop voting for parties, and start voting for people. This could improve our representation drastically. We should be able to get rid of Abetz and Bernardi, and maybe even Cash and Vibble Vobble. What a blessing that would be, for my ears at the very least.

    And I know from his statements that he won’t mind me saying it, but that man Roberts is an idiot. And I don’t mean in the general sense, but of the former psychiatric use of the term “A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.”

    Sounds about right.

  17. Gangey1959

    Great article Kaye Lee.
    77 votes huh. That is truly terrifying. And the frontbums on the Speakers right had the temerity to slag off Rick Muir. Jeez.
    If I read and understand him correctly, he is telling me that if I chop down a tree (or thousand) I am having no effect on the climate because of the fact that I am a human. And then if I burn said tree I am also not affecting the climate because burning things is not an alternative source of energy.
    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like there is an inherent fluckup in there somewhere.
    I think I have a solution, but it’s going to need you all to rely on some realllllllly old practices.
    Back in the olden days, people who had really out there knowledge were often called witches, and witches were burned at the stake.
    Our mr Roberts has theories that are out there in the witchery realm, and I reckon that if we threw him into a pond that had a duck on it, he would either not float, which would prove me wrong (ooops, my bad) or he would float, which would mean he weighed the same as a duck which by default means that he is made of wood and therefore using his own theory I can burn him alongside my trees and not affect the climate.
    I don’t think that bit needs any correcting.

  18. Gangey1959

    Roberts has also said that Section 18C “needs to be addressed because [it is] curbing free speech” adding that he was not responsible for other people’s feelings.
    “You can call me short, you can call me fat, you can call me a Queenslander, you can call me a cane toad,” he said. “Whatever you want to call me, the only person who decides whether I’m upset is me.”
    I would have thought that the MAJOR part of 18C, and other anti-discrimination laws everywhere is exactly because of his last statement.
    If the right to protection from public vilification ”BY person A” ”OF person B” for anything is removed, does that not also remove the right to protection ”OF person A” ”FROM person B” ? As in….
    If no-one is LEGALLY allowed to call me a stupid bloody Aussie white country boy, I am not LEGALLY allowed to react badly.
    If the law for MY protection is removed, is not the law for THEIR protection removed as well ? Could get ugly mr Roberts et al. Better make sure you connect your brain-cell before you open your mouth, or someone might try and find it.

  19. lawrencewinder

    I heard him on 2CC…. oh, dear….
    next we’ll be having these idiots campaigning for creationism in schools instead of science…. these ning-nongs need stopping

  20. Kaye Lee

    Roberts is listed as a member of the advisory committee of the Carbon Sense Coalition, a climate sceptic group established by Queensland coal industry veteran Viv Forbes. The voluntary group says “we oppose statutory limits on emissions of man-made carbon dioxide because we believe carbon dioxide plays a wholly beneficial role in our atmosphere. It is NOT a pollutant, nor does it drive global warming.”

    The latest post on their page is by our favourite fruitcake Christopher Monckton.

    “Some 375 political activists (including 30 Nobel Laureates) attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

    In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.”

    This guy has absolutely no shame.

    A reply to the 375 Concerned Members of the National Academy of Sciences (including 30 Nobel Laureates)

  21. flohri1754

    Creeping rot originating from the hinterlands of the regressive portions of the U.S. of A. Sad ….. with, of course, some daffy help from Britain. Doubly Sad ….

  22. diannaart

    18C is not and has not prevented Roberts (or any other politician) from saying whatever drivel pops into his head, nor is he held to account, by media or by his new peers; not even speaking to bona fide climate scientists make a difference.

    Malcolm Roberts too stupid to know when he has been given a position so far above his station, he lacks the nous to be even a little bit grateful.

  23. Brad

    Why does a coal industry stooge who only got 77 votes get so much press?

  24. Miriam English

    Roberts is either a fool or a liar. Not a good choice. Perhaps a fool AND a liar.
    Hard to believe anybody could be that impervious to reality.

  25. Gangey1959

    Dianna. To whom in our latest parliament, either house, does your last statement not apply?
    Penny Wong perhaps…..

  26. diannaart



    In fact, Penny Wong is one of the few in Canberra I can listen to and not feel like throwing something.

  27. Harquebus

    Kaye Lee

    “Apparently I must have upset Mr Roberts by posting some factual evidence on his facebook page today because he has removed all my comments and blocked me, as did George Christensen.”
    I can empathize with you on this. I have had exactly the same thing happen to me and also after posting contradictory evidence as well.

    With the complexity of climate systems, one can never be 100% confident including Roberts however, when adding up the evidence, it begins to become overwhelming. It seems foolish to dismiss climate disruption especially when, Roberts himself has provided no empirical data on his conspiratorial claims. A couple of which by the way I suspect are true however, a climate hoax is not one of them.

  28. helvityni

    “It’s the fault of people who vote for people like him.”

    Yes, John Lord, we can rant and rave all we like but why do we elect these kinds of people in, anyone with a name ‘Malcolm’ is already a bit sus in my books.

    Gangey 1959, Penny Wong is certainly not stupid; she could or could be our PM one day.

    When I first glanced at photo at the top, I thought it was John Howard with his eyebrows trimmed….

  29. Carol Taylor

    I suppose that One Nation has to dredge for candidates where ever it can. Roberts of course was never meant to get elected, there only as ‘bum on a seat’ candidate. Unfortunately he is controversial enough to get himself lots and lots of lovely, juicy publicity and for an egomaniac, nothing could be better. In another world he would be trolling progressive blogs..which is where he still should be.

    Helvityni, and When I first glanced at photo at the top, I thought it was John Howard with his eyebrows trimmed…. 😆

  30. nurses1968

    Kaye Lee “the so-called Senator only got 77 votes.” and I thought you were better than that. The thimble and pea trick
    You know very well that the dumbcluck Roberts was on a ticket and all following a Party how to vote would NOT list him at 1,
    It is common with all parties and you know it and here are just three of a bunch of examples
    GRIFF, Stirling Nick Xenophon Team 103 0.01 0.0013 Elected
    KAKOSCHKE-MOORE, Skye Nick Xenophon Team 129 0.01 0.0016 Elected
    GALLACHER, Alex Australian Labor Party 330 0.03 0.0040 Elected

    You know better,that is more in line with a LNP put down and there is enough ammunition to use against Roberts than reverting to this sort of thing

  31. Kaye Lee

    Of course I am aware of that nurses1968 but thanks for highlighting yet another problem with following what parties tell you to do. I agree that we should get rid of party tickets and while we are at it, get rid of how to vote propaganda too. Imagine the number of trees we would save.

    And there is no need to adopt that tone with me…as my mother would say 🙂 Did it ever occur to you that that is an example of how the empirical evidence can be misleading?

  32. woywoybaz

    Those eyes; you can’t tell me they’re not mad eyes.

  33. Nathan

    Roberts said On Q&A he doesn’t believe in Climate change because of the peak temperatures were hotter in the 1930’s and 40’s were hotter than they were now, hmm what happen during those years… oh something pretty drastic like the world being at war and most country went into industrial overload, developing mas quantities of vehicle and weapons with little moderation, and lets not forgot all the introduction of the atom bomb.

    Roberts is just the kind of person who is just incapable of changing his opinion, the only way to deal with him is to say that his data is corrupted by his personal opinions and agenda, or to just ignore him completely.

  34. wam

    The senator needs a quiet lesson in racism and religious bigotry. 18c doesn’t give a rats arse about cane toad or spaghetti muncher it is in the ‘racial vilification’ section not gentle insult section.

    There are now millions who are ‘agnostic’ because of poor old rudd. He could have challenged the rabbott and the loonies with a DD in 2009 when they joined forces to dump the carbon scheme and there was overwhelming support for action. (wonder if the diludbransims ever rue that vote???)

    As for malc of the senate, et al in society, there is no logic in belief. They are entitled to believe that which she/he can understand.

    It is time to take the KISS approach.

    Nature took coal, oil and gas out of the atmosphere and oceans over millions of years and we are putting it back at alarming rates.
    Carbon fueled the riches of the billion or so of us.
    So what will fuel the billions in Asia, the Americas and Africa?
    Only renewables or nuclear (difficult with the memories of chernobyl and fukushima???)
    ps dear kaye no how to votes in my last election and it was relaxing to walk past the tents set up 150 metres from the booth.

  35. dario

    What an effwit, do we need these sort of people in parliament? We must have at least 77 brain dead people in this country.

  36. Keray

    Thanks Kaye. Great article.
    Now please give us the link to the facts you mention so we can all post them on his Facebook page.

  37. Kaye Lee

    Keray, this link is very useful in debunking all climate change denier arguments with links to scientific papers

    This is good on the consensus amongst climate scientists

    And this for the empirical evidence that AGW is causing climate change

    I linked to the advanced papers but they also have basic answers as well. Choose what is best for your level of understanding.

  38. Kaye Lee

    Roberts and his “realists” also removed this graph from his page.

  39. nurses1968

    Kaye Lee “Of course I am aware of that nurses1968”
    but you made a particular point of highlighting the first preference vote he got when the bottom line is he got a quota.His quota was exactly the same as the first elected for the ALP or the Liberals or even Independents like Hinch

  40. Kaye Lee

    If you think that was the particular point of this article nurses1968 you are mistaken. I am not interested in party manipulations and shenanigans. I am interested in the truth about climate change.

  41. nurses1968

    Kaye Lee
    ” I am interested in the truth about climate change.” well it was you who threw in the little 77 vote thing not me
    Maybe I have missed how that particular part integrates into the CC debate.
    ” I am not interested in party manipulations and shenanigans.” then why raise the 77 vote thing?

  42. Kaye Lee

    Malcolm Roberts said “we know that the 1930s were warmer than today….we’ve had a pause in this so-called warming for now 21 years.”

    NOAA and NASA say

    the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), beating the previous record warmth of 2014 by 0.16°C (0.29°F). This is not only the highest calendar year temperature, but also the highest temperature for any 12-month period on record. The global temperatures in 2015 were strongly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that developed during the year.

    The 2015 temperature also marks the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken. Prior to this year, the largest margin occurred in 1998, when the annual temperature surpassed the record set in 1997 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). Incidentally, 1997 and 1998 were the last years in which a similarly strong El Niño was occurring. The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both well below the 2015 temperature departure.

    This marks the fourth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, and 2014) and also marks the 39th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, including 2015, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century. 1998 is currently tied with 2009 as the sixth warmest year on record.

  43. Kaye Lee

    Malcolm Roberts said:

    “Steve Goddard, he has shown the NASA figures and the graph was originally showing that 1930s were warmer than recent decades and that is correct and people have recognised that for many years. And in the recent years they have been reversed, so that the 1930s were reduced in temperature and the later periods were inflated in temperature. That’s a fact. Now, the Bureau of Meteorology is exactly the same and Greg Hunt squashed an investigation of the Bureau of Metrology earlier this year.”

    Roberts is quoting Goddard as an expert????

    “Fox News is reviving accusations that NASA’s peer-reviewed adjustments to temperature data are an attempt to “fak[e]” global warming, a claim that even a climate “skeptic” threw cold water on.

    Tony Heller, a birther who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym “Steven Goddard,” wrote a blog post that claimed “NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.” After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was “fabricated” or “faked.” On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that “the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s” but scientists had “faked the numbers”:

    However, the libertarian magazine Reason noted that even climate “skeptic” blogger Anthony Watts said that Goddard made “major errors in his analysis” and criticized the implication that “numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way.”

    In fact, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA, which both maintain temperature records that use slightly different methods but show close agreement, have publicly documented the peer-reviewed adjustments they make to raw data. NCDC states that the “most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler,” and so it must correct this cool bias as well as other biases that, for example, result from moving temperature stations.

    NASA’s data shows that the nation has not been “cooling” since the 1930s, with several years, including 2012, ranking hotter than 1934 in the continental United States, along with a long-term warming trend. And while The Sean Hannity Show claimed that this shows the “Earth has been cooling,” the continental United States makes up less than 2 percent of the Earth’s surface — global surface temperatures have increased significantly.

  44. Matters Not

    then why raise the 77 vote thing

    Context nurses1968. Context!

    And believe it or not, you add context as well.

    But I won’t trouble you by explaining how.

  45. Kaye Lee

    Roberts got 77 votes – no-one knew him. No-one voted for him because of his enlightened view on things. He rode in on the Hanson train as other whackos have done before. He won’t be controlled or constrained by any party mechanism. He has been a serial pest for years who has found an opportunity to make his ignorant assertions with the backing of a “party”.

    Somewhat reminiscent of the interview on Enough Rope.

    ANDREW DENTON: Ray Danton, actually publicly questioned the statistics on Aboriginal infant mortality as though they might have been made up for some other reason. Now, this is, of course, as you know, one of the great health problems we have in this country. And it wasn’t just what you said…

    PAULINE HANSON: There were some radicals that tagged themselves to me. They saw me come along and, you know, this woman came along and they thought there was their platform to go and say whatever they wanted to.

    ANDREW DENTON: But he was your Health spokesperson.

    PAULINE HANSON: Oh, look, I wouldn’t even know… I don’t even know who he is.

    ANDREW DENTON: Ray Danton, he launched your health policy.

    PAULINE HANSON: Yeah, probably from a NSW seat, was he?

    ANDREW DENTON: Yeah. But that was the One Nation health policy in that election.

  46. Jaquix

    Kaye thanks for thst link of Enough Rope. Miss that program! What a genius interviewer he was/is. Pauline is a blithering idiiot who contradicts herself at every turn.. And making a nice living out of it. Roberts reminds me of Cock Robin, a perfect cartoon character. The other two One Nationers are a couple of jellyfish.

  47. michael lacey

    It suits the Neoliberals to have him there it creates the diversion!

  48. Arthur Tarry

    It’s obvious that Roberts does not understand the meaning of the world empirical. If he doesn’t understand the meaning of that word what else doesn’t he understand ?

  49. Miriam English

    I think we need to have some of the politicians sued, fired, and imprisoned for misleading Australians. (Suing is not enough for politicians. They just pay with our money. They need the threat of prison.) It might make them think twice before spouting nonsense and lying with wild abandon.

    Currently there is no constraint upon politicians who wish to lie and mislead, or even simply not do their job to research their material before shooting their mouths off. We need to modify that behavior before it becomes even more dangerous. If we don’t then serial liars like Trump and Abbott will become more and more common in politics.

    Government is already a largely fact-free zone — not good for a group that is supposed to be steering the ship of state. I see metaphorical icebergs ahead.

  50. Kaye Lee

    Scientist and Nobel prize-winner Peter Doherty said :

    “I’ve never used the term ‘empirical evidence’, or heard any other working scientist say it. [Roberts] has no understanding of how science works.

    Discoveries in science stem from a mix of hypothesis, experiment, data generation, data analysis, insight and even a bit of guesswork. Telling the story of what’s happening in something as complex as climate science further depends on integrating information from a diverse spectrum of fields, then designing to see if the conclusions are valid or false. There’s a constant process of correction and further interpretation that then has to be supported by measurement.

    You can tell a genuine sceptic from a denier because the sceptic will want to look at new data and conclusions and, like any real scientist, will modify their conclusions accordingly. The denier remains ‘locked in’ to a sort of ‘decerebrate rigidity’.

    All good scientists are sceptical, not least about their own data and conclusions. Further data show that we’re wrong, and we prefer not to be wrong, so people change their positions with new evidence. And, if you want to understand very complex, interactive systems, you have to use modelling approaches.

    With climate science, data is coming in from a very broad spectrum of scientific disciplines that no one person can pull together … thus the IPCC.”

    Prof Steven Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, said:

    “The argument is specious. Anyone can claim there is no evidence if they refuse to look at it. In Galileo’s time, some people refused to look into his telescope and then claimed there was no evidence to support what he was saying. Same thing today.

    The problem is that evidence does not stand up by itself and announce the answer to any given question. Evidence must be interpreted by humans. Scientists have all interpreted the evidence, going back decades, and unanimously agree that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) humans are increasing CO2 and (b) this is causing warming. There is not a single respectable atmospheric scientist in the world whom I know of, who disagrees with either of these conclusions (there are a handful who challenge the magnitude of the effect but that’s a different question).

    It is impossible to make a prediction based on data alone. Only a model can make a prediction of anything that has not happened yet.”

  51. harshmind

    On a positive note, Roberts can afford a you-beaut new Akubra, now he’s on stage in the Memorial Hall getting paid to rap. Repeat the word “empirical” enough under that horny brim and I know someone out the back (who once heard they need a scientist at the Bundy factory to stop people going blind) gets bloody eager. Pauline, calm down! Is there any data, in the sense of observed measurement, that is not empirical? Those friggin’ Blues supporters always ask. The CSIRO should truck in for Roberts, and his Galileo Movement mates, a couple of ute loads of empirical temperature trends but bound as obsolete phone books. Roberts can set fire to them in the car park, fix Pauline with his half-past last-dance eyes, excite her about “data in the raw” and tell us “no need for models, she’s bloody cool up ‘ere already”. Maroon as a cooked lobster.

  52. Kaye Lee

    February, 2013

    In a report distributed through his own website, Roberts makes a series of claims alleging widespread corruption by key Australian and United Nations science agencies.

    The CSIROh! report, targeting the country’s CSIRO science agency, is sent by registered post to every federal member of parliament. Roberts also sends letters and emails to media bosses, scientists, science agencies and high profile journalists. The report is promoted on the website of Chicago-based climate denial think tank the Heartland Institute.

    Roberts sent one of his voluminous reports to Ben Cubby, then the environment editor at the Sydney Morning Herald who responded:

    “In considering your request that I identify errors in the report you sent to me – CSIROh! Climate of Deception? Or First Step to Freedom? – I find myself confronting an unusual problem: how does one critically analyse a pile of horseshit?”

  53. Jaquix

    To pick up Miriam’s poinf about accountsbility, the decision of ABC Michelle Guthrie (almost certainly on ideological grounds, or even meddling by Malcoln) is bearing fruit – the government getting away with so much rubbish. They do swear an oath of office on any number of religious tomes, but it doesnt serm to have any effect whatsoever.

  54. Keith

    As has been known since “direct action” was pushed by the LNP it is nothing but a crock of the proverbial. A device used to fool people.

    The COALition are still pushing for new coal mines to be developed; Adani is considering rejigging their proposed mine to a smaller enterprise, and Gina Rhinehart is also interest in developing a new mine.

    Meanwhile, Professor Wadhams has written a paper about the state of the Arctic. Deniers will be all over the paper as in the past Professor Wadhams has made predictions which have not come true. His comments about sea ice thickness are a worry borne out by referenced abstract.

    We have more methane being voided from ponds in Alaska.

    Warming Arctic creates GHG danger zone

    Loss of sea ice extent, volume and thickness; along with methane and CO2 voiding from the Arctic Circle, do not make for a safe future.

    Politicians, many receiving donations from fossil fuel companies, sit on their arses; while the cross hairs of climate change at present are putting countless millions of people at risk.

  55. crypt0

    The truth is routinely tipped on it’s head by this LieNP government and their fellow travelers and then widely disseminated by their friends in the MSM. That includes the once admirable ABC.
    As a result, the little aussie voter effectively votes for such as malcolm roberts and a raft of others with equivalent intellect.
    I doubt that the Australian people will become aware of what is being done to this country until a large proportion of them are homeless and living on the streets.

  56. diannaart

    The below link is for ANDI – Australian National Progress Index, which is evaluating the need for a broader interpretation of ‘progress’ than the anachronistic GDP.

    What is progress?
    How do we know if we’re making progress?

    We all want a better life for the people we care about. We care about the progress of our communities and our country. We like to think that we will leave a positive legacy for the generations that come after us.

    So how do we know if we, as a nation, are on the right track? What does progress really mean? How do we decide what counts as progress? How can we measure how well we are succeeding?

    By definition, the progress of a nation or a community is measured by how well it moves towards set goals and values. Until recently, most of the national conversations about our progress have been focused on economic growth as the key goal for Australia.

    ANDI is a community initiative to revitalise our democracy and engage all Australians in a national debate about our shared vision for Australia.

    Now, human progress is increasingly being understood as much more complex than this, including the values that underpin our life together, goals that relate to our wellbeing as individuals and as communities, and the effective and sustainable use of our resources for the wellbeing of future generations.

    Based on the idea of an ongoing conversation about what kind of society we want to be, ANDI will develop clear, ongoing measures of our progress towards that vision: an Australian National Development Index.

    Deciding what progress means for Australia and how to measure it isn’t simply a matter of policy for lawmakers or a technical question for experts.

    It’s a democratic question for all Australians. This is what the ANDI project is about.

    Good to see Tim Costello on board – although I continue to fathom what Christmas dinner at the Costellos must be like…

    A quick check at, reveals the yawning absence of the IPA, Mining groups, the LNP and other similar parasites; may such an absence remain a permanent feature of ANDI.

  57. Jennifer Meyer-Smith

    Next time Roberts declares there is no empirical evidence that climate change exists due to human carbon emissions, he should be forced to define what he means by “no empirical evidence”. That will knock the wind out of his sails.

  58. Harquebus

    Well said. I also worry about Arctic CO2 and methane.

  59. Keith


    Methane is being voided in many places other than the Arctic; old capped fracking sites, cattle, Ocean floor, tired domestic infra structure providing gas to homes, and waste disposal areas. Almost happily, where methane is voided from Oceans it is ingested by bacteria which convert it to CO2.

    The climate is expected to change in Alaska and Northern Territories of Canada.

    There have been major wild fires in Siberia continuing into September 2016.

  60. Kaye Lee

    Roberts was just asked on his facebook page “what caused the SA blackout”. This was his answer…

    “Due to high variability of wind farm electricity the system was unstable and the grid had to be shutdown. Add to that, they shutdown wind turbines because the wind speed reached 87 km/hr. That meant that at night during the storm SA had no solar power, no wind power.

    Have you found anywhere on earth that generates solar power at night or that can generate wind power when wind turbines are shutdown?

    In our state of Queensland, cyclone Yasi with 287 km/hr winds and extreme damage, only a small area lost power. We rely on coal-fired base load generators. Stable.

    Yet the whole of SA lost power.”

    Never let the truth stand in the way of your narrative Malcolm.

  61. jay

    “Apparently I must have upset Mr Roberts by posting some factual evidence on his facebook page today because he has removed all my comments and blocked me, as did George Christensen. These guys exist in an echo chamber where facts are not welcome, as shown by Robert’s disdain for the CSIRO’s attempt to educate him.”

    the same happens to me here when i show empirical evidence that the official account of 9/11 is impossible. all i get is called names, no rebuttal with any sunstance, and my posts deleted.

  62. Matters Not

    The problem is that evidence does not stand up by itself and announce the answer to any given question. Evidence must be interpreted by humans

    Indeed! The idea that facts speak for themselves is just a nonsense even though that claim is made on a regular basis. Facts do not have a life of their own. They ‘say’ absolutely nothing. It’s humans (sometimes historians, sometimes scientists and the like) that select some ‘facts’ (and disregard or ignore others on the grounds of (ir)relevance), arrange them in a particular ‘narrative’ and then give meaning to those facts and those arrangements. They build a conceptual framework that is shared by others.

    Sherwood goes on:

    Scientists have all interpreted the evidence, going back decades, and unanimously agree that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) humans are increasing CO2 and (b) this is causing warming.

    Yes, scientists interpret evidence – they give particular meanings to ‘things’. That’s their expertise. The ability to given meanings to facts (and arrangements of particular facts) that non-scientists can’t is what makes them scientists.

    Roberts doesn’t give the same ‘meaning’ to the rise in Carbon Dioxide levels (for example) as practising climate scientists do. He is a nutter.

  63. bobrafto

    the same happens to me here when i show empirical evidence that the official account of 9/11 is impossible. all i get is called names, no rebuttal with any sunstance, and my posts deleted.

    May I suggest however they came down whether by planes or controlled demolition they came down, nothing more that you can do about it.

    time to move on dude, go and smell the roses as life is too short to dwell on an unfortunate tragic incident that happened 15 years ago.

  64. Harquebus


    We must hang out in the same places because, I am getting the same information as you.
    I sometimes post many links to prove a point and can always post more but, mostly it I try to keep to just 1 to a few of the most important per page. I am not sure but, I assume that a few or less has a better chance of being followed.
    Thanks for the link. Always appreciated.

    Kaye Lee

    As I understand it, the system was tripped. Like a short circuit in your home tripping a circuit breaker only on a much larger scale. Even if we had daylight and ideal wind speed, everything still would have blacked out.

    The blackout was a little unnerving. Most of the time, after a short while one can ring and get an estimate of the down time. This time, there was no getting through. I had a feeling then that it was a big one. After half an hour, the mobile reception disappeared and was I left only with the radio on my phone. That is a first and gave me the suspicion that it was really big. If I had an emergency, my only hope would be a phone box and I am not sure about them either.
    It was reported on the radio that the blackout was statewide and will probably be prolonged so, I turned the phone off and hunkered down for the medium haul. Fortunately, my power was out for only 4 hours.

    Most in here would know my thoughts on our future. The silence and lack of communications was, in my mind, a just a little foretaste of things to come and a little unnerving.

    The problem as I see it here in SA is the price of energy. It is sapping the life out of our economy.
    Wasting precious resources constructing energy sinks while papering over diminishing returns with ever increasing amounts of debt will do that.


    BTW: It is just as well that I save my longer posts to the clipboard before I send them just in case they disappear down theAIMN rabbit hole like this one did.

  65. jay

    bobrafto – “May I suggest however they came down whether by planes or controlled demolition they came down, nothing more that you can do about it.

    time to move on dude, go and smell the roses as life is too short to dwell on an unfortunate tragic incident that happened 15 years ago.”

    plenty we can do about it. we can expose the lies, stop the wars, get a bit of justice for the families. cheers

  66. bobrafto

    We keep on exposing LNP lies and their malfeasances and justice resides with whoever is in power.

  67. Jennifer Meyer-Smith

    So Bob Rafto,

    Keep attempting to expose their malfeasance and giving others the necessary information to explain how to enforce it while seeking how to conduct the balance.

    Good people want direction.

    Stop squabbling and bring in numerous, diverse, like-minded visionaries moving forward against any Neolibeberal …

    … or worse RWNJ.

  68. bobrafto

    A prime example is the Peter Slipper case just like that rabbit beating a drum powered by a battery, it keeps on going on and on for over 3 years now.

    The NBN made a complaint and the AFP was all over Senator Conroy like a bee swarm probably within minutes of the complaint being made.

    When the govt has the AFP in it’s pocket, justice becomes remote unless the LNP is chasing Labor.

    The reality is that the Labor govt has to take up the cudgel and they don’t seem to be interested.

  69. Zathras

    Climate scientists don’t have to keep re-proving their theory.

    It’s now up to Roberts and his acolytes to provide their own alternative set of proofs that discredit all the findings so far – as well as the sinister global conspiracy he suggests.

    Name some names. He enjoys Parliamentary privilege.

    Opinions without proof are ultimately worthless.
    As somebody whose taxes pay his salary I say it’s time for him to put up or shut up.

    It’s that simple.

    Why doesn’t somebody just ask him to do this instead of continuing to defend themselves and provide implied credence to his misguided views?

  70. Miriam English

    jay, you can either look at the facts or go down endless conspiratorial rabbit holes. It’s your choice.

    May I suggest that when you look for facts you examine the results of statements by scientists who know what they’re talking about rather than listening to people who already believe something and use whatever they can to prop up that belief while ignoring scientists.

    What Malcolm Roberts and other climate-change-denying conspiracists do, and what 911 conspiracists do, and what UFO believers do, and what holocaust denier conspiracists do, and what any number of people who believe unprovable things do is to attach themselves to dramatic, exciting conspiracies instead of looking at the more rational, less exciting, but actually more believable explanations.

    Unfortunately, regardless of what evidence is put forward the believers will have a conspiratorial “reason” for dismissing it. It makes their position unassailable in their own eyes, but simply makes other people impatient. Creating a fake set of conditions for accepting data means you can never accept the actual truth. You will merely become trapped by your own beliefs, like a dog chasing its tail, and guarantee being forever wrong.

    The climate is changing. There is clear evidence from hundreds of unrelated sources that all point to the same conclusion. You don’t even need to be a scientist to take photos of the glaciers receding worldwide. Malcolm Roberts denies it by pretending the evidence doesn’t exist and that there is some conspiracy to push for renewables.

    The scientists at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) carefully investigated why the buildings fell. They published publicly available reports of their findings. The buildings were not blown up. The bin Ladens are a big, wealthy family and were very pissed that the radicalised, rather stupid Osama messed up their cushy life in USA.

    I won’t go into other ridiculous conspiracies. It’s a waste of time… as I’m guessing my paragraphs above were too.

  71. jay


    “The scientists at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) carefully investigated why the buildings fell. They published publicly available reports of their findings. The buildings were not blown up. ”

    they didnt even check for explosives miriam, the nist report is unscientific, and it goes only so far as to the initiation of the collapse, not the full blown destruction.

    im not into theories either, however, NISTS own evidence proves their own account imposssible. I have spent years studying all the evidence, and the nonsense theories, im not saying what happenned – just that a proper investigation is long overdue because to this date, there has been none.

    your paragraphs would not be so wasted if you could post a link to the evidence that proves the official account beyond all reasonable doubt, the NIST report didnt do that, if it did, the families of victims would not still be calling for an inquiry.

    Why the NIST WTC 7 Report is False

    it also fails to explain how molten metal remained beneath the site for ~100 days afterwards..

    Why did John Gross claim he had no evidence of high temps in the WTC rubble?

    perhaps you can explain that phenomenon as youre so up with all the details, thanks.

  72. jay

    and miriam, heres an interview with an expert who knows what hes talking about, one of many thousands of such experts who all say it is not unreasonable to doubt the official account..

  73. townsvilleblog

    lol, a former mining engineer? He must have known someone with influence to get a job like that, personally I wouldn’t trust him with a pick and shovel, let alone bing a Peabody manager lol, his employment history seems to be fabricated to me.

  74. Jennifer Meyer-Smith

    My thoughts exactly, townsvilleblog. It explains why he’s so anti-human-induced global warming though. Can’t go speaking ill of fossil fuels, can we?!

  75. Winston

    Roberts gets off on being the odd man out in this science debate.Maybe the intellectuals laughed at him all those years ago.Choosing to be black vrs white is always the easiest option for these types.Yes Hitler comes to mind. Yes! sorry Mr Godwin R. Roberts has all the 2GB shock jocks supporting him.So; he is only going to get worse.These types should be labelled as FEP Flat Earth People.Though we can laugh at them; fundamentally these types are potentially very dangerous.

  76. ace Jones

    Sadly there is no Empirical evidence to prove Roberts is sane.
    Then why do we allow mental-defective people like Roberts in parliament?
    Time has come to ‘vet’ people who aspire to political office.
    Or end up with lunatics running the ‘Australian Asylum’ ….. formerly known as the Australian Parliament

  77. John Brame

    Mr 77 votes Malcolm is an embarrassment and does not deserve airtime. I’m just wondering how long it will take before he will do a major backflip. “Oh yeah (lightbulb moment for Malcolm and conspiracies aside), maybe human are changing the climate.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: