From the 2011 Australian Research Council report: as much as $45,700,000 was spent on An Environmentally Sustainable Australia in 2011.
The cash cow that is “Climate Change” is so loaded that over a six year period, $718,000 dollars of ARC funds has flowed to “believers” (their terminology) to study and convert dissenters.
The death threat that wasn’t (by the kangaroo culler — John Coochey) was made at an event that deserves more attention. The “Deliberative Democracy” turns out to be part of a project funded by the Australian Research Council to the tune of $378,500. It’s title: Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change. This year, a new version of the same project has been awarded another $340,000.
Quite properly, the deliberative forum claims it was not going to take sides:
“The project sought to engage with the full range of positions from people who are sceptical about climate change through to those who are very concerned. We do not endorse any particular point of view – it is the aim of the project to find out what these views might be.”
But the team included known alarmist Will Steffen. Andrew Bolt discussed the Forum and eye witnesses of the project report tell how skeptics were treated:
Mondo:
Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.
The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.
John Coochey:
… they hired a comedian [Rod Quantock] previously trading as Mr Snooze (to be fair he was not bad modern style of humor) to ridicule anyone who was not a believer. That is not even an attempt at deliberation.”
In the name of research they had to listen to Rod Quantock tell jokes about skeptics at dinner? Was his speaking fee paid by the ARC grant?
The proposals always look so noble. The leading researcher, Dr Simon Niemeyer, describes his philosophy:
The solution is not to dazzle unbelievers with science, but to engage everybody in a mature debate
How mature is it to hire comedians to mock the unbelievers? How unbiased are the researchers who refer to one half of the public as “unbelievers” — implying not that they hold a different opinion, but that that some scientists know “the truth”, the one and only permitted view, and anyone who disagrees gets “dazzled” by the light.
But he doesn’t want to browbeat skeptics:
So the task now is to see if a more considered approach to debate is possible in the wider public sphere and to engage with people with different views rather than try to harangue them
Source: SMH
Browbeating, and haranguing are right out, but it is alright to dismiss, denigrate and categorize those who disagree?
After all that work they found that beating skeptics over the head with transparent propaganda while suppressing their views only make them more determined skeptics. Surprise me. Did we need $378k to find that out? I could have told them for free. And this is always the way with these projects to understand “skeptics” — they rarely come to ask the leading skeptics what it is that drives them. Obviously they don’t want to know what makes the most informed and active skeptics tick, they just want to know how to convert the punters to the state religion. If they want to convert the skeptics, all they need is some evidence.
The Orwellian use of the phrase “climate change” is so complete, that the report authors are oblivious to the meaning of the things they write:…
” it should be noted that the nature of the project outcomes also has implications for the governance of climate change at all levels of government.”
The report on the deliberative democracy forum (CCPS).
It’s as if they think they can govern the weather.
These three projects were awarded to teams that included Dr Simon Niemeyer– the lead author of the first “deliberative democracy forum”.
————————————————————-
Approved Project Title
Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of
individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change
DP0879092 Dr SJ Niemeyer; Dr P’ Hart; Dr KP Hobson; Prof W Steffen; Prof BG Mackey; Dr JA Lindesay
2008 : $ 182,500
2009 : $ 176,000
2010 : $ 20,000
Total: $378,500
Primary RFCD 3601 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
This research addresses the ARC National Research Priorities Goal of ‘An Environmentally Sustainable Australia, specifically ‘Reducing and capturing emissions in transport and energy generation’. Avoiding, managing, and/or adapting to the climate change impacts is now the most pressing global environmental problem. This project will produce tangible and original insights into policy options for institutional adjustment to future climate change in Australia; will provide insight into the scope for positive community behavioural change; and possible transformations in Australian social debate to maximise adaptive capacity. It will also strengthen and produce original conceptual approaches and research methods.
————————————————————–
DP120103976
Approved Project Title
Deliberative democracy in the public sphere: achieving deliberative outcomes in mass publics
Niemeyer, Dr Simon J; Dryzek, Prof John S; Schlosberg, Prof David; Hobson, Dr Kersty P;
Goodin, Prof Robert E; Bachtiger, Prof Andre; Setala, Dr Maija T
2012 $110,000.00
2013 $110,000.00
2014 $120,357.00
Total $340,357.00
Primary For 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
Project Summary
This project will systematically explore ways in which citizens can engage more deeply with complex policy issues
without the need to resort to massive expenditure on running multiple deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies. It will identify the language is needed to deliberatively inform and the vehicles for providing that information.
Climate Change & the Public Sphere Project
———————————————–
DP120104797
Approved Project Title
Rethinking climate justice in an age of adaptation: capabilities, local variation, and public
deliberation
Schlosberg, Prof David; Niemeyer, Dr Simon J
2012 $30,000.00
2013 $70,000.00
2014 $150,000.00
Total $250,000.00
Primary FoR 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, Administering Organisation The University of Sydney
Project Summary
This project aims to produce recommendations, designed by citizens and stakeholders, for climate adaptation policies in three regions of Australia. These recommendations will be based on a definition of climate justice that incorporates basic needs and resources to be protected, as identified by potentially impacted communities.
[source]
——————————————
References: Page to find all ARC grants
2010 grants
2011 grants