But let's have a little look-see at the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, Lomborg's current institute which the government are seeking to emulate. First up, as the name suggests, it's based in … um, Massachusetts. Yes, as in the US state. It's been there since it was defunded by the Danes in 2011. More specifically, according to their website, it's at 262 Middlesex St Lowell, MA 01852: or, to use the property's official title, the Neighborhood Parcel Shipping Centre. Don't take my word for it: check it out on Google Street View. And it makes sense, since Lomborg is apparently based in Prague and most of the work of the centre appears to take place in Hungary. Definitely nothing suss about that, right?

We're caught in a trap… Secondly, while it's a registered non-profit in the US it looks awfully like what's called a "foreign conduit" - an organisation used to funnel money offshore with limited oversight from tax authorities. These things are not inevitably illegal, it should be clear, but it's definitely… interesting. The Center's main expenses also appear to be the hefty salaries and travel costs for Lomborg and his Deputy Director Roland Mathiasson, and the publicity costs of his anti-climate change documentary 'Cool It' (according to the Center's filings with the IRS). So, to recap: this free-thinking iconoclast that is set to provide us with "useful economic research to inform the national and international debate", in the words of Uni of WA's vice-chancellor Professor Paul Johnson, would appear to run a letterbox in Massachusetts that provides a tax writeoff for his billionaire climate contrarian supporters and a lucrative conduit for US dollars to Lomborg and Mathiasson.

Sounds like an excellent partnership that's definitely going to do nothing but reflect excellence upon this government and the University! With political supporters like these… If you're looking for an undeniable kingmaker in the political sphere, then Victorian Liberal Sophie Mirabella may not be the most obvious choice. After all, she has the unique honour of being the only MP to lose her seat during the comprehensive Coalition federal election victory of 2013, with the electorate of Indi going to independent Cathy McGowan. With that sort of killer rep and political track record, Human Services Minister Scott Morrison must be delighted to have been declared the "the next conservative prime minister of Australia" at a Mirabella-hosted Liberal Party fundraiser in McGowan's electorate. "Too many politicians are too concerned about being liked rather than getting things done," Mirabella declared approvingly of Morrison, as her audience presumably stifled their very reasonable giggles.

"I thought [Sophie] brought a really important perspective and I'd love to see that perspective back," Morrison told the Border Mail in reply, presumably to peals of laughter. What Mirabella didn't mention was whether she planned to use the raised funds to contest the seat herself in 2016, although the answer would almost certainly be yes. After all, she's already got an in with the apparent next PM, and in any case that vengeance won't wreak itself. Numbers Are Hard: Queensland Mining Edition! Meanwhile, up in Queensland there's a kerfuffle going on between Indian mining giant Adani and pretty much everyone else. Who's being mean to the lovely foreign resource conglomerate? Well, first up there's the Wangan and Jagalingou people who are being all selfish about their land rights and refusing to just allow the company to dig wherever they want, and who are gearing up for a legal battle against them.

Then there are the mean old killjoys in the Queensland Land Court, who questioned Adani's claims that the Carmichael Mine would deliver $22 billion in taxes and royalties to the people of Australia, forcing them to concede that they actually meant "$7.8 billion", assuming that the mine is at all profitable and not in fact destined to lose $9.8 billion according to their own figures. In their defence, numbers are hard. Speaking of which, the court also took them to task over their claim that the mine would create 10,000 jobs rather than the more accurate maximum of 1463 per year. But everyone knows that 1463 pretty much rounds up to 10,000. That's just maths. Adani had nevertheless insisted that the project would be profitable - but an independent analysis concluded that this would only be the case provided that the price of thermal coal magically shot up rather than continued its long decline, that interest on debt wasn't a thing that existed, and that transport and rail costs were significantly less than they actually are here in what legal and economic experts call "reality". Oh, and then there's that whole messy problem with the project requiring an expansion of the shipping terminal at Abbot Point that is estimated to at least significantly damage the Great Barrier Reef, if not kill it outright. So, to recap: in order to create an unprofitable and heavily subsidised operation based on flawed projections and outright lies, we need to destroy sacred lands and unique ecosystems at great public cost and no actual reward.

Again - sounds like a nifty idea! The cocktail hour: May the Fourth be with you Monday, as all proper nerds know, is May the Fourth, aka Star Wars day. And remember, friends: the snark shall be with you, always. See you back here on Tuesday, and cheers!

Bjorn Lomborg's response to Andrew P Street's column Andrew P. Street ("View from the Street", May 4, 2015) criticises the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and in doing so makes many errors. He describes the planned research centre at University of Western Australia as a "climate change think tank". As has been reported in this newspaper, Australia Consensus is not focused on climate change policy, but on broader development and economic policy. He wrongly labels my 2010 documentary 'Cool It' as "anti-climate change". The documentary actually explores responses to climate change, and the starting point is that global warming is real and poses a challenge to humanity. Street misattributes to me the belief that "carbon pricing and emissions trading are more expensive than they're worth". I have long argued that well-designed carbon taxes achieve more good than they would cost.