Climate Change Australia – Bjorn Lomborg On The Warmists’ War On Facts

Posted on Sat 05/16/2015 by


Bolt New 01By Andrew Bolt ~

Bjorn Lomborg on the despicable campaign by group-thinking academics to shut down his proposed centre at the University of Western Australia:


Bjørn Lomborg

Opponents of free debate are celebrating. Last week, under pressure from climate-change activists, the University of Western Australia cancelled its contract to host a planned research centre, Australia Consensus, intended to apply economic cost-benefit analysis to development projects — giving policymakers a tool to ensure their aid budgets are spent wisely.

The centre in Perth was to be a collaboration with a think tank I run, Copenhagen Consensus, which for a decade has conducted similar research. Working with more than 100 economists, including seven Nobel laureates, we have produced research that measures the social and economic benefits of a wide range of policies, such as fighting malaria, reducing malnutrition, cutting air pollution, improving education and tackling climate change.

Therein lay the problem. This kind of comparison can upset those who are committed to advocating less effective investments, particularly poor responses to climate change…

There is a strong sense among some climate-change activists, however, that global warming should not be subject to such [cost-benefit] comparison. Thus it is easier for them to use emotional labels like “climate denier” …

An 88-year-old UWA professor said he had never seen anything like this at the university. “People have been rejected on ­account of insufficient abilities but not because they do not have the right type of view,” Hank Greenway told The Weekend Australian. What is the lesson for young academics? Avoid producing research that could lead to politically difficult answers. Steer clear of results that others might find contentious…

Facts must never, ever be seen as an unwelcome contribution to policy debate.


Many on the Left have found themselves putting no-but-yes arguments to advance the intolerance they actually like to think they oppose.

For instance, many want racial division introduced to our Constitution, yet want the kudos of still seeming anti-racist.

Many want free speech restricted, yet still want to seem warriors for free speech.

Many want to excuse Islam as a benign faith opposed only by racists, yet still want to seem feminists.
Graham Readfern, a warmist extremist, now gives a typical no-but-yes argument in The Guardian to justify the shutting down of Lomborg’s centre:

Conservatives and climate science deniers desperately want to make a martyr out of Lomborg, claiming he has been the victim of zealotry and a mob of raging climate campaigners.

What really happened is that too many academics found Lomborg’s methods wanting and his historic views on climate change to be offensive.

“Offensive”, note, not false.

Pathetic. And even more so when Redfearn has not proved a single real example of Lomborg’s methods being “wanting”, merely referring to contestable claims by fellow alarmists.  All we have left against Lomborg is that his views are “offensive” to warmists.

So no-but-yes, Lomborg is indeed a victim of “zealotry and a mob of raging climate campaigners”. Hear it from the mouth of one of those zealots, confirming what he denies.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Andrew Bolt’s columns appear in Melbourne’s Herald Sun, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Adelaide’s Advertiser. He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10’s The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am. He is also heard from Monday to Friday at 8am on the breakfast show of radio station MTR 1377, and his book  Still Not Sorry remains very widely read.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog .