Mr SIMPKINS (4:45 PM) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on a matter of great concern to me and so many of my constituents in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011. It relates absolutely to the government’s use of taxpayers’ money—and just as absolutely I question it. I take this opportunity to speak of the outlays already expended in pursuit of a carbon price. As we should remember, the imposition of a carbon price on the Australian people was specifically ruled out before the 2010 election. The Prime Minister said, ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ What was said before the election by the Prime Minister had no bearing on what she would do after the election. What we have seen, therefore, is the real Julia.

Regardless of the reliability of the Prime Minister, my intention is to speak of anthropogenic global warming or, rather, the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Normally, any speeches in this place about AGW are confined to recounting various estimates and claims of the coming apocalypse brought on by human induced global warming. It always appears more interesting, apparently, to talk about the calamity that approaches—the rising oceans, the bleaching coral reefs and the increasing number of extreme weather events. I will speak of such claims in the future, but today I speak of science and computer models. The government will soon seek to impose a price on carbon to reduce the CO2 output of our nation. I do not believe this would be successful, nor do I believe it would achieve a drop in temperatures. Rather than going over the entire amount of evidence on AGW, I will cover the alleged link between CO2 and temperature.

In the last 2,000 years there have been two previous periods of substantial warming, demonstrated by studies based upon reconstructed temperature data from a variety of sources. These periods are the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. Using the same calculations of reconstructed data over 2,000 years to the present, it may surprise many members that 80 per cent of all studies have demonstrated that the Medieval Warm Period was, in fact, warmer than the current period. Bizarre as it is, there are some people here that continue to believe the current period is the hottest ever and that this is due, in the main, to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Ever since the government chose to only engage in dire predictions and computer modelling above science, debate has been closed down in this place.

I reiterate, however, that an overwhelming number of studies suggest that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now. But here is the point: there is a further anomaly beyond the fallacy that somehow this current period is hotter than any other period in recent history and it relates to CO2 concentrations. During the Medieval Warm Period, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was some 100 parts per million less than it is currently. It was typically hotter a thousand years ago than it is now, but there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, during the Roman Warm Period it was typically about the same or a little hotter than now. Yet again, there was less CO2 in the atmosphere.

The question must be: how can it be alleged that CO2 is the forcing factor when both warm cycles of the last 2,000 years corresponded with lower CO2 concentrations than there are currently? What has occurred is that the figures for the current period have been fixed by some to a convenient degree. Indeed, to make sure the current period appears warmer than previous warm periods, recent data has been assessed using instrumental temperature data, which is not available beyond the last 100 to 150 years. Before that, temperatures have been calculated using the reconstructed data method. Using reconstructed data from a variety of sources, from the present back 2,000 years, the current period is demonstrated to be typically cooler than the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. It is only when comparing ‘apples with oranges’—in other words, reconstructed data with instrumental temperature data—that the current period can be made to seem warmer than both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. In any case, there remains the fundamental and critical disconnect that whenever there were higher temperatures in the past 2,000 years there were in fact lower CO2 levels compared with now.

Rest assured that I do not base this speech just on these highly relevant facts but also on more recent information, because in recent times there is also a similar disconnection between CO2 and temperature rises. In particular, the significant warming in Greenland in the 1920s took place without CO2 rising higher than three to four parts per million, while the temperature rose by two to four degrees Celsius. That warming was actually attributed to local climate issues, such as the Northern Annular Mode—the North Atlantic Oscillation—but clearly without a significant anthropogenic influence. A study by Overpeck et al in 1997 determined that from 1955 to 1990 the mean circum-Arctic air temperature fell by 0.4 per cent during the same period that the CO2 concentration rose from 313 to 354 parts per million, or by 41 parts per million.

As previously stated, there are significant disparities between temperature and CO2 concentrations. Predictions of catastrophic climate change are predicted only through computer models. Let us think on that with regard to these models and their predictions. The assertion is that computer programs have been developed that consider every possible natural influence and factor that controls weather. That is what we are being asked to put our faith in. We are in effect being told that these models are so advanced, so technically accurate and so completely representative and inclusive of every possible facet or vagary of the weather that they can tell what is going to happen in 30, 50 or 100 years. What a marvel of modern-day science they represent. It is a pity they cannot predict cyclones, Queensland floods or even the exceptionally cold Northern Hemisphere winter.

To return to my points so far, I question whether computer models that do not even consider clouds can be trusted to be accurate in their long-term future predictions when real temperature comparisons do not show a relationship between temperature rises and CO2 concentrations. I suspect that if you threw into these models the influence of the entrails of a rock python you may not reach any more credible prediction, but the output of snake oil to be sold would be even greater than the amount already being produced.

I have spoken now at fair length about key science issues regarding the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Of course, in addition to name-calling of people like me who question that theory and who are genuinely interested in investigating the science and truth in these matters, there is also the other part of the orchestrated campaign to restrict free speech in this country, and that is to deride those who still question the apocalypse as being in the pay of big oil companies. Alternative views are dismissed as being motivated by vested interests. There is, however, no better example of the influence of vested interests pushing an agenda than those who adhere to the theory of AGW. It is on that side of the debate that vested interests truly lie—but I hesitate to call it a debate as it seems that so many individuals, groups and businesses now see the acceptance of the theory of AGW to be in their interest, and hence there is no debate.

I would classify adherents of the AGW theory into three groups: those who believe that AGW is a reality, those whose first priority is the advantage they discern they can achieve from the acceptance of AGW as a reality, and those who fear personal and professional ruin should they oppose and speak out against the theory. Of those three groups, I have the least problem with those who totally believe in the theory, as they are authentic. I think they are wrong, but they are at least authentic. I speak next of those who fear personal disadvantage should they oppose and speak out against the theory. I consider them low on courage but I think it is sad that they are willing to stand back and admire the emperor’s new clothes rather than adopt a professional approach.

Yet of the three groups the most despicable of all are those who do not believe in AGW yet still see a personal advantage for themselves or their organisation. That advantage may be political, as we see in this place. It may be an advantage in a business sense, whereby market share or advantage may be gained by deriding the business of competitors as producing high emissions or as being responsible for high carbon outputs. It may be an advantage in an academic sense, whereby research dollars are being sought or the standing of one area of science may be improved over the standing of another area. In any case, my main point is that in many cases there is anything but an honest belief in the science of AGW. It follows that a person who does not believe yet still supports that theory most definitely stands as part of vested interests in this matter. It is my view that of all those who advocate for the theory of AGW, more than half would have political, business or academic potential benefit and would sense the advantage and move to realise that benefit.

I will speak of political benefit and who stands to gain from being a believer. First and foremost there is the party of socialism—the far Left, the radical Left. I of course speak of the Greens. For the Greens, the AGW issue is like a Trojan Horse that carries within it the real Greens agenda—a Trojan Horse that is being moved inside Western democratic societies, only to then reveal the socialist agenda: the redistribution of wealth and the legalisation of illicit drugs, along with other bizarre Greens policies like Medicare funded sex change operations et cetera. There is no more sinister vested interest in the political arena than that of the Greens, and they are socialists all.

I have described the three groups of advocates of AGW theory. Perhaps they are better listed as believers, opportunists and cowards. I do not doubt that all three groups are represented among the government’s ranks. There are believers such as the member for Wills and the member for Lyons, two members whom I respect for their belief. However, the vast majority in the government are those who see political advantage in maintaining government, internal advancement or just continuing in this place. Those who toe the politically opportunistic line are the majority, yet there are still those who fear to speak out and they are the silent ones who have never spoken on this matter.

Before concluding, I will speak on the scientific community—or those who purport to be interested in the science. Some time ago I attended an event here at parliament called ‘Science Meets Parliament’. At that event a couple of years ago the MC spoke of how much research was being influenced by the theory of anthropogenic global warming. He quoted a research study that had investigated the influence of AGW on flea populations on dogs. Clearly the way to get your research funded in this country is to ensure that AGW is part of your study. If you want to be able to do research and exist as a scientist in this country, join the AGW advocacy team and reap the benefits. Does that mean that if you question the theory of AGW you are on your own? It certainly looks like it.

I would therefore make the point that if we speak of vested interests then we should look at everyone whose job depends on not questioning the theory of AGW. Beyond research projects, what about those specific businesses, organisations or institutes that mention climate or carbon in their titles? Because their businesses and jobs depend on the theory of AGW, I name as non-objective vested interests the Climate Institute, the ANU Climate Change Institute, the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, the Climate Futures team at Macquarie University, the Monash University weather and climate centre et cetera—the list goes on. Every employee, every academic, in every one of these bodies would personally suffer from any critical examination that highlights the faults in the theory of AGW. The list of people without vested interests who could be considered genuinely neutral is getting very light.

I am sickened by AGW advocates pointing the finger at those of us who question them by calling us vested interests. I and those who question this theory of AGW have no motivation of personal gain in this matter. What we are motivated by is a search for the truth and a wish to do what is right, not what is easy. Going with the flow and hiding in the crowd is the easy option. It is the path of least resistance, but it is not in the national interest and I certainly was not elected to oppose the national interest.

I am approached by an increasing number of constituents who are concerned about what they see happening around the world: record cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere and the predictions of endless droughts in Australia, now broken by heavy rains clearly influenced by the La Nina weather system and not AGW. It is little wonder that there are also increasing calls for the Australian National Audit Office to conduct an audit of the Bureau of Meteorology’s records. I support that request. Let the sun shine in, I say. As I have said before, I am not a scientist, but I think there is more than enough scientific information available and it is easy enough to understand. It suggests that there is nothing settled about the science.

There have been further developments in this matter. Another body of vested interests has been established. Although it has been suggested that the Gillard government’s well-funded task force is some neutral force in this matter, in reality it is nothing more than a facade for spending up big to promote and advertise carbon pricing. It is a PR unit whose sole purpose is to avoid the sort of scrutiny that I have today highlighted the need for and instead push for the final result of imposing a carbon price—an electricity tax, a petrol tax—which amounts to a tax on living. It is a tax that will undermine the productivity of this nation, a tax that will lower the standard of living of our people, a tax that will reduce our capacity to respond to natural disasters, a tax that will weaken our ability to respond to future financial crises, a tax that will take away our capacity to react to future challenges, whatever they may be.

Overall, this carbon tax will weaken our nation and waste more money on the fallacies that there is a link between temperature and CO2 concentrations and that this nation is in any circumstance able to take action that will result in lower global, or even local, temperatures. The science backs me on this, and if this place had not abandoned sense for madness late in 2007 we would not be in a mess like this.