Tony Abbott became Australia's prime minister in 2013 and since the beginning, he was aware of the utter irrationality in his country's and its universities' previous attitude to the "climate change" gospel. He wanted some scholars in his country who study topics such as related "global threats" rationally and honestly.



However, he doesn't quite have the balls so he didn't dare to open a center run by truly sensible people when it comes to these issues – climate realists. He wanted to appease the extreme left-wing activists who have contaminated almost every corner of the university environment. So his center had to be led by



a lukewarmer, not a true climate skeptic someone with some other "minority" credentials, e.g. a gay

I have today spoken to the federal government and Bjorn Lomborg, advising them of the barriers that currently exist to the creation of the centre and the university's decision to cancel the contract and return the money to the government.



The scale of the strong and passionate emotional reaction was one that the university did not predict.



It is with great regret and disappointment that I have formed the view that the events of the past few weeks places the centre in an untenable position as it lacks the support needed across the university and the broader academic community to meet its contractual obligations and deliver value for money for Australian taxpayers.



This. New. Thinktank. Is. None. Of. Your. Business.



This puzzle had a unique solution: Bjorn Lomborg. So the Australian government decided to pay $4 million and establish a new research center that rationally studies "global problems", an Australian branch of Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. The Consensus Center was supposed to be affiliated with the University of Western Australia – it's the university performing the experiments involving false identities . However, in May 2015, University of Western Australia pulled out of the Bjorn Lomborg centre Paul Johnson, a vice-chancellor of UWA, had to conclude:No particular names of the critics of the center are listed in the article; because it's UWA, no one would believe these names, anyway.The announcement reads just like the announcement that regrettably, we have learned that it is untenable for Jews to live outside the extermination camps because the emotional reaction of the people is strong and emotional. I am sorry but in a decent country or at a decent university, the law enforcement forces will stand on the side of the attacked ones, not the attackers, because the attackers' freedoms end where other people's freedoms begin.Well, there are surely more tolerant and sensible universities in Australia where the democratically elected government is capable of establishing a new think tank, aren't there? Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, was the Plan B. However, today we read:Oh, I see. So they "warn of angry backlash" and it's supposed to matter, isn't it?Angry backlash isn't something that belongs to the Academia. If someone erupts into an angry outburst, it's his personal problem and the problem of his psychiatrist. Such psychological states should clearly have no consequences for the establishing of research institutions by the government. Similar decisions should be done after a calm analysis that takes the facts – and the political capital of the government – into account.Such angry backlash would only matter if the angry folks were trying to physically prevent the research from taking place. In that case, as long as the rule of law exists in the country, these terrorists should be neutralized by the law enforcement officials.If a Mr Vigus warns that "there will be demonstrations if staff and students don't ultimately have a say", he should be a subject of disciplinary proceedings for his physical threats and the arrogance with which he dares to speak on behalf of students and staff. He is just a violent climate fearmonger, so he represents at most a part of the student body, the intellectually inferior one that should really not be at the university at all.The Australian government should patiently and slowly explain the matters to these obnoxious green peabrains:The intolerance of these angry creatures and the arrogance with which they are spreading and maintaining their delusions and totalitarian control over their environment is flabbergasting and a daily dose of pepper spray for them should be just the beginning.And we're talking about a research center led just by a lukewarmer, a guy who is basically on their side when it comes to the existence of the "global warming problem". Just imagine how these angry creatures would react to a new research center led by a scholar who is completely sensible and realizes that all of the global propaganda is worthless stinky hogwash.The university environment of many countries including Australia has been thoroughly hijacked by violent, ideologically driven groups to the extent that makes the German universities of the Nazi era look like oases of tolerance in comparison. As long as the university administrators and governments fail to admit that these left-wing terror groups are a serious problem that has to be solved assertively and comprehensively, there won't be any progress and the Academic freedoms and the quality of research at an increasing fraction of the politics-related fields will keep on deteriorating, along with everything else in the society that is influenced by these departments.