You can be part of a new crowd-funded book on climate change facts

I’m writing two chapters in this new book, Climate Change: The Facts 2014 which will be crowd-funded to become published. I’m sure you will recognize some other names also contributing chapters in addition to my two chapters on extreme weather and the surface temperature record. I hope you’ll consider helping out bringing it to publication. There’s also a chance your help can earn you a spot on the back cover, see the details in the press release:

The Institute of Public Affairs is bringing together the biggest names in the climate change debate. Make a tax-deductible donation today to help the IPA publish a new book of research,Climate Change: The Facts 2014,and continue to influence the climate change debate in Australia.

If you donate $400 or more you will have the option of being prominently acknowledged on the back cover of Climate Change: The Facts 2014.

NEW-cover-the-facts

Here’s why contributors to Climate Change: The Facts 2014 want you to make a tax-deductible donation to the IPA today:

“This is a crucial year in the climate debate. Australia needs the IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts 2014 so our politicians get to see the evidence – such as the failure of the planet to warm since 1998, and the immeasurably small effect Australia’s global warming policies will actually have on world temperatures.”
 Andrew Bolt, contributor to Climate Change: The Facts 2014

“At last people are making up their own mind about climate change – they can see the doomsayers are wrong!”
 James Delingpole, contributor to Climate Change: The Facts 2014

“Climate change alarmists have done a great disservice to the cause of rational scientific enquiry.Climate Change: The Facts 2014is significant because it deals with the evidence.”
 Professor Stewart Franks, University of Tasmania,
contributor to Climate Change: The Facts 2014

===============================================================

I would point out that it won’t be just about Australia, it will be global in its scope.

If you’d like to help out, go here http://thefacts2014.ipa.org.au/ and see the right sidebar.

Full disclosure: I don’t get any payment for writing those chapters, donations go to publication, distribution, and marketing costs.

About these ads

45 thoughts on “You can be part of a new crowd-funded book on climate change facts

  1. Anthony: I sent you an email on this, but I realize that you get a lot of email, so:

    If I contribute, would I be able to review the book before publication?

  2. Anthony, just to avoid confusion, you should refer to this as a “crowd-funded” book rather than a “crowd-sourced” book. Unless you’re counting on volunteers to help with the writing.

    REPLY: A good point, though a bit pedantic. Change made. – Anthony

  3. “This is a crucial year in the climate debate. Australia needs the IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts 2014 so our politicians get to see the evidence – such as the failure of the planet to warm since 1998, and the immeasurably small effect Australia’s global warming policies will actually have on world temperatures.”
    – Andrew Bolt, contributor to Climate Change: The Facts 2014

    The UK is another country in GREAT need of this book. Our PM, whom I doubt has read a single book on the subject, is recently quoted as being a believer! Time to bring some knowledge to his government.

  4. Hi Anthony, sent in my part. I live in Texas, and I just used some money from my “Big Oil Slush Fund” that all Texans have. The fund is paid for by Republican governor Rick Perry and the Koch Brothers. I’ve said too much already….Looking forward to the book.

  5. Collect the money, but control the “science”. What a great scam.

    REPLY: No scam, only misunderstanding on your part, cowardly commenter. – Anthony

  6. Anthony,

    The biggest bugg-a-boo to me is the lack of correlation between the partial-pressure of CO2 and temperature. I would include the graphs which have (now) been extended into the Cryogenian showing the anti-correlation between T and p-CO2.

    I have some e-copies, but I do not think I wrote down the source. I could e-mail them to you, if you drop me a note at my personal e-mail. They would require some modification (due to some outside editing errors in their creation), but if the modifications are noted, no one (except Algore, Mann-y boy, Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, … … … ) should have a problem with it.

    Personally, I would plop both sets of data onto one graph, and provide the R value for those who might have some difficulty with running a cross-correlation coefficient.

    Then, you make the alarmist crowd PROVE your R-value is wrong.

    Mark H.

  7. I’m happy to contribute, but …

    You mention that the book’s focus is global in its scope, but why the emphasis on Australia when we have far too many powerful and well financed AGW proponents in the U.S., not to mention the misguide sorts in the UK.

    If the book displays a focus on Australia, it may well be blown off by the mindless AGW crowd and their loudspeakers in the U.S. media … seriously, the lack of climate truth is global, not just in Australia.

  8. Jay says:

    February 28, 2014 at 11:58 am

    This will be a nice companion to the new NAS book announced today.

    The National Academies Press
    Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (PDF Booklet)
    Evidence and Causes (PDF Booklet) (2014)

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18730

    —This needs its own post. I peeked, briefly. In the full book, at Question 7, “is this level of CO2 unprecedented,” a figure shows Antarctic temp from 800,000 years ago to present, and CO2, same time frame. They covary quite impressively. Yep, CO2 is assoc with higher temps. So, it must be that higher CO2 causes higher temps.

    But wait: what if higher temps lead to higher CO2? Is that anywhere near as plausible as this greenhouse analogy?

    Let’s see: higher temps, more plant growth. more plant growth, more CO2.

    Now, a peek at that figure again: where it can be distinguished, the peaks and valleys in CO2 follow the peaks and valleys of the temp. temp drives CO2, not CO2 drives temp.

    It is right there in front of you. Difficult to discern. But right there all the time hiding in plain sight.

  9. TheLastDemocrat says:

    February 28, 2014 at 1:06 pm
    In the full book, at Question 7, “is this level of CO2 unprecedented,” a figure shows Antarctic temp from 800,000 years ago to present, and CO2, same time frame. They covary quite impressively. Yep, CO2 is assoc with higher temps.

    Wait – if they covary, then doesn’t it also show that CO2 is associated with lower temps also?

    Just sayin’.

    They only went back 800,000 years. Could that be because going back further, we will see times when CO2 levels were very high but temperatures were very low?

    The National Acadamies Press publishing a book that supports half-truths and miss-leading information. Who a thunk that would happen?

  10. Anthony, you said you’re writing two chapters, is there a tentative table of contents and who’s writing what?
    Besides polar bears, glaciers ocean heat, etc., I’d like to see a chapter on sea level.

  11. In the

    The National Academies Press
    Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (PDF Booklet)
    Evidence and Causes (PDF Booklet) (2014)

    Item #2 – How do scientists know that recent Climate Change is largely by human activities?

    Their bottom line:

    “Calculations using climate models (see infobox, p20) have been used to simulate what would have happened to global temperatures if only natural factors were influencing the climate system. These simulations yield little warming, or even a slight cooling, over the 20th century. Only when model include human influences on the composition of the atmosphere are the resulting temperature changes consistent with observed changes. ”

    So, proof equal models.

    Got it.

    But, they say they modelled the entire 20th Century. Why then were the temperature changes during the first half of the 20th Century so similar to the temperature changes during the second half when human CO2 emissions were way less in the 1st half then they were in the second half?

    Nature had warmed without the CO2 in the first half, directly refuting their model “evidence” and then continued the temperature change at about the same rate after the CO2 was being added noticeably by us humans.

    Oh, I forgot.

    Proof does not equal observation

    Something wrong with this logic, is there not?

  12. Uh, I seem to be getting off topic.

    Back on topic:

    Anthony – a donation of how much would get one a “free” pdf copy of the publication? I suppose that would be considered a pre-purchase?

  13. geran says:
    “Collect the money, but control the “science”. What a great scam.”

    You’re confused. Anthony is a weatherman not a climate scientist. That’s their modus operandi.

  14. I hope that at least one of the contributors will reconstruct the probable temperature trend after correcting for all warming biases and adjustments. My guesstimate is that actual warming since 1975 is close to 0.5 degrees less than the GISS figures.

  15. Louis Hooffstetter says:
    February 28, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    You’re confused. Anthony is a weatherman not a climate scientist. That’s their modus operandi.

    >>>>

    Exactly.

  16. geran says: @ February 28, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    Collect the money, but control the “science”. What a great scam.

    I assume you are talking about Shell OIl, BP, Enron, Rockefeller Foundation et al who funded the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia and Dr. Phil Jones

    Not to mention Dr Micheal Mann:

    Penn State Science
    Corporate Sponsors

    Outreach and Science Engagement is a not-for-profit organization offered through the College of Science. We strive to provide students and staff with both state-of-the art equipment and supplies and best professional pedagogical science instructional practices/resources. The organizations listed below have helped make the science experiences at Penn State a reality for thousands of participants…and we humbly thank you! To provide financial support for Science-U or to underwrite a science camp program, please read below for more information.
    Sponsors for 2012
    Shell Oil Company
    http://www.shell.com/
    Center for Nanoscale Science (Penn State MRSEC)
    The Boeing Company – http://www.boeing.com
    Restek – http://www.restek.com
    PA Space Grant Consortium…..

    http://science.psu.edu/outreach/corporate-sponsors

    DEMOCRACY NOW!

    Big Oil Goes to College: BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell Fund & Influence Research at Major Universities

    Over the past five years, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips have given millions of dollars to support energy research at top US universities….

    AMY GOODMAN: The world’s largest oil companies aren’t just heavyweights in the world of Washington lobbyists; they’re also showing a great deal of interest in financing energy research at major American universities. According to a new report released by the Center for American Progress, five of the world’s top ten oil companies — ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips — give millions — have been giving millions over the last decade to support energy research at America’s top universities….

  17. “Anthony is a weatherman not a climate scientist,”

    how does that work

    weatherman deal with reality , climate scientists with models.

  18. geran says:
    February 28, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    Collect the money, but control the “science”. What a great scam.

    Dead right it’s a massive scam.

    I assume you are referring to Global Warming Nazis? I mean collecting all those billions of grant dollars, and not a single allowance for a proper scientific analysis, slamming any dissenters, refusing to debate, trashing anyone who has legitimate questions, manipulating peer review, deleting emails, refusing to share data that ‘proves’ CAGW ™, etc. It is a huge scam, you are right!

  19. rogerknights says:
    February 28, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    How’s this for a title?: Climate Change: The Furor and the Facts

    Der Führer and the facts?

  20. Anthony,
    Please clarify: Is this tax deductible in the US? In Australia? Both?
    Can you reference the charitable organization category/status? 501C3 – US?
    Thanks,
    Mac

  21. Pete says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    If the book displays a focus on Australia, it may well be blown off by the mindless AGW crowd and their loudspeakers in the U.S. media … seriously, the lack of climate truth is global, not just in Australia.
    ——————————————————————
    He makes a valid point.

  22. Pete says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    If the book displays a focus on Australia, it may well be blown off by the mindless AGW crowd and their loudspeakers in the U.S. media … seriously, the lack of climate truth is global, not just in Australia.
    ——————————————————————
    He makes a valid point.
    ——————————————————————-
    Here is another valid point. Which is more likely to be embraced by the U.S. media, a book sceptical of global warming published in the U.S. or a book published in Australia that promotes it?

  23. Donation made. It may be little (AUD 25) but all little bits help.

    Thank you for all your time and effort. Keep fighting the good fight!

  24. The font colors chosen on the front page invite reading it as “Climate: change the facts 2014″. Surely the alarmists will focus on this and ignore the contents.

  25. Not a donation (sorry but funds are low as I attempt to find a school district that actually thinks), but an interesting article on snow and skiing sites around the world. Somebody had the bright idea of looking at oceanic/atmospheric oscillations and snow levels at ski resorts instead of “anthropogenic -snow will be a thing of the past- climate disruption” to help businesses (aka ski resort owners) figure out their business plans and budgets. No scare tactics here. No Ivory Tower Watermelons schmoozing with politicians. Just researchers catering to the rest of us. You know. The people who work for a living instead of getting their paycheck handed to them on a hog-slopped silver platter.

    http://www.wdrg.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/lehr_et_al_2012_MRD.pdf

Comments are closed.