En Passant

Isn’t it great to see that climate change contrarian, Bjorn Lomborg, has been given $4 million to set up a consensus centre at the University of Western Australia? As REneweconomy has noted:

Lomborg has become well known for his views that downplay the urgency to act on climate science, stop funding for renewables, and increase fossil fuel sales in the third world.

These views fit nicely with those of the government and support and reinforce its inaction and lack of urgency in addressing climate change.

But why stop there? Surely this government could also be funding a creation science think tank, an anti-vaccination research centre, a gay conversion institute and a 9/11 conspiracy colloquium? The possibilities are endless. Who knows, maybe we could convince Cory Bernardi to leave politics and head up a government funded ten year study into the links between gay marriage and bestiality?

In the interests of fairness, Mr Pyne, can I ask for $4 million to set up a Journal of Critical Tax Perspectives? Now I know this will be mainly chronicling the work of academics, and use rational argument, so it might not quite suit your purposes. But to assuage your fears that we might introduce the concepts of academic excellence into the journal, we would of course invite firebrands like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a French left wing politician, to explain his tax proposals, including taxing those earning more than 300,000 euro at 100 percent.

I could even let loose my inner grumpy to rail against the dominance of capital and the rich and to squeeze them till their pips squeak.

Like you Mr Pyne, I am all in favour of differing views. When can I expect my $4 million to be paid?

There is another reason to be excited by this $4 million going to Lomborg and the University of Western Australia. Obviously the crisis in Universities is over. If you have enough money for Lomborg than we won’t need to cut $2.3 billion from University funding or fee de-regulation. I bet there are lots of very deserving little and not so little projects you could fund Mr Pyne that in total would just about undo your proposed cuts. So if you have money for Lomborg why not for the rest of the University sector?

And what about more money for real scientists Mr Pyne and Mr Abbott? Maybe they should bend their research to suit your political needs? Would they then get enough funding to survive adequately?