Most of these think tanks should really be called propaganda factories.

Kevin Rennie and Daffy are entitled to scream and shout against those that contradict their dearly held views, but if they are interested in balance then why don't they look at the funding of the many organisations on the left, particularly in the environment debate. These include the likes Greepeace and the World Wildlife Fund, which also produce reports by the bucketload, and have funding far in excess of any organisation that Rennie lists.

Rennie mentions the Heartland Institute in America.. the recent release of emails put their budget at $US7 million a year.. an utterly trivial amount that underscored just how little money there is on the sceptic side.

The Department of Climate Change in Australia alone turns over more than $100 million (their annual report is online).. internationally Greenpeace's turnover is more than 400 million Euros a year(again, their financial report is online).

That is just the tip of the iceburg and adds up to a powerful amount of influence which has had a major effect. I dunno whether Rennie has noticed this, but they've pushed through muti billion dollars worth of spending on the environment, including emissions trading in europe and a whole carbon tax here.

Rennie also characterises the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)as "right wing". This shows how little he knows about the policy debate. Although ASPI may push for more spending on defence it has a genuine analytical role, and does not simply talk the defence establishment's book. Their reports are quite useful, as I have found.

Rennie's article says more about his own politics than it says about anyone else's..

thinktanks..no thanks

juliars negotiations with stakeholders
didnt extend to the mugs..[the smokers]
who' apparently dont have a stake'..[nor think/tank]

so if your not..into it lobbying..for your own cash/cow*

[like that 10 billion 'green fund'..or the other purk lurks
like spending tax money..on adverts against smokers/pink batts
or free computers..or free school buildings

[as long as they arnt..for actual teaching]

how about that neat
lobbied postition re the nbn
or the govt pension trust fund managment..[think tank fruits?]

or at the state level..beurocroratic/control
of semi privatised water/power/phone..and tv/radio etc etc

a nice govt warrented..*cash_cow..
just like the licence..to print money
from when govt gave the fed to the bankser's

its a rather endless list

who-ever gets in...must clean out the lobby
[re-form thinktanks..under minesterial control]

plus listen..to all his members..and so much more
not one of the current mob..are capable of doing..[i hesitate to name even one..but yabby named him once]

rudd has a steady mid thirties support
juliar has double..but both should go
or the one..will destroy the other
[via..lol..a think-tank]

get behind..that other leftie
put all power brokers..[faceless think-tank/yanks]..
in their requested..minestry area[ear to govt]

but put..the faceless
thinkers..out of the lobby loop

[all govt minesters meetings..[thinktankers]..
should be recorded..[released publicly..at election time..
or policy formation/time

only that true reform
can beat the hockey/turbull abbot
rush to the slush funding machine..[that passes as governance]
[by think/tank]via..[biased commercial lobby]

im sick of hearing..their voiced/thought

sick of hearing..one point up
or two points down...all this destraction..
and nuthin on the doings..*those..'in'..govt just keep on doing...

[on behalf of those..faceless few...
with the ear..of the media..who delivers]

Dear Curmudgeon

I did not describe the Australian Strategic Policy Institute as "right wing". As mentioned it currently receives funding from the socialists in Canberra. The Department of Climate Change can hardly be described as a think tank even if contributes to some. You might like to have a closer look at the Climate Institue and its funding - the link is there.

I can rant with the worst of them but "scream and shout" hardly captures my tone or style in this article.

Greenpeace and WWF are not think tanks, nor do they pretend to be unbiased. The Galileo Movement is probably better characterised as a pressure group as well. I'll be happy to read research on so-called interest groups of whatever persuasion.

The article points out "left wing" associations with progressive think tanks and covers a number of the progressive or middle of the road organisations.

My remarks about the role of think tanks in the media and their objectivity are not confined to any political hue. If the cap fits...

Your comment "says more about [your] own politics than it says about" mine which are well documented online.

Kevin Rennie

Clive Hamilton, now an academic but former executive director of the Australia Institute, has a strong attack on the IPA, its funding and activities over at The Drum - 'The shadowy world of IPA finances':

"While we cannot be sure why the IPA refuses to come clean about its sources of funds, or what those sources are, if it were to be revealed that they included the mining industry or mining magnates then journalists would be obliged to report the fact each time they wrote a story about the IPA. The environment groups that the IPA has attacked for lack of accountability are transparent about their funding, yet the IPA knows that its credibility would be shot if it were seen to be the mouthpiece of big business with an interest in undermining climate science and climate policy."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html

No honour amongst tankers it appears.

Kevin Rennie

While I appreciate your courtesy in replying, the response doesn't get you out of the hole you have dug for yourself. Sure, think tanks by and large push a right wing agenda. I think what has confused you is that the names they adopt does not make that crystal clear to the average punter. Whearas WWF and the like also produce reports, and think up a storm, but the average punter might have a better idea where they stand just on name recognition.

But the better name recongition is in part because the environmental funds and pressure groups are more numerous, better funded, better organised, more media savvy and pushing a line that the media finds far more acceptable than the think tanks. Hence they get the publicity and recognition. I might point out that to "solve" the problem of global warming, these pressure groups have managed to push onto a willing government a host of solutions that are obviously marginal at best in the stated aim of reducing emissions, and at worst a total waste of resources.

The think tanks you decry have made little headway against this shift to resource wasting, among other matters. In fact, they have barely registed in the debate. Yet there are those whom I would characterised as hard left who cannot stand any opposition at all, on the ground that it "confuses" the public.

Maybe I am an idiot but it seems to me that the author gave a balanced description of AUSTRALIAN based and funded think tanks whether they are left, right, or presumably centrist.
As far as can make out I made an ideologically neutral comment that think tanks should be called propaganda factories. An observation which to me is self-evidently true in ALL cases.

And then Curmudgeon lauches into his tirade. A tirade which was essentially a description of his own ideological biases.

Yes, think tanks and NGOs have ideological barrows to push, and yes, they get funded by people and organisations that agree with them or might even benefit from the policies they push. So what? Most of us are smart enough to correct for their predictable biases. I think they make a positive contribution to policy debate by researching and exploring ideas beyond the mainstream. If we judge them by the content of their arguments not their ideological predispositions, where is the harm?

Curmudgeon

I'm not feeling confused but you could enlighten us to who are these "hard left" think tanks you refer to?

rhian

Part of their "harm" is in their pervasiveness. This is often coupled with the fact that their agenda/bias is often not mentioned by the media who are giving them a voice.

Kevin Rennie/Top Ender

think you've misread something, or perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. Never mentioned hard left think tanks. Said that those I would characterise as hard left, meaning commentators in general, cannot stand any opposition at all - that is, they cannot stand the feeble opposition of think tanks.

I see from your other post, that I did not see before, you have a set against the IPA. You do realise that its a tiny organisation? It might have an office, and it might have a staff (just), but probably one of the reasons that it won't talk about funding is that it doesn't have much. In any case, as it is well-known for being right wing I can't see why anyone would be concerned over its sources of funding, such as they are.. Of course the money would be from conservative organisations. So what?

As I noted before, the real drivers of the public agenda have been the big environmental organisations and NGOs. The think tanks are at least not as poor as the bulk of the climate sceptic organisations, which don't have any funding at all, but they are still poor and, contrary to your assertion, there aren't that many of them.

Time to find another target.

Kevin

most of us know what a think tank is, and (as you yourself say) most of us can work out their agenda from the content of their argument.

There is no media conspiracy to disguise thier intentions that I can perceive.

I think on some issues they do a better job of thinking through issues and looking at the bigger picture than many of the vested interests (unions, business groups, NGOs, etc) that otherwise would dominate policy debate.

Geez, and you're supposed to be intelligent people ??