Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The new Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull may be quietly dismantling former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s climate initiatives. The latest move is the cancellation of an offer to fund Bjørn Lomborg’s Climate Consensus Centre.
According to the Australian ABC;
The Federal Government says it has withdrawn a $4 million offer to help establish a climate change research centre headed by Bjorn Lomborg.
Education Minister Simon Birmingham has told a Senate estimates hearing the proposal was quietly dropped in the week when Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister.
“Certainly, a specific incentive from the Government for such an institute is no longer available,” Senator Birmingham said.
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-21/govt-withdraws-funding-from-lomborg-centre/6873238
Malcolm Turnbull won the leadership challenge against former PM Tony Abbott, by promising to maintain Tony Abbott’s climate policies. An apparent substantive breach of that promise in the first week of leadership is a bit of a record, even for an Australian Prime Minister. So far Turnbull has declined to offer the Australian people an opportunity to vote their approval of this change in direction. Turnbull’s hesitation to obtain a mandate from the Australian people may be understandable, given that Australia voted overwhelmingly for climate skeptic Tony Abbott in the last election.
I have been saying this would happen soon after the 2013 election and when pool results started to turn negative for Abbott as Turnbull was waiting in the wings just biding his time. Abbott and the LNP took their climate change policies to the voting public, and won. No-one voted for Turnbull’s (Read McQuarrie Bank and Goldman Sachs) change policies and we’re told, apparently, Australia is a democracy.
The LNP will lose in 2016 to be replaced with another ALP/Green coalition pantomime to take over. Watch Turnbull’s poll rating plummet after COP21 when nothing is agreed (Again).
He’s a red in blue clothing.
Since when has a chaotic global system, been stable?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-weather-thunderstorm-trigger-to-be-pulled-as-instability-sets-in-20151022-gkfy48.html
Since aCO2 driven climate change of course. I didn’t check for the “M” word…but I am sure there would be many!
“Is Aussie PM Turnbull quietly dismantling Abbott’s Climate Legacy?”
He probably is but he had this to say in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s accusation that allowing the people to vote on a plebiscite to change the definition of marriage like Ireland would unleash nasty homophobia-
“I am very disappointed at his lack of faith in the Australian people. He thinks so little of the people of this country that he does not believe we are capable of having a civil debate on a matter of this importance. He is so frightened of public debate that he wants to shut the people out…
I have great faith in the decency and the common sense, in the humanity, in the wisdom of the Australian people and if there are unruly voices heard, they will be drowned out by the common sense and the respect and the general humanity of our people….
When the Australian people make their decision, that decision will stick. It will be decisive. It will be respected by this government and by this parliament and this nation.”
To which many of us digusted by the previous Govt’s Section 18C of the Racial and Religious Discrimination Act whereby it makes it an offense to ‘insult’ or ‘offend’ someone on such vague grounds, want to know just when he will repeal it and trust us all again with the absolute right of freedom of speech. What sayeth our new Messiah to that after such fine and lofty words to the Opposition Leader?
I’m offended and insulted being called a CAGW denier so can I have the caller prosecuted? Yeah right! Some insults and offence are more equal than others naturally and unlike the US there is no Constitutional protection against the vagaries of the State as to what’s insulting and offensive.
There can be no such thing as democracy until right of recall is introduced so that politicians who lie and cheat – I know, doesn’t narrow it down much – can be held to account by the electorate. If Turnbull breaks his election promises then he should have to stand up in front of the electorate and explain why. There needs to be a system where it is the individual on trial so that the only way to remove them isn’t just to vote for the other party. That would be the problem of getting Turnbull to call a new election – chucking him out means bringing in the left. No different here between red labour and blue labour and no conservative party.
I agree Gerry. Politicians should be accountable in real time. There is a push getting up again to increase life of parliament to 4 years and 4 years is much too long a gap to let politicians get away with their deceptions. It gives the electorate time to forgive and forget their stupidity.
On a parallel tack I reckon the ALP is regretting Shorten’s recent moves that gave him tenure in the shadow PM job. He’ll be in gaol before he makes PM now.
At least if Turnbull turns out to be a red wolf in sheep’s clothing his party will have no trouble kicking him out. They will have trouble finding a good replacement. Hopefully Turnbull has more sense than to pursue many of his former tenets and public statements and gets his feet back under the conservative table.
Offloading Lomborg is a symbolic gesture (except if you ARE Lomborg). If that was the worst thing Lord Malcolm does, I will breathe a big sigh of relief. It won’t be.
More blocks falling in place, eh? In the space of a week, both Canada and Australia have removed their AGW-sceptic prime ministers, by fair means or foul, just before COP21. There’s even a small but strongest-evah hurricane about to hit Puerto Vallarta in Mexico, plus what I’m sure they’re already labelling The MegaNino. I’m sure the words of Pielke Jnr will be ignored in the next week and all the way to Paris.
Many commenters on WUWT lament that on a particular topic the scientist or commenter involved has failed to do his/her homework on the topic. This comment string about Lomberg is an almost perfect case in point. It deals with Lomberg’s consensus centre which it incorrectly describes as a ‘Climate Consensus Centre’ The term ‘Climate Consensus Centre’ is nonsense.
Wiki tells us that Lomberg’s consensus centre is the ‘Copenhagen Consensus Centre’ as follows:-
“Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics, using cost–benefit analysis. It was conceived[1] 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,[2] 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 considers possible solutions to a wide range of problems, presented by experts in each field. These are evaluated and ranked by a panel of economists. The emphasis is on rational prioritization by economic analysis. The panel is given an arbitrary budget constraint and instructed to use cost–benefit analysis to focus on a bottom line approach in solving/ranking presented problems. The approach is justified as a corrective to standard practice in international development, where, it is alleged, media attention and the “court of public opinion” results in priorities that are often far from optimal.”
It is always painful for fantasists to have a fantasy contaminated by facts but here goes:
1. Lomberg is a strong believer in the phenomenon known as ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’. He almost as strongly believes that it is not nearly as serious a global problem as many other global problems. He has arrived at this view through his knowledge of the range of global issues which require attention and the application of benefit/cost analysis. I for one agree with him.
2. A flavour of the Lomberg approach comes from his third International consensus which involved
“gathering economists to analyze the costs and benefits of different approaches to tackling the world‘s biggest problems. The aim was to provide an answer to the question: If you had $75bn for worthwhile causes, where should you start? A panel including four Nobel laureates met in Copenhagen, Denmark, in May 2012. The panel’s deliberations were informed by thirty new economic research papers that were written just for the project by scholars from around the world.”
10 challenges (thought to be capable of economic solution) were identified –
Armed conflict
Biodiversity
Chronic Disease
Climate Change
Education
Hunger and Malnutrition
Infectious Disease
Natural Disasters
Population Growth
Water and Sanitation
‘Corruption’ and ‘Trade Practices’ were also researched but considered to be capable of
political solution rather than by economics.
[Wiki]
3. Lomberg apparently conceived the idea of extending his network of Copenhagen Consensus Centres to Australia – an idea with which I wholly concur.
4. The Abbot government offered a $ 4.0 Mill AUD grant to any University which would find a home for such a centre. Another idea with which I wholly concur.
5. The University of Western Australia (the former academic home of Lewandowsky) accepted the dosh.
6. In an outburst of madness prompted by the Guild of undergraduates the academic staff of UWA objected overwhelmingly to the University administrators about accepting the dosh thus allowing the malevolent introduction of the rational analysis of Lomberg to their campus. UWA gave the dosh back to the gov’ment.
7. Flinders University in South Australia then gave serious consideration to accepting the gov’ment money to set up a Lomberg Consensus Centre. Like proverbial addle brained sheep the Flinders academic community promptly repeated the madness of the UWA academic community. An excerpt from their letter to the University administration demonstrates the Flinders version of the nonsense:
” We, the below signatories, object to controversial Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg being offered $4 million to set the Australian Consensus Centre at Flinders University. We are students, teachers, academics, alumni, and the general public. We are concerned that Flinders would consider such a reputationally risky and academically damaging appointment.”
8. Faced with this further example of collective academic stupidity the Australian gov’ment has sensibly withdrawn the offer of support for a Lomberg Consensus Centre in Australia.
——————-
Speaking as a lifelong supporter of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) may I say that I am pleased that the liberal and economically adroit Turnbull successfully rolled the economically illiterate Abbot (which led to the resignation from Parliament of the hopeless former Treasurer – Joe Hockey). The USA may shortly enjoy the services of Hockey as the our Australian Ambassador. He will be a pale shadow of our current Ambassador Kim Beasley (a former leader of the ALP) who is about to finish his term. Meanwhile the hopeless Bill Shorten, the current leader of the ALP, will be no match for Turnbull.
Turnbull is likely to reign for as long as he pleases. That will be a good thing for Australia following the dud (ALP) Prime Ministerships of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd. It will also ensure that Shorten never becomes Prime Minister.
Turnbull is reasonably good looking, but I don’t trust him one bit. Look into his face, he drops his eyes a lot. 4 million for Bjorn is nothing. But with UWA refusing his attendance was not surprising. I had a letter from Chris Pyne who said some months ago they were finding another venue. Tough love to keep the warmists alive and well, eh?
Abbott, like Harper, was a complete waste of space. It would be almost impossible for Turnbull to not improve. I’m not on his side of politics, but since Abbott’s demise, the mood in Australia is greatly improved. Turnbull is hostage to the right wing of his party (i.e. the climate change denialists). But I think he will outwit them soon.
John Brookes, could you tell me what it is that climate change denialists go about denying? There are not too many right wingers in Turnbull’s party who have ever denied climate is changing, has changed and will continue to change. There are a few who argue that global warming is not caused by man. But they are politicians. What would they know?