The Claim
“Spent $4 million for the 'Australian Consensus Centre', a climate denial center to be run by someone with no qualifications in science or economics. The government had already cut all funding for the Australian Climate Commission, citing a lack of funds.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual elements of this claim are largely verified, though some characterizations require clarification.
The $4 million funding: The Coalition government did pledge $4 million to establish the "Australian Consensus Centre" at the University of Western Australia (UWA), intended to be an Australian arm of Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center [1][2]. The funding was a direct government grant, not a competitive research grant.
Bjorn Lomborg's qualifications: Lomborg holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Copenhagen [3]. The claim that he has "no qualifications in science or economics" is technically accurate - he is not a natural scientist (physics, chemistry, climate science) nor an economist by formal training. However, he is a political scientist and statistician who has written extensively on environmental economics and cost-benefit analysis. UWA Academic Staff Association vice president Professor Stuart Bunt noted: "Lomborg is not a climate [change] denier; he believes the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening, he just debates the economics of how we should deal with it... The difficulty is he is neither a scientist or an economist, he's a political scientist" [1].
Climate Commission cuts: The Abbott government did abolish the Climate Commission in September 2013, shortly after taking office. The Commission, established under the previous Labor government and headed by Tim Flannery, was disbanded as part of the government's efforts to reduce budget expenditure [4].
"Climate denial center" characterization: This characterization is misleading. Lomborg is not a climate denier who rejects the science of anthropogenic climate change. Rather, he is best described as a "climate contrarian" or "delayer" who argues that while climate change is real, it should be ranked lower on global priorities compared to issues like poverty, disease, and education [1][3]. He advocates for limited climate action and questions the cost-effectiveness of aggressive emission reduction targets. Dr Frank Jotzo, a leading climate economist at ANU, stated the Copenhagen Consensus Center methodology "has no academic credibility" and accused the organization of filtering out dissenting voices [2].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
The centre was never actually established: Due to significant backlash from UWA staff, students, and the broader academic community, UWA cancelled the contract in May 2015 and returned the $4 million to the government [1]. The Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson cited "the scale of the strong and passionate emotional reaction" as making it impossible to deliver "value for money for Australian taxpayers" [1]. Therefore, while the funding was pledged, the actual expenditure was minimal or nil.
The initiative originated from the Prime Minister's Office: Reports indicated the idea for the centre came from the office of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, not from UWA or Lomborg approaching the government [2]. UWA stated they were approached by the government to house the centre. This suggests the funding was politically motivated from the outset.
No competitive process: The $4 million was granted without any apparent competitive process, which drew criticism from academics who noted that research funding typically requires rigorous peer review [2].
Lack of university co-funding: UWA stated it was not providing any direct funding to the centre - the entire amount came from taxpayers [1].
2014 science funding context: The $4 million grant came after more than $400 million was slashed from science funding in the Government's 2014 budget [2], which amplified criticism about the government's priorities.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original sources are from New Matilda, an independent Australian media outlet.
New Matilda describes itself as independent journalism with a progressive perspective. It is generally considered left-leaning and has published critical coverage of Coalition governments. While not a mainstream outlet like ABC or SMH, it has broken legitimate stories and is not a "fake news" source. However, readers should be aware of its editorial perspective when assessing the framing of claims.
The claim's sources do not include mainstream outlets like ABC News, The Guardian, or Fairfax media, which also covered this story extensively with similar factual reporting. Cross-referencing with ABC News and other mainstream sources confirms the core facts [1][2].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government think tank funding political climate policy Australia"
Finding: Direct equivalents are difficult to find, as the specific circumstances of this case (government approaching a university to host a politically-aligned contrarian research centre with direct funding) appear unusual. However, Labor governments have also faced criticism for politically-motivated funding decisions:
Climate Commission itself: The Climate Commission that the Abbott government abolished was itself established by the Rudd/Gillard Labor government in 2011 to provide "independent" information on climate change. Critics at the time argued it was politically stacked with climate advocates [4]. When the Coalition abolished it, the Commission was immediately reconstituted as the privately-funded Climate Council, suggesting it had sufficient non-government support to continue.
Think tank funding generally: Both major parties have historically directed funding to research centres and think tanks aligned with their policy perspectives. The difference in this case was the overtly political nature of the funding, the direct approach from the PM's office, and the lack of competitive process.
The key distinction is that while both parties fund research aligned with their views, the Lomborg centre was unusually explicit in its political motivation, as evidenced by reports that it originated from the Prime Minister's office rather than through normal research funding mechanisms.
Balanced Perspective
What the claim doesn't tell you:
While the claim correctly identifies the funding commitment and the contrast with Climate Commission cuts, it frames the centre as a "climate denial center" which is inaccurate. Lomborg accepts the scientific consensus on climate change - he disputes the priority and cost-effectiveness of climate action, not the underlying science [1][3]. This distinction matters because:
Policy debate vs. science denial: There is legitimate debate among economists about the optimal allocation of resources between climate mitigation and other global challenges. Lomborg represents one end of this spectrum, not science denial.
The centre was cancelled: The most significant mitigating factor is that due to academic opposition and public pressure, the centre never actually operated and the funding was returned.
Academic freedom concerns: Education Minister Christopher Pyne criticized UWA's cancellation, tweeting: "What a sad day for academic freedom when staff at a university silence a dissenting voice rather than test their ideas in debate" [1]. While Pyne's view was politically motivated, it raises legitimate questions about whether universities should host researchers with controversial or minority perspectives.
Legitimate government explanation:
The government never provided a detailed public justification for the Lomborg funding. However, supporters of the initiative argued:
- Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate academic pursuit
- Alternative perspectives on climate economics deserve research funding
- The Copenhagen Consensus Center had engaged Nobel Laureates in its work
Key comparison: The Coalition's approach to climate institutions differed markedly from Labor's. While Labor established the Climate Commission to advocate for climate action, the Coalition attempted to fund research questioning the priority of climate spending - but notably, this initiative failed due to institutional resistance, and the government did not pursue alternative hosts after UWA withdrew.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core facts are accurate: $4 million was pledged, Lomborg lacks formal science/economics qualifications, and the Climate Commission was abolished. However, the characterization as a "climate denial center" is misleading - Lomborg is a contrarian/delayer, not a denier. More importantly, the centre was never actually established due to public and academic opposition, and the funding was returned. The claim omits this crucial outcome, which significantly changes the narrative from "government funded climate denial" to "government attempted to fund controversial research but failed." The juxtaposition with Climate Commission cuts is valid, though the "lack of funds" cited by the government for the Commission cuts was part of broader budget reduction efforts, not a specific claim that $4 million couldn't be found.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core facts are accurate: $4 million was pledged, Lomborg lacks formal science/economics qualifications, and the Climate Commission was abolished. However, the characterization as a "climate denial center" is misleading - Lomborg is a contrarian/delayer, not a denier. More importantly, the centre was never actually established due to public and academic opposition, and the funding was returned. The claim omits this crucial outcome, which significantly changes the narrative from "government funded climate denial" to "government attempted to fund controversial research but failed." The juxtaposition with Climate Commission cuts is valid, though the "lack of funds" cited by the government for the Commission cuts was part of broader budget reduction efforts, not a specific claim that $4 million couldn't be found.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (4)
-
1
"'Passionate reaction' sinks UWA Bjorn Lomborg Consensus Centre"
The University of Western Australia cancels the contract for a policy centre that was to be based on the methodology of controversial academic Bjorn Lomborg after a "passionate emotional reaction" to the plan.
Abc Net -
2
"Academics want UWA to pull plug on Bjorn Lomborg's $4m 'Consensus Centre'"
Senior academics at an Australian university are asking their bosses to pull the plug on a $4 million taxpayer funded research centre fronted by climate science contrarian Bjorn Lomborg, writes Graham...
Independent Australia -
3
"Bjørn Lomborg"
Wikipedia -
4
"Climate Commission"
Wikipedia
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.