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“
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
@ur momisugly 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.