The Australian Abbott government has granted Bjørn Lomborg $4 million, to set up a “consensus centre” at the University of West Australia.
According to The Guardian;
The Abbott government found $4m for the climate contrarian Bjørn Lomborg to establish his “consensus centre” at an Australian university, even as it struggled to impose deep spending cuts on the higher education sector.
A spokesman for the education minister, Christopher Pyne, said the government was contributing $4m over four years to “bring the Copenhagen Consensus Center methodology to Australia” at a new centre in the University of Western Australia’s business school.
The spokesman said the “Australia Consensus Centre” was a proposal put forward by the “university and Dr Lomborg’s organisation”.
Sources have told Guardian Australia the establishment of the centre had come as a surprise even to senior staff in the business school, who were unaware that the centre was being established until shortly before it was announced this month.
The Guardian’s description of Bjørn Lomborg as a climate “contrarian” seems a little strong – in my opinion Lomborg is more of a lukewarmer. Lomborg is concerned about CO2, but he is highly critical of climate scaremongering, and regularly receives favourable coverage on WUWT for his moderate views.
The decision to site the new centre at the University of West Australia is interesting. Professor Lewandowsky was based in the University of West Australia, before he moved to Bristol in England. In 2014, Steve McIntyre accused the Vice Chancellor of UWA of violating the Australian Code of Conduct for the Responsible Practice of Research and the UWA’s own code of conduct, over a refusal to release some of Lewandowsky’s data.
Former chief commissioner of the defunct Climate Commission, Tim Flannery and his private climate council seem furious over the Lomborg grant, calling it:
“A $4 million dollar insult to the scientific community“
Insult to the scientific community? Which one? Climate, of course.
The pseudo scientific community. The one that had Australia spend $70 billion on now mothballed desalination plants which are each costing around $900,000 a week to maintain in a state of hibernation. Well done Tim.
And even if they do end up using these plants, then the cause is inadequate development of new dams, water holding reservoirs and pipelines to transfer water from regions of rainfall to regions of drought. Because the average rainfall for the whole of Australia seems to be steadily increasing. So, whilst there are and always have been severe droughts, these are the result of regional weather patterns and not the overall trend for the continent.
“The rainfall graph shows an increase in annual rainfall averaged across the continent over the reporting period 1900 to 2004. The increase from the mid 1970s is more pronounced. This is interesting given that the area affected by decreased rainfall seems to be greater than the area affected by increased rainfall. It also contrasts with the data relating to the Southern Oscillation Index, which shows that there have been more frequent and severe El Nino events (drier periods) since the mid 1970s.”
http://www.environment.gov.au/node/22392
Stupid is as stupid does
I agree with your sentiments but those money numbers can’t be right.
Ship them to Spanish Sahara or some such place
http://www.environment.gov.au/sites/all/themes/enviro/logo.png
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/8c3a8097-744b-469f-9479-6bb3b429f3b2/images/a02rainfalltrendsannmean.gif
Wow! The governments own records show rainfall increasing over Australia, but good old Tim says there will be less rain, so the government wastes $70 billion. Now Tim is complaining that the government isn’t spending the $4 million on him so he can make more mistakes.
A warming world is predicted to be a wetter world. Clearly dear old Tim didn’t get the memo.
Anything that gets on Tim Flannery’s goat can’t be all bad …
ferdberple,
‘memo’ what is a memo dude? Clearly neither Tim nor BOM are on twitter.
Tim Flannery has been the “Insult to the scientific community” for years!
In his 2005 book “The Weather Makers” he produces a graphic (page 35) that he claims is the Keeling Curve. But his version is corrupted in that it clearly masks the (Agung & Pinatubo) volcano related interruptions in CO2 growth, and the casual reader cannot question the fact that the rise is not consistent and even, because the dips ARE NOT shown.
If one does become aware of these trend discontinuities that do not fit the “inexorable rise due to AGW” scenarios popular in the press and literature, then the sole CO2 increase attribution to fossil fuel burning comes into question, and it is a question that AGW proponents do not want to answer.
Hopefully, the Bjørn Lomborg “Consensus Centre” will serve to expose the shameful Flannery data alteration and let all come to see the perfidy behind the AGW curtain of deceit.
In his book, http://www.amazon.com/Here-Earth-Natural-History-Planet/dp/B0076TM254, “Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet”, he says that carbon dioxide produces Carbolic Acid in the oceans. He repeated it again here:
‘Climate change is a threat to our civilisation’
“Speaking at the Tata Business Excellence Convention 2012 on ‘Reversing people induced climate change’ the best-selling author of The Future Eaters and The Weather Makers stressed the need to take immediate action in this critical decade to prevent further environmental damage and to leave a more acceptable inheritance for our children.
http://www.tata.com/article.aspx?artid=tut2YR29NNU=
Sometimes the issue of climate change does seem overwhelming and there are fears about acknowledging climate change and what it means. It means that we are responsible for changing conditions on the surface of the earth. However, much of the science is self-evident.
One example is the issue of coral reefs. In Australia we have conducted a series of experiments where we have taken sea water, reduced its acidity and temperature to create conditions as they were 200 years ago and then put coral in that; the coral thrives in that water. We can take sea water as it is today and coral does not grow so well.
We can put coral into water with conditions as they will be in 10 years’ time and we will see that the coral is stunted and dying. We can see that this will happen — carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces carbolic acid in the ocean, the ocean becomes acidic and things die.
Flannery was not alone in this, as I discovered here!
http://epoca-project.eu/index.php/who-are-we.html
The EU FP7 Integrated Project EPOCA (European Project on Ocean Acidification) was launched in June 2008 with the overall goal to advance our understanding of the biological, ecological, biogeochemical, and societal implications of ocean acidification. The EPOCA consortium brings together more than 100 researchers from 27 institutes and 10 European countries.
There is a blog linked directly to the project site:
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/about-2/
This blog was started in July 2006 as a “one man” effort. It is a product of EPOCA, the European Project on Ocean Acidification since May 2008 and it is sponsored by the IMBER and SOLAS projects since January 2010.
This blog is coordinated by:
Jean-Pierre Gattuso, CNRS Senior Research Scientist
CNRS-Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, France
AR5: The list of authors and review editors of IPCC Working Group II, 5th Assessment Report included Jean-Pierre Gattuso from EPOCA. If this blog is really co-ordinated by Gattuso, a lead author on AR5 WGII, you would assume he would read what is written there:
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/ocean-acidification-audio/
“Too much carbon is flooding the ocean with carbolic acid, with devestating (sic) effects on life in the sea.” (no wonder!)They have a video series which you have to subscribe to, in order to view.
“A stand-alone segment of the Planet Warning series. Each segment can be downloaded separately. The series theme is that the world is in a dangerous position, just as the US was when it was bombed at Pearl Harbor. Each segment is embedded in WWII audio and music. This segment reports on “global warming’s evil twin”, ocean acifidication, which results from too much carbon in the water.”
Then they have other contributions, such as this one from the Australian Academy of Science:
“Chemists have known for a long time that a beaker of water sitting in a lab will absorb carbon dioxide from the air and turn acidic.
Would it happen at a larger scale? If we greatly increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere, for example, would the oceans become a vast acid bath? What would be the ecological effects?
Over the next century or so, we are going to find out.”
He likely meant “an insult to the Government supported, politically correct community”: He thinks all taxpayer money is to be distributed to rent seekers in Academia.
Head explosions pre-programmed.
Lomborg’s methodology (finding consensus on threats facing mankind and rating the same by priority, particularly which ones humans can affect), is wise.
I prefer random head explosions, and don’t forget steam coming out the ears, that’s my favorite.
As for Lomborg, the thing I like is his calm insistence that people answer one simple question; “how do you know that?”
Same question I always rant/ask …..
It was very telling when he appeared before the US Congress.
It was a packed auditorium for Al Gore who appeared before him.
Crickets, Republicans and empty seats were left for Dr. Lomborg.
He does have a novel concept, address the most pressing issues where we
can do the most good and get the best return on investment.
I don’t know if he is a lukewarmer or just accepting AGW for sake of argument.
Ok, it is because of CO2, we still need to choose the best places to invest our
children’s future. (and CO2 isn’t it.)
A nice start. Now audit the Climate hype organizations that have been siphoning off billions..
Tony you have redeemed your recent gaffe in Germany…almost..
Good on yer Ozies!
Bjørn Lomborg is one of the most reasonable voices out there. His books are a good read. Very glad to hear this news.
His ‘Skeptical Environmentalist’ is one of the most influential on my own thinking about environmental issues. I recommend it.
Weel said. The “Skeptical Environmentalist” is REALLY a suggested reading. When he published the book, he was subjected to a really heavy attack by the green mafia…..
If you don’t have time to read the entire book, just the preface is great. I give copies of it to those who I think will read it.
+ several
Anything that upsets Flim Flan must be a positive.
Agreed. I was unsure at first but then reading that he hated I thought it must be a good idea then.
How’s his geothermal experiment going? I believe the Rudd government loaned him $90 mill. Aren’t we taxpayers due for an update?
They blew the holes up and could not afford to drill new ones. The steam could not escape quickly enough.
It also caused a minor earth tremor.
Flannery is upset because his Stalinist education tour of Australia has been stopped. All were welcome to come to the halls and ask questions. Only if the questions confirmed his warming bias. So he sees a Climate trough and he can’t get his snout into it.
The University of Western Australia just shut down its water research department much to the consternation of many. It had world class researchers as clean water is as important as energy to poor countries and even more important in developing countries. Developed countreis take clean water as a given but the Millennium Drought in Australia exposed the vulnerability of water supplies.
That was why the desalination plants were established as the left wing government tried to cover up its bans on water infrastructure and the green tape built up by State governments too block dams.
He is good buddies with the UK’s Lord Deben, (John Gummer), chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee. They are both members of the Prince Albert of Monaco Foundation: http://www.fpa2.com/gouvernance.html#
He also works with Pachauri’s buddies, the Tata’s. The GlobalMail now appears defunct but it’s still on wayback.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121101024843/http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/coal-its-over/448 October 29, 2012
“I’m pretty close to what happens in India; I serve on the [giant Indian industrial conglomerate] Tata power sustainability advisory board. And my gut feeling is the big expansion of coal in India is not going to happen, and they are going to leapfrog into renewables, because of declining cost and all the land-use issues in India.”
Seems he got that wrong as well,
http://www.thegwpf.com/india-to-overtake-china-as-biggest-coal-importer/
Getting Dr. Judith Curry on board would finish off the extremists.
Yeah, I’d like to see Curry and Lomborg take on McKibben, it would be a contrast between calm adults and children on a sugar buzz.
In true Aussie vernacular I shout from the rooftop “Go you good thing”
Still my beating heart,
Onya Bjorn!,
Christopher Pyne, for a poodle, you really MINCE dude,
and
AbbottAbbottAbbott,
Oi! Oi! Oi!
Aussies will get the above, other may require to refer to Google. (Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk)
😉 +1
Or. even more so..
“you li’l rippa!”
As an Aussie, I was getting a little worried that (a) Abbott was going to be rolled and (b) Oz was losing its way dealing with the climate alarmist drivel. Perhaps this UWA a change to redeem itself after the Lewandowsky debacle.
Tony Abbott is not as stupid as he would like everyone to think he is!
Hardly anyone could be.
damn. this UWA = this gives UWA
Unfortunately, all he will get is criticism from left-wing rags like Fairfax and the Grauniad because he in not a Believer.
But few people are reading those rags lately.
Another stone on the scales. Very good. Let the CAGW crowd evaporate, at worst we could just end up with AGW and a nice world to live in.
True believers can not be deprogrammed they can only be put aside and asked to keep it down for a bit or else be mercilessly shamed by observation, until they go quiet once more.
I love this sooo much!! Go Tony😄
UWA faculty is warmist to the max. I suggest a bit of warmist gatekeeping on anything Bjorn wishes to publish.
They can’t. Academics deal directly with the publisher when publishing academic work. They don’t need to get approval. There is no space in the process for the University to interfere.
Because Flannery is offended, it must be a reasonable appointment and initiative.
‘reasonable’!
How about absolutely perfect!
How about the 101st AIrborne telling the Whermacht “NUTS” at Bastogne, perfect!
As a former student at UWA I have had to carry a sense of shame at the moronic carry on of La Lewny. So how about ‘redemption is at hand, perfect!!
December 22, 1944 – The Americans were surrounded in the Belgian city of Bastogne. The Germans sent a note demanding that the Americans surrender. The Americans replied:
The Americans were able to hold on until they were relieved by Patton on Dec. 27. There were many notable performances including that of the remnants of the widely disrespected 333rd who were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.
More a case of flimflam being disappointed he got no cut of the $4 million pie, I suspect.
🙂
Lomborg’s approach is definitely an enormous improvement over Tim Flannery: the flagrantly deceitful, Gaia loving, ideologue of the previous Far Left government’s Climate Commission. However, for all of his contributions to balanced debate, Lomgborg is still vested in many ludicrous aspects of the pseudo science proffered by the world’s largest cult of “Climate Doomsday Preppers”, otherwise known as the IPCC.
Lomborg is off to an unfortunate start with the reference to “Consensus Centre” while dealing with a topic that has been so grossly damaged because of the distortions caused by policing the manufactured consensus.
The name concerns me too, but Dr Lomborg, while generally inclined to CO2 reduction, has been eminently reasonable in his approach for actions. He can be reasoned with and won’t do anything harmful to the economy or the environment in the name of CO2 reduction, and he can also be trusted to not spend years piddling away doing nothing. I’m holding out hope that this is going to be for the best
Tim Flannery is just spitting the dummy. What juvenile behaviour.
He had a six figure salary for part-time job and the ear of the leader of the country to get his ideas made real while being someone that had no electorally mandate , you bet his spitting his dummy.
Flannery is one amongst the many who are ‘climate activists ‘ that share planet sized egos .
Make that “whacko ideas”
He was also on the board of a Geothermal power company.
Or you could do a course in Climate Denial from the other side of Australia.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x
I’ve signed up. Perhaps they will have students’ question and answer segments.
I, too, have signed up. Not optimistic about the course materials.
Greg; you shouldn’t be. Check out the instructors on the same page.
Proving the falsehoods behind the fake 97% will be extremely difficult to the 97% fabricators and fantasists.
Not forgetting that the course will set your math skills back decades if not centuries.
I just checked out their page. Is that for real? Not a April fool’s day joke? I always thought that education had to educate, not just indoctrinate victims, I mean students, in your own religion…
It’s for real. Cook et al. are pretty sure of themselves that the 97% is settled science fit as main argument for education.
And not just any education. This is a MOOC – a massive open online course where anyone can join. The word “massive” implies there is no limit to how many can attend. This in turn implies there is very limited possibilities from the teachers to provide any qualified and direct discussions/feedback with students; almost all course material, lectures, reading material, is pre-made as videos and slideshows, and simple testing methods such as multiple choice. Examinations must be automated as far as possible as manually checking test results from thousands from students would be very time consuming. This in turn implies that disputed content should be avoided as far as possible.
The fact that the prerequisites are “basic high school science” means this course is aimed at the general public and as such it expected that basic content will be covered with a safe margin to any research frontiers where evidence are inconclusive and debated.
Furthermore a main objective for any university to provide a MOOC is advertising. You don’t see high profile celebrities such David Attenborough, as seen in the course teaser video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RedrutZ_G3Q
in your regular guest lecturer list.
It is supposed to attract interest in the university and showing off the qualities of the education provided. Even higher then, the incentive to uphold academic educational principles of objective and relevant information.
It would be interesting if someone took the course and reported back here at WUWT on University of Queensland idea of academic education qualities.
You must have never seen Ghostbusters.
Dean Yeager: This university will no longer continue any funding for any of your group’s activities. Doctor… Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
Dr. Peter Venkman: But the kids love us!
The author says:
“The Guardian’s description of Bjørn Lomborg as a climate “contrarian” seems a little strong – in my opinion Lomborg is more of a lukewarmer.”
This is true. Some time ago suggested that Lomborg should meet with Svensmark – as I recall, they were both in Copenhagen, Denmark, a country so small it would almost fit into the two largest towns (by area) in Canada. To my knowledge, that meeting did not happen.
Still, Lomborg is a decent guy who is generally pointed in the right direction..
Denmark 43,094 km2
La Tuque, Quebec (Ville) 25,104.59 km2
Senneterre, Quebec (Ville) 14,887.03 km2
Amazing, that’s even smaller than Tasmania (68,401 square kilometres), a state so small it only survives by leeching off the rest of Australia.
It’s not the size that has left Tasmania leeching off other states.
It was doing fine before the Greens devestated electricity generation and the forrestry, mining, woodchip and paper manufacturing industries.
Now much of the state, particularly the Northwest is as depopulated as if we’d lost a war.
The “top of the List State” Highest Illiteracy, highest number of people on some form of benefit, highest amount of GST take, All Thank You to the Green blob policies!
The size of the country says nothing about the IQ of the country. I’d like to compare the achievements of the Canadian cities with those of Denmark.
Dear Climatologist,
My comment was that Lomborg and Svensmark both work in Copenhagen, and probably could walk to a meeting with each other. – and I suggest they should have met. Perhaps they did, but our correspondence never so indicated.
I suggest that Lomborg’s luke-warmist position is highly questionable, because there is NO evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause dangerous global warming. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) if it exists at all, is very low – and ECS may not even exist in the practical sense because atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
As we published with confidence in 2002, “There is no global warming crisis”.
While we do not know for certain at this time what is causing the recent increase in atmospheric CO2, whether it is primarily humanmade or primarily natural, it is clear that this increase in CO2 can only be beneficial to humanity AND the environment. Atmospheric CO2 on Earth is clearly low, and dangerously so – the next Ice Age or a subsequent one will, in all probability, be an extinction event for terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.
Regarding the comparitive intellectual achievements of the good people of Denmark versus those of the good people of La Tuque and Senneterre, I suggest that is an irrelevant comment.
Regards, Allan
I will ask the German chancellor to return Schleswig Holstein immediately!
It seems that “Consensus” has become a good word in science, while “Skepticism” has turned into a bad word. Strange times.
I do not like this consensus science title. It sends the wrong message about science. Otherwise this is a sensible initiative.
How is it sensible? This is merely incremental narrative correction from what I can tell.
Tim Flannery seems to have accidentally given away the Climate Council’s motivation when their Facebook page says “. When someone is unwilling to adapt their view on the basis of new science or information, it’s usually a sign those views are politically motivated.”. Now who was he referring to again? Maybe time for a good look in the mirror.
For everything you wanted to know about Flannery’s Climate Council, but were afraid to ask, see
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/04/profits-doom/
Very nice. The quote from Amanda, welcoming Tony to the Council, is perhaps indicative of the quality of their data.
“Dear Tony, I wanted to write to say – thank you.Your donation today[2] is powering Climate Council to cumulatively reach hundreds of millions of Australians with vital information on climate change, changing hearts and minds on this important issue. If you can share the fact that you have taken action and donated today it’s likely to inspire others to join you. We are only as strong as you make us.” Amanda McKenzie,Climate Council CEO, 10/4/15. (Amanda’s emphasis).”
Hundreds of millions of Australians? What? The bureau of stats projects that our population is 23,792,741 on18 April 2015 at 04:16:28 PM. Did she get the hundreds of millions from a computer model or was someone cutting and pasting a letter they’d used somewhere else?
‘Australia’s decision comes after the Danish government cut its funding for Lomborg’s Copenhagen center in 2012. Lomborg had then moved to the U.S. and relied on private donations.’
International Business Times
———-
The gods are smiling on us, its also a smart move by the Abbott government.
The reason the alarmists so fear Lomborg despite the fact he is not a sceptic is because he believes in adaption to, not mitigation of climate change , the funding of alarmism and almost the entire gravey train is based on mitigation, no wonder Flannery is almost apoplectic
he believes in adaption
=============
is it belief?
Short of the US bombing coal fired power plants in the rest of the world, any CO2 cuts in the developed world will simply shift industry and jobs to the developing world. CO2 will continue to rise. Humans will either adapt or perish.
” the US bombing coal fired power plants in the rest of the world”
that is plan B
Aren’t adaptation and mitigation pretty much the same thing?
What Lomborg is not in favor of is spending huge amounts of money trying to prevent increased CO2.
NO. Adaptation is responding to changes in the environment. Mitigation is trying to prevent or lessen changes to the environment.
UWA re as alarmist as Vic Uni is Marxist, or Sydney Uni anti-Semitic.
This is really about
a) watching a uni say “no we don’t want $4m of research funding because we don’t want any scientific debate”
b) watching his research being censored
c) watching him end up like Murry, sacrificed
Will be interesting to watch the way they spin this. They can call him a d@n!@r but he’s better placed to defend himself than A666ott.
Andrew,
I replied to your comment at John Whitman on April 17, 2015 at 7:14 am.
John
Probably wise of the government to invest these funds. They have made a significant investment in the campus, which by the way is magnificent. The antics of unbalanced nutcases like Lewandowsky was putting the reputation of the whole place at risk.
Lomborg ‘crime’ for the those going ape shit at the Guardian is one of being a ‘heretic’ , it is not that he does not believe in CAGW it is not he does believe in ‘the right way and without question ‘ and so like most religions they attack him because heretics are seen has much bigger threat to the ‘the faith’ than those how do not believe at all.
By the way Aussie Government is not given $4 million to Bjørn Lomborg, most of the money will go to the university , indeed the university is free to turn it down and refuse to have this centre, and yet they do not . Now there is a question the Guardian and the CAGW ‘faithful’ have not asked .
I would have preferred No Money for any of this crap but if Mr Abbott has decided to bring people out of the Zombie Nightmare slowly and gently then I guess this is the way to do it.
Lomborg is a bit of a bedwetter but he is at least honest and rational.
He does appear to be rational, but its too bad he’s a luke warmer. Bob Carter and Murry Selby are looking for work.
Abbott will probably use Lomborg to push ahead with the government’s infrastructure strategy, a continental bullet train network would produce lower carbon emissions than copious plane journeys, apparently.
You don’t have to agree with someone to respect them.
Lomborg follows a reasonable method to argue his case. He should be heard.
Lomborg doesn’t do crap”. There’s a serious need for economists to study the economic value of government actions in different fields. Global warming is only one of the subjects under study. The serious need for such studies is reflected in the number of people being killed in wars, the emergence of dictatorships in countries such as Venezuela, the lack of water in São Paulo, the Ebola epidemic, and a host of other problems faced by humanity.
Congratulations to all involved!
Bah!! We’ve had to put up with the insult of ‘Flip Flop’ Flannery for a lot longer than that … I don’t know who Flannery thinks he is but he is ridiculed by all other than his socialist media bunnies.
This is the wanker that predicted massive sea level rises and then promptly bought a waterside home.
That’s going to make the usual cranks very very angry.
Yes. They seem to be angry almost all the time now. It’s quite entertaining to watch. You have to wonder how they keep it up and how it is going to affect their health.
Better still, have ALL the funding that goes to other climate groups, such as the UNSW fraudsters go to the new group. Still need non tainted staff for the unit as well as students willing to brave a blockade of picketers.
Not reported on TV based MSN news, not that I have seen anyway. On another note. AGL, an Aussie power supply company, is going to stop sourcing power from coal fired power stations. Good one AGL, good one. You’ve just lost me as a customer!
I would not pay too much attention to Flannery on science matters. His first degree level qualification was English lit! Fill a cup with concrete Flannery and harden the f&^k up…you had your time and you lost!
Money is too easy to come by.
Sorry, but I don’t trust Lomborg or his Copenhagen Consensus Center.
For him, the “global warming” issue is a means to an end. Follow the money.
I don’t trust any economist who fails to say “don’t bother wasting money on academic economists”.
as a aussie we have not heard or read anything in the news media about this good news ,the staff of the CSIRO and Tim Flannery mob will not be happy with Tony Abbott
Yes, but what does the Anglican church think about this blasphemy center?
the Anglican church has more to worry about then the so called blasphemy center ask Tim Flannery what he thinks
hmmm. Don’t give a rat’s patootie about consensusy sounding centers. Care more about a Natural Climate Variability Research Institute. Fund that.
Unfortunately not in the grants list. I have personally been involved in grant applications (In Australia). It’s a tough gig. Universities have a department just for that and so do the likes of CSIRO etc.. If you are not in the loop you don’t even know about the grants. I think that Bjørn Lomborg got a lot of help to get that. At this point I am happy that he got something. Small steps.
Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis! Normal process of logical reasoning.
THESIS of Catastrophic Human-Caused Global Warming. ANTITHESIS of Disbelievers in Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. SYNTHESIS of Lukewarm Skepticism of Lomborg, much of WUWT, and ME!
You say:
“Former chief commissioner of the defunct Climate Commission, Tim Flannery and his private climate council seem furious over the Lomborg grant, calling it:
“A $4 million dollar insult to the scientific community“”
The quote is however incomplete, the actual quote gives the reason for the assumed insult:
“In the face of deep cuts to the CSIRO and other scientific research organisations, it’s an insult to Australia’s scientific community.
As the Climate Commission, we were abolished by the Abbott Government in 2013 on the basis that our $1.5 million annual operating costs were too expensive. We relaunched as the Climate Council after thousands of Australians chipped in to the nation’s biggest crowd-funding campaign – remember this video?”
$1.5 million annual * 4 that means 6 million has opposed to 4 million most of which is not going to Lomborg but to the university. Meanwhile for their 1.5 million a year apart for Flannery’s six figure salary for a part-time job , what did the country get out of Climate Commission, apart for bad advice ?
I am glad your rubbish is gone!
I disapprove of incomplete quotes. Flannery should have been quoted in full.
Then we all could have gleefully pointed out that there was no need for the Australian Government to keep funding Flannery, since just as Abbott foretold, he’s continued giving us his opinion for free.
Bjørn Lomborg should report to someone in the Abbott government, not the anti-science cretins managing the University of West Australia (UWA).
Bjørn should insist on a quarterly report structure including specifics on how the four million is spent/allocated from the UWA.
Hopefully that will prevent him from getting sandbagged by the despicable data with-holding back dating psychological misrepresenting messed up UWA staff.
Go Bjørn!
Remember, most of us are lukewarmers to varying extent.
Safety in numbers. Herd mentality.
ATheoK,
The term ‘lukewarmers’ is as intellectually and scientifically idiotic as ‘warmistas’ and ‘d*niers’.
I see only shorthand ‘pre-packaged and ready to eat’ (‘pre-spun’) stereotyping in use of those terms.
John
Consensus = conventional = Animal Farm.
Just another helping of “post-normal science”. No light at the end of the tunnel. You are all (still) doomed.
Bjørn ‘Tee shirt’ Lønbjerg spotted his chance to get his snout in the climate trough (as others one could mention) by setting himself up as a contrarian.
He has clearly been exposed as cooking the books to suit his own views with respect to climate change in his Copenhagen Consensus conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
If my memory serves, his approach to the AGW challenge is ‘let’s wait for things to start going off the rails, then we’ll do something about it because by then we’ll have the money, the new technology needed and all the worlds other problems will have been solved so we can concentrate on climate change. Oh, and sea level rise will stop in the year 2100’
As always, the warmistas have to lie about what others believe in order to make themselves feel relevant.
I find it interesting that while Australia tries to undo the damage and previous climate policy, Ontario Canada, is moving at speed to implement a new carbon tax. The parallels are striking as both policies were implemented by female leaders who did not include a carbon tax on their election platform. Monkey see – Monkey do, I guess. GK
In the interviews that I have seen with Lomborg he has expressed the opinion the warming that will be caused by CO2 will be a problem, but mitigation and adaptation are much cheaper than prevention.
One point he made in the past was that what Europe has spent so far subsidizing solar and wind energy could have provided clean drinking water for every poor person on the planet.
Lomborg is more than a lukewarmer. He is a warmwarmer.
He just doesn’t accept the ready made solutions that are usually presented at the same time as the arguments for cAGW. He has shouldered a lot of abuse as a result, and done so with dignity.
Consensus doesn’t seem such an unreasonable word to use when discussing potential solutions to a putative problem, because everyone would have to pay to some extent. (Except for the carbon traders and wind millers etc, who would like to be coining it if they’re not already.)
>>Lomborg is more than a lukewarmer. He is a warmwarmer.
Yes, but is he moderately warm simply to survive in a warm environment? If he had been a coldwarmer, he would have been forced to live on the streets long ago. That is the reality of modern life.
We see this all the time in UK politics and media, where the politically right take a position you know they do not agree with, just to survive in the modern smoke, mirrors and persecution world. You end up having to spot the key-words that demonstrate what the discussion is really about, but can be denied by the politician/newspaper at a later date. George Orwell must be smiling and gimacing, all at the same time.
R
Science is supposed to follow evidence and rational argument. Politics is not required to follow either and often does not especially during election season. Consensus is a political method, so am unclear based on the title “Consensus Centre” what their mission is. Further muddying the waters is the 97% consensus meme that still pops up in media articles and editorials. I am not arguing for or against the funding, I am wondering whats up with that title.
– – – – – – – – –
Andrew,
I think in is unlikely that Salby hasn’t reached out to the Abbott gov’t staff to investigate his treatment by Macquarie University. I think it unlikely that the Abbott gov’t would be indifferent to any request by Salby to investigate Macquarie University.
John
You don’t get ‘given money’. You apply for a grant and get accepted or rejected. Amateurs
Alex,
I am interested, so, tell me about any knowledge you have of the process that led to starting the grant application process; namely that it wasn’t unofficially agreed between the gov’t and Lomborg to give the money prior to the formal technicality of the grant application?
John
You have to be in the loop. You need to know who to speak to. If you are seriously enquiring about how to go about it , I can tell you. If you are just going to have a go at me then it is a waste of time.
You are partly right, there can be an unofficial agreement. All that is necessary is to apply in the correct manner. Bureaucrats can be sympathetic or not.
As the new President of a sporting association , I managed to smooth talk a government functionary to ignore the loss of a $7000 cheque by the previous president and had it replaced with $20000. I could spend it how we wanted and he helped with the paperwork. If I can do that shit , then so can others. You just need the balls.
Alex on April 18, 2015 at 5:28 am
– – – – – – – –
Alex,
No, I did not intend to ‘have a go at you’. Sorry if you got that impression.
I was attempting to say that in many cases the gov’t is simply giving the money via grants; that the granting process is not a screening tool in those cases.
John
Patrick
In Australia we prefer to hear selectively.
HOW TO SPEAK AUSTRALIAN
with your host, Max Photon
Take three simple words:
— Good … as in Mother Teresa
— Eye … as in that organ that you see with
— Mite … as in that pesky little arachnid
Now fashion them into a sunny greeting:
GOOD + EYE + MITE
It’s not as bad as a New Zealender who would claim that the number of the beast is ‘sex hundred and sexty sex’
What is your native country Max? As an Australian I could probably take the piss out of you with the result of you curling up into a ball and weeping for a week
Spacetime
Max
There is a club between the British, Australians, New Zealanders. We can all take the piss out of each other without any problems (and we do it constantly). If you step in as an outsider and attack any one of us then you have a problem from three sides. That may be useful in your cartooning career. As a cartoonist should be aware of the funny/interesting things around you.
deplorable grammar from an english teacher. Time for bed
I think Alex has been on the sauce.
One tinny instead of ten, next time……
Silver ralph
Only three tinnies. Might have been the half bottle of wine and the couple of whiskeys. Nah! green beer.
For those who may be as confused as I was as to just what the heck Alex was talking about:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PissTake
Max and Alex look like they’ve been ‘hitting the turps’ a bit hard.
I don’t drink. I am a big-wave surfer so I take training pretty seriously.
Today I swam 3300 meters, including 2000 meters of ball-busting timed intervals.
Alex … you should probably add all of the Caucasian ex-British Colonials to your list.
No, in Nuh Zilund it would be sux hundrud un suxty sux.
You are too serious Max
But maybe you just don’t like drinking. I drink and smoke and still get the occasional gold in international competitions. I don’t do anything in excess. My body won’t allow it. I only drink when happy, not sad. It lowers my inhibitions and I talk more freely. Sometimes I say things that people think I shouldn’t say. Others think I am more amusing. I don’t really care what others think. It’s my life and I do what I want.
Patrick
In Australia we prefer to hear selectively.
Max
one of my students told me that it sounds more like ‘Go die’
Streetcred
Added
Consensus. A pack of wolves and a couple sheep deciding what would be best to have for dinner. Consensus.
Policy debate: Fleas and Ticks arguing over whose program is best for the dog!
Looks like Flannery’s “scared scientist” ads didn’t work very well:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/newest-scam-donate-money-to-help-alleviate-the-fears-of-scared-scientists/
What’s next, somewhere a climate scientist is going to bed without supper ads?
It looks to me like Bjørn Lomborg actually has no formal science based position on ‘climate change’. He seems to me to be advocating the mitigation of economic damage advocated by others in playing their ’IF Significant Climate Change’ game. So, I think he is just playing along with the idea of others on ‘climate change’ without prejudice.
Convenient position, n’est ce pas? He is merely the middleman between some of the climate science community and some of the government policy makers. He looks like a middleman in ‘climate change’ advocacy with no intellectual assets at risk in the game.
John
Lomborg’s chief ability seems to be continuously wrong on politics and the environment.
Seems like the perfect candidate for govt money to me.
[snip -over the top – Anthony]
disagree
@ ferdberple April 17, 2015 at 6:18 am
—
Unfortunately your graph doesn’t show the record rainfalls that occurred in the three years immediately after your graph series ends, which was genuinely spectacular, and across the entire country (except the far SW corner) which would have pushed the trend slope up even higher.
I don’t think Bjorn Lomborg has much to say about climate science per se. His strength in the past was to question the doom and gloomers who seemed to ignore the real progress on all manner of environmental issues. He remains a believer in central government activism in all kinds of areas. He just happens to be more skeptical that global warming is the key issue..
I would hope Dr Lomborg meets up with the ‘other half’ of Jonova’s. Dr David Evans would be a valuable addition to his UWA research.
If the so-called “contrarians” like Lomberg had inferior views on climatology and the public policy implications, then they would welcome the move. They could then invite these “contrarians” to debate. But the climate consensus in the academia only survive by shutting put the competition. Like monopolists in the business sector they would not survive in a properly competitive environment for ideas.
Now what do you think would have happen in China to a Govt adviser whos advise had wasted $70 billion and counting … Eh !
The Abbott gov’t should play of time limit on the exaggerations by the climate change movement to decay by half-life.
“This is a limited offer to save the world.” is always spoken by ubiquitous climate change movement marketing persons.
The exaggerated climate change movement is like every other exaggerated public movement, it has a public credibility half-life inversely proportional to the square of the magnitude of the exaggeration.
So, time is drastically of the essence for such an extremely exaggerated movement like catastrophic climate change.
tic toc
John
just to clarify – the name Copenhagen Consensus Center belongs to Lomborg, not UWA:
Copenhagen Consensus Center – Our Story
2004 – March: In a London press conference, Bjorn Lomborg announces the Copenhagen Consensus conference. “Copenhagen Consensus will provide a framework to allow us to make better prioritizations,” said Lomborg. In April, Lomborg, economist Jagdish Bhagwati, Dominic Ziegler of the Economist, and Sloane Lederer of Cambridge University Press launched the project in the U.S. The Copenhagen Consensus broadens the scope of the Environmental Assessment Institute, focusing on solutions to ten of the world’s most pressing issues…
Since its inception in 2006 until end of 2011, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has received funding from the Danish state…
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/our-story
2 April: Australia Consensus Centre
The University of Western Australia and the Copenhagen Consensus Center today announced the establishment of a new policy research centre at the UWA Business School…
The new Australia Consensus Centre will be based at UWA but have global reach. It will help frame the debate on aid, agriculture and regional issues and focus on smart, long-term priorities…
The cooperation between UWA and the Copenhagen Consensus Center will also mean that the President of Copenhagen Consensus, Dr Bjorn Lomborg, will spend time in Perth and across Australia to encourage a conversation on priorities for aid and development and the future prosperity of Australia.
http://australiaconsensus.com/
Lewandowsky was last seen listening to Joan Armatrading’s “I Went Back to Ohio,” drinking Woolite and crying in a Bristol back alley.
I thought Flim Flummery had quietly resigned from the Climate Commission?
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/04/profits-doom/
Excerpt from Mr.FIOA:
Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html
What got me thinking of Mr.FOIA?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/4/17/climatologists-and-moral-choices.html
We hear so much justified complaining about government funding of climate studies, labelling it a “gravy train”. But I don’t hear any complaints about the government funding of Lomborg. How about a little consistency here?
You never heard any of those complaints from me.
From a strictly scientific perspective, I don’t give a pleading in perdition where the funding comes from. All I care about is the results, their context, and whether and to what extent they hold up.
Abbott de funded Tim Flanery and his supporters: good thing
Abbott now funds a Luke warmist who advocates the Governments exact position: bad thing
It’s not the fact that this guy has got funding that is the issue, it’s the fact that governments are hand picking scientists who agree with them to give “expert” credibility to their politics
about time the government took a leaf out of the book of the greenie left
Way To Go, Bjorn! And it’s 100% government funding, too.
There’s a piece of Herman Kahn in that man, folks. A touch of that same genius and — almost unique — that overall, bottom line perspective where the science and demographics pedals hit the metal. Folks like him and Dr. Glokany are much needed (and increasingly heeded) voices in this so-called debate.
Read here some very sensible comments from a senior faculty member at UWA:
http://www.pannelldiscussions.net
I know quite a few people at UWA and Dave Pannell is a very genuine academic who – in my experience – is more representative than Lewandowski of the intellectual makeup of the faculty.