Europe Giving up on Climate, More Interested in Economy?

The Spectator magazine sponsored a debate ‘The global warming hysteria is over: Time for a return to sanity’ held on Tuesday at the Royal Geographical Society in London. 

According to Andrew Montford who attended the event:

“I was a bit disappointed overall – none of the presentations managed to combine slick presentation with a strong coherent argument…

“Here are some of the things that stuck in my mind. The first was the sense of anger in the auditorium. People were just very, very annoyed about what was going on. There were times when the warmists on the stage looked taken aback by the heat that they were receiving.

“Simon Singh’s presentation was memorable, but unfortunately mostly for the wrong reasons. He set up what he called a credibility spectrum, with scientists and academies on one side and sceptics on the other and called on us to trust the establishment on the climate change issue…

“Benny Peiser’s talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant – that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far. He also noted that they have moved on to other issues, such as the economy.”

Benny is clearly of this opinion writing in Public Policy Europe that:

“The global warming hysteria is well and truly over. How do we know? Because all the relevant indicators – polls, news coverage, government u-turns and a manifest lack of interest among policy makers – show a steep decline in public concern about climate change.”  

This may be the situation in Europe, but unfortunately we are lagging behind in Australia.   At least, it would appear the Australian media and government doesn’t seem to realize that the public is giving up on the issue even here. 



, ,

60 Responses to Europe Giving up on Climate, More Interested in Economy?

  1. Luke April 1, 2011 at 4:42 am #

    Does the atmosphere actually care what the pollies or public think?

    Of course people are annoyed – bad news is never received well.

  2. el gordo April 1, 2011 at 7:33 am #

    Political bad news is not received well, Gillard has buried her head in a bucket of sand. The PM seems to think the NSW drubbing has nought to do with her or the carbon tax.

  3. Neville April 1, 2011 at 8:01 am #

    Luke one day we’ll know whether the science made sense or not.

    In the meantime it definitely doesn’t make sense for Australia to try and fix the climate by any method and to think you can is a delusuional absurdity.

    For the thousanth time, we must adapt to anything the weather/climate throws at us.
    If we need more water we must find and store more, we must do research to find more drought tolerant plants and animals, if we get back to stronger cyclones and floods we must adapt again.

    Of course we should spend a reasonable ammount of money on new energy technology and hopefully, slowly we will find a winner and it will probably surprise everyone when that time comes.

  4. jennifer April 1, 2011 at 8:03 am #

    From the piece by Benny in Public Policy Europe:

    “Part of the reason for the evident waning of public concern can be attributed to the issue-attention cycle developed by Anthony Downs in 1972. According to Downs’ concept, certain environmental events can trigger public interest and concern. After a while, though, and even if the supposed problem remains unresolved, other issues replace the original concern because the huge costs to ‘solve’ the problem become apparent while boredom and fatigue set in.”

    Of course the cold winters would not have helped the alarmists cause.

  5. Neville April 1, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    It’s a crying shame we have wasted so much money on the politics of CC and not used just a portion of those funds deliberately aimed at adaptation, first and last.

    That we are still trying to change the climate via the bi-polar Gillard govt and silly Timmy is frustrating in the extreme. We are indeed governed by mad people.

    Even Timmy their CC expert panel leader admits the entire world cannot make a difference for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.

    Yet we still carry on expecting our 5% reduction fix to make a difference by 2020, what a pack of embeciles.

  6. val majkus April 1, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Neville I totally agree and here’s an article which should give us a reason for thought
    by S Fred Singer
    cutting and pasting from the article

    I have served in five different positions under both Republican and Democrat administrations and have had some modest success in cutting authorized spending. But the experience has been difficult and has caused me some personal problems. I am afraid this will be the case for anyone who tries to cut spending — in the face of an entrenched bureaucracy that thrives on ever-increasing budgets.

    Currently, Congress is trying to cut some of the more egregious programs that are based on fears about catastrophic climate change. Witness the Energy Tax Prevention Act that would stop the EPA from mandating job-killing emission limits for carbon dioxide. Or the efforts to eliminate a whole slew of subsidies for uneconomic projects for “renewable” energy.


    So what’s to be done? The political appointees soon get frustrated when they realize how difficult it is to change course. We need lots of mid-level managers who are not afraid to put their jobs on the line. The bureaucracy is steeped in a culture of automatic annual increases — and new programs. The American public and also the states have become used to government grants, subsidies and services; there are more than 1,000 federal grant-in-aid programs for states, involving education, housing, transportation, etc. Most of these federal services can and should be replaced by locally funded and controlled ones — closer to the voters and taxpayers, and less costly. However, there is need to take slow steps in cutting the federal budget; withdrawal symptoms can be painful, politically damaging, and could kill the whole enterprise. Remember that “pulling pigs out of the trough causes a lot of squealing.”

  7. el gordo April 1, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    The hysteria is well and truly over because the average punter is not convinced by the AGW rhetoric. For example, they have been telling us for years that we should be alarmed by icebergs, because it’s a sure sign of global warming.

    Now it seems that icebergs are in fact benign carbon sinks.

  8. debbie April 1, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    It’s a shame that people got tugged around by their heartstrings and also by their fears.
    We still haven’t figured out if CO2 is the big evil of our time or not.
    Using alarmist tactics and appealing to our emotions will only work for a while.
    After that most people do want to know whether the ‘prize is worth the price’.
    Or, even if there is a prize.
    A lot of people are also asking valid questions about how that carbon tax could possibly achieve the stated goals.
    It is going to raise a lot of money and people would obviously like to see a reasonable or at least a noticeable return on their investment.
    Even people who are ‘believers’ in global warming/climate change do not necessarily believe this tax will have any affect at all.
    That creates a problem for our politicians because they’re trying to argue if you don’t support the tax you don’t believe in climate change.
    Talk about a quantum leap!

  9. val majkus April 1, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    I put this on Jo Nova’s blog but relevant here too:
    DON’T miss the latest from Dr David Evans and Prof Bob Carter
    how well have those scary forecasts from the IPCC stacked up?
    Not at all is the answer
    Now what happens when you pull pigs from the trough (see my link to S Fred Singer above) or the Govt from a minimal budget surplus which I suspect the carbon tax is being used for

    Oh yes, the Govt calls us ‘extremists’ or in Mungo Macullum’s case ‘the howling mob’ – that’s squealing!

  10. Elliot Trapp April 1, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    If the situation that you people are putting this planet in wasn’t so absolutely serious, your blind skepticism and opposition to those trying to help this planets future populations would be quiet comical.

    But instead you continue to deny that the real scientists are actually trying to help humanity rather than to maintain profits, as is Jennifer’s position. You do not seem to consider that our inaction will cause many unnecessary extinctions, which will ultimately effect us as a species. You do not want to accept that you will have to step out of your comfort zones and change your ways to minimise the impact of the warming that is occurring as a result of our emission.
    This position will ultimately lead to we as a species having to make even greater changes in our lifestyles..

    I am not sure if you folks are aware that Jennifer is considered rather a joke in scientific circles, and her selling out to the highest bidder has only entrenched this view amongst ‘real’ scientists and academics. The only support she receives are from other immoral so called scientists and industry persons. And those who blindly follow her deceptions. Hardly the type of people we should be trusting the future of our planet too.

    I am sure this post will be pulled rather quickly, if it even makes it through the vetting process, but I wanted to attempt to let you all know just how dangerous you people are..

    I am not saying that you should blindly accept everything that scientists say or report, it is an excellent quality to question these things, but when faced with an overwhelming majority of scientific results and conclusions it is time to stand aside and let the people who are trying to help us do their jobs.

    Jennifer and alike are not trying to help you at all. The only person Jennifer is trying to help is Jennifer and those that pay her the very large sums of money that she gets for holding these roles..

    Please, please, please people if you read one book this year please read Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Naomi Oreskes (Author), Erik M. Conway (Author).

    I will be rather surprised if this post makes it up, and even more so if it remains. But I hope that it will and I hope that some of you at least will understand what I am writing and read the text I have listed.

    If not, the joke is on you, as it will be your children and grand children that will hold you responsible for the planet that we leave them.

  11. S.T.Beare April 1, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    They still have not come to terms with the N.S.W elections,let them stew awhile longer
    the Qld elections are next.
    When the Federal elections come around the Greens will be roadkill by there own actions.

  12. jennifer April 1, 2011 at 9:01 pm #


    What your write is nonsense including that someone pays me large sums of money. In fact I earn very little money not even enough to afford a car.

    But I have the three things that are most important in life: friends, freedom and time to reflect.

  13. Hasbeen April 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm #

    Elliot, you sound genuine, so I will suggest you read the names on the partition signed by over 30,000 scientists, including 9,000 PhD’s, to the US congress, stating that they believed the AGW theory was totally wrong.

    After you read that, you may start to agree with the majority of the population who have seen through the garbage.

  14. Debbie April 1, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Please explain how you have got out of your comfort zone and changed your ways?
    What sacrifices have you made to help this planet?
    What is your definition of a real scientist or a real academic?
    What is your definition of an overwhelming majority?
    If you want to make accusations about Jennifer on her own blog perhaps you should provide evidence for that as well?

  15. el gordo April 1, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    Yes, Mr Beare, every state and territory will desert Labor, it is only a matter of time. There will be a new political landscape where the city Liberals and country Nationals blend perfectly into an agrarian socialist movement.

    Elliot, please return more often and join the discussion. These days our resident troll just wanders around waving his arms, we could do with some fresh blood.

  16. Johnathan Wilkes April 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Elliot Trapp
    When people automatically assume that their post will not see the light or be deleted, my BS detector automatically goes into alert mode.

    I visit a few blogs on both side of the debate and surprisingly the only ones that constantly delete posts or ban users are the “warmist” blogs. Disagree with them more than a few times and prove your point and you are on your way.

    Here or on any other “sceptic” blog unless you are extremely rude and libellous you can post to your heart’s content.
    The fact that you assumed deletion of your post, tells me where you are coming from without even reading it.

    And please not with the CHILDREN!!!! again.
    No need to pull on the heart-strings!
    Our ancestors managed the same as we did, and I’m sure our children will do the same.

  17. debbie April 1, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    An interesting viewpoint.

  18. TonyfromOz April 1, 2011 at 10:51 pm #


    please don’t tell me you’ve been conned by that old crock of bovine waste products of people in certain establishments being in the pay of somebody because they don’t follow the paradigm you believe.
    What you need to do is remove that scotoma from your eye and see just what is really happening.

    The following is a pdf document from just over a year back.
    It details Australian Government grants to Tertiary education establishments.
    However, it only details those grants given to those establishments who are investigating what the Government would like to see as confirming their beliefs on this subject.

    It would seem that just by putting in either the phrase ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Global Warming’ they were almost assured of getting a (taxpayer funded) Government grant.

    The amount totals out at just on $200 Million, and read that again, One year, and this just here in Australia.

    There are 20 pages, and Elliot, good luck reading it through.

    You won’t find Jennifer’s name anywhere on those 20 pages with 20 to 30 entries a page, ranging in amounts from $250K to $12.5 Million.

    So Elliot, when you come here pointing the finger like you have, mate, you better be able to put up or shut up, because this long list paints an entirely different story to the one you’re pushing.


  19. Schiller Thurkettle April 2, 2011 at 3:06 am #

    It’s entirely likely — indeed, probable — that the worst scandals of the IPCC and their camp followers have yet to be revealed.

    There are FOI requests pending, and several lawsuits as well, which could bring the CAGW hoax roaring back to front-page headlines.

  20. Nville April 2, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    Elliot just about everything you’ve said above is total nonsense, surely you can’t be that stupid?

    Just a small tip there is nothing, zero, zip and buggerall any couintry can do to change the climate even if you believe the silly waffle stated above.

    Here are the latest projections from the EIA out to 2035 for you to read, for your sake please look at these facts and then come back and admit you were wrong.

    But if you’re one of the fundamentalist fools who follow the delusional Flannery he now states that if the whole world stopped emitting today we wouldn’t see a drop in temp for hundreds of years or possibly a thousand years.

    Starting to comprehend are you and more importantly are you removing those religious blinkers from your eyes?

  21. Neville April 2, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    Elliot what a load of stupid waffle and nonsense, please read the latest EIA projections out to 2035 and then come back and admit you were wrong. We can’t influence anything you silly fool.

  22. Neville April 2, 2011 at 8:59 am #

    Elliot here’s a recent interview with John Christy that explains it all in simple, easy terms, do yourself a favour and listen to it.

  23. debbie April 2, 2011 at 9:08 am #

    I can verify your point from personal experience.
    When our organisation went searching for some government funding, everything we found that we could qualify for had an ‘environmental/climate tag’ attached to it and required us to do studies about how our members would be:
    “investigating what the Government would like to see as confirming their beliefs on this subject.” (to use your words)

    We would absolutely have to put the phrases ‘global warming’ ‘climate change’ plus in our case ‘a future with less water’ if we wanted to have access to considerable sums of government (tax payer) funding.
    Many of them also required us to do surveys and run courses about those topics but it absolutely had to be from the Government’s view.
    It led us to deciding that we would not access government funding even though we would dearly love to have access to that amount of money.
    It was going to compromise us from the get go.
    For Elliot’s benefit, that does not mean that we disbelieve everything that is said about climate change.
    We were compromised because we had to take a position if we wanted access to the funding.
    We believe in ‘social responsibility’ which is definitely not the same as the philosophy behind ‘climate change/global warming’ now that it has become a political issue.
    So Elliot,
    You definitely need to ‘put up or shut up’ as Tony says.
    Most people who comment on this blog are very happy to engage and debate and you will notice that there are several differing opinions.
    You need to supply something more that sweeping statements and unfounded accusations about the person who operates this blog.
    Even some questions would have demonstrated a little more credibility.
    Don’t you also find it interesting that the only direct accusation you made (ie you would have your comment deleted) is not what happened?

  24. debbie April 2, 2011 at 9:53 am #
    Check this out for unfounded vitriol and yet another quantum leap about the intelligence and motivations of ‘climate sceptics’.
    Somehow it’s now the internet’s fault that people come to have opinions that don’t necessarily agree with theirs.
    The comparison to the massive success of a You tube site of a young girl singing a song (I have to confess I have no wish to view it) and casting aspersions on people because they misspelt “shit” has got to be a real stretch!
    In what way does that prove an argument for AGW for goodness sake?
    Note also the sweeping and completely unfounded accusations.
    He wants to sound intelligent, but if anyone who reads it is actually intelligent, they would immediately think his arguments are stupid and completely irrelevant!
    I think everyone is going to have to face the fact that this argument has become political and that we’re going to have to put up with a lot of this schwitte 🙂
    Hopefully, enough will be willing to ask intelligent questions and form opinions based on the answers they receive.
    And yep, a lot of it will happen on the internet!

  25. Luke April 2, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    Elliot – despite my disagreement with 90% of those here 90% of the time and mouthing “what bunkum” at at least 50% of the posts – one should never accuse Jen of selling out. She believes in what she believes from first principles.

    “The only support she receives are from other immoral so called scientists and industry persons.” not wise to suggest those that supply her with moral support are immoral. Indeed their world view is that we’re the ones who are immoral. So all views are relative.

    Many of us however do agree that Flannery should keep away from microphones.

  26. Louis Hissink April 2, 2011 at 10:42 am #


    I don’t think any sceptics regard you and your fellow travellers as immoral – stupid, arrogant and ignorant yes, but not immoral.

  27. Debbie April 2, 2011 at 10:50 am #

    Good for you Luke,
    Well said.
    Maybe Bob Brown needs to stay away from the microphones as well?
    He tried to attribute the QLD floods to the Coal Mines and their CO2 production among other outlandish and completely unfounded accusations.
    Flannery of course has a lot more quantum leap associations to AGW in his MSM Repertoire .
    Those types of comments do way more damage to your case and your attempts to prove AGW theories than the much maligned ‘sceptics’.
    Those type of comments just make the genuine scientists even more defensive and less likely to want to educate and inform the public.

  28. val majkus April 2, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    Talking about keeping TF away from microphones someone sent me this:

    Tim Flannery has had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking human-made climate change will destroy Earth, says Andrew Bolt.
    TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to scare us stupid, and I can’t think of a better man for the job.
    This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he’ll get as part-time chairman of the Government’s new Climate Commission.
    His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.
    This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.
    He’s had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.
    Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing Flannery’s predictions, we’re now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.
    And we’re also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.
    So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammalogy, it may pay to check his record. Ready?
    In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney ‘s dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city “facing extreme difficulties with water”.
    Check Sydney ‘s dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.
    In 2008, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”
    Check Adelaide ‘s water storage levels today: 77 per cent.
    In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.
    Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane ‘s dam levels: 100 per cent full.
    All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.
    So let’s check on them, too.
    In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.
    As he put it: “Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming …
    “In Adelaide , Sydney and Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”
    One premier, Queensland ‘s Peter Beattie, took such predictions – made by other warming alarmists, too – so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on a desalination plant, saying “it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate”.
    But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned.
    (Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery’s big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.)
    Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that “the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally” by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.
    We should switch to “green” power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal – pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.
    “There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia’s economy for the best part of a century,” he said.
    “The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward.”
    Flannery repeatedly promoted this “straightforward” technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin , the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.
    Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk.
    The technology Flannery said was “relatively straight forward” wasn’t.
    One of Geodynamics’ five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.
    The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn’t predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further “delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region”.
    The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it’s no surprise the company’s share price has almost halved in four months.
    Never mind, here comes Flannery with his latest scares and you-beaut fix.
    His job as Climate Commission chief, says Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, is to “provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community” and “build the consensus about reducing Australia ‘s carbon pollution”.
    That, translated, means selling us whatever scheme the Government cooks up to tax carbon dioxide, doing to the economy what the floods have done to Flannery’s hot-rocks investment.
    See why I say Flannery is the right man for this job? Who better to teach us how little we really know about global warming and how much it may cost to panic?

    AND he’ll be in Ipswich on Thursday – Seats are limited so please register, or call (02) 6159 7624, by Wednesday 6 April 2011.

  29. el gordo April 2, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    Luke, on weekends I ‘get out more’ and usually go to Gutter Trash in Brisbane. The only reason I mention it is that there is an obvious sea change taking place in the minds of the rank and file, since Julia put the carbon tax on the table.

  30. Neville April 2, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    Good stuff Luke, but seriously Tim has been chosen by the govt to be their expert spokesman on CC .

    Doesn’t say much about the Gillard govt’s wisdom to choose such a numbskull to be their chief salesman to enlighten the public on AGW does it?

    Bolt and Price joked that Flannery was the gift that keeps on giving, I wonder why.

  31. Luke April 2, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    Well I might be immoral. You know I have these thoughts ….

    Not going out this weekend El Gordo – thought I’d cave it and watch a nice nature doco like BBC Life

  32. TonyfromOz April 2, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    Here’s a small apology from me.

    When I used that above link to where Government funding was actually going, I was responding to Elliot, but what I wanted to also do was to see if anybody really checked the link, because it’s patently obvious I was, er, stretching things a bit, and in fact that was intentional on my part.

    So often here, we are told to check links, read them, take it all in, and come to our own conclusions after doing all that.

    I mentioned that the allocations to Tertiary Establishments amounted to $200 Million, and then I mentioned that was for a year.

    A simple cursory check would show that the list covered almost 4 years.

    It covered 18 months of the new Rudd Labor Govt following their election in late 2007.
    That meant that the previous two and a half years were grants for the Howard Government, those ‘known’ environmental vandals.

    The really interesting part was that the Howard Government’s two and a half years covered 10 of those 20 pages, leaving ten pages for the Rudd Labor Government, but the overall total amounts were almost identical.

    Howard $100 Million in 30 months.
    Rudd $100 Million in 18 months.

    So, the Rudd Government were awarding those grants at more than twice the rate.

    However, what is really interesting is that those ‘proven’ environmental vandals from that Howard era were actually spending those big bucks on finding information as well.

    The second thing of interest is that the Tertiary Establishments knew exactly where their bread was buttered, and had a ‘good idea’ that there would be more funding available under the new political climate than under the old, provided of course that those two terms were included.

    Note also how much repeat funding was also made available.

    Now, some may say that this is normal operating procedure, but consider this.

    If that Establishment took the funding, and then came to conclusions not in agreement with what the Government wanted to hear to pursue its political agenda, do you really think that same establishment would get any further funding for the same or even different things, provided of course the two terms got a prominent mention.

    The only conclusion you can draw from that is that they need to say the right things to be eligible for funding, and keep in mind these are not just pennies, but big bucks, and that gives the impression of the exact thing that Elliot was referring to, only in the opposite direction, these establishments beholden to a political agenda.

    So it seems, it actually does work both ways.

    Oh, and so much for the Howard Government being environmental vandals.


  33. TonyfromOz April 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Hey Luke,

    Way off topic I know but speaking of good docos, have you seen the 6 part Ken Burns series from 2009, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea:

    If you haven’t, I highly recommend it. I think it’s still available at ABC stores.


  34. val majkus April 2, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    Tony I looked at that list – thank you for it – and I’ve on sent to a friend with an interest in both Qld and Monash Unis
    And tell me if you can which grantee achieved over 1 million dollars?
    (Just checking)
    Well no wonder he’s so vociferous!

  35. Debbie April 2, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    I didn’t spot your ‘one year’ remark in your post to Elliot. Neither did I check the link.I just knew the point you were making was correct from personal experience.
    This linking of funding to ‘environment/climatechange/globalwarming/etc” tags has been going on for years and it has definitely not been limited to one side of politics.
    In fact I believe it may have been the Howard Government that set the precedent and started making researchers, scientists universities, commodity groups etcetera, overly dependant on ‘government (tax payer) funding’.
    Are we allowed to guess the over 1 million grantee Val. Wouldn’t have the initials TF by any strange coincidence would he?

  36. TonyfromOz April 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    no, I think it might be good old Ove!


  37. el gordo April 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm #


    I’m not a big fan of the music, but the production is good. What camera and lighting are you using?

  38. val majkus April 2, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Tony’s right Debbie! Congrats Tony

  39. Debbie April 2, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Now I’ve checked the list.
    And the winners are:
    Gee sorry! There’s a rather long list here.
    I thought I would stick to only those above $600,000 but I have probably missed some.
    You’ll get the picture anyway.
    Notice when the raft of funding came out and for what.
    Not a lot of funding for human diseases or even progressive engineering solutions.
    There are many many more that are under $600,000!

    2005 James Cook University Hughes, T ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
    2005 The University of
    Western Australia
    Muddle, B ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy

    2009 The Australian National
    Peakall, R A multidisciplinary research program to assess
    limiting factors and predict impacts of climate
    change for endangered Australian orchids

    2009 The University of
    Zhao, J The future of palaeoclimate and archaeological
    research in Australia: next generation instrumentation
    for chronology and environmental

    2009 The University of Sydney
    Dickman, C The renaissance predator: complex predatorprey
    interactions and vertebrate diversity in
    arid Australia

    2009 The Australian National
    McCulloch, M Ocean Acidification in a Rapidly Increasing
    CO2 World

    2009 Monash University Forsyth, M Interphase Engineering of Reactive Metal Surfaces
    Using Ionic Liquids

    2009 The University of Melbourne
    Hoffmann, A Testing the DNA decay hypothesis of ecological

    2009 The University of New
    South Wales
    Moles, A How are weeds adapting to life in Australia?
    Quantifying the rate and direction of evolution
    in introduced species

    2008 Monash University Webley, P Renewable energy from carbon dioxide: Process
    engineering to obtain bio-oil from algae

    2008 The Australian National
    Arculus, R Australian Membership of the Integrated Ocean
    Drilling Program

    2008 The Australian National
    Dryzek, J Deliberative Global Governance $1,638,730 ( WHAT?????)

    2008 James Cook University Bird, M Environmental change, carbon cycling and
    human impact in tropical Australia

    2008 The University of New
    South Wales
    McNeil, B An Investigation into Oceanic CO2 Variability
    and its Influence on Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

    2008 University of Wollongong
    Roberts, R Monsoons and migrations: Quaternary climates,
    landscapes and human prehistory of the
    Arabian peninsula and the Indian subcontinent

    2008 Monash University Evans, A Megafauna and mega-extinction: assessing
    palaeocommunity change using dental complexity
    and shape analyses
    2008 The Australian National
    Cardillo, M Anatomy of a biodiversity hotspot: investigating
    the evolutionary and ecological basis of
    high plant diversity in southwestern Australia
    2008 Monash University Pringle, J Advanced Ionic Materials for Organic Photovoltaics
    2008 Deakin University Hodgson, P Development of new steel products by thin
    strip casting and direct thermomechanical processing
    2008 University of Wollongong
    Dou, S Giant Magnetocaloric Materials and Room
    Temperature Refrigeration
    2008 The University of
    Kennedy, E Process for treatment of fluorine-containing
    synthetic greenhouse gases
    2008 The University of New
    South Wales
    Curnoe, D The Late Pleistocene Peopling of East Asia and
    Associated Climate-Environment History
    2008 The Australian National
    Tregoning, P Environmental geodesy: variations of sea level
    and water storage in the Australian region
    2008 Monash University Nicholls, N Scientific basis for improved climate predictions
    on seasonal and climate-change timescales
    2007 The University of Sydney
    Shine, R Understanding and reversing the habitat shifts
    that have endangered the broad-headed snake
    2007 The University of
    Quiggin, J Climate change: adaptation and resilience in
    the face of uncertainty
    2007 The Flinders University
    of South Australia
    Prideaux, G Responses of southern Australian mammal
    faunas to climate change before and after human
    2007 Monash University Beringer, J Patterns and processes of carbon and water
    budgets across northern Australian landscapes:
    From point to region
    2007 Macquarie University Evans, J Vulnerability of the Murray-Darling basin
    hydrometeorology to human modification
    2007 The University of
    Chenoweth, S The Genetic Basis of Differences Between the
    2006 The University of Melbourne
    Karoly, D Improving understanding of climate change and
    its impacts in Australia through detection and
    attribution of climate change
    2006 The University of Melbourne
    McFadden, G Drug targets in malaria parasites $1,581,110
    2006 The Australian National
    Grove, R British Empire and the Natural World: the Environmental
    History of the British Empire and
    Commonwealth 1600-2000
    2006 The University of Sydney
    Underwood, A Connecting ecological processes controlling
    variation across spatial scales
    2006 The Australian National
    Gagan, M The Indian Ocean Dipole, Australasian drought,
    and the great-earthquake cycle: Long-term perspectives
    for improved prediction
    2005 The University of
    New tools for managing ecosystem responses
    to climate change on the southern Great Barrier
    2005 The University of New
    South Wales
    Sorrell, C Surface Processing of Photo-Sensitive Semiconducting
    Oxides for Solar-Hydrogen
    2005 The Australian National
    Fifield, L A new-generation gas-source radiocarbon system
    for integrated environmental and archaeological

  40. val majkus April 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    Debbie as us skeptics say ‘follow the money’
    There’s a video on Jo Nova’s site
    Prof Vincent Courtillot speaks with clarity
    The saddest thing the Professor said was that the career of any young assistants he might have would be detrimentally affected
    And looking at Tony’s list that certainly looks to be the case
    No wonder that most universities have a climate change page
    I guess I’m lucky, I’m not a scientist; I’ve never worked in a work place where to get ahead you had to believe in a certain thing
    Here’s a couple of paras from my favourite climatologist
    There are two sides to every story. The Chinese express it as Yin and Yang represented by a symbol. Yin is black and Yang white, but the dots indicate nothing is purely one or the other. Many react with cultural bias by assuming white is good and black is bad. The idea of balance is possibly one of the greatest victims of political correctness. It has distorted climate science, because they only considered one side and refused to follow the scientific method. This requires you to have a theory, which you try to disprove. If it’s disproved you must then consider the null hypothesis. In the case of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, they set out to prove that human CO2 was causing warming and climate change. They claim they proved it, but did so by restricting focus and manipulating data and computer programs. The null hypothesis was not allowed.
    Normally, they would find that human CO2 was not the cause and then ask the question, if not CO2 then what? It was a question aggressively asked of skeptics and the obvious simple answer was the sun. It’s why there was an active campaign to discredit the sun as the explanation. A major confusion is that the null hypothesis is considered a negative, possibly because the word null can mean zero. In the scientific context it means if it isn’t this, then it is something else.
    (his blog and the article are at
    The whole article is worth a read
    And as Dr Tim Ball used to tell me each time I asked to use one of his articles ‘thanks for keeping an open mind’
    But when your career is at stake, say you’re a young scientist, I can understand why some choose to ‘follow the money’

  41. gavin April 2, 2011 at 8:36 pm #

    Debbie; when given a long list such as yours, I say it looses most of it’s impact. When reading the print classified colums now I need to use a blue highlighter and a fine point red pen.

    Val;although it’s possible for me to cut and paste something that should be spaced or double spaced in the first place, I normally don’t bother.

    Jennifer; when I read a piece in a dailly Sydney rag yesterday that the Chinese are implementing a carbon tax, I thought we must learn their language soon to keep up with REAL climate science. bty I object to Nasif’s “real’s” based on having done a lot of complex number equations in pursuit of electrical engineering and radio spectrum physics.

    About a car, can I help? I seem to spend most of my tiny super pension and any little extras on laptops for grand kids or cars for their parents. One way or another we run a small fleet of low km 2nd hand Corollas. I find them here and there as I have for decades but it used to be 60′ -70’s 6 cyl Holdens. Last month I found two Toyotas, the first one, interstate and on ebay went to my daughter unseen. The second Toyota over our neighbourhood creek at about twice the price but younger was offered to my partner’s lot but they were too slow accepting so we kept it cause it matches the colour and mag wheels on one of the others downstairs.

    Guess what, I have never owned a new motor car but drove about a million miles before they became “kilometers”.


  42. Mack April 3, 2011 at 6:00 am #

    I’ve never owned a new car either, and Luke will be pleased I have never owned a wankermobeel (SUV ) (Pajero) although there are plenty of them about despite petrol at @ 2.20/ltre for regular in this country.
    Back on topic I think outside of Australia most punter’s eyes just glaze over when you start talking about global warming.

  43. el gordo April 3, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    Gavin, I agree with your critique on Deb and Val.

  44. Debbie April 3, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    That was less than one quarter of the the list Gavin.
    I probably shouldn’t have cut and pasted it but I was rather shocked when I saw how much and what for!

    I do have a question for everyone though…wtf is “Deliberative Global Governance” that the Rudd Government granted $1,638,000 + to in 2008?
    Does anyone know?

    This one:
    2008 The Australian National
    Dryzek, J Deliberative Global Governance $1,638,730

  45. Louis Hissink April 3, 2011 at 10:26 am #


    Deliberative global governance seems to be a euphemism for implementing a global social democratic political system, and the use of the word “deliberative” as in deliberate, suggests that it the imposition of that political system without the check and balances of a democratic process. The Fabians realise that most voters don’t want a USSR type of social system, so it has to be snuck in by stealth and naming it by obtuse acronymns or post modernist waffle is one way of achieving that.

    I suspect that the grants commission awarded that grant in order for the researchers to come up with various political mechanisms to achieve that goal – basically how do we con the mob into embracing this utopia without having to use the barrel of a gun. A research grant to fund an analysis to come up with covertly coercive techniques? Or the state funding a scientist to come up with politically palatible scenarios to be used to convince us that to become the OZSSR is the moral crusade of our times?

  46. val majkus April 3, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Louis and Debbie maybe we should check to see if any research project was ever tabled in Parliament
    oh found him, he’s currently working on that research project and has a contact e mail

  47. John Sayers April 3, 2011 at 11:59 am #


    Deliberative democracy is one of the major growth areas in contemporary political theory and social science, and ANU claims what is possibly the world’s largest concentration of deliberative democracy scholars. Many of the world’s leading deliberative democrats have spent time with us. The ‘Global Governance’ in our title emphasizes research directions that encompass transnational democracy and democratization, though research on democratic theory, local and national deliberation, and the micropolitics of deliberative forums also flourishes.

  48. Debbie April 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Thanks Val,
    Sorry Gavin and el gordo but I’m cutting and pasting from it:

    John Dryzek is Professor of Political Science and Australian Research Council Federation Fellow. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, former Head of the Departments of Political Science at the Universities of Oregon and Melbourne and the Social and Political Theory program at ANU, and former editor of the Australian Journal of Political Science.

    Working in both political theory and empirical social science, he is best known for his contributions in the areas of democratic theory and practice and environmental politics. One of the instigators of the ‘deliberative turn’ in democratic theory, he has published five books in this area with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Polity Press. His work in environmental politics ranges from green political philosophy to studies of environmental discourses and movements, and he has published three books in this area with Oxford University Press and Basil Blackwell.

    He has also worked on comparative studies of democratization, post-positivist public policy analysis, and the history and philosophy of social science. His Federation Fellowship funds work on deliberative global governance (with special reference to climate change) and democratization interpreted in deliberative terms (with special reference to East Asia).

    Looks like you were right on the money Louis!

    I wonder if he advised the Gillard Government how to politically introduce the ‘carbon tax’ to the Australian public as a palatable ‘deliberative global governance’ (with special reference to climate change) type manouvre?

    I also take note that as Tony pointed out earlier, this over $1.5 million has that climate change/environmental tag attached to it.

    Thanks again for the link Val,
    That term ‘deliberative global governance’ has been bothering me ever since I spotted it.
    I don’t know if reading about it has made me feel any better but at least I now know what the masive grant was for.
    Can’t help thinking that $1.5million + could have been spent on something more productive and useful.
    Same goes for a lot of the other grants on that list as well.
    Maybe we should start catching up with Europe and ‘get over’ this very expensive obsession?

  49. Louis Hissink April 3, 2011 at 1:08 pm #


    I don’t think Europe has got over its obsession – the EU is basically the USSR without the gulag and the KGB, though they have their updated gulag – political correctness etc where individuals are still ostracised. The USSR imploded as a result of its own internal inconsistencies, and not from any external influences that many would like to believe in. Europe is now following the USSR experience, albeit in a more civil way, some 25 years later with the gradual economic collapse of some of the member states.

    And now we have Hans Schellnhuber proposing his “Masterplan” for the world from the Potsdam Inst. of Climate etc. No, this lot have not got over their obsession – they are only starting it.

  50. Debbie April 3, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    Point well and truly taken Louis,
    I was paraphrasing the ‘spirit’ of the article from the spectator magazine.
    It does appear that the European populace in general are becoming very tired of the obsession.
    But of course they’re not the problem are they?

  51. Albert April 3, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard told all her Caucus to scare us to death if we don’t yield to the carbon tax.
    She forgets that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery used the same scare tactics many years ago, rising sea-level, vanishing snow, floods, droughts and bush fires. None of the predictions of increasing extremes came to pass and to link co2 to bush fires seems insane.
    The only link with bush fires that works is arsonists, the Police will confirm this.

  52. Debbie April 3, 2011 at 4:16 pm #
    And we have more of the obsession and the political manouvres to keep scaring us.
    Check out some of those FACTS(!) taken from their models and then used to make it sound like we’re facing an absolute disaster.
    Take the time to read the original document as well because it makes some amazing sweeping statement about bush fires and droughts and the amount of reduced production and so on.

  53. Debbie April 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    Another phyisicist pointing out the irrelevance of CO2.
    How does this stack up against your work Nasif?

  54. val majkus April 3, 2011 at 5:43 pm #

    Albert, I’ve been away for the day but I’ve read your comment
    About the political manouverings to which you refer I was thinking today I’ve lived in a communist country but I have never seen the propoganda which is currently being fed to us by the MSM
    It’s sad
    and how much does it depend on lazy voters – I don’t know
    I’ve never noticed another Govt before the current Labor Govt starting with Rudd relying so much on left wing media
    Makes me ashamed

  55. gavin April 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Debbie;it took me a few minuits to find this selection after considering why govts fund this kind of resaeach

  56. Another Ian April 3, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    Comment from: Mack April 3rd, 2011 at 6:00 am

    From a very early comment at Jen’s blog IIRC Luke used to be a Rover man? If so does he still have the hat?

  57. Mack April 3, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    Another Ian,
    We’re 3 hrs (daylight savings now here) ahead of you here so it’s not so early, 🙂
    Not quite sure what you mean about the hat, but funnily enough my car is a 1995 Rover.
    You know the one with the Honda motor . Thought I might combine Jap reliability with prestige! What a joke. 🙂 🙂 :).

  58. Debbie April 4, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Thanks for the links Gavin,
    It looks like a massive investment for a very small return (if any) to Australia.
    I can understand why our present Govt would want to sit at those tables (otherwise Australia could end up on the menu!) but I do not believe it would be necessary to spend that much of Australian tax payers money on a cerebral/political concept.
    It is also rather distressing to see that once again ‘the environment’ is being used as a leverage tool to help advance a completely different and questionable agenda.
    I can’t see any real concern for ‘the environment’ in any of this.
    Rather disingenious I would think.

  59. gavin April 4, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    Debbie; I don’t know where you are coming from but it seems anti something for another something’s sake.

    In international policy settings, one must have something good on their cake plate to continually get a seat at the luncheon. One should never go empty handed to a private dinner party either however lets say it’s still about one’s contribution to the main conversation that really counts in the end.

    Another aspect is in what one learns at those tables. Monitoring trends is big biz regardless of methods

  60. debbie April 6, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    I’m sorry, I definitely did not unserstand your point here.
    I can see some jumbled metaphors but that’s about it.
    Maybe that was my fault for using the ‘if your’e not sitting at the table, you’re likely to be on the menu’ metaphor?
    Do you mind explaining your point?
    My point was that I’m tired of seeing the politically popular concept of ‘the environment’ being used as an excuse.
    So your comment “anti something for another something’s sake” is about right.

    The present carbon tax debate is just one of many examples.
    I can see no return to the environment from this tax.
    To me, it looks like a rather poor attempt by our present Government to be ‘seen’ like they’re doing something good for the environment while they collect yet another tax and create yet another federal bureaucracy.
    BTW, that is not a political party stance from me. I believe the coalition’s policies regarding these issues also lack any common sense.
    The ‘deliberative global governance’ funding is also using ‘global warming/climate change’ as an excuse. That one in particular has nothing to do with caring for the environment and everything to do with ‘appearing’ to be doing something politically smart.
    The funding for these type of cerebral projects (and there’s $billions!) is rather disingeniously applied.
    It has also become a very expensive obsession.

Website by 46digital