Facebook Instagram Youtube Telegram Twitter Tiktok

Stay up to date...

JOIN MY MAILING LIST

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions are currently being updated, please check back soon for previous questions.

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

29/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

28/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

28/11/2022

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

23/11/2022

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

21/11/2022

1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

21/11/2022

1. When was Australia’s gold sent to London? 2. Did the Bank of England seek permission from Australia to refine Australia’s gold into new bars from 2015 onwards? 3. Does the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) discuss Australia’s exchange rate and interest rate settings with other central banks including the Bank of International settlements? If so, what influence do these discussions have on policy settings? 4. If the RBA can subsidise private banks via quantitative easing then why can’t it offer the same facilities to the Federal and State Governments for productive purposes?

17/11/2022

1. Are individuals subjected to Covid vaccine mandates being counted in unemployment figures? If not, how are the number of people out work because of mandates being tracked? 2. Is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) tracking deaths by vaccinated status – given it is being recorded on the Australian immunisation register it is possible to do? 3. If so, could the ABS please provide a line-by-line breakout of 2021 deaths by vaccinated versus unvaccinated deaths (personal details other than age can be excluded)? Can the detail include date of death and date of last vaccination? 4. Can the ABS provide a breakout of non-specific causes for 2021 deaths by item code? 5. Why isn’t the ABS comparing 2021 data to 2020 data rather than 2015-2019 given those years were pre-Covid conditions?

16/11/2022

ASIC held a forum which occurred last week on 3-4 November 2022. I note that ticket prices for the forum this year was more than $AUD 2,000 per ticket. 1. Do you think it is appropriate that ASIC is giving access to the big end of town to its senior leadership at a price point which is inaccessible to mum and dad retail investors? Does ASIC concede that mum and dad retail investors who may wish want to engage with ASIC’s executive leadership don’t have $AUD 2,000 to spend on a ticket? 2. Are events such as the ASIC Forum opportunities for ASIC’s senior leadership to be captured by the big end of town? 3. Can ASIC confirm whether anyone from the Office of Enforcement attended the ASIC Forum? If so, is it appropriate that ASIC’s law enforcement staff attend an expensive event with people that they may investigate at some point in the future?

14/11/2022

On 28 October 2022, ASIC issued a press release stating that ASIC found a material deterioration of audit quality in the past 12 months (https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/newscentre/find-a-media-release/2022-releases/22-296mr-asic-reports-on-audit-inspectionfindings-for-12-months-to-30-june-2022/). Has ASIC considered whether companies are engaging and remunerating auditors appropriately given the size and scope of the company? For example, does ASIC consider ratios such as audit fees as a percentage of revenue to determine whether the external auditor has been appropriately engaged to perform a proper and comprehensive audit?

14/11/2022

1. When ASIC decides to commence an official investigation on a corporate entity or individual persons who within ASIC becomes aware of the investigation and the company and/or people who are the target of that investigation? 2. Are ASIC staff outside the Office of Enforcement able to find out who is being officially investigated by ASIC? 3. Does ASIC ever inform the Department of the Treasury about active official investigations and who are the subject of them? 4. Does ASIC ever inform the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer, or any other Cabinet Minister about what official investigations are being undertaking by ASIC and who are subject of those investigations? If so, when does ASIC make these disclosures and how does ASIC exercise its discretion? 5. Is the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer able to ask ASIC who is under official investigation? If so, what are the procedures of how such requests are made and managed? 6. If ASIC becomes aware that a Federal Parliamentarian has either a public or private relationship with a corporate entity or individuals under official investigation, what does ASIC do in this circumstance? Are there any operational procedures? Does ASIC’s operational procedures in this regard change if the Federal Parliamentarian is a Cabinet Minister? 7. Under section 14 of the ASIC Act, the Treasurer has the legal power to instruct ASIC to commence an investigation. Conversely, does the Treasurer (or other Cabinet Minister such as the Prime Minister) have the power to instruct ASIC to shut down an official investigation? If so, where is this legal power and how would the Treasurer exercise this power? 8. Who within ASIC has the operational power to close an official investigation? Is it: a. The senior investigator? b. The senior manager? c. The executive leaders within the Office of Enforcement? d. ASIC’s Enforcement Committee (which includes ASIC’s Deputy Chair)? e. The ASIC Chairman? 9. Has a Federal Parliament ever been subjected to a section 19 examination by ASIC? On how many occasions has this occurred?

14/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

29/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

28/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

28/11/2022

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

23/11/2022

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

21/11/2022

1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

21/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thank you. In order to get to the 43 per cent reduction by 2030, how many kilometres of transmission lines will need to be built? What will the cost of that be? Mr Dyer: I might consult. Ms Brunoro: We have to bear in mind that is a national target as well. The integrated system plan covers the eastern states. We can come back to you with some more analysis on that. Senator RENNICK: Didn’t you just legislate it? Hasn’t it been legislated now, the 43 per cent reduction by 2030? CHAIR: I think the answer, Senator Rennick, is that the transmission piece you are discussing is not the totality of the elements that will go to achieving the plan. Senator RENNICK: The reason I am asking is 2030 is only eight years away. My understanding is you have to get to 82 per cent renewables on the grid to get your 43 per cent reduction in CO2. Surely we must have a pretty clear plan and strategy in terms of how many transmission lines need to be built between now and 2030 to hook up enough renewables to get it into the grid, which is just eight years away. Ms Brunoro: Yes. We do. I’m happy to table some information about those key projects. Obviously, Marinus is one of them. There has already been an announcement on that. Senator RENNICK: How many kilometres of transmission lines will that involve? Ms Brunoro: Bear with me. I will have to add that up for you. I note that is a point in time estimate as well. Since the integrated system plan has come out, Queensland has already announced their energy security plan. They will be investing in significant transmission. I can give you a breakdown of the number of kilometres per the actual projects as it stands now and that are underway. We can add that up. Senator RENNICK: And that will get to 82 per cent renewables by 2030? Ms Brunoro: The projects we have in train do align with the projects that are in the integrated system plan, a step change scenario. That estimate from the Australian energy market operator is that it will deliver about 83 per cent renewables by 2030. So it is in line. Senator RENNICK: You can put a cost to that as well? Have we got an estimated cost of that? Ms Brunoro: We can pull out the estimated costs of those projects as they are going through the regulatory impact tests at the moment. Senator RENNICK: Sure. Ms Brunoro: And give a breakdown of them.

07/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: That is fair enough. I am curious because the GenCost report is often used as the basis to say that renewables are cheaper. But there’s actually a lot of what I consider flawed assumptions in there, one of them being that you don’t need any more transmission lines until renewables hit 50 per cent of the grid and there’s no recycling costs taken into account. So that is a comment. You don’t need to respond to that. In terms of all the transmission lines that you need to get built between now and 2030 to get to 82 per cent of renewables, have you got approvals for all that from the various landholders? CHAIR: Senator Rennick, I wonder whether Ms Brunoro will take this on notice. There is a lot of detail in what you are asking. Senator RENNICK: Well, we’re in estimates. That is what it is all about—asking for the detail. CHAIR: But rather than her sitting there and adding everything up from her notes, would you be happy to take that further detail on notice? Senator RENNICK: What I would like to know is how far progressed you are in terms of getting the relevant and required approvals from both landholders and state governments and various other bodies—national parks or whatever it may have to be—in order to get those transmission lines built by 2030. Ms Brunoro: The short answer I will provide is that those projects are at different stages of development and approval out to 2030. Some of those that are slated to be delivered in the latter part of the decade will be going through the engagement and consultation processes at a later point in time. Clearly, some of those arrangements are going to change with respect to the various landholders when we get there. We can let you know which projects have had engagement with the community and which ones are to come.

07/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: How much did that supercomputer cost? Dr Stone: The supercomputer? Senator RENNICK: Yes. How much did it cost? Dr Johnson: I can give you an exact number. We have a supercomputer that’s running as we speak. If you wish to wait a minute, I can get you the actual number. It’s of that order. Senator RENNICK: Right. Dr Johnson: Or, if you’d like an exact number, I can take it on notice. It’s around that— Senator RENNICK: I just find it interesting because everyone’s jumping up and down about your name change for 200 grand, and there’s a supercomputer that you bought for $40 million that homogenises data that I don’t think people are aware of at all. Dr Johnson: Yes. I’ll get back to you on that, but it’s of that order.

28/10/2022

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

29/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

28/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

28/11/2022

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

23/11/2022

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

21/11/2022

1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

21/11/2022

1.Is the National Blood Authority able to test for Covid antibodies found in stored samples from the second half of 2019? 2.Does the National Blood Authority keep blood samples from the second half of 2019? 3.How much would it cost for the blood bank to test for Covid antibodies from the period? 4.Professor Murphy said in estimates that there were no spike proteins in the blood. Yet Professor Skerrit said in an earlier round of estimates the spike proteins travel throughout the circulation. Given the confusion between two leaders in the Health Department what confidence can people have that there are absolutely no spike proteins in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross? 5.What confidence can people have that there is absolutely no cationic lipids in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross three days after receiving a Covid vaccine? It is noted that lipids were still increasing in the body organs of rats after two days. 6.What evidence/studies are there that the covid-19 ‘vaccine’ or part there-of, does not transfer from donor blood to the blood transfusion recipient via the transfusion and in the event it does, that there is no short- or long-term risks of any adverse events/ reactions related to the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ to the recipient (which have been seen in thousands of ‘vaccinated’ individuals globally.) 7.Is the National Blood Authority familiar with the TGA non-clinical review and other studies that have shown that lipids and spike proteins stay in the body much longer than 3 days? If not, why are they confident there are no spike proteins in the blood 3 days after receiving a Covid vaccine? 8.What measures does the Red Cross/CSL take to ensure that all spike proteins and lipids from the Covid-19 vaccine are removed from the blood? 9.Can people elect to donate blood in advance to store for later use and if so, could the necessary steps please be outline?

21/11/2022

1.Is the National Blood Authority able to test for Covid antibodies found in stored samples from the second half of 2019? 2.Does the National Blood Authority keep blood samples from the second half of 2019? 3.How much would it cost for the blood bank to test for Covid antibodies from the period? 4.Professor Murphy said in estimates that there were no spike proteins in the blood. Yet Professor Skerrit said in an earlier round of estimates the spike proteins travel throughout the circulation. Given the confusion between two leaders in the Health Department what confidence can people have that there are absolutely no spike proteins in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross? 5.What confidence can people have that there is absolutely no cationic lipids in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross three days after receiving a Covid vaccine? It is noted that lipids were still increasing in the body organs of rats after two days. 6.What evidence/studies are there that the covid-19 ‘vaccine’ or part there-of, does not transfer from donor blood to the blood transfusion recipient via the transfusion and in the event it does, that there is no short- or long-term risks of any adverse events/ reactions related to the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ to the recipient (which have been seen in thousands of ‘vaccinated’ individuals globally.) 7.Is the National Blood Authority familiar with the TGA non-clinical review and other studies that have shown that lipids and spike proteins stay in the body much longer than 3 days? If not, why are they confident there are no spike proteins in the blood 3 days after receiving a Covid vaccine? 8.What measures does the Red Cross/CSL take to ensure that all spike proteins and lipids from the Covid-19 vaccine are removed from the blood? 9.Can people elect to donate blood in advance to store for later use and if so, could the necessary steps please be outline?

21/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Okay. On the National Highway, Gore Highway and Newell Highway, as you may well know, that’s on a lot of black soil country. There have been a lot of heavy rains there in the last year or so. Who’s responsible when it comes to national highways for general repairs and maintenance? Because of all of this rain now, it’s just littered with potholes. You’ve got a highway here with big semis travelling on it. As I’m sure Senator Sterle will know, in times of emergency, which is what I consider this to be, that road is dangerous right now. Along the whole Newell Highway, you might be doing 110 down the road and you hit a pothole that’s half the size of a volcano. Is there anything being done to look at repairing those roads? Sorry about my ignorance; my question is: how much of that is a federal-state maintenance issue? Mr Meagher: The short answer is that maintenance is the responsibility of state and territory governments. The Australian government provides maintenance funding for roads that are on the National Land Transport Network. Senator RENNICK: Yes, which these are. Mr Meagher: We provide $350 million annually, Senator. Senator RENNICK: For the entire national— Mr Meagher: Correct. Senator RENNICK: That’s split up by— Mr Meagher: Yes, by jurisdiction. Senator RENNICK: Is that prorated on kilometres of road or population? Mr Meagher: It’s based on the road network, I believe. I am happy to take that on notice and confirm it.

07/11/2022

1. Senator RENNICK: My question is, again, with regard to the size of the crowd that came to Canberra on 12 February. That area was measured out at 60,000 square metres. You’ve previously said that the crowd size was about 10,000 people, which works out at about one person per every six square metres, which is about two metres by two metres. I was there and can tell you that was not the case. Can I get access to the software where you calculated that? I think last time you said you used some software or you used some method. I’d like to see the methodology you used to calculate the size of that crowd if that’s alright please. Mr Kershaw: I think what we can do is come back to you as to how we made that assessment. 2. Senator RENNICK: I appreciate that. Can I also get access to any correspondence that you had with other government agencies about the size of that crowd?

08/11/2022

Does the policy on workplace conduct apply to former Justices of the High Court of Australia? Does the High Court of Australia currently provide offices to former Justices of the High Court of Australia? Has it provided offices to former Justices of the High Court of Australia in the recent past (the last five years) ? Which former Justices of the High Court of Australia have been provided offices or access to offices? What period (start and finish date) were they provided access? Has there been a complaint of inappropriate workplace conduct against any former Justices of the High Court of Australia in relation to their behavior in office facilities provided by the High Court of Australia? What was the alleged conduct that was complained of? Was there an investigation into the alleged conduct? What were its findings? Was access to offices by any former Justices of the High Court of Australia revoked as a result of a complaint? When? Why? When does the Attorney-General expect to set up the Federal Judicial Commission? Is there a register of interests for Justices of the High Court of Australia, similar to the register for politicians? If not, why not? How can people feel confident they are getting a fair trial if Justices of the High Court of Australia are not fully transparent as to their interests?

16/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

29/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

28/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

28/11/2022

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

23/11/2022

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

21/11/2022

1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

21/11/2022

1. When was Australia’s gold sent to London? 2. Did the Bank of England seek permission from Australia to refine Australia’s gold into new bars from 2015 onwards? 3. Does the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) discuss Australia’s exchange rate and interest rate settings with other central banks including the Bank of International settlements? If so, what influence do these discussions have on policy settings? 4. If the RBA can subsidise private banks via quantitative easing then why can’t it offer the same facilities to the Federal and State Governments for productive purposes?

17/11/2022

1. Are individuals subjected to Covid vaccine mandates being counted in unemployment figures? If not, how are the number of people out work because of mandates being tracked? 2. Is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) tracking deaths by vaccinated status – given it is being recorded on the Australian immunisation register it is possible to do? 3. If so, could the ABS please provide a line-by-line breakout of 2021 deaths by vaccinated versus unvaccinated deaths (personal details other than age can be excluded)? Can the detail include date of death and date of last vaccination? 4. Can the ABS provide a breakout of non-specific causes for 2021 deaths by item code? 5. Why isn’t the ABS comparing 2021 data to 2020 data rather than 2015-2019 given those years were pre-Covid conditions?

16/11/2022

ASIC held a forum which occurred last week on 3-4 November 2022. I note that ticket prices for the forum this year was more than $AUD 2,000 per ticket. 1. Do you think it is appropriate that ASIC is giving access to the big end of town to its senior leadership at a price point which is inaccessible to mum and dad retail investors? Does ASIC concede that mum and dad retail investors who may wish want to engage with ASIC’s executive leadership don’t have $AUD 2,000 to spend on a ticket? 2. Are events such as the ASIC Forum opportunities for ASIC’s senior leadership to be captured by the big end of town? 3. Can ASIC confirm whether anyone from the Office of Enforcement attended the ASIC Forum? If so, is it appropriate that ASIC’s law enforcement staff attend an expensive event with people that they may investigate at some point in the future?

14/11/2022

On 28 October 2022, ASIC issued a press release stating that ASIC found a material deterioration of audit quality in the past 12 months (https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/newscentre/find-a-media-release/2022-releases/22-296mr-asic-reports-on-audit-inspectionfindings-for-12-months-to-30-june-2022/). Has ASIC considered whether companies are engaging and remunerating auditors appropriately given the size and scope of the company? For example, does ASIC consider ratios such as audit fees as a percentage of revenue to determine whether the external auditor has been appropriately engaged to perform a proper and comprehensive audit?

14/11/2022

1. When ASIC decides to commence an official investigation on a corporate entity or individual persons who within ASIC becomes aware of the investigation and the company and/or people who are the target of that investigation? 2. Are ASIC staff outside the Office of Enforcement able to find out who is being officially investigated by ASIC? 3. Does ASIC ever inform the Department of the Treasury about active official investigations and who are the subject of them? 4. Does ASIC ever inform the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer, or any other Cabinet Minister about what official investigations are being undertaking by ASIC and who are subject of those investigations? If so, when does ASIC make these disclosures and how does ASIC exercise its discretion? 5. Is the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer able to ask ASIC who is under official investigation? If so, what are the procedures of how such requests are made and managed? 6. If ASIC becomes aware that a Federal Parliamentarian has either a public or private relationship with a corporate entity or individuals under official investigation, what does ASIC do in this circumstance? Are there any operational procedures? Does ASIC’s operational procedures in this regard change if the Federal Parliamentarian is a Cabinet Minister? 7. Under section 14 of the ASIC Act, the Treasurer has the legal power to instruct ASIC to commence an investigation. Conversely, does the Treasurer (or other Cabinet Minister such as the Prime Minister) have the power to instruct ASIC to shut down an official investigation? If so, where is this legal power and how would the Treasurer exercise this power? 8. Who within ASIC has the operational power to close an official investigation? Is it: a. The senior investigator? b. The senior manager? c. The executive leaders within the Office of Enforcement? d. ASIC’s Enforcement Committee (which includes ASIC’s Deputy Chair)? e. The ASIC Chairman? 9. Has a Federal Parliament ever been subjected to a section 19 examination by ASIC? On how many occasions has this occurred?

14/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

29/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

28/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

28/11/2022

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

23/11/2022

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

21/11/2022

1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

21/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thank you. In order to get to the 43 per cent reduction by 2030, how many kilometres of transmission lines will need to be built? What will the cost of that be? Mr Dyer: I might consult. Ms Brunoro: We have to bear in mind that is a national target as well. The integrated system plan covers the eastern states. We can come back to you with some more analysis on that. Senator RENNICK: Didn’t you just legislate it? Hasn’t it been legislated now, the 43 per cent reduction by 2030? CHAIR: I think the answer, Senator Rennick, is that the transmission piece you are discussing is not the totality of the elements that will go to achieving the plan. Senator RENNICK: The reason I am asking is 2030 is only eight years away. My understanding is you have to get to 82 per cent renewables on the grid to get your 43 per cent reduction in CO2. Surely we must have a pretty clear plan and strategy in terms of how many transmission lines need to be built between now and 2030 to hook up enough renewables to get it into the grid, which is just eight years away. Ms Brunoro: Yes. We do. I’m happy to table some information about those key projects. Obviously, Marinus is one of them. There has already been an announcement on that. Senator RENNICK: How many kilometres of transmission lines will that involve? Ms Brunoro: Bear with me. I will have to add that up for you. I note that is a point in time estimate as well. Since the integrated system plan has come out, Queensland has already announced their energy security plan. They will be investing in significant transmission. I can give you a breakdown of the number of kilometres per the actual projects as it stands now and that are underway. We can add that up. Senator RENNICK: And that will get to 82 per cent renewables by 2030? Ms Brunoro: The projects we have in train do align with the projects that are in the integrated system plan, a step change scenario. That estimate from the Australian energy market operator is that it will deliver about 83 per cent renewables by 2030. So it is in line. Senator RENNICK: You can put a cost to that as well? Have we got an estimated cost of that? Ms Brunoro: We can pull out the estimated costs of those projects as they are going through the regulatory impact tests at the moment. Senator RENNICK: Sure. Ms Brunoro: And give a breakdown of them.

07/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: That is fair enough. I am curious because the GenCost report is often used as the basis to say that renewables are cheaper. But there’s actually a lot of what I consider flawed assumptions in there, one of them being that you don’t need any more transmission lines until renewables hit 50 per cent of the grid and there’s no recycling costs taken into account. So that is a comment. You don’t need to respond to that. In terms of all the transmission lines that you need to get built between now and 2030 to get to 82 per cent of renewables, have you got approvals for all that from the various landholders? CHAIR: Senator Rennick, I wonder whether Ms Brunoro will take this on notice. There is a lot of detail in what you are asking. Senator RENNICK: Well, we’re in estimates. That is what it is all about—asking for the detail. CHAIR: But rather than her sitting there and adding everything up from her notes, would you be happy to take that further detail on notice? Senator RENNICK: What I would like to know is how far progressed you are in terms of getting the relevant and required approvals from both landholders and state governments and various other bodies—national parks or whatever it may have to be—in order to get those transmission lines built by 2030. Ms Brunoro: The short answer I will provide is that those projects are at different stages of development and approval out to 2030. Some of those that are slated to be delivered in the latter part of the decade will be going through the engagement and consultation processes at a later point in time. Clearly, some of those arrangements are going to change with respect to the various landholders when we get there. We can let you know which projects have had engagement with the community and which ones are to come.

07/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: How much did that supercomputer cost? Dr Stone: The supercomputer? Senator RENNICK: Yes. How much did it cost? Dr Johnson: I can give you an exact number. We have a supercomputer that’s running as we speak. If you wish to wait a minute, I can get you the actual number. It’s of that order. Senator RENNICK: Right. Dr Johnson: Or, if you’d like an exact number, I can take it on notice. It’s around that— Senator RENNICK: I just find it interesting because everyone’s jumping up and down about your name change for 200 grand, and there’s a supercomputer that you bought for $40 million that homogenises data that I don’t think people are aware of at all. Dr Johnson: Yes. I’ll get back to you on that, but it’s of that order.

28/10/2022

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

29/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

28/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

28/11/2022

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

23/11/2022

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

21/11/2022

1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

21/11/2022

1.Is the National Blood Authority able to test for Covid antibodies found in stored samples from the second half of 2019? 2.Does the National Blood Authority keep blood samples from the second half of 2019? 3.How much would it cost for the blood bank to test for Covid antibodies from the period? 4.Professor Murphy said in estimates that there were no spike proteins in the blood. Yet Professor Skerrit said in an earlier round of estimates the spike proteins travel throughout the circulation. Given the confusion between two leaders in the Health Department what confidence can people have that there are absolutely no spike proteins in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross? 5.What confidence can people have that there is absolutely no cationic lipids in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross three days after receiving a Covid vaccine? It is noted that lipids were still increasing in the body organs of rats after two days. 6.What evidence/studies are there that the covid-19 ‘vaccine’ or part there-of, does not transfer from donor blood to the blood transfusion recipient via the transfusion and in the event it does, that there is no short- or long-term risks of any adverse events/ reactions related to the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ to the recipient (which have been seen in thousands of ‘vaccinated’ individuals globally.) 7.Is the National Blood Authority familiar with the TGA non-clinical review and other studies that have shown that lipids and spike proteins stay in the body much longer than 3 days? If not, why are they confident there are no spike proteins in the blood 3 days after receiving a Covid vaccine? 8.What measures does the Red Cross/CSL take to ensure that all spike proteins and lipids from the Covid-19 vaccine are removed from the blood? 9.Can people elect to donate blood in advance to store for later use and if so, could the necessary steps please be outline?

21/11/2022

1.Is the National Blood Authority able to test for Covid antibodies found in stored samples from the second half of 2019? 2.Does the National Blood Authority keep blood samples from the second half of 2019? 3.How much would it cost for the blood bank to test for Covid antibodies from the period? 4.Professor Murphy said in estimates that there were no spike proteins in the blood. Yet Professor Skerrit said in an earlier round of estimates the spike proteins travel throughout the circulation. Given the confusion between two leaders in the Health Department what confidence can people have that there are absolutely no spike proteins in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross? 5.What confidence can people have that there is absolutely no cationic lipids in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross three days after receiving a Covid vaccine? It is noted that lipids were still increasing in the body organs of rats after two days. 6.What evidence/studies are there that the covid-19 ‘vaccine’ or part there-of, does not transfer from donor blood to the blood transfusion recipient via the transfusion and in the event it does, that there is no short- or long-term risks of any adverse events/ reactions related to the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ to the recipient (which have been seen in thousands of ‘vaccinated’ individuals globally.) 7.Is the National Blood Authority familiar with the TGA non-clinical review and other studies that have shown that lipids and spike proteins stay in the body much longer than 3 days? If not, why are they confident there are no spike proteins in the blood 3 days after receiving a Covid vaccine? 8.What measures does the Red Cross/CSL take to ensure that all spike proteins and lipids from the Covid-19 vaccine are removed from the blood? 9.Can people elect to donate blood in advance to store for later use and if so, could the necessary steps please be outline?

21/11/2022

Senator RENNICK: Okay. On the National Highway, Gore Highway and Newell Highway, as you may well know, that’s on a lot of black soil country. There have been a lot of heavy rains there in the last year or so. Who’s responsible when it comes to national highways for general repairs and maintenance? Because of all of this rain now, it’s just littered with potholes. You’ve got a highway here with big semis travelling on it. As I’m sure Senator Sterle will know, in times of emergency, which is what I consider this to be, that road is dangerous right now. Along the whole Newell Highway, you might be doing 110 down the road and you hit a pothole that’s half the size of a volcano. Is there anything being done to look at repairing those roads? Sorry about my ignorance; my question is: how much of that is a federal-state maintenance issue? Mr Meagher: The short answer is that maintenance is the responsibility of state and territory governments. The Australian government provides maintenance funding for roads that are on the National Land Transport Network. Senator RENNICK: Yes, which these are. Mr Meagher: We provide $350 million annually, Senator. Senator RENNICK: For the entire national— Mr Meagher: Correct. Senator RENNICK: That’s split up by— Mr Meagher: Yes, by jurisdiction. Senator RENNICK: Is that prorated on kilometres of road or population? Mr Meagher: It’s based on the road network, I believe. I am happy to take that on notice and confirm it.

07/11/2022

1. Senator RENNICK: My question is, again, with regard to the size of the crowd that came to Canberra on 12 February. That area was measured out at 60,000 square metres. You’ve previously said that the crowd size was about 10,000 people, which works out at about one person per every six square metres, which is about two metres by two metres. I was there and can tell you that was not the case. Can I get access to the software where you calculated that? I think last time you said you used some software or you used some method. I’d like to see the methodology you used to calculate the size of that crowd if that’s alright please. Mr Kershaw: I think what we can do is come back to you as to how we made that assessment. 2. Senator RENNICK: I appreciate that. Can I also get access to any correspondence that you had with other government agencies about the size of that crowd?

08/11/2022

Does the policy on workplace conduct apply to former Justices of the High Court of Australia? Does the High Court of Australia currently provide offices to former Justices of the High Court of Australia? Has it provided offices to former Justices of the High Court of Australia in the recent past (the last five years) ? Which former Justices of the High Court of Australia have been provided offices or access to offices? What period (start and finish date) were they provided access? Has there been a complaint of inappropriate workplace conduct against any former Justices of the High Court of Australia in relation to their behavior in office facilities provided by the High Court of Australia? What was the alleged conduct that was complained of? Was there an investigation into the alleged conduct? What were its findings? Was access to offices by any former Justices of the High Court of Australia revoked as a result of a complaint? When? Why? When does the Attorney-General expect to set up the Federal Judicial Commission? Is there a register of interests for Justices of the High Court of Australia, similar to the register for politicians? If not, why not? How can people feel confident they are getting a fair trial if Justices of the High Court of Australia are not fully transparent as to their interests?

16/11/2022

HAVE YOUR SAY...

THE ISSUES

Click on an interest area to read articles and learn more about the work I am doing in Parliament.

Taxation, Finance & Economy

READ MORE

Education & Family

READ MORE

Energy

READ MORE

Environment

READ MORE

Health, Aged Care & Seniors

READ MORE

Primary Industries

READ MORE

Immigration & Foreign Affairs

READ MORE

Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Transport & Tourism

READ MORE

Defence

READ MORE

Federation Reform

READ MORE

DON'T BE SILENT. HAVE YOUR SAY!

I’m working on a range of issues currently in the Senate however I need your support so that my other Parliamentary colleagues know that these are issues that you feel strongly about.
Remember that we are stronger in numbers!

Facebook Instagram Youtube Telegram Twitter Tiktok

OFFICE HOURS

  • 9am - 5pm, Monday - Friday.
    The office is closed on public holidays.

GET MY Newsletter

ELECTORATE OFFICE (MAIN)

POSTAL ADDRESS

  • PO Box 2350
    CHERMSIDE CENTRE QLD 4032

PARLIAMENT OFFICE

I may get kicked off social media soon for speaking too much truth so please join my mailing list so we can always stay in touch...

Thank you,

Gerard

COMPLETE MY 30 SECOND SURVEY