Senate debates
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2]
In Committee
8:49 pm
Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source
That is creditable science. You might not agree with it, but we are coming in with creditable science. But, more than that, the sea-level argument is the new icon that the extremists are using. I will refer to very creditable science, from Nils-Axel Morner—he is from Stockholm, so it is one of those names. He was responding to that stunt pulled by the President of the Maldives—it was quite a good one; it got international press—where the cabinet were sitting in the sea waters to show the world what would happen if the sea levels were to rise as they are predicted to rise. This is the world’s leading authority on sea levels. There is a scientist for everything, I have to admit, but here we have the world’s leading authority on sea levels. That is undisputed. He is from Stockholm University. He is the past president of the International Union for Quaternary Research commission on sea level changes and coastal evolution. He is highly decorated, highly respected. In the words of a scientist he says there is ‘no rational basis’ for their claim. In layman’s terms: absolute rubbish. He goes on to give some proper facts:
(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.
(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today
(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level
(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.
Fact (5) was that the notion presented by the President of the Maldives was absolute rubbish. Well, he put it a little more politely than that, in scientific terms. All I am saying is that we are coming in with Professor Morner, who is creditable. That is the science we are relying on. But it is not good enough for the Leader of the Greens. He calls it ‘witchcraft’ if anyone comes in with a different point of view. It has to be challenged—and, when it is challenged, they bristle, they interject. I say to the Greens, particularly the more reasonable two who are here, that you ought to start looking at the science—
No comments