Proof positive that the University of Western Australia is an intolerant organization

University-Western-Australia-Logo(via Bishop Hill) Remember this just a couple of weeks ago?

Aussie Government gives $4 million to Bjørn Lomborg, to set up a “Consensus Centre” at Lewandowsky’s old university

The Australian media reports:

The University of Western Australia has cancelled the contract for a policy centre that was to be headed up by controversial academic Bjorn Lomborg after a “passionate emotional reaction” to the plan.

The Federal Government had pledged to contribute $4 million to the Consensus Centre, a think tank that was to use methods similar to those used by Dr Lomberg’s Copenhagen Centre.

If you are an academic, dissent on climate change or climate change policy will lead to a loss of your livelihood.

You have been warned.

From the UWA web page:

The University of Western Australia is committed to providing an environment of integrity and respect for all staff, students and community members.

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.

So, why are we not surprised that UWA couldn’t tolerate Lomborg’s presence?

I think this will backfire on them. Send your children to be educated elsewhere.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 8, 2015 7:07 am

Well, I’m sure Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard will snap him up.

May 8, 2015 7:11 am

A Mind Bjørn
by Insightful

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
May 8, 2015 7:24 am

Another university going down the Lew.

May 8, 2015 7:29 am
Ivor Ward
May 8, 2015 7:31 am

“Achieving International Excrement”

May 8, 2015 7:34 am

a day of shame for australian academia.

Reply to  pat
May 9, 2015 2:37 am

Australian Academia has no shame. You just need to do a little research into how they have passed students who paid for their courses (overseas students) who failed exams. They have done nothing about students paying to get assignments written from a website and then these assignments gaining pass marks, all the while, lecturers were aware that it was going on. Australian Universities have failed miserably.

M Courtney
May 8, 2015 7:38 am

The word “University” derives from “all” or the “the entirety”.
Clearly UWA doesn’t feel that considering the costs of green policies is a part of the entirety of things that can be thought.
It is not the fault of the university that heresy exists. But it would be if it allowed heresy to exist inside its towers.
Thought crime is a quite understandable concept so long as you accept that studying the climate is an act of piety not inquiry.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  M Courtney
May 8, 2015 10:04 am

studying the climate is an act of piety not inquiry
Not by definition. By choice. The choice of fools.

May 8, 2015 7:39 am

and right on cue:
8 May: SMH: Peter Hannam: Most Australians view climate change as already causing weather extremes: Ipsos
A clear majority of Australians view global warming as already causing extreme weather events such as storms, droughts and floods and just 3 per cent say “there is no such thing as climate change”, according to the findings in an Ipsos survey.
Just over 60 per cent of the 1063 respondents in the report – the eighth annual survey on the subject – viewed climate change as behind extreme events, with similar numbers also linking the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and rising sea levels to warming global temperatures.
Separately, about 40 per cent of respondents viewed climate change as either entirely or mainly caused by human activity, while another 43 per cent said both human and natural forces are at play. Just 3 per cent dismissed climate change altogether and another 4 per cent viewed changes as entirely naturally…
***Respondents, though, were a lot more certain that the large weather event or extreme natural disasters are caused by climate change, than human issues such as increased refugee arrivals…
Christiana Figueres​, the United Nations chief climate change negotiator, told an audience in Sydney this week that immigration would loom large in the future.
“I cannot begin to tell you the immigration nightmare that Australia would face if we do not arrest climate change,” Ms Figueres said. “You can use your imagination and then multiply it, times 10.”
“You think you have a problem with boat people now? Friends, you would seriously have a problem,” she said…
***Renewable energy retains “huge support” among respondents, with 56 per cent saying it was a priority for action. Separate Ipsos surveys have found 87 per cent support roof-top solar and 78 per cent back large-scale solar plants, Mr Clark said…
it would seem all the questions assume something called “climate change” that is the equivalent of CAGW.
Ipsos has done climate reports for AXA Insurance in the past. no mention in this one as to who commissioned it, that i can find:
Climate change is already affecting Australia with more intense and more frequent droughts and heatwaves, rising sea levels and changing rainfall; these changes have resulted in increasing pressure on water supplies and agricultural production.
So what do Australians think of the issue?…
P4: Figure 1 shows the top environmental issues in terms of perceived need for action since 2007. Renewable energy has topped the list of issues for the last five years (in the most recent study 56% identify this as an issue to address)…
P7: Two thirds (66%) of Australians agree that climate change poses a serious threat to our way of life over the next 100 years, and although fewer are as sure about the more short-term future, more than half (58%) still agree that climate change poses a serious threat to our way of life over the next 25 years…
P12: Endnotes: Participants were recruited from Ipsos’ online ‘MyView’ panel.

Billy Liar
Reply to  pat
May 8, 2015 8:55 am

Do you have to be a dimwit to take part in an Ipsos survey, or is there just a plentiful supply?
Maybe it’s the leading questions they ask.

Reply to  Billy Liar
May 8, 2015 4:29 pm

I suspect only dimwits answer phone calls from unknown numbers these days, so by definition I think the answer to your question is yes.

Reply to  pat
May 8, 2015 1:11 pm

Sounds like the elections in Zimbabwe, 99% of the voters supported Mugabe…..

M Seward
Reply to  pat
May 8, 2015 6:44 pm

You mean the same IPSOS mob who ‘predicted’ the hung parliament in the UK election?
As you noted, “Participants were recruited from Ipsos’ online ‘MyView’ panel”. Sounds like they have John Cook of COOKMOOC at U Queensland fame is a consultant. They probably also have La Lewandowsky on site psycho-analysing the British electorate as I type.
I am very glad that I walked away from UWA and graduated elsewhere. I would be wanting to ‘adjust’ my professional bio otherwise.

M Seward
Reply to  pat
May 8, 2015 6:48 pm

PS, from the SMH in another article:-
“A consortium of researchers from the University of East Anglia, the London School of Economics and Durham University aggregated national polling and online surveys, and in its final projection on Thursday forecast that the most likely outcome would give the Conservatives 278 seats in Parliament and Labour 267.”
I wonder if the UEA contribution was cadre of statistical geniuses the CRU ? LOL
But seriously, will David Cameron call a Royal Commission into the ‘science’ regarding ‘global warming’? Start with the CRU emails and keep going. They have a looming energy crisis to justify a good hard look.

Dodgy Geezer
May 8, 2015 7:48 am

…after a “passionate emotional reaction” to the plan….
So the UWA are ADMITTING that they expect ‘passion and emotion’ to influence their research? “Passion and Emotion” are the two things a scientist strives to avoid when doing research!
I would say that this admission immediately negates ALL research carried out by the university. They have effectively admitted that they are a pressure group, and will suppress findings which do not match their worldview.
How can anyone claiming to be a scientist put their name to such an admission?

Ian W
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 8, 2015 10:21 am

But in post normal science it is de-rigeur to include emotions and also to ascribe emotions to inanmimate objects.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 8, 2015 12:07 pm

“I have stated many times that it is not a centre to study climate change” – UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson
Perhaps the reactions were so passionate because the University’s decision was such an affront to the ethical standards that scholars are traditionally held to. No one other than a politically connected charlatan could have received such an appointment holding as pathetic an academic record, both in the fields of climate science and economics, as Lomborg.
Students and faculty with professional reputations to maintain should absolutely have a voice when it comes to non-academic appointments and public outreach activities on their campus.
This is a non-story, and by no means “proof positive” of anything except the malice and bias of the author.

Reply to  James
May 8, 2015 5:49 pm

Troll alert

Ursus Augustus
Reply to  James
May 10, 2015 8:00 am

UWA staff and students did not seem to mind Stephan Lewandowsky pontificating about climate science, a field in which he has no material qualifications it seems pretty obvious. An ‘academically connected charlatan’ is how I would describe La Lewny to be quite frank. Didn’t see or hear muchout of UWA about protecting precious ‘professional reputations’ then. UWA’s reputations is going down the toilet frankly. While most in Perth live north of the river the university rankings are pretty strongly on the southern side. It must be the termites in all that old jarrah in among the old limestone blocks metaphorically speaking.
What ‘profession’ would these reputations be in relation to? Professional spongers off the public purse? Professional rent seekers selling LPU’s for as much as they can scrounge?
Your post is the non-story James, proof positive of malice and bias by its author, IMO.

May 8, 2015 7:50 am

If you are an academic, dissent on climate change or climate change policy will lead to a loss of your livelihood.
Did I miss something? Mr. Lomborg no longer has any income?
Are you claiming that students and faculty have no right to protest and make their opinions known? That they would have had to take the appointment of Lomborg as fait accompli?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  cgs
May 8, 2015 7:58 am

Yes, you Missed something. About 30 years of something, beginning with people like Dr. Gray and Dr. Ball.

Reply to  cgs
May 8, 2015 8:53 am

This is not Teheran. Are not universities in the free world obliged to recognize social dissent and allow free and open discussion of opposing ideas? Suppression of dissent is what we expect from reactionaries, not modern free-thinking institutions.
I think what is happening is reaction to the increasing tide of skepticism in Oz. The university is trying to stifle free and open discussion of these issues.

Reply to  Johanus
May 8, 2015 11:06 am

Is this an example of suppression or is this an example of a failed attempt by the Australian government to buy street cred for its political philosophy?

Reply to  Johanus
May 8, 2015 1:23 pm

Yes, CGS, it is an example of suppression; by the University and an unknown number of loud spoiled alarmists.
From your own links:

“Monday, 20 April 2015
The University of Western Australia and the Copenhagen Consensus Center have agreed to establish a new policy research centre, the Australia Consensus Centre (ACC) at the UWA Business School…”

That doesn’t sound like anything is forced upon UWA by the government.
Then further on in the announcement article.

“…The Consensus methodology (see Appendix A below for further details) involves:
Extensive stakeholder engagement to consider the key challenges facing the world and Australia;
Commissioned cost-benefit analysis research papers addressing these challenges;
A second tier of review and new perspectives on the challenges by expert economists;
NGOs, government agencies, aid agencies and businesses providing their perspective within each of the challenges and subsequent public debate;
Review by a group of Nobel level economists (the “Expert Panel”) over a three day period of the challenge and perspective papers and the creation of a ranked list, identifying the best all the way to the worst possible investments for policy-makers and other organizations to create the most social good for every dollar spent;
A Youth Forum involving university-level students engaging with the same research material as the Nobel-level economists;
The Expert Panel ranking and the Youth Forum ranking will be presented to the general public for debate.
All research from the ACC will be published and made available in the public domain…”

Surely even you, a vacuous troll, understand the meaning of “Extensive stakeholder engagement?” A limited subset of spoiled noisy whinging immature alarmists fail to even begin addressing partial stakeholdership.

“…All three projects will involve some of Australia’s, the region’s and the world’s top economists. The centre will commission international and Australian economists to generate the economic evidence and rational arguments that will help inform the national and international debate and result in the adoption of smarter, more cost-effective policies…”

Bjorn who is an expert on statistics and economist certainly fits the necessary criteria for honestly and openly leading the new organization.
Perhaps this is the greatest fear of team alarmists? Bjorn is only skeptical in his honest analysis where he publishes the actual results, not the consensus desired results.

“…Appendix A
The Methodology of the Australia Consensus Centre and Guiding Principles
1. The Australia Consensus Centre collates information from all stakeholders, including the public, to ensure all effective policy options are included…”

Bjorn’s open observations, results, analysis and logic absolutely fit the guiding principles.
So, exactly why are the alarmists so fearful that Bjorn will actually see this project through?
There are no listings of opposition beyond vague claims.
There is no attempt to survey university staff, alumni, residents and students to assess a genuine state of opinion. Nor are there any attempts gauge whether commonly held opinions accurately represent the situation regarding the consensus center; how much is rumor and innuendo versus how much accurate knowledge.
UWA’s refusal of the center is a new low for CAGW alarmists and educational sites devoted to alarmism.

Reply to  cgs
May 8, 2015 9:26 am

Correct. Lomberg will not have any income at all from The University of Western Australia.
Are you claiming that all academic appointments now need to go before the Committee of the “Passionate and Emotional” for approval?

Reply to  Betapug
May 8, 2015 11:08 am

You’ve sidestepped the question. I assume that Lomborg still has income from a number of different venues – so this decision does not deprive him of a livelihood.
And BTW, the position at UWA was as an unpaid adjunct professor.
At any university, there is process that is used to hire new faculty. From what I am reading, that process was not followed. Are you claiming it is OK for the Australian government bypass this process and use public funds to buy academic positions?

Reply to  cgs
May 8, 2015 9:29 am

“Are you claiming that students and faculty have no right to protest and make their opinions known?”
So, the opinion of some is to be intolerant of the opinions of others. So intolerant, they want a leading academic denied a post because of his views. Tell us why voices of such intolerance should be listened to.

Reply to  patmcguinness
May 8, 2015 11:07 am

They don’t. The university could have proceeded anyway – right?

Reply to  patmcguinness
May 8, 2015 11:23 pm


Tell us why voices of such intolerance should be listened to.

You’ve obviously missed something. Only skeptics and conservatives can be intolerant, closed-minded, bigoted bullies. It’s just not possible for any of that to apply to “progressive” believers of CAGW/ACC.
I can think of two constants in the universe…
1. change happens
2. “progressives” project/ascribe to their opponents their own subconscious/nefarious motives.
Throughout my life, my experience is that people with a “progressive” world view are far more often intolerant, close-minded, bigoted bullies than those with a more conservative world view. Not even close in numbers. And yes there are conservatives I’ve met that have all those attributes as well.

Reply to  patmcguinness
May 8, 2015 11:24 pm

lost the /sarc tag on my first paragraph directly above.

Reply to  patmcguinness
May 9, 2015 12:23 pm

Lomberg a ‘Leading Academic’? Hardly. Universities are arenas for dissent. But endorsement of opinion as a substitute for science doesn’t count.
If Lomberg wanted a monument perhaps WUWT should erect one for him.

Reply to  cgs
May 8, 2015 9:42 am

cgs asks a couple of stupid questions;
“Are you claiming that students and faculty have no right to protest and make their opinions known? That they would have had to take the appointment of Lomborg as fait accompli?”
The recommendation is to boycott the university. This is protesting and making one’s opinion known.
So, the answer is “no”.
It’s a shame that you couldn’t understand that from the few sentences in the head-post.

Reply to  mebbe
May 10, 2015 8:44 am

The Right to protest, and whether that protest is justified are two different issues.
Is boycotting a University that refuses to endorse or fund poor scholarship justified? I think not.

Ursus Augustus
Reply to  cgs
May 10, 2015 8:12 am

“Are you claiming that students and faculty have no right to protest and make their opinions known?”
No one is denying anyone’s right to protest but ‘protest’ does not mean the right to get your own way all the time. The right to protest does not extend to running the university by decree backed up by agitprop ( that is all it really is – it has no broad based support). How many students and faculty members were ‘protesting’? What proportion of the UWA staff and students? How was the ‘protest’ evidence gathered? WHo gathered it?
We have just seen an classic example of this sort of fascist intolerance in the UK a day or so after a general election with a small group of ‘protesters’ declaring a newly elected government somehow ‘invalid’ and then desecrating a war memorial to women into the vicious, intolerant fascistic bargain. Little mind the winners got the highest proportion of the vote and moreover if they had preferential voting the seat numbers would be pretty well spot on.
Frankly cgs the Muslim immigrant community is doing a far, far, far better job of peaceful integration in this country than the self important little eco fascist einzatsgruppen are.

May 8, 2015 7:57 am

I suppose intellectual quality is judged by emotional reactions.

May 8, 2015 8:14 am

Free speech is the biggest loser

Reply to  cnxtim
May 9, 2015 12:24 pm

And intellectual integrity the biggest winner.

Reply to  warrenlb
May 10, 2015 4:12 am

Explain how?

Reply to  warrenlb
May 10, 2015 10:29 am

Lomberg has no education in Climate Science — in fact none in Science at all –he’s a Political Science major, who has made several contradictory claims about the findings of Science and the remedies for AGW.
Funding his Center amounts to the University funding not a leader in Scholarship, but rather a particular political position.

May 8, 2015 8:22 am

Intolerance, d*nier, passion, emotion, consensus are not words true scientists would want associating with their work.

May 8, 2015 8:27 am

I have been sitting quietly reading posts here as much as I can for many month’s now, occasionally putting a thought out there on various threads. But this one particularly makes me interested because the last few weeks have garnered a noted increase in articles related to psychology of mass communication ( CAGW/CC) talking points to silence skeptics, job loss due to research that does not support CAWG/CC meme and government policy agendas and attendant climate inquisition of university climate research. All this looking more and more conspiratorial by the day. Many comments lately about UN global tax scam, depopulation agendas and so on. I have been respecting Mr. Watts request we keep to the science, stay away from fringe conspiracy theory talk for the expressed purpose of keeping to as factual a discussion possible. So if I may make an interjection regarding my own daily sky observations using naked eye and digital camera, aerosols. The continued aerial spraying of unknown particulates above my Hudson Valley has continued unabated since at least 2004. I say we must discuss as part of the atmospheric calculus man made additions to the atmosphere. Those additions must include directed energy from radar and radio and cell tower broadcasts. The addition of aerosols, cloud forcing, and all that frequency radionics based broadcasts add to the mix. I understand microwave broadcasts are adding energy to the atmosphere, this has to translate to heat. The questions are , How much Heat? and What Kind of Heat? and Where is this man made heat? Persistent Contrails aka Chemtrails are officially denied by the EPA. Well, I look outside at the air the last few days and I can say that there is so much haze from the chemtrail dumping it is infuriating. I know the difference between a normal contrail and a chemtrail. Geo-engineering is going on.

Reply to  George NaytowhowCon
May 8, 2015 9:38 am

Go away, please.

Ian W
Reply to  George NaytowhowCon
May 8, 2015 10:37 am

Seeing as you are here – airlines are extremely weight conscious as weight equals fuel burn equals loss of profits. They would NOT carry huge tanks of ‘whatever-it-is-you-think’ because of the extreme expense and loss of range. The passengers waiting to board would be very aware of anything being loaded. There is NO WAY that normal airline traffic would carry anything extra. Similarly the freight carriers who are against the wall financially.
So now you are inventing some ‘governmental aircraft’ – except that the control system is such that all the civil controllers would need to know about the aircraft what they were doing and where they were going. As all the airspace is controlled – there are no such aircraft. If you go to FlightRadar24 or FlightAware you can check the aircraft flying over you from their broadcast positions. There are even ‘apps’ available on smart-phones that allow you to point the phone at an aircraft and the phone will report the aircraft callsign and where it is going. (these billboards use the same technology )
Now what you are really seeing is non-persistent condensation trails as the water in the jet eflux initially freezes into ice crystals at high altitude then slowly sublimates back into water vapor. If the humidity were a little higher then the condensation trails may last longer or even persist and spread into cirrus clouds.

Fred Harwood
Reply to  Ian W
May 8, 2015 11:07 am

Modern aircraft burn kerosene, each gallon of which in combustion with compressed air becomes almost 1.2 gallons of water and lots of energy. On takeoff and while climbing to cruising altitude, “jet” aircraft eject lots of water vapor, which in high, cold air becomes the above ice crystals that persist depending upon the relative humidity of the high air. It’s just water vapor.

Reply to  Ian W
May 8, 2015 7:30 pm

Really? That is so cool!
Can you provide a link to that app?

Man Bearpig
Reply to  George NaytowhowCon
May 8, 2015 12:37 pm

I think you may have the wrong web site. If you are interested in conspiracy theories, do a search on Alex Jones or chemtrails or whatever. If on the otherhand you have an interest in the psychology of conspiracy theorists then search for “lewandossky” then you will learn how NOT to do it.

Reply to  George NaytowhowCon
May 8, 2015 9:04 pm

Two notes:
1) Clean air can become extremely supersaturated. Given a little push, it can create a lot of clouds.
2) is a very good site. I was surprised at how much I had been missing.

Mike M.
May 8, 2015 8:32 am

What has Lewendowsky got to do with this? Nothing so far as I can tell.
It does not appear that this is a case of the University administration being intolerant. It is a case of their being spineless (the norm, it seems) and caving in to the intolerant (also the norm).
For coverage of this that actually contains some information:

Reply to  Mike M.
May 8, 2015 8:43 am

Thanks for the SMH link. This sort of weasel behavior is alas the norm among college administrators these days.

May 8, 2015 8:38 am

Oh the irony. Lomborg actually is a “strong warmer”, except that he believes that the staggering amounts of money required for mitigation would do more good when spent on other climate-related issues.
In a sane universe, this view — whether you agree or disagree — would be wholly unremarkable.

Reply to  New Class Traitor
May 9, 2015 12:26 pm

Maybe a ‘strong warmer’ but not a ‘leading academic’

Gary Pearse
Reply to  warrenlb
May 10, 2015 5:53 am

So UWA is awash with leading academics?

Reply to  warrenlb
May 10, 2015 10:16 am

“So UWA is awash with leading academics?”
I have no idea. If UWA has many leading academics, they shouldn’t want to support Lomberg. If they don’t have many, why would they want to support another poor one?

Reply to  warrenlb
May 10, 2015 5:59 pm

Yeah why would they employ someone who uses fact-based reasoning to develop policies when head-in-the-sand ivory tower thinking is serving them so well?

May 8, 2015 8:45 am

Australia long lost any credibility in higher education, research outcomes ect. Nearly all their Universities are now at the bottom list in par with 3rd world countries. You couldsend your children to learn English or tourism there but that is about it This started with Keating in the 80’s who basically destroyed higher education and research there LOL

Reply to  Eliza
May 8, 2015 9:19 am

They speak English in Australia? Who knew…
🙂 of course… I love the Australian accent, but it isn’t quite The Queen’s English… Learn English there, and you will be a hit at pubs around the world.

a happy little debunker
Reply to  E.M.Smith
May 8, 2015 10:32 am

Aussies use the lingo of the Queen’s Strine. For, though she happens to be the Queen of England, she is the Queen of Australia (Kylie may yet be putting the mockers on her).
Strewth – you buggers threw us out, of the old dart, but NOW expect us to honour your language?
Inadvertently gifting us a paradise & not realising that the real prisoners – were the Prisoners Of Mother England (POMs).
A paradise, chock-filled, with the proudest bogans, bevans, westies & chiggas (alas now plagued by an intellectual effete).
Even your own chants sound better – when we do them.
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie – OI, Oi, Oi!

May 8, 2015 8:46 am

So UWA has pulled out.
Maybe another Aussie Uni can step in instead.
Not holding my breath, though.

May 8, 2015 8:48 am

The Catholic Church controlled scientific research [“deniers of the existing philosophy”] via loss of job, house arrest, excommunication, etc. Now it appears that the “Scientific Community” is doing the same thing!
The “Golden Rule” in action: He who has the gold, makes the rules!!!

May 8, 2015 8:59 am

The preschoolers are running the daycare.

Science or Fiction
May 8, 2015 9:01 am

My first surprise about this centre was:
How can a University accept the establishment of a centre named “The Consensus Centre”?
I would expect that a University would avoid using this term, since “Argument by consensus” is one of the well known logical fallacies. Don´t universities teach scientific theory and logic anymore?
My next, and much bigger surprise, was that the University has cancelled the establishment of this centre.
I think this indicates that the University of Western Australia lack scientific integrity. It does not seem that the University has managed to build a culture of scientific integrity.
I am sure that there must be a much better home for this centre. They should also consider to change the name. I am also sure that I would not recommend my kids or any other students to take their education at this University.

Random Comment
Reply to  Science or Fiction
May 9, 2015 4:39 am

My understanding is that the centre was all about exploring policy options. Policy is inherently political. Consensus is one method of successful politics.

May 8, 2015 9:04 am

Well, there’s always Curtin University, if UWA doesn’t suit. It’s been a mild summer over here in Perth this year and winter weather came early. I expect UWA climate scientists were just a bit grumpy about it.

May 8, 2015 9:06 am

Intolerance embraces denial of science.

May 8, 2015 9:13 am

As the saying goes, what’s the opposite of diversity? University.
BTW, I imagine that the university has an endowment. Perhaps the donors of this endowment might warrant some communication.

May 8, 2015 9:46 am

No worries. Australian Minister of Education Christopher Pyne has some feelers out and says that Earaheedy Station Sheep College in WA 700 miles northwest of Perth “might be interested” in hosting the Lomborg Consensus Centre if the government puts a little more money into the pot.

Theo Goodwin
May 8, 2015 9:59 am

The consensus ghettoizes itself. How pathetic can they be?

May 8, 2015 10:16 am

The trouble with “sending your children elsewhere” is that you’ve already paid for that education through your taxes. That applies to research as well. Anyone privately funding research has already been forced to pay those that will oppose it.
There should be a separation between University and state for the same reason there should be a separation between church and state.

May 8, 2015 10:17 am

Passionate disagreement? Poor Bjorn, like somebody commented earlier, it’s not like he disagrees heavily with the global warming crowd just that there are better ways to react than they have. Death to all the infidels! is apparently the environmentalist mode as the December summit gets closer.
I have to say it’s odd to write a comment like that and realize that as it is posted it will automatically be sorted out and sent through a number of NSA and homeland security filters and if something is amiss it will be kicked up to a more serious level of filters and be investigated by code as my browser history is fileted like a fish and compared to threat profiles. Living in the New World Order kind of just sneaks up on you!

Joel O’Bryan
May 8, 2015 10:17 am

As for the Photoshop modified UWA banner, I would have reversed the wording:
“Achieving Consensus through Intolerance”
Groupthink is the desired end, intolerance of dissent is the means.

May 8, 2015 10:30 am

Maybe it was just a labeling problem. Re-apply and call it the Fact Checker Project or the BEST BEST Project.

May 8, 2015 10:37 am

Small minds (UWA) are easily bullied.

In the Real World
May 8, 2015 11:21 am

Not all Aussies are in with the scam .
Right on cue comes a statement from the PMs adviser that shows that some of them know what is going on .

Reply to  In the Real World
May 8, 2015 11:51 am

Every nail helps.

May 8, 2015 11:27 am

At least UWA is upfront that they are completely biased when it comes to climate science. Maybe they can create a new advertising slogan to induce students to come and study climate science at their institution, “None more biased that us at UWA. Come join us for further indoctrination into the study of Earth,s climate system.”.

John Whitman
May 8, 2015 11:38 am

The intolerance seems to be emanating from Oreskes’ intellectual trickery inspired by her ‘Merchants of Doubt’; now found in the intolerance at an academic sound chamber near you.
Harvard seems lacking circumspection these days in acquiring the ‘O’ from UCSD.

May 8, 2015 11:39 am

There is clearly only room for one consensus in the world.

May 8, 2015 12:27 pm

Culture Club – Church Of The Poison Mind

Bill Parsons
May 8, 2015 2:05 pm

I hope that things settle for Mr. Lomborg, and his position is reinstated. Meanwhile…. I don’t know if University of Melbourne has an appointed Chair in Conservative Studies, or any middle of the road think tanks, but maybe it should. It would only take a rich billionaire in the latter case – or millionaire in the former, with a sufficiently large endowment, to make an “offer too good to refuse”. Regents in some schools are elected, some are appointed, but they would all be deee-lighted to accept a cash infusion that would supports a larger student base, wealth(ier) parent-bases, and yes, even controversy. Lomborg would have brought a balanced view, but that, ironically, is the scariest notion in the AGW little shop of horrors. What they MIGHT accept on campus is an arch-enemy – an avowed conservative who bluntly supports skeptical views on the “Anthropogenic”, the “Global”, AND the “Warming”… among other things.
Colorado University endowed such a chair (don’t know what is AGW positions were), which is now in its third year. I heard him interviewed a few times, and he was a smart, buoyant, positive force. Stanford has its Hoover Institute on campus, and its … (er) thinkers are used as speakers in classrooms. Didn’t see one at Harvard, although it occurs that a school might try to slip by with appointing a “Chair for Conservative Armenian Studies”, or “Conservative Studies of the European Health Care System”. It just depends on what they can get away with, and who is presenting the grant.
Berkeley College
Center for Right Wing Studies
(Note: the director is, in fact, smiling)
University of Colorado
Would it become a lightning rod? Probably. So convince the regents to swallow this bitter pill: “When we (even pretend) to look balanced in our views, we look better in the world’s eyes.” Then find somebody with a thick skin, keep a watchful eye that their ideas aren’t being censored. Then turn them loose. They might just have a ball.

Lord Jim
May 8, 2015 2:16 pm

On a related note: Is there any information about Howard Friel who published “The Lomborg Deception” (Yale University Press 2010) aside from the fact that he is listed as an “independent scholar”? What are his qualifications?

May 8, 2015 2:21 pm

UWA: Climate Cowards at their most blatant.

May 8, 2015 3:11 pm

just to clarify. the Copenhagen Consensus Center is a Bjorn Lomborg project. it was not named by the University.
Wikipedia: Copenhagen Consensus Center
It was conceived and organized by Bjørn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and the then director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute. The project is run by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which is directed by Lomborg and was part of the Copenhagen Business School, but it is now an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation registered in the USA…
The project has held conferences in 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012…

May 8, 2015 5:16 pm

I suggest writing to Professor Paul Johnson, the Vice-Chancellor of UWA (politely) to express your disappointment that a desire to conform to the consensus has proven more important to staff and students of UWA than openness, research and engagement. His email is:

Reply to  Peter Wales
May 14, 2015 7:29 am

My wife (a UWA alum) got this from Paul Johnson:
How can he remain in his post?
My wife has now severed all connections with UWA.

May 8, 2015 9:23 pm

UWA is not held in high regard by Perth people. Its students just voted it 1 out 5 for teaching ability. So Lomberg might well thank his lucky stars for not going there.
UWA just shut down its centre for Water Studies or whatever it was called. Cost $4million. Lomberg,centre was going to bring in $4million.
Western Australia is big state in size and in mining, especially iron ore. The market for iron ore has fallen greatly.
So why the UWA would refuse new funding, seems a little crazy. It was only done to pacify some lecturers.

Random Comment
May 9, 2015 4:42 am

Considering the objectives of the now-cancelled Consensus Centre at UWA, I cannot understand what the fuss was all about. Surely those who didn’t like the output could have ignored it just like governments everywhere ignore well-researched advice. All the naysayers have done is further expose themselves to the charge of being of closed minds. The VC appears to understand but lacks strength and will watch from the sidelines as another witch is burnt in the main quad.

Non Nomen
May 9, 2015 8:17 am

Send those academic pseudo-dignitaries responsible for that rash of incompetence and violation of the freedom of science down into the coals mines. They have to learn quite a lot not just about fossile fuels.

May 9, 2015 8:47 pm

When will academics and the general public recognize there is a difference between climate and weather. So many variables control the weather and less so with seasons as that’s our orbit around the sun. Gee – the mind boggles how some can be conned so easily. There are other universities in Australia. Sydney and NSW are the biggest I think. And Bond university (private) and Queensland university. This was a test for UWA. They blew it!
Mind you I don’t think the UNE here in Armidale would be so ungrateful for 4 mill in funding.

James in Perth
May 10, 2015 12:57 am

The University of Western Australia is considered and ranked the best university in the state. Therefore, expect that most of those students who are admitted will in fact matriculate. That’s life. I can’t however agree with their decision. They have lost all objectivity on the climate change question.

May 10, 2015 12:59 am

This is a sad reflection on too many universities today … swallowing the flawed global warming doctrine, and implementing intolerance of freedom of speech and expression and ideas. Today, these universities prefer to drive those with opposing opinions and ideas into joblessness rather than be institutions that respect the fundamental principles of a democracy.

May 10, 2015 3:23 pm

Along with freedom of expression there is denial of work in universities in Australian universities (remember what McQuarie Uni did to Murry Salby?) and we have or university systems going down the drain of brain constipation and goose-stepping to the tune of the UN/Greens.
Still I wish you wouldn’t pick on Steven Lewendowsky you have taken away our greatest entertainer in the climate change debate.

May 10, 2015 7:26 pm

I contacted my MP’s (The Hon.Barnaby Joyce, Minister of Agriculture) but they knew about UWA rejecting the 4 mil grant and Bjorn. That was today and they were in Canberra awaiting the Federal budget. Monday 11 May 12 noon. The Fed budget is tomorrow. However, according to my source, it ain’t over yet. And it will be another few days before they start to look for another university to take up the offer, obviously not the Uni of Queensland. But – there are private universities. Rather exclusive ones mind you.

May 20, 2015 1:20 am

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Some insight into the Australian University scene.
Not all, but too many universities, are following this unjustified, unscientific path because of political and financial pressure or influence.
“Consensus Centre”, can you believe this?
Is it possible to move further away from proud academic standards and falsifiable scientific methods?
The future is indeed of concern to all, if your children are launched into their future lives via such miscarriages of scientific justice.

Verified by MonsterInsights