The Climate Institute to Close

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Climate Institute, a previously well funded climate NGO promoting support for the Paris Agreement and other climate causes, has announced it will close due to lack of money, after a failed call for philanthropic donations to keep their doors open.

Climate Institute to shut due to lack of philanthropic support

Australia’s original climate change-focused think-tank and lobby group will shut after it failed to replace the multi-million-dollar bequest it relied on.

The Climate Institute, known for its research and leading role in public debate since being set up in 2005, will close in June.

It comes 18 months after the institute called for public donations to offset the lapsing of the foundational support set up by Rupert Murdoch’s niece, Eve Kantor, and her husband, farmer Mark Wootton.

“We are disappointed that some in government prefer to treat what should be a risk-management issue as a proxy for political and ideological battles,” he said.

“They are increasingly isolated as the costs of inaction mount and the opportunities and benefits of action become ever clearer.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-original-climate-body-to-shut-after-running-out-of-funding-20170308-gutlte.html

The Press Release from the Climate Institute;

Chair of Board announces closure of The Climate Institute

Mar 08, 2017 – 5:14pm

The Board of The Climate Institute (TCI) has announced that the TCI will cease to operate on June 30 2017. The Board announced that the decisions comes as a result of being unable to establish the viable level of funding that would enable The Climate Institute to continue in a meaningful, sustainable form.

TCI has conducted ground-breaking research; built influential strategic partnerships among business, investor, welfare, union and other community groups; achieved domestic and diplomatic public policy outcomes; helped shape change to the regulatory landscape and driven the evolution of financial sector climate risk management, particularly among superannuation and institutional funds, domestically and internationally (see attached list of achievements on following page).

Through its Climate of the Nation series, TCI has also conducted what is now the longest trend survey of the attitudes of Australians to climate change and its solutions.

“With the expiry of its original founding bequest, and despite ongoing support from a range of philanthropic and business entities, the Board has been unable to secure sufficient funding to continue the level and quality of work that is representative of TCI’s strong reputation,” said Board Chair Mark Wootton, who was among the original founding Directors and has been Chair since 2007.

“The Climate Institute has been a provider of pioneering research and a leading advocate for credible, practical climate policy throughout a tumultuous period in Australian public, investor and business decision-making.

“TCI is often described as a trusted broker and critical friend, and we are proud of the way it has built understanding and consensus among a wide variety of stakeholders on such a complex, challenging and important issue. “We are disappointed that some in Government prefer to treat what should be a risk management issue as a proxy for political and ideological battles. They are increasingly isolated as the costs of inaction mount and the opportunities and benefits of action become ever clearer,” he said.

When established in 2005 for an intended five-year life, TCI was the only non-government organisation focussed solely on climate change. TCI has now been joined by many other organisations with a significant focus on climate change. Regulators and investors are beginning to seriously integrate climate risk and opportunity management. The historic Paris agreement provides a framework for international accountability and action. There has also been a stunning recent surge in affordability and scale of clean energy alternatives.

“While challenges still abound, the landscape is much stronger than it was twelve years ago when TCI was first established. The Board is proud of the achievements of The Climate Institute, and its staff, in making an enduring contribution towards its 2050 vision of a resilient Australia prospering in a zero-carbon global economy, participating fully and fairly in international climate change solutions.”

TCI will see a core body of projects to fruition by June 30, and the Board will work with other organisations to ensure key aspects of its work continue through 2017 and beyond. A Transition Sub-Committee has been established to oversee this work.

The Board has also reluctantly accepted the resignation of John Connor who has been Chief Executive Officer of The Climate Institute since February 2007. From April, Mr Connor will be working with Baker McKenzie, heading up the Fijian Government’s COP 23 Secretariat which has been established for the purpose of Fiji’s Presidency of the 23rd Convention of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. John has been a dedicated and highly skilled CEO at TCI and has been pivotal to our achievements.

Olivia Kember, Head of Policy will assume the role of Acting CEO.

The Board will make final determinations on the future of The Climate Institute and its work before June 30.

Read more: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/chair-of-board-announces-closure-of-the-climate-institute-a.html/section/397

The Climate Institute appear to have found it impossible to survive on less than a million dollars per year. Receipts in 2014 dropped to $727,000, down from over three million dollars in previous years.

In my opinion they could probably have done more to trim expenses.

For example, The Climate Institute website appears to be a bespoke effort powered by Lateral Systems. I am not disrespecting the quality of their web pages, but the Lateral Systems product seems quite expensive, though no doubt comparable to similar bespoke offerings.

By comparison, WUWT runs on WordPress.com – a content management system which allows people to create a new website for free.

If I have correctly understood the Lateral Systems product page, the Climate Institute likely paid 10s of thousands of dollars every year for their website. This is a substantial and in my opinion unnecessary standing cost, for an organisation which relies on donations to survive.

Perhaps if the Climate Institute hadn’t started existence with a large though limited term annual multi-million dollar grant, they might have learned how to conserve scarce resources.

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “The Climate Institute to Close

      • “a result of being unable to establish the viable level of funding that would enable The Climate Institute to continue in a meaningful, sustainable form.”
        They were never sustainable on their own in the first place. Let alone “meaningful.”

      • “We are disappointed that some in government prefer to treat what should be a risk-management issue as a proxy for political and ideological battles,” he said.

        Not like any NGOs have used preferred to “treat what should be a risk-management issue as a proxy for political and ideological battles” . Noooooo. Of course not. THAT’S DIFFERENT.

      • Why did John Connor resign from the Climate Institute? So he wouldn’t be Terminated😋

      • Bryan A March 8, 2017 at 9:22 pm

        Why did John Connor resign …

        It sounds like he saw the writing on the wall and managed to find a government gig in Fiji.

        Many small developing countries are so administratively stretched that they cannot fill in all the complex forms needed to access climate money … link

        I expect that his job will be to tap into the billions of climate dollars available.

      • commieBob,

        Found this paragraph in your linked article:

        Fiji’s high commissioner in London, Jitoko Tikolevu, said the process of applying for climate funds was “very cumbersome”. “We need to be trained how to access the money. It’s one thing having it available, it’s another getting access to it

        I wish someone would train me how to “access the money.”

      • The entire AGW movement has always been “a proxy for political and ideological battles”. Instead of being science based, it has been the opposite. Global power and control at any cost has been the objective.

      • Yes TG. The sustainability crowd have figured out that one of the least sustainable things are their lies and distortions.

      • Aww, that’s really sad. But if renewables are starting to burst at the seams with economic viability, and the zero carbon future is near at hand, why not tap into Big Green for a contribution to keep things going? Surely these renewable companies will soon be flush with cash as the fossil fuel industry folds its tent and leaves the energy field to them. Surely they could spare a few million to keep the institute going. Surely!

    • Maybe taxpayer-sourced “dark money” funding has dried up because it was unsustainable (to use a favorite term of certain people). It’s unprecedented.

      • I don’t think so…
        I think the money has just shifted….the people that were funding climate change…..are just putting their money somewhere else……….now going to “women’s march”, BLM, Occupy, Overthrow/Impeach Trump, etc

      • “With the expiry of its original founding bequest, and despite ongoing support from a range of philanthropic and business entities, the Board has been unable to secure sufficient funding to continue the level and quality of work that is representative of TCI’s strong reputation, of first-class travel to exotic locales, fine hotels, high salaries and other god-like treatment and perks we have become used to and will demand whether or not the earth is being destroyed” said Board Chair Mark Wootton, who was among the original founding Directors and has been Chair since 2007.

        There, I fixed it for him.
        He must have been misquoted or was it a bad tweet?

    • Right on the button…!
      They say: “…the Board has been unable to secure sufficient funding to continue the level and quality of work that is representative of TCI’s strong reputation…”
      But they don’t say how much would be enough.
      It would be interesting to know how much these guys were paid; and by whom.
      Also, are there any funds left; and what will happen to these?

      Seeing no Shumer-like tears at being forced to “move on”, one must wonder where they are going, with so little fanfare…

  1. “The Climate Institute has been a provider of pioneering research and a leading advocate for credible, practical climate policy throughout a tumultuous period in Australian public, investor and business decision-making.”
    What a pity that charges can’t be laid against this outfit for publishing nothing but propaganda and mindless twaddle.

    • Well, I’ve never even heard of them before in over a decade of following climate non debate. Doesn’t sound like they will be missed.

    • John Connor was the man the left media went when they needed to confirm something or other was cuased by climate change.

    • Assuming The Climate Institute is the crowd Tim Flannery is/was involved with, does anyone know just what “pioneering research” they provided? They were certainly at the forefront in AGW propoganda. As a Government-funded Climate Change Commissioner, Flannery was paid $180,000 a year for three days work a week, plus he was paid by Panasonic to push the same line. Pioneering research? Yeah, right!

  2. A hopeful development for Australia? A fair amount of support for climate change was fashion, and fashions change.

  3. Maybe Mr. John Connor can find a job saving the world from the evils of Skynet.

    Arnold’s out of work too. They could team up again.

    • @ Thomas March 8, 2017 at 7:09 pm : Superb, Thomas! I just realised we are starting to get some joy out of this struggle, laughter, even. Brett

  4. “They are increasingly isolated as the costs of inaction mount and the opportunities and benefits of action become ever clearer.”

    Delusional to the end. Just watch, as more and more people abandon the climate religion the remaining Faithful will continue to insist that Skeptics are the ones increasingly isolated.

    • The web site really highlights who’s who in the gullibility stakes.
      There are just a couple of organisations which I thought might have been smarter. Interestingly one of those had a female CEO and the other had a female ‘Chairperson” at the time of joining/endorsing this mob of tossers.
      Ooooppps – we’ve just had International Women’s Day.

    • The nameservers for ClimateInstitute.com are

      buy.internettraffic.com

      sell.internettraffic.com

  5. A Fool and his/her money are some party…… (perhaps I paraphrased that with some “license”)

    You claim you can provide “practical climate policy”……… Have you any proof ????

    A practical climate policy would be; “plan for the worst, hope for the best”, there you go, and it cost a whole lot less than a million dollars……………..

    Cheers, KevinK.

  6. The Climate Institute provided the impetus and argument for Australian renewables energy targets and CO2 reduction, and have some responsibility for the awful mess and high costs in power supply, not just in SA, but also coming in Victoria and Queenlsnd, if their Green Labor givernments get their way.

  7. My memory must be failing. I was sure that the predecessor to the Climate Institute was the Climate Authority which operated from 1 July 2012. The Climate Institute took over the operations of the Climate Authority when the latter was defunded.

    At any rate, who would give money to an organisation capable of putting out such a snarky and nasty self-praising press release announcing its demise. Good riddance.

    • Flannery was appointed to head up the new Climate Commission in 2011 by the then Labor PM, Julia Gillard. This body was to soften up the public to accept a carbon tax.
      In 2013, following a change of government, the Commission was dismantled. Not to be outdone, Tim and his Commission pals set up the Climate Council.
      The 2015/2016 Annual Report claims that the Council achieved an estimated AUD $50M in media exposure.
      The Council’s AUD $3 M funding is reportedly sourced from bipeds in the street (around 75% of funding) with the rest coming from philanthropy and grants from foundations.

  8. Even as an Anthropogenic Climate Change Denier I would not want to see the TCI vanish.

    Here is a Prime opportunity for Al Gore Jr., Timmy Cook, Elon Musk, Billy Gates and Warren Buffet to “MAN UP” and give a small percentage of their wast wealth to TCI.

    Unfortunately Al, Timmy, Elon, Billy and Warren are not MEN, so the TCI will close. Sorry TCI.

    Ha ha

  9. One of many to come I’m sure. Elite money must now be squandered on defeating elected officials so pickings must be difficult.

  10. TCI:

    We are disappointed that some in government prefer to treat what should be a risk-management issue as a proxy for political and ideological battles

    Science realists reaction to TCI whining:

    (youtube)

    LOL

    #(:))

  11. Climate Institute to close.
    Good.
    May many like organisations follow in its footsteps.

  12. Oh dear what a calamity, two old ladies got locked in the lavatory,………………………….

  13. Maybe they can find a way to stay open by providing goods and or services that people are willing to pay for just like most real businesses.

    • despite ongoing support from a range of philanthropic and business entities, the Board has been unable to secure sufficient funding to continue the level and quality of work that is representative of TCI’s strong reputation

      Sounds to me like the C levels aren’t interested in a reduced compensation package; perhaps they weren’t as emotionally invested in saving the planet as one would expect from a true believer.

    • Selling climate impact reduction accessories! Umbrellas, cool drinks, warm drinks, sun block, sweaters, etc.!

  14. Wait…

    so they weren’t in it to “save the planet”,

    they were in it to obtain money?

    I’m not feeling the altruism here.

  15. “‘…its 2050 vision of a resilient Australia prospering in a zero-carbon global economy, participating fully and fairly in international climate change solutions.’”

    What does that even look like? I’m having trouble processing that.

    • Ahh, yes!
      That most popular of buzzwords “solutions” is used to sell everything from brooms to snake oil.
      (A zero-carbon global economy would appear to be a tree-less, animal-less desert; not a great place for a holiday.)

    • “Zero-carbon global economy” is code for zero machinery.
      Their wet dream is a fondly remembered though nonexistent bucolic feudal future.
      A world literally of manpower & horsepower.

      Except for the 1%s, of course.

      • A feudal society is in essence the last society that the average Green can understand.
        They are so out of their depth its not even funny.

      • Well, that’s what I was thinking. Which, given Australia’s remoteness, makes participating an anything international somewhat problematic, let alone “fully and fairly”.

  16. From the article at the SMH…

    “Australian Industry Group chief Innes Willox said the institute had been a “very strong actor” in public debate, advocating for sensible discussion and workable outcomes.

    “Their voice in the debate will be missed,” he said.”

    Errrr…what debate, the science was settled right? Good news for Australia

    • Polls tell us it is worse than ‘past peak’. The troughers are in the trough now, and it is empty.

  17. “…they might have learned how to conserve scarce resources.”

    The prior money gushing in certainly was not scarce, and delightfully was squandered. Please don’t give them hints on how to survive, lest similar charlatans figure it out!!!

      • They certainly do live on a budget.
        As long as that budget includes 1st class air fare and high end hotels in far off places.
        Oh, and YUUUUGE salaries with perks.
        That is their budget.

    • They’ll be grasshoppers to the end. Meanwhile, we deplorable ants keep working and paying taxes and stocking our pantries.

  18. The CI ‘built influential strategic partnerships among business, investor, welfare, union and other community groups’ … not one of which was interested in giving us money. And we certainly ain’t gonna do this world-saving work for nuthin’. So, see ya later, we’re off to the next UN gig.

  19. Just as I expected. The Climate Inastitute’s 2016 accounts
    http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_Annual_Review_2015-16-FINAL_WEB.pdf
    show:
    Revenue $1,181,388
    Other income $10,950
    Employee benefits expense ($949,551)
    Depreciation and amortisation expense ($18,202)
    Other expenses ($486,925)

    In other words, they spend virtually all of their income on their own salaries.

    They ended 2016 (that’s 30 June 2016) with $1,549,816 in the bank and total liabilities of $189,554. By folding now, it would appear that they can give what is left of their cash – a paltry $million or so – to themselves, rather than use it as intended.

    Have I misinterpreted anything ……

    • Curious as to what the FTE head count is on which they spent approx. $2,000,000 Oz in direct labor and benefits.

    • This was my immediate thought. It is close to sc@ming to pay for what are non jobs.

      Personally, I consider that any body that is designated as a charity (has governmental charitable status and the tax breaks that come with that designated status) ought not to be permitted by law, to pay any of its staff more than $100,000 pa, with the vast majority of employed staff at no more than the country’s average wage.

      I would make an exception for hospitals and the like, but nothing more. If these bodies want to pay their staff more then they should not be deemed a charity.

  20. I was always confused by Australia. They only have 23 million people on a land mass the size of the USA. Their per capita CO2 emissions must have been so low as to not even be able to measure but they were one of the most vocal countries on the CO2 issue.
    Not only that they have ginormous wildfires that must have contributed a million times more CO2 than their population.
    Like I said, ???

    • You think that’s confusing Archie how about this: the Australian federal and state governments are hell-bent on eliminating coal as a fuel for electricity generation locally while encouraging and benefitting through taxes and royalties its mining and export, Australia being by far the world’s top coal exporter at 36% of total world coal exports (2015).

    • No, mobs like TCI loved to blame Australia for having the highest per capita emissions. With a low population our total emissions were low on a world scale, so that was never mentioned. Good riddance to bad rubbish, as my grandmother would say.

    • It is worse than you think.
      Australia is actually a net carbon sink, not an emitter.
      So the rest of the world should be paying us to offset some of their emissions.

    • Yet, people in Australia like Tony McCleod believe the media when the media states, with scientific fact of course, that Aus is the worlds largest emitter of GHG’s!

    • Canada has that beat for stupid by a mile! Second coldest country on the planet leading the fight against non-existent global warming! -29C here last night! Good grief!

      • Selfie Boy will be kicked out at the next election: even his past supporters no longer want him. The only question is whether there’s anyone better who can replace him.

    • Not only that. If Australia sank below the waves tomorrow, it would make no measurable difference to the climate. Form the past many years, China’s annual GROWTH in CO2 emissions has exceeded Australia’s TOTAL annual emissions. And narcissistic politicians really think that the rest of the world is looking to follow our our good example.

  21. Its an obsolescent organisation.
    The heavy lifting is now being done through the RET, Labor/Liberal consensus and the Greens, who wag both the major party’s tails.
    Once climate change due to CO2 is mainstreamed and becomes orthodox, no one wants to support such an organisation.
    Unfortunately we Aussies are looking at a grim, South Australian, future.
    Widespread outages and expensive electricity if its available.
    The destruction of our manufacturing industry and defence industry.
    Speaking to a South African acquaintance she laughed.
    At home they advertise when you have electricity and load shed you.
    Where her sister lives, she gets four hours a day electricity.
    We are not being led by the best and the brightest at the moment.
    Many migrants came to Australia to get away from such incompetence.
    Its time someone spoke up.
    There are a lot of eager ears.

    • Exactly Dave , what research? Have heard nothing but fearmongering and blatant desperate attempts to persuade the masses of impending doom if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels .
      The biggest mouthpiece flimflam actually owns beachfront property , like all good shuysters .
      Do as I say not as I do , just don’t let the door slam you on the arse on the way out .

      • ….of the fools, by the fools, and for the fools. (I think that also applies to anyone who donated to them.)

    • Since the internet became popular, “research” is now actually searching Google for what you want to find, publicly agreeing with like-minded activists and PR stunts.

  22. It will be a relief to listen to the ABC news without hearing CI nonsense. (There will still be plenty of other nonsense, of course.)

    I can happily live with never hearing any more from Tim It-ain’t-gonna-rain-no-mo’ Flannery.

  23. Mostly known for its attempt to perpetuate a climate fraud on the world by changing historical temperatures that it thought no one had access to. As it turned out the actual readings were still in the Australian Museum, the original logs. Which laid waste to the hypothesis of the warmists.

  24. So….

    When denied our valuable tax dollars, they just can’t survive. Oh the humanity!

    Do I really need a sarc?

  25. Well, they fold with some big notches in their bow: Wivenhoe dam burst and the Victorian desalination plant white elephant being prominent. Thanks guys, we’ll really miss you.

  26. They’re looking for wind turbine maintenance and uninstallers in Texas. Anything recyclable in the turbine or panel? Any potential in an alternate energy junk yard? Who’s going to pay for the mess on the lands they’ve ruined.

    Are there no honest men or women in Washington?

  27. Another brick falls from the wall protecting the global warming scare.

    The Acid Rain scare of the 1980s is now merely a memory that only comes to mind when people are reminded of it. The global warming scare will soon be the same.

    Richard

  28. You mean they can not carry on with this most important work , where there is ‘no time to waste ‘ and its the ‘most important event ever ‘ without a large amount of cash in their pockets . Do they no care about the planet ?

  29. “I am not disrespecting the quality of their web pages, but the Lateral Systems product seems quite expensive, though no doubt comparable to similar bespoke offerings.

    By comparison, WUWT runs on WordPress.com – a content management system which allows people to create a new website for free.”

    An example of the difference in behaviour when spending one’s own money compared with spending somebody else’s: private enterprise (wealth producing) v funding via taxation or public subscription (wealth consuming).

    It is why ‘Government’ can never be efficient, and why ‘charities’ spend far more on themselves than their supposed beneficiaries.

    • Somebody has to do the work. They aren’t a volunteer organization per se. That means they have to assign a staffer or pay someone else. If someone on staff does the job, that means something else won’t get done.

      My friends on the board of a charitable organization once asked me if a certain project was doable in-house. By the time I had listed all the resources required, it was obvious to them that it was much cheaper to pay someone else to do the job than to do it in-house for ‘free’.

  30. Didn’t Yale close its Climate Change Institute last march ?
    Soon there will be no safe place for the snowflakes….they’ll just melt away,

  31. “Other people’s money”, seems to have run out ..

    CHEERS all round

    Next.. subsidies on wind and solar, and the RET :-)

  32. I note that their website puts up a box asking for personal details for ‘joining’ and a ‘click here’ to make a donation. As they have ‘ceased trading’ is this actionable?

  33. Good riddance to bad rubbish! I hope it is the first of thousands of similar closures of parasitic pseudo-scientific organisations.

  34. Don’t you just love the way these “intelligent, scientifically grounded” folks reduce the issue to the simplistic and irrelevant fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Not only that, but have persuaded the public that this minor GHS is virtually the ONLY GHS of consequence (excepting methane).

  35. Too bad it was not closed the Roman Way –
    burn it and salt it, slavery for the survivors…

  36. We in real science have never blinked: not once. We will bury every KooK who ever said AGW could have possibly been real.

    You hold your breath.

    • AGW may well be real.
      Catasrophic AGW that requires application of the Precautionary Principle… that’s near certainly not real.
      Indeed, it looks like merely noticeable AGW may not exist too.

      But that doesn”t mean that land use change, urban heat islands and even trace gas emissions can have no impact on global weather systems. Just not a big impact.

  37. “The Board of The Climate Institute (TCI) has announced that the TCI will cease to operate on June 30 2017.”
    Sounds like a call for climate cash, with the veiled threat of closing.

  38. Govt funds drying up………….This is FANTASTIC news!!!!

    Hasnt taken long for reactions to Trump, these folks had a good reason to be crying when hillary lost….

  39. I recall reading that some Australian group (perhaps even the government) had donated a total of $88 million to the Clinton Foundation over a 10 year period and would cease future donations in 2017. Unrelated?

    • As I recall, the Australian Gillard-led Labor Government (Democrat equivalent) donated $50M or so of foreign aid funds to the Clinton Foundation. Post-Australian-politics, Gillard had an executive position (unpaid – but with all sorts of travel/accommodation – etc perks – but hey, she had her Australian Parliamentary pension/superannuation to tide her over, didn’t she?) with one of the Clinton Foundation arms. She was also involved with HRC’s presidential campaign. Coincidence?

      PS for Australian commentators – anyone know what Time Matheson (Gillard’s consort when she was Prime Minister) is doing these days? [Purely objective question, since I have no idea.]

  40. Perhaps the philanthropists have decided their money is better spent on current problems than speculations of possible problems that might materialize a century or more down the line.

  41. The closure of store front climates alarmist businesses has started and in less than 3 years they will all be history . Not only is the funding drying up fast but the promoters are going to be held accountable .
    The biggest scientific fraud in history has resulted in the premature deaths of 10’s of thousands so
    the promoters and architects don’t get to just walk .
    Who knew that money was the cause of global warming ?

  42. I know where they went wrong — the mission statement should have begun with “Australia’s aboriginal climate…” rather than “Australia’s original climate…”. Simple! Makes all the difference in support money!

  43. Oh such great news!.
    A few years back one of the leading lights of this bunch of Dumbos (apologies to Disney) scrounged $80 or $90 M of Govt (ie tax payer)$ to demonstrate the “proven” technology (Huh?) of geothermal energy.
    The casing corroded out (who’d a thunk it) and the whole thing fell in a heap (including the investments of the gullibilies who bought shares).
    Meanwhile around that time same bloke bought an esturine river front property and when asked was he worried about rising sea levels said not a problem in my lifetime (or something similar)

  44. “OPM no longer available ” could become a rather familiar sight soon.

    (=Other People’s Money if you don’t know it !)

  45. Lack of philanthropic support means they ran out of stupid or those with alternate agendas did not see a payoff. Oh well, move on to the next protest theme.

  46. “The Board announced that the decisions comes as a result of being unable to establish the viable level of funding that would enable The Climate Institute to continue in a meaningful, sustainable form.”

    “Sustainable” probably doesn’t mean what they think it means.

    Best thing about TCI: I got immense pleasure from them TWICE – once when they were defunded by the A666ott Regime, and once when they ran out of donations and closed down.

  47. PS A666ott was wrong. When he took away the then Climate Council’s funding he said he believed Flannery would continue to share his views for nothing. Turns out he didn’t.

Comments are closed.