How easily it could collapse. What more proof do we need that the climate-crisis facade is maintained by hiding the counter arguments. Evidently the worst possible thing is for the public to be exposed to little pieces of paper with a message that runs against the creed.
The South Australian (SA) government is very very afraid, issuing statements yesterday, designed to intimidate Flinders University into rejecting the Lomborg Consensus Centre. They know that they can’t defend their “wind power” and “climate” policies, and the public will be up in arms when they realize how much money has been burned. (In 2012 Hamish Cumming estimated South Australian windfarms have saved 4% of their rated capacity in fossil fuels at a cost of $1,484 per ton.)
But it’s not about the environment or the economy, it’s about prestige, popularity and status.
If the SA government fails to stop the Lomborg Centre at Flinders University, they know they will be called nasty names by their peers. They admit as much in their bizarre statements, which effectively use political pressure against a university to keep it free of “political pressure”, and admits researchers can be bought to support an agenda. Flinders Uni will look weak if they cave in now.
Are there any universities left in Australia that have academic freedom?
In a series of statements yesterday aimed at the Flinders University Council and the Coalition, the Weatherill government warned Dr Lomborg that he was not welcome in the state as it would damage South Australia’s image among the climate change fraternity.
State Labor also warned Flinders University that its academics would be bought off to peddle an anti-climate change agenda, and likened federal funding for the proposed centre to tactics used by the tobacco lobby.
Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne said the state’s position was “bizarre” and a “disgraceful intervention” in Flinders’ academic affairs.
The SA Government oppose the Lomborg Centre on “ideological” grounds while declaring that universities should be free of er… “ideological” influence.
He [Ian Hunter, SA Climate Change Minister] said the Flinders University Council should immediately rule out establishing the centre. “It needs to be made abundantly clear that the federal government’s funding carrot to set up the Lomborg centre comes with ideological strings attached.
So university researchers can be bought by governments to “support their agenda”. What does that say about the 97% government funded “consensus”?
“The federal Liberal government’s attitude to climate change is well known — and derided globally — and this funding is designed to buy willing researchers to support their agenda.
The former federal Labor governments attitude to climate change was “well known” too. Did Weatherill protest about the ideological strings then?
What’s wrong with Lomborg’s arguments? He’s not illogical, mistaken, or wrong, but Mr Weatherills friends don’t think much of him:
South Australia’s Left-aligned Climate Change Minister Ian Hunter, a strong factional ally of Premier Jay Weatherill, yesterday described Dr Lomborg as a “discredited pundit”.
The Australian Federal Government is just like Phillip Morris, is that what you mean Mr Weatherill?
“This funding tactic is similar to those used by the tobacco lobby when they were trying to obfuscate the science around the health impacts of smoking.
The same “funding tactic” was used by Gillard to set up the Climate Commission, the Climate Authority, and countless climate Quango’s. Did Weatherill oppose those tobacco-lobby-type tactics?
In the end it’s not about the climate, or the economy — it’s image and reputation:
“Our state has provided strong leadership on climate change in this country, and this centre here at Flinders would certainly damage our image and reputation in this area, which is precisely what the federal government intends.”
There is no going back once the genie is out of the bottle. Hide that information! Bury that point of view!
The SA government is anti-research, against academic freedom, and doesn’t care if there are better ways to help the environment and the poor. It would rather waste the money but preserve their “image” and “reputation”.
Read more in The Australian
The warmists would filter and screen,
Those appointees of whom they’re not keen,
To prevent opposition,
To their climate position,
Thus ensuring such posts are kept Green.