Tell me something, is political party donation information in the public domain?
The ones they donât mind being public are.
And a lot of those are ruses, & coming from a 3rd party in reality. Libâs are particularly versed in playing that game, as was finally brought to light in the NSW ICAC hearings.
Thereâs a minimum limit for disclosure - $10000 or more donations have to be made public as far as I recall. It used to be a lot less - $1k from memory - but the libs raised the threshold once they won government back in 2013.
And as BSD says, itâs easy to conceal donations. People who want to keep their donations quiet make donations to a nominally independent third party, a fundraising or advocacy group. The group transfers them on to the party of their choice, and the actual donor remains anonymous. Or alternatively, the group spends the money themselves, on advertising/campaigning that is closely but informally coordinated with that of their favoured party, and nobody has to disclose anything at all.
UWA have finally been shamed into backflipping on Lomberg. Cancelled his appointment, are returning the money to the govt.The UWA statement is a masterwork of weaseliness though. It should be framed and hung in some sort of Cowardly Principleless Bureacratic Shitheadedness Hall of Fame, so future generations of â â â â -covering self-interested drones can look, learn, and issue ambiguous self-exonerating statements. Check it out news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
lol - reads about as brilliantly as a meaningless piece of rubbish i wrote in saturday morning detention about the benefits of the house system at high school
in shocked at the vice chancellor was surprised at the backlash? word on the street though is Lomberg will remain as Abbotts advisor for foreign aid, yay.
UWA have finally been shamed into backflipping on Lomberg. Cancelled his appointment, are returning the money to the govt.The UWA statement is a masterwork of weaseliness though. It should be framed and hung in some sort of Cowardly Principleless Bureacratic Shitheadedness Hall of Fame, so future generations of â â â â -covering self-interested drones can look, learn, and issue ambiguous self-exonerating statements. Check it out news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
Itâs pretty shameful that they have been bullied in to rejecting the funds.
Right on cue B-unit!UWA have finally been shamed into backflipping on Lomberg. Cancelled his appointment, are returning the money to the govt.The UWA statement is a masterwork of weaseliness though. It should be framed and hung in some sort of Cowardly Principleless Bureacratic Shitheadedness Hall of Fame, so future generations of â â â â -covering self-interested drones can look, learn, and issue ambiguous self-exonerating statements. Check it out news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
Itâs pretty shameful that they have been bullied in to rejecting the funds.
Poor them, they only had the federal government circumventing all other funding policies to give them a big pile of cash to do a big steamer on their academic credentials.
Why oh why do these massively powerful other universities keep picking on the poor tiny defenceless government?
UWA have finally been shamed into backflipping on Lomberg. Cancelled his appointment, are returning the money to the govt.The UWA statement is a masterwork of weaseliness though. It should be framed and hung in some sort of Cowardly Principleless Bureacratic Shitheadedness Hall of Fame, so future generations of â â â â -covering self-interested drones can look, learn, and issue ambiguous self-exonerating statements. Check it out news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
Itâs pretty shameful that they have been bullied in to rejecting the funds.
Thatâs the shameful part???
I would have thought the massive staff cutbacks to genuine scientific research due to lack of funds, to then take a 4 mil handout to set up a denialist centre was the shameful part.
Right on cue.UWA have finally been shamed into backflipping on Lomberg. Cancelled his appointment, are returning the money to the govt.The UWA statement is a masterwork of weaseliness though. It should be framed and hung in some sort of Cowardly Principleless Bureacratic Shitheadedness Hall of Fame, so future generations of â â â â -covering self-interested drones can look, learn, and issue ambiguous self-exonerating statements. Check it out news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
Itâs pretty shameful that they have been bullied in to rejecting the funds.
Yeah poor them, they only had the federal government circumventing all other funding policies to give them a big pile of cash to do a big steaming â â â â on their academic credentials.
Why oh why do these massively powerful other universities keep picking on the poor tiny defenceless government?
Right on cue? What, a different opinion to the group think on this forum?
If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research you would know that the centre isnât just about climate science or even really about climate science at all. Itâs about determining cost-effective solutions on a wide-range of social and political issues.
For what itâs worth Lomborg isnât even a âdenialistâ as you so crudely put it. He believes in AGW but asserts that there are more cost-effective ways of tackling the issue. But of course if he doesnât completely subscribe to the apocalyptic version that that you do he should automatically be shunned as a âdenialistâ and his arguments flatly rejected and ridiculed. Thatâs the scientific way I suppose. Here I was stupidly thinking that universities were about promoting different points of view.
If you want to complain about cash being misdirected how about pointing the finger at Tim Flannery. His track record of fear mongering and failed prophecies on the tax payerâs dime is a joke.
What do you know of why Lomborg is a discredited academic, G?
Right on cue? What, a different opinion to the group think on this forum?If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research you would know that the centre isnât just about climate science or even really about climate science at all. Itâs about determining cost-effective solutions on a wide-range of social and political issues.
For what itâs worth Lomborg isnât even a âdenialistâ as you so crudely put it. He believes in AGW but asserts that there are more cost-effective ways of tackling the issue. But of course if he doesnât completely subscribe to the apocalyptic version that that you do he should automatically be shunned as a âdenialistâ and his arguments flatly rejected and ridiculed. Thatâs the scientific way I suppose. Here I was stupidly thinking that universities were about promoting different points of view.
If you want to complain about cash being misdirected how about pointing the finger at Tim Flannery. His track record of fear mongering and failed prophecies on the tax payerâs dime is a joke.
Right on cue because I couldâve guessed you would be in favour of him because Bolt is and you follow almost everything he says.
I am not sure weasel advertising on behalf of the government that all the research is wrong is in their charter. But feel free to educate me. Universities are mainly about teaching and research.
Teaching wrong or disproven theories or erroneous (or dishonestly presented) data, not so much. I will try and enrol in a phrenology course or homeopathy and see how I go, after all, we should present differing viewpoints even if theyâre know to be crap.
Right on cue? What, a different opinion to the group think on this forum?If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research you would know that the centre isnât just about climate science or even really about climate science at all. Itâs about determining cost-effective solutions on a wide-range of social and political issues.
For what itâs worth Lomborg isnât even a âdenialistâ as you so crudely put it. He believes in AGW but asserts that there are more cost-effective ways of tackling the issue. But of course if he doesnât completely subscribe to the apocalyptic version that that you do he should automatically be shunned as a âdenialistâ and his arguments flatly rejected and ridiculed. Thatâs the scientific way I suppose. Here I was stupidly thinking that universities were about promoting different points of view.
If you want to complain about cash being misdirected how about pointing the finger at Tim Flannery. His track record of fear mongering and failed prophecies on the tax payerâs dime is a joke.
Please, Flanneryâs center cost 1.5ml.
The big problem here and its not exclusive to UWA is Australia loses its best and brightest overseas every year due to funding issues, here a university got a large chunk of money for a consensus center (lets take out what it was for for a second) and used that money to pay a person from overseas (at the governments behest, Abbott wanted him on his advisory board) who is shamed in his field rather than use that same money to fund 40 or more local researchers and academics.
No wonder there was wide scale strike action and threats of resignation from people within that university, it was an atrociously condescending smite on Australia academic community. Holy â â â â â , 6 months ago due to government cuts we lost a researcher from CSIRO who a week later got nominated and then won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, and the government spend 4 ml to bring in the globally shamed (like I said in the OP, charged for scientific dishonesty in 19 countries) Bjorn Lomborg, thats like hiring Rolf Harris to start a think tank for the Child Care sector.
It is reprehensible.
Right on cue? What, a different opinion to the group think on this forum?If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research you would know that the centre isnât just about climate science or even really about climate science at all. Itâs about determining cost-effective solutions on a wide-range of social and political issues.
For what itâs worth Lomborg isnât even a âdenialistâ as you so crudely put it. He believes in AGW but asserts that there are more cost-effective ways of tackling the issue. But of course if he doesnât completely subscribe to the apocalyptic version that that you do he should automatically be shunned as a âdenialistâ and his arguments flatly rejected and ridiculed. Thatâs the scientific way I suppose. Here I was stupidly thinking that universities were about promoting different points of view.
If you want to complain about cash being misdirected how about pointing the finger at Tim Flannery. His track record of fear mongering and failed prophecies on the tax payerâs dime is a joke.
Right on cue because I couldâve guessed you would be in favour of him because Bolt is and you follow almost everything he says.I am not sure weasel advertising on behalf of the government that all the research is wrong is in their charter. But feel free to educate me. Universities are mainly about teaching and research.
Teaching wrong or disproven theories or erroneous (or dishonestly presented) data, not so much. I will try and enrol in a phrenology course or homeopathy and see how I go, after all, we should present differing viewpoints even if theyâre know to be crap.
I kind of pictured you as a Masters of Astrology type hap
Right on cue? What, a different opinion to the group think on this forum?If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research you would know that the centre isnât just about climate science or even really about climate science at all. Itâs about determining cost-effective solutions on a wide-range of social and political issues.
For what itâs worth Lomborg isnât even a âdenialistâ as you so crudely put it. He believes in AGW but asserts that there are more cost-effective ways of tackling the issue. But of course if he doesnât completely subscribe to the apocalyptic version that that you do he should automatically be shunned as a âdenialistâ and his arguments flatly rejected and ridiculed. Thatâs the scientific way I suppose. Here I was stupidly thinking that universities were about promoting different points of view.
If you want to complain about cash being misdirected how about pointing the finger at Tim Flannery. His track record of fear mongering and failed prophecies on the tax payerâs dime is a joke.
Please, Flanneryâs center cost 1.5ml.
The big problem here and its not exclusive to UWA is Australia loses its best and brightest overseas every year due to funding issues, here a university got a large chunk of money for a consensus center (lets take out what it was for for a second) and used that money to pay a person from overseas (at the governments behest, Abbott wanted him on his advisory board) who is shamed in his field rather than use that same money to fund 40 or more local researchers and academics.
No wonder there was wide scale strike action and threats of resignation from people within that university, it was an atrociously condescending smite on Australia academic community. Holy â â â â â , 6 months ago due to government cuts we lost a researcher from CSIRO who a week later got nominated and then won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, and the government spend 4 ml to bring in the globally shamed (like I said in the OP, charged for scientific dishonesty in 19 countries) Bjorn Lomborg, thats like hiring Rolf Harris to start a think tank for the Child Care sector.
It is reprehensible.
How the fk did we ever end up with this cockhed for a PM? (I know, Rupert leading the easily led) but âŚ
Iâve never been so ashamed of the country as a whole, at least Howard had some redeeming qualities. This â â â â has none, & never has had. There is a great percentage of people here who have a mindset equivalent to the US south.
God itâs depressing.
Gabe, setting him up in a university was just a fig leaf of respectability. Heâs basically a right wing public policy guy, posing as a scientist. Heâs weaselled out of a number of accusations saying âIâm not a scientist, how could I know?â - canât have it both ways.
If Abbott wants to use him, put him on on Lib party money. Donât pretend heâs a scientist.
Flannery is a published, respected scientist. Thatâs the difference.
Heaven knows thereâs enough money floating round for these types. No doubt the Lowy institute or Australia institute or someone similar will stump up the change so the poor scamp isnât out on the street, destitute, flogging coal for spare change.
Ben - can you please stop making up nonsense to suit your argument.
Lomborg has not been charged with scientific dishonesty in 19 countries - Iâm not even sure how that is possible in any case. Does every country have a Science Court or something?
But in any case can you humour me and name them.
Flannery on the other hand is not even an expert in his field, has collected millions over the years with his scare-mongering and honestly if he said the sun would rise tomorrow you would be forgiven for thinking the end is nigh. Such are the amount of predictions he has gotten wrong.
Flanneryâs IS an expert in his field, tripper. Regardless of what you think of him (the grapevine says heâs a bit if a prick to work with), but he quite literally wrote the book on Australian paleoclimatology, the study of ancient climate change, its causes, and itâs impact on ecosystems. The book concerned is âthe future eatersâ and I recommend everyone interested in the debate reads it, even though itâs a book about the geological and prehistoric past and is not about co2 emissions, climate policy etc at all.
I cannot think of anyone better qualified than him regarding this sort of thing.
Flannery's IS an expert in his field, tripper. Regardless of what you think of him (the grapevine says he's a bit if a prick to work with), but he quite literally wrote the book on Australian paleoclimatology, the study of ancient climate change, its causes, and it's impact on ecosystems. The book concerned is 'the future eaters' and I recommend everyone interested in the debate reads it, even though it's a book about the geological and prehistoric past and is not about co2 emissions, climate policy etc at all.I cannot think of anyone better qualified than him regarding this sort of thing.
You would think for someone so âqualifiedâ he would get some basic predictions right.
If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research you would know that the centre isnât just about climate science or even really about climate science at all. Itâs about determining cost-effective solutions on a wide-range of social and political issues.
First recommendation cut funding for scientific research and spend 4million on a pseudo-academic propaganda center.
Seems pretty legit.