Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak on the Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2009. This bill provides transitional arrangements related to the proposed Australian Astronomical Observatory within the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. The opposition supports this bill. The minister in his second reading speech, among other issues, talked about the necessity to maintain transparency, accountability and continuity of corporate and Commonwealth responsibilities. It is on the issues related to transparency and accountability of Commonwealth responsibilities that I will be focusing.

The government wishes to embark on an emissions trading tax premised on transparency, accountability and accuracy of the scientific assumptions on climate change. The astronomical phenomenon most familiar to Australians would obviously be a solar eclipse. Every time there is an eclipse TV stations and other media warn people, especially children, not to look directly at the sun. This is very wise advice because to do so could cause permanent damage to the eyes. However, those providing the IPCC with its terms of reference took this advice too literally. Do not look at the sun—that is, assume that CO2 is the villain in this confected doomsday scenario of global warming and, whatever you do, do not consider the sun in your preordained discoveries.

It seems passing strange to anyone with a shred of common sense that, whilst reams of words are written about increased CO2 meaning basically a thicker doona around the planet, making it warmer, there is barely a mention made of what provides the heat that is trapped. To the average person in the street it might seem a tad strange not to consider the sun when looking at the climate. That person might think, ‘Gee, I would have thought the sun plays a pretty significant role in the weather and climate.’ In fact, the influence of the sun on the earth is as clear as night and day. The sun is one of the main reasons that life on earth is possible—that, and carbon dioxide of course. Our seasons are governed by the angle of the earth to the sun. Its influence is so central to human beings that whole belief systems have centred on the sun. Scientific consensus once had the earth as the centre of our solar system. But after sceptical thinkers were for centuries condemned, sometimes to death, for the heretical concept of a heliocentric system, it was finally acknowledged that the earth in fact revolved around the sun and that the sun was literally at the centre of our little bit of universe—hence the term ‘solar system’. As my eight-year-old son might say, ‘Der’.

Woe betide anyone who suggests that the sun might be a major reason for changes in climate which have been happening over the past billions of years. Perhaps the observatory could be put to good use to produce the same evidence that many other professional and amateur observers of our heavens have acquired—that is, the influence of solar cycles on the earth’s climate. David Archibald wrote a fascinating monograph entitled Solar Cycle 24, which shows the direct correlation between solar activity and climatic changes. His work draws on previous research by Brunetti in 2003 and Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991. Archibald wrote:

These studies include correlations of the record of the ice ages with a Be10 record, which demonstrate that the Earth’s climate moves in sympathy, if not in lockstep, with solar activity.

All humans are aware that when the sun shines brighter we are warmer. But, of course, it is not just the obvious warming effect for which the sun is responsible. As Joseph D’Aleo explains in terms even the Prime Minister and various ministers should be able to comprehend, ‘an active sun is accompanied by increased ultraviolet radiation’. D’Aleo goes on to explain that an active sun ‘leads to less cosmic rays and a reduction in the amount of low-level—water droplet—cloudiness’. The article goes on to explain which data were used in the research and why. What a refreshingly different attitude to that displayed by senior figures in the IPCC, who have refused to release data, even when in breach of FOI laws in the UK, and whose processes make them unworthy of the title of ‘scientist’.

The significance of sunspots is fairly elementary. Periods of less solar activity—that is, fewer sunspots—mean colder periods on earth. D’Aleo says that it was believed the sun was virtually spotless in the Little Ice Age of the 1600’s. It was called the Maunder Minimum. Theodore Landscheidt, in New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?, warned the decline could ‘continue in solar activity until a Maunder Minimum-like level was reached about 2030’. The Russians appear to agree. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he and his colleagues had concluded that ‘a period of global cooling similar to the one seen in the late 17th century—when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland—could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060’. The late Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University had found with the help of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that every 179 years or so the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold.

So we can see how important astronomical observations are and how, if they are used in a true and proper service of scientific research, we could actually have real answers as to the primary drivers of the earth’s climate, instead of the self-serving antiscientific, fraudulent drivel that we have seen emanating from the IPCC. Speaking of ‘astronomical’, that will be the cost both in dollar terms and in the human toll of this disingenuous obsession with life-giving carbon dioxide. Apart from anything else, carbon based energy provides the cheapest and most reliable energy in the world. Look around at all the amazing achievements of mankind over the last few centuries. Very few of them would have been without the invention of forms of power generation which brought cheap energy, firstly, to the factories and, finally, to the masses. That is exemplified by the fact that virtually everything we use in modern life relies on cheap, reliable power. The price of this virtual life force is what will be controlled by the same people who brought you the subprime disaster. The quality of your lives will be controlled by wealthy financiers in the US and Europe—a truly astronomical disaster, one easily visible to the naked eye.

There is something that all members should consider, something with which I believe we are all in agreement: we all desire clean water, clean air and a reduction in global birthrates. Look at the nations that have the cleanest air, the cleanest water and the lowest birthrates. They all have something in common: they are all affluent. In fact, there is a clear relationship with these three desirable factors and per capita GDP: the higher the per capita GDP, the cleaner the air, the cleaner the water and the lower the birthrate. Why get involved in a policy that will reduce per capita GDP, with all the attendant environmental consequences that I have already outlined, and with due diligence regarding, to quote the minister, ‘maintaining transparency, accountability’ and so on?

Let’s have a look at some of the due diligence aspects in terms of climate change issues, just about all of which relate to data compared with model outputs. Predictions made by the IPCC for this century have all had temperatures going up, including when carbon dioxide holds constant at year 2000 levels. The problem is that temperatures have gone down this century. In fact, Phil Jones, the keeper of one of the major temperature data repositories, the Hadley Climate Research Unit, also the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, has acknowledged latterly that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Yet very single one of the models predicted that temperatures would go up, even when carbon dioxide holds constant—and we know carbon dioxide has increased.

If these global warming models are right and the atmosphere has not heated, where has that heat gone? We have some idea of the energy budget. The new story is that the heat content goes into the global ocean temperatures. The problem is that, since 2003, when the huge network of ocean buoys known as the Argo network was launched—there are approximately 3,000 buoys, which dive 2,000 metres and then come up and transmit data—more data on the oceans has been gathered than we have for all of human history. And what does the Argo network show? It shows that there has been reduction or, at best, no increase in the heat content of the oceans. So much for that one. We have also heard scare stories about the reducing Arctic ice. Yes, the Arctic ice over the last 30 years has reduced. But why aren’t we hearing about the increasing Antarctic ice?

Another prediction—and this is where observation is critical—of the models is that, in the upper troposphere, approximately 10 kilometres up in tropical areas, there should be what is known as a hot spot. That is predicted in all of the circulation models for well-mixed greenhouse gases. So you would expect that, with more carbon dioxide, you would actually see this hot spot. The problem is that, despite a lot of searching, no-one has found it. We are hearing some quite bizarre theories as to why this is the case, including that wind shear and so on is preventing the observation of this. As Jo Nova, one sceptic put it, and it is quite amusing: ‘That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of temperature measured by anemometers.’

We have also heard the story about sea levels. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago. In fact, for most of that period it rose significantly more quickly than it has been rising in the last century. In fact, over the last four years there has been no rise in the sea level at all. We have heard the Great Barrier Reef scares. Ove Hough-Guldberg keeps going on about bleaching events that we are going to see. He has predicted four or five major bleaching events for the Great Barrier Reef. Yet, a few months later, he had to say that either there was no bleaching or the reef has recovered a lot better than expected. Professor Peter Ridd, counter to what Ove Hough-Guldberg said, says that the Great Barrier Reef is ‘in bloody brilliant condition’.

Coral reefs have been around for hundreds of millions of years. We are talking about global average temperatures now of around 15 degrees Celsius. In that period there were global average temperatures of 22 degrees Celsius at certain periods and carbon dioxide concentrations more than 10 times what they are now, yet coral reefs lived through all of that. It is a piffling little amount of CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere compared to what it has been historically—a piffling little amount even if you take the IPCC’s worst scare story on temperatures. The globe has been through far worse than that and coral reefs have lived through it. I do not think most people realise that carbon dioxide today is actually at extremely low levels. Look back to 280 parts per million—much less than about 180 parts per million—and you have no life on earth. The point is that the amount of carbon dioxide we have at the moment is certainly not unusual. Something some people do not realise, as far as carbon dioxide concentration is concerned, when people talk about the drivers of climate is that about 300 million years ago we had what was referred to as ‘snowball earth’—pretty much all of the earth was covered in snow and ice. And do you know what? The carbon dioxide concentration was more than 10 times what it is now.

I will finish off by speaking about another astronomical observatory, where we are putting in a bid against a South African consortium. It is what is known as the Square Kilometre Array. It is an astronomical telescope network that basically encompasses a square kilometre. It will be the largest area of radio telescope in the world. It is worth well over $1 billion. It will push various technologies. For instance, if you had to build it right now the computer technology that is available now would be incapable of doing it—the networking speeds are just not up there. Obviously, knowing Moore’s Law, among other laws, we know that computer technology will be there at that time.

The technical solution that Australia offers is significantly superior to that of South Africa, which is also in the bidding. I am somewhat concerned about what I have been hearing from sources in the diplomatic beltway, which is that South Africa is winning the political war on this one. It will be a significant defeat for Australia if we can put up a solution that is technically way superior but lose the bid because we have not prosecuted the international political battle adequately—because this is a multinational project. This is something that I ask the government to turn its mind to with alacrity and pursue with diligence. South Africa obviously has advantages, particularly in United Nations terms, with the Africa bloc, which makes our job that much harder. I am significantly concerned about what I am hearing through the diplomatic beltway so, as I said, I am really asking that the government turn its attention to this potential disaster for Australia.

See this speech in context