Wall of text incoming:

Initially this was meant to be a response to a commented that he/she hadn't actually read past the first part of Mr.Joyce's post. However, I think this is an great example of the techniques politicians (regardless of party) use to manipulate and mislead people. It is very long but that's mostly because I'm quoting lots of sections of Mr.Joyce's post which itself is also very long.

As a general rule, when someone flies off the handle and publishes a wall of text on Facebook contains that contains admission that they're willing to lie whenever it's convenient for you it's probably a good idea to not take anything that person says at face value.

""The very idea that we can stop climate change is barking mad. Climate change is inevitable, as geology has always shown.” These are the views of New Zealand lecturer of geology, David Shelley. A person vastly more competent than me and the flotilla of others telling the kids the world is going to end from global warming"

This is an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy of saying or implying that because someone in a position of authority, in this case a Geologist, said something then it must be true. David Shelley might know more about climatology than Mr.Joyce, politicians as a general rule are none too bright so that's not particularly hard, but Shelley also is not an expert on climatology. The climate has and will always change. No climatologist has ever claimed otherwise. What the science is showing us now however is that the recent warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions - the fact that climate has changed naturally in the past is kind of irrelevant. It's the equivalent of saying that because the dinosaurs went extinct long before humans were around then human activity cannot possibly be responsible for the extinction of the dodo, passenger pigeon or thylacine. Extinction and climate change are both natural events and something humans can cause. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Following this we more irrelevant rambling about a new ice age, the aforementioned admission of his own willingness to lie when on the front bench and another bit of dishonest manipulation:

"One of the few graces of being on the backbench is you can be honest with what your views really are. I believe this is one of the greatest policy phantoms, the misguided and quite ludicrous proposition that Australia can have any affect on the climate. If we could we should be the first to make it rain and, more importantly, stop the recurrence of an ice age anytime in the coming millennium"

As a general rule, when you have to deliberately misrepresent someone/something in order to make your point then you have no point to make. There are techniques we can use to encourage rainfall like cloud seeding and these are in active use. Our limited geoengineering capacity however has absolutely no bearing on our ability to "have any affect on the climate" in relation to climate change. It's more irrelevant rambling.

After that the man actually makes a good point along with a second admission that he's willing to lie whenever it's convenient for him:

"[Stated] quite clearly by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”. You don’t get the feeling when you listen to the political propaganda or the supporting lobbyists that there is any doubt about their capacity to “fix the climate problem” I do get the feeling that you will be tried for heresy if you dare question the zeitgeist so you basically have to lie..."

There is absolutely no good reason to lie about the impacts of climate change or our ability to fix it.

He follows that good point however with a set of rapid fire lies:

"Private property rights are removed, by the implementation of vegetation laws, because of “climate action”"

Vegetation laws have existed forever. Most of them have absolutely nothing to do with climate action of any kind. They're more concerned with protecting biodiversity, soil quality, green space, etc. depending on the exact context. Someone in the countryside might not be allowed to clear bush land on your farm because there's an endangered possum that lives there while someone in the city might not be allowed to chop down a 300 year old gum tree in their driveway because the council likes trees and you need their approval, for example. Mr.Joyce might not agree with either example but that's not a reason to lie and lump all such cases together or that any have anything to do with climate action.

"The state will limit your access to electricity because of “climate action”"

Nobody has ever suggested this anywhere, ever. Best I can tell he's just made this nonsense up based on nothing.

"You will drive an electric car because of “climate action”"

If I had to guess, I'd say Mr.Joyce is referring to either laws in China designed to encourage the adoption of electric cars as a means of combating smog in their cities or to plans in Europe ban the sale of new, petrol cars in the coming decades. In any case, I'm not aware of any meaningful proposal of doing anything similar to this in Australia and if he is referring to anything similar to Chinese or European legislation he's deliberately oversimplifying it in order to misrepresent it. Europe's policy comes from a climate where electric cars are much more practical and is targeted at future innovation whereas China's legislation comes from trying to tackle smog more so than climate change. As a general rule, if you have to deliberately misrepresent someone/something in order to make your point then you have no point to make.

"You will divest the nation of its largest export because of “climate action”"

Australia's biggest export is iron ore. I think he's referring to coal and natural gas but he's either lying to make them seem more important to the economy than they are or he's just a regular, garden variety idiot. In any case, most of Australia's coal is used to make steel as is our iron ore. I have yet to meet anyone who thought it was a good idea to deny the world of steel. There are people, notably not the opposition, who think that limiting the export of thermal coal but I also have yet to meet anyone who thought it was an idea do "divest the nation" from thermal coal exports without replacing it with something - hydrogen for example.

"Rather than state there is no prospect whatsoever that any action of ours, and most likely of anyone else, will have any affect whatsoever on the trajectory climate is on"

This is an outright lie. Political-types as a general rule are none too bright but no semi-functional human is so detached from reality that they can be surrounded by experts day-in, day-out an order of magnitude smarter than they are and still think something so obviously wrong. Simply put, Australia's capacity to address climate change mostly comes from our almost unique position to export electricity to other, high polluting countries than cutting our own emissions.

Now, back to more of Mr.Joyce's lies:

"We will do this by shutting down all our power stations, replacing them with windmills and rejiggering our nation away from our largest exports of mining and agricultural resources to carbon neutral tourism and the knowledge economy"

Nobody has ever suggested any of this. Nobody has ever suggested we should shut down all our power stations and replace them with windmills - some radicals have suggested shutting down coal and natural gas power stations and replacing them with wind, solar and hydroelectric but those are also power stations. Nobody has ever suggested "rejiggering our nation away" from any export and replacing it with tourism and the knowledge economy much less "rejiggering" it so that we're not exporting mining and agricultural resources specifically.

This is followed by some nonsense about international relations that I'm not sure how is even remotely relevant and him stroking his won martyr complex. The hope is that if he pretends to be down trodden you'll take pity on him or at least think that because he's right that people will make fun of him that he's right about anything else.