Now available in print – Climate Change The Facts – Let's send 'DeSmog Blog' a message for their recent falsehood

climate-change-the-facts-photoA number of people have been waiting for this book to come out in print since we first announced it. I’m happy to say it is now available in soft cover, as shown above. By ordering it from Amazon, you can kill two birds with one stone: get a printed copy, and send those boneheads at Jim Hoggan’s DeSmog blog a message that despite their attempt at smearing this book, it will be successful anyway.

Australian Tax Breaks Help Fund Climate Science Denier Mark Steyn’s Libel Defense in the US

Australian “free market” think-tank The Institute of Public Affairs chose option two in the late 1980s and has stuck with it since.

Now a climate misinformation book produced by the IPA and paid for with the help of tax breaks in Australia is seemingly helping to finance Steyn in a high profile libel case.

The IPA decided it would use its DGR status to encourage people to donate cash towards producing the book, which the IPA said would cost about $175,000.

As I wrote on DeSmog last year, this meant Australia’s tax revenue would be a tiny bit reduced so a bunch of climate science deniers could spout their usual conspiratorial mush.

The claim is ludicrous, “tax breaks” in their title equate to some people having a little less pocket change?  In an email on this issue from the publisher’s representative, Melissa Howes, she writes:

As you know, we paid for the conversion to digital and all the production/ printing costs of this edition. No Australian taxpayer or Koch Brothers here!

Our book seems to have rattled them.

DeSmog blog is run by a PR firm in Canada, Hoggan and Associates. It’s their paid job (from the David Suzuki Foundation I believe) to smear and spin, and they have a long track record of doing so. The author of the DeSmog piece, Graham Redfern has a long history of hit pieces like this with shonky claims.

As one of the authors of this book, I can attest to the fact that the book was produced privately and on a shoestring budget. Initially, the editor offered me a small compensation (a few hundred dollars) for my time to write my chapter, but they weren’t even able to pay that. So I’ve done it gratis. Originally my chapter was much longer, but had to be culled for space reasons.

Perhaps if enough copies are sold, they’ll be able to make good on the offer, but that isn’t all that important to me. What is important to me now is that this book gets wide distribution, in the form of some “Streisand Effect” payback for this fabricated claim from DeSmog blog. Buy a copy, better yet, buy two, and send one to somebody who really needs to read it.

Here is the book synopsis and review from Amazon:

Tirelessly promoted by princes, presidents, actors and activists, “climate change” has become a dominant theme of global politics. But what’s really going on as the “pause” in global warming prepares to enter its third decade? In this new anthology, leading scientists and commentators from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia consider the climate from every angle – the science, the policy and the politics.

Stockade Books and The Institute of Public Affairs are proud to publish Climate Change: The Facts, featuring 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts features the world’s leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts include:

Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.

Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.

Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.

Authors: Dr John Abbot, Dr Robert M. Carter ~ Rupert Darwall ~ James Delingpole, Dr Christopher Essex ~ Dr Stewart W. Franks ~ Dr Kesten C. Green ~ Donna Laframboise, Nigel Lawson ~ Bernard Lewin ~ Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Dr Jennifer Marohasy ~ Dr Ross McKitrick ~ Dr Patrick J. Michaels ~ Dr Alan Moran, Jo Nova, Dr Garth W. Paltridge ~ Dr Ian Plimer ~ Dr Willie Soon, Mark Steyn, Anthony Watts, Andrew Bolt, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, Dr Alan Moran

Both paperback and kindle versions are available from Amazon. I think I speak for all my co-authors when I say we would be grateful if you’d buy a copy or two.


Click for the Amazon page on this book

195 thoughts on “Now available in print – Climate Change The Facts – Let's send 'DeSmog Blog' a message for their recent falsehood

    • The seed funding for Desmugblag was provided by one Lefebvre, a convicted internet-gaming fraudster whom a judge ordered to repay $185 million to his victims. It also has links with the dreadful Suzuki, who turned and fled when I ran into him in a noisome corridor in Rio a couple of years ago.

      • It would be interesting to have access to the data regarding that seed funding. Thank you.
        Let us not forget that we have been told many times of the existence of a well-documented, billion-dollar campaign to discredit AGW without any documentation of any kind ever provided.

      • Brute,
        Lord Monckton is correct.
        From the blog’s Who We Are page:
        The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our founding benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.
        Fellow Suzuki Foundation Director and (from above link):
        Lefevre first garnered public attention in 1999, when he co-founded NETeller (now known as Neovia), an online money transfer facility. Though a publicly traded UK company, the firm’s involvement in transactions serving the then-fledgling online gambling sector led to U.S. charges of possible money laundering against the company and his arrest in January 2007.[4] Lefebvre plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to conduct illegal Internet gambling transactions and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and testify if necessary. The court ordered him to repay $185 million.[5]

      • It continues to amaze me how such a clown as Suzuki ever got (or gets) so much attention. Must be the Bill Nye effect. Get on TV and suddenly you have credibility.

  1. The IPA is the publisher of the book, as they proclaim on their website. The IPA is a non-profit, also as per their website, meaning they don’t pay taxes, also as per the financial statements on their website.
    Normally a publisher covers costs to publish a book, in fact that’s the principal function of a publisher. Do they use the term differently down under? Even if they didn’t, they’re promoting the book, which is essentially providing free marketing and sales support, also funded by tax breaks.
    Not sure I understand the lie here.

    • All marketing and sales support is funded by a “so-called” tax break. Marketing and sales functions are legitimate business expenses and are deducted prior to determining the tax liability of the firm. So I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, and it sounds like you’re not sure about it either.

      • No. Tax rates should be 100%. So if you’re paying 45% income taxes now, you’re actually getting a 55% tax break. My math may be off a bit. /sarc
        Perhaps not /sarc according to some people.

      • Mark,
        It seems to me that SHF is trying to equate what he thinks IPA is doing to the underhanded and illegal ways that green enviro-wacko organizations do their accounting; and he may be unaccustomed to legitimate and legal accounting practices. Anyways, that my guess on where his confusion might be.
        It seems it’s the same “oil industry subsidies” meme he’s trying to reproduce here.
        PS to all: I bought a copy of the book directly from Mr Steyn’s website. He was kind enough to autograph it with a short message because, I think, I wrote that it was part of my toolkit to de-program my kids from the overtly liberal and biased education they received here in my local school district.

      • Bruce you’re right, it’s just a redux of the fake oil industry tax break narrative, it would be good if people who lean to the left would understand a bit about economics and tax law, but then, if they did, they wouldn’t be leaning to the left.

    • So what? Non profits can publish books. It’s not illegal. Look at Dianetics for example.

    • No need to get so jealous. Just because nobody is willing to pay to read what you write.

    • Sir Harry Flashman
      May 15, 2015 at 1:23 pm
      …”Not sure I understand the lie here.”
      Well that is the nature of lies, ain’t it.
      Did you discover a lie, or were you just sure one occurred ?

      • DeSmogBlog only said the absolute truth. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it a lie.

      • Ah. Nice to know Flashman has a corner on the absolute truth. He knows it when he sees it.
        DeSmog wouldn’t even put a little bitty spin on anything. Nope, just the absolute truth. ☺

      • dbstealey,

        Nice to know Flashman has a corner on the absolute truth. He knows it when he sees it.

        Whereas you know absolute truth before it is seen:

        The day you’re right will be the day you finally admit that there isn’t any real evidence for dangerous man-made global warming.

        By definition, no evidence of any future event exists.

      • Gates,
        It was probably just an innocent oversight that you forgot to cut and paste the quote I was replying to.
        Here, let me help. This was Flash’s comment:
        DeSmogBlog only said the absolute truth.

      • There was an accusation of lying.
        It always raises my ire, especially when there are no supporting facts.

      • That was a compliment and a defense.
        Brandon is one of those people that got an answer for anything, you can’t win !?
        I’ve tried.

      • dbstealey,

        Yes, my heart is in the right place: on my sleeve.

        Filed for the next time you launch into your stock speech about noble cause corruption.

        Some other folks just can’t handle the truth.

        Still no supporting facts. At least your heart’s in the right place.

        Brandon is one of those people that got an answer for anything, you can’t win !?

        The feeling is mutual. Take that not as a critique, but an indication that I might understand your frustration.

        I’ve tried.

        I appreciate that you give me a stand up fight and mind the low blows.

    • Flashy
      “Not sure I understand the lie here”
      I have yet to have evidence of you understanding anything, why would this be any different?

    • SHF,
      Let’s just add this to the list of things you don’t understand and move on.

    • “funded by tax breaks” — SHF
      LOL. Confused — again!
      You don’t even need to understand accounting or tax principles, SHF.
      Here is it in a nutshell:
      (Revenue not received from X) does NOT equal (revenue paid to X).

      • And I guess God must not want me to make fun of the feebleminded, for I sure wrote a silly sentence with: “Here is it,” lol. Sorry about that, dear Harry Flashman. You DO need to put on your thinking cap, however… . YOU CAN DO IT! 🙂
        [Please do not insult the feebleminded by comparing them to warmunist trolls and trollops spouting their CAGW lines . .mod]

    • IPA is Not the publisher in the US, only Australia. In the US it’s Stockade Books. So don’t think your “tax break” comments are applicable here. Can’t comment re: Australia. And, incidentally, when is having no income (profit), and hence no income tax, a “break”???

    • funded by tax breaks

      SHF. That’s genius beyond belief. Because climate establishment is notoriously non-profit, it can funded with tax breaks only from now on.

      • According to the regular WUWT nay-sayers :
        Being funded by tax breaks is bad. While being funded directly by the tax-payer is good.

      • Now this was a creative punch line.
        Also to be noted: if you add subsidies, you can get over 100% tax. I bet they invented this in Sweden.

    • “Not sure I understand”
      Not understanding — the stock in trade of the climatologically bewildered….

    • It seems there are marbles randomly bouncing around in your head like balls in a pinball machine. You may want to have the marbles settle down so that frivolous unsupported allegations have at least a chance of being coherent.

    • It’s just that non-profit doesn’t mean what you think it means. You’ve been brain-washed into the “profit is evil” meme for so long that you think that being a non-profit is some kind of a mark of purity, it basically means that they have to insure that revenues are matched by expenses. You have to judge each Non-profits on it’s individual merits and whether it’s philosophical goals align with your own.

    • Normally a publisher covers costs to publish a book, in fact that’s the principal function of a publisher.

      Publishing has changed. Ever heard of Print-On-Demand?
      By your logic, Rockefeller’s 200 climate change non-profits are “also funded by tax breaks.”

  2. Looks like projection. I wonder what tax breaks are being collected by DeSmogBlog and associates, and what is being funded with the money?

    • As I have repeatedly commented, if it were up to me I would delete all subsidies (except in times of a declared war – maybe).
      Subsidies are not needed.
      The following 4 points explain why, which I’ve also posted here many times:
      1. Government is force

      2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

      3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

      You could pay $100K for an Econ education and never learn that.

      • dbstealey,

        1. Government is force

        2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

        3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

        1. True.
        2. Bad actions are generally best curtailed by force.
        3. No idea should be forced on anyone. It’s not clear that one can even force another to truly accept any idea.
        4. Liberty guarantees disagreement about which ideas are good and which are bad.

        You could pay $100K for an Econ education and never learn that.

        One hopes that’s because the average Wharton professor doesn’t conflate taxation with thought control.

      • Gates,
        You never could win a logical argument. You changed what I wrote by saying:
        2. Bad actions are generally best curtailed by force.
        That, of course, is nothing like what I said, so that’s just another strawman argument.
        I was promoting the free exchange of ideas, along with the idea that if people perceive something as being beneficial, subsidies are unnecessary.
        See, I wrote “ideas”, not “actions”. That is such a glaring distinction that I don’t need to go on. I’ll finish by saying I am for the free exchange of ideas (so long as they don’t precipitate harmful activity).
        But you want to use force. I think we all know what’s between the lines there, since you have regularly stated that human emissions are bad. Thus, they are ipso facto “bad actions” in your mind.
        Go get ’em, tiger. Throw those evil skeptics in prison. To the gulag with ’em! Or maybe Holocaust 2.0 is more your cuppa tea…

      • dbstealey,

        You changed what I wrote by saying:
        2. Bad actions are generally best curtailed by force.
        That, of course, is nothing like what I said, so that’s just another strawman argument.

        I know it’s not your argument, it’s part of my rebuttal.

        I was promoting the free exchange of ideas, along with the idea that if people perceive something as being beneficial, subsidies are unnecessary.

        Which implies that ideas are not being freely exchanged because subsidies exist. If there’s a strawman I’ve built to be had here, that would be a candidate.

        See, I wrote “ideas”, not “actions”. That is such a glaring distinction that I don’t need to go on. I’ll finish by saying I am for the free exchange of ideas (so long as they don’t precipitate harmful activity).

        I guess I need to spell it out: who defines what’s harmful?

        But you want to use force.

        Yes, to prevent actions which I consider “bad”.

        I think we all know what’s between the lines there, since you have regularly stated that human emissions are bad.

        I just adore it that it’s not ok for me to read between the lines, but perfectly ok for you to do it.

        Thus, they are ipso facto “bad actions” in your mind.

        Ahem: I’ll finish by saying I am for the free exchange of ideas (so long as they don’t precipitate harmful activity).
        Do you wait for the precipitation to occur before meting out sanction, or do you nip it in the bud during the talk phase?

        Go get ’em, tiger. Throw those evil skeptics in prison. To the gulag with ’em! Or maybe Holocaust 2.0 is more your cuppa tea…

        I’ll give you one thing: your imagination is certainly vivid. I’m talking about using public funds to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels, you parlay that into throwing dissenters into prison AFTER having said that free exchange of ides is ok so long as no actual harm comes of it.

      • From Gates, that’s about 97% rhetorical nonsense. As usual.
        For readers who understand, here it is again. Savor it:
        1. Government is force

        2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

        3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

        You could pay $100K for an Econ education and never learn that.

      • dbstealey
        May 16, 2015 at 6:17 pm
        2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others
        One of my good friends laughed at me for copying one of his ideas.
        My reply was:” I’m not afraid to use a good idea.”
        If I recall correctly, my outspoken friend was speechless.

      • dbstealey,

        From Gates, that’s about 97% rhetorical nonsense.

        That’s 3% better than 100% wrong. I accept your compliment while noting that you’re arguing by assertion. Again. Would that you would ever follow your own diktats.

        For readers who understand, here it is again.

        Repeating the same argument after it has been challenged doesn’t necessarily make it more true. However, many have found that it does make it more convincing. Curious quirk of the human brain that the familiar is more trusted than the unfamiliar.
        Now please, if you would, stop playing dodge ball and explain for the class who decides what is good or bad, and tell us whether you would quash bad ideas before they lead to action, or whether you consider it better to wait for bad ideas to show themselves as such by way of action before putting your foot down.

      • Mr Gates asks (my paraphrase): Who decides what ideas are good or bad? Thus missing the point entire. If the idea is good, it need not be forced. If an idea is bad, it should not be forced. Therefore, ideas should not be forced. If ideas are not forced, and people are free to choose, good ideas and bad ideas will be revealed by their fruit.

  3. Down loaded the Kindle version week ago, when Mark Steyn recommend it at his web site. I bought one each of Mark’s books and CD to support his legal challenge of Michael Mann.

  4. i will be using my copy as the basis for one my English Language classes in Chiang Mai – Northern Thailand.

  5. Done, Anthony. I have started the electronic version on my tablet. Will finish it up with this. I really like what I have read thus far and am taking notes along the way. It’ll make an excellent reference.

    • “… But unlike you flying off to visit your Auntie Mabel for a week, it’s all absolutely vital and necessary. In the interests of saving the planet, IPCC honcho Rajendra Pachauri demands the introduction of punitive aviation taxes and hotel electricity allowances to deter the masses from travelling, while he flies 300,000 miles a year on official ‘business’ and research for his recent warmographic novel, in which a climate activist travels the world bedding big-breasted women who are amazed by his sustainable growth. (… don’t worry; every sex scene is peer-reviewed.) No doubt his next one will boast an Antarctic scene: is that an ice core in your pocket or ….” (You know the rest. This a family site after all. Definitely worth $9.95 …)

  6. I bought this book when it was first mentioned here. So it has been in paper book form at least since then. I read it ages ago. The package had a label which was the image of the front of the book on it. The postman probably didn’t know it was a sceptical book and possibly thought I was a believer.

  7. OK, it’s a must-have and I ordered it from Stein.
    I am disappointed to see from your cover taht it does not include the Idsos nor anything about the biology of CO2 and climate change.
    Those are the most important part, imo.

  8. “Authors: Dr John Abbot(Author), Dr Robert M. Carter ~ Rupert Darwall ~ James Delingpole(Author), Dr Christopher Essex ~ Dr Stewart W. Franks ~ Dr Kesten C. Green ~ Donna Laframboise(Author), Nigel Lawson ~ Bernard Lewin ~ Dr Richard S. Lindzen(Author), Dr Jennifer Marohasy ~ Dr Ross McKitrick ~ Dr Patrick J. Michaels ~ Dr Alan Moran(Author), Jo Nova(Author), Dr Garth W. Paltridge ~ Dr Ian Plimer ~ Dr Willie Soon(Author), Mark Steyn(Author), Anthony Watts(Author), Andrew Bolt(Author), Dr J. Scott Armstrong(Author), Dr Alan Moran(Editor)”
    What’s the difference between an (author) and the rest of the authors (eg Lawson and Lewin)?

  9. Is there any point in sending a message to DeSmog? Can the stupid Doyles even read? Just sayin……

    • Then I’d suggest you write a review on the Nook site. It currently has just a one-star review because, the reviewer says, “…only 1 star because I will not put my money into a digital library…”

  10. I would add that the IPA is a highly worthwhile organisation, and I would encourage all Australians to become members. They cover a wide range of conservative viewpoints, from AGW to school curricula, free speech and small government. The left see them as very dangerous, and they have been effective at getting conservative view points heard in the media and by our politicians.
    If you value a free, capitalist society, with strong property rights, small government and minimal disincentives for individual effort, then you should support this organisation.
    The alternative is not worth thinking about.

    • The IPA got one of their senior people appointed to the very left wing oriented Human Rights Commission, much to the consternation and howls of fury of the left.

    • Agreed. That may actually be the best chapter in it. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure. The figures are important of course, but what the liars do with them is a very human tale.

  11. I bought the kindle for PC version in February.
    Book is strongly recommended.
    Lindzen’s chapter is invaluable.
    [Is the black and white kindle version readable on earlier ebooks, or is the book better displayed in the color screens like Kindle Fire? .mod]

  12. Ka Ching! done 1 for me and a couple of presents
    That answers 1 of my 2 questions for the day (Friday limit):
    1. When will the print edition be available? and
    2. Where’s Jimbo? MIA

  13. Done! I’m surprised at the complimentary description of James Hogan’s website; this is a bit more accurate in my opinion;
    “DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists…”

  14. I am ashamed to be Canadian, when people like David Susuki try and represent us. He has mansions, 5 children whilst he wants the rest of the world to have one child and live without heat. A total hypocrite because he tours using huge belching buses packed full of his staff .. let’s not even talk about his planes.

    • Same here Denise, and now with the Clinton connection and the Uranium scandal, the LeFebre guy(convicted) with the climate stuff and let alone what’s his name at the UN ” Maurice somebody”? it is a sad day for Canadians.

      • Asybot. @ 8:16……Maurice Strong up to his eyeballs in the Iraq oil for food scam. Lives in China.I believe

  15. Reviews are important. If you read the book, please be sure to write a review on Amazon or Barnes & Noble, as well as on Goodreads. You can bet all the warmists will be dissing it without reading it. There’s only one Nook review, right now, and that is a ☆ rating because the reviewer “doesn’t like digital books.” Oy. I’ll fix that this weekend with my own review; just bought a Nook copy.
    Reviews can be short; you don’t have comment on all the contents, just read the book and then give your honest overall reaction right away in a few words. I’m hoping to be able to give it ☆☆☆☆☆, but ☆☆☆☆ wouldn’t be bad, either. You can comment on reviews without reading the book; the reviews are supposed to be helpful to a prospective buyer. Judge them on that basis, not because you disagree with the rating given.

    • I am buying one, and if it is really excellent I will buy more and give them away where needed, as I have with other books. I know this will come off as too picky, but I have a couple of reservations about it. First, IMO, the dust cover is poorly designed if the intent is to attract curious uncommitted readers or the AGW crowd, as there won’t be very much name recognition for the authors beyond this (WUWT) or similar audiences. Shouldn’t the cover lead the reader to ask “Am I wrong about Climate Change?” and to question the egregiously groundless claims, unproved hypotheses, fudged records and statistics, and backtracking by the IPCC? In browsing the Amazon site for “climate change” books, there are already too many book titles purporting to give the reader “the facts” or to educate about CC to let this one stand out. As presented, I’m guessing a majority of the sales will be “in support” of the skeptical position or as “payback” (as Anthony is requesting) rather than to possible converts to true science and reasonable politics. I hope I’m wrong. BTW, I an not a troll, and I contribute every time Anthony asks for help in bringing us this outstanding site, and I am looking forward to reading the book.

  16. Gonna buy a few and send them to my “favourite” politicians and news organizations – who probably won’t read them but it’s worth a try even if some lacky just reads the cover.

  17. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Well done Anthony and all the other esteemed authors. Can’t wait to read more climate realism with reason. Shall buy my x2 copies today! Cheers

  18. Funded by donations which are tax deductible. So technically, if the people who donated could be bothered to list the $1-$2 they donated at tax time to fund the $x needed to publish (under $10,000? Up to $100,000?) then the government would receive a little less revenue (lowest tax rate 19.5% highest tax rate 45%… $2000-$45,000 less government income?).
    The smear of course is that it is implied when someone says “tax break” that the recipient is the “evil organisation” producing the book, as opposed to ordinary people who donated their own cash and probably lost the receipt before tax time or threw it away because it was too much bother to take it to their accountant!

    • “opposed to ordinary people who donated their own cash and probably lost the receipt before tax”
      In the United States, unless your deductions exceed the “standard deduction” there’s usually no point in itemizing all your deductions.

  19. A friend of mine suggested he wish had a book that stated clearly what was known fact, and what was theory or conjecture in the field of cosmology. I though he had a point.
    Speed of light is a fact, supernovas are a fact, dark matter is a theory, universal constant is a theory, Big Bang is (in my view) a theory, but held by many. It just makes things clearer to the layperson. Climate change is the same thing.
    C02 effects world temperature is a fact, but feedbacks are unknown, PDO is a fact, reason it occurs is unknown, etc etc.

    • Sorry, obviously you have little understanding of the engineering subject “heat & mass transfer” (but neither has anyone that calls themselves a climate scientist) The absorption of radiant energy by CO2 in the atmosphere is so small to be unmeasurable.- check the equation determined from measurements by Prof Hoyt Hottel texts such as marks Mechanical Engineering Handbook or Perry’s Chemical Engineering handbook which have been read and reviewed by 100’s of thousands of engineer.- next any absorption of energy by CO2 can not effect the earths surface (of which 70% is water in oceans, seas and lakes). PDO is a calculated factor using the sea surface temperature. There is no information to prove that any calculated value is realistic. SOI is also a calculated value but its long history of measurement makes it useful for analyses. However, it is an outcome of atmospheric conditions and not a driver or cause.
      So, until you have some understanding of engineering and science I suggest say nothing and keep studying.

    • The background radiation is a fact, but the Big Bang is definitely a theory, seeking to explain that observation. It’s still incomplete, but so far, AFAIK, has not been falsified, but confirmed. Competing theories have less support.
      Catastrophic man-made “climate change” is a failed hypothesis, not rising to theory level, since it has already been repeatedly shown false and lacks evidence on its face.

    • “C02 effects world temperature is a fact, but feedbacks are unknown”
      Precisely. Facts can be measured or demonstrated.

  20. Bought one copy for my Kindle, it is downloading now. Buying a hard copy to send as gift to my most ardent warmista friend. Hope he reads it, but I would not bet the farm on it.
    Very happy to be able to help.
    Thank s to all involved in getting this book published!

  21. Sir Harry Flashman
    May 15, 2015 at 1:23 pm
    ‘Not sure I understand the lie here.’
    bored of his lies here.
    Sir, ‘senior’, the elder one.
    Sir Harry – the senile one?
    Make it up with your senile self one.

    • ‘Not sure I understand the lie here.’

      Yes, I agree, golf is hard.
      The ball will break downhill.
      That’s true for any lie.

  22. I hope there’ll be a 2015 sequel. There are good essays and authors that should be anthologized.

  23. Worth it alone for Richard Lindzen’s contribution.
    Conclusion : “Wasting resources on symbolically fighting
    ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the
    assumption that the Earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in
    the middle of the twentieth century, a sign of intelligence.”

    • Even fundamentalists know the return of the perfect climate of the Garden of Eden did not occur in the middle of the twentieth century, how scientists missed this remains a mystery.

      • Perfect climate by God or by accident? Or is it the evolution of species during the perfect climate for those species? Now we count on those species evolving fast enough to adapt to a rate of temperature rise of 3C per century. What’s the historical rate of evolutionary change?

        • warrenlb says “Perfect climate by God or by accident?”
          Neither. “Perfect” is by definition. Your mileage may vary.
          “What’s the historical rate of evolutionary change?”
          But that’s just a guess. Your rate may vary. Speciation seems to advance rapidly during times of environmental stress and slow to almost nothing during periods of “perfect climate”.

    • Even Lindzen doesn’t get it apparently. The climate is not “perfect” nor has it ever been, but it is the one that almost 8 billion of us have built a complex, interdependent civilization on, and if it changes dramatically that civilization is unlikely to be able to keep up.

      • Flasher,
        Humanity built a complex, interdependent civilization during the depths of the Little Ice Age, but warmer is better. So far the slight changes brought on by more CO2 have been beneficial. Nothing bad is likely to happen, but if it does, humanity will adapt.

      • Thanks for being reasonable Sturgis. I agree that humanity would adapt to a dramatic change in climate, but I’m not convinced we could maintain our current civilization. That’s the bet we’re making,and for me the risk is too high.

      • What makes you imagine we could not adapt?
        What catastrophic consequences do you foresee, and how do you suppose they might come about?
        There is zero evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change alarmism (CACCA).

      • Flasher sez:
        Even Lindzen doesn’t get it apparently. The climate is not “perfect” nor has it ever been, but it is the one that almost 8 billion of us have built a complex, interdependent civilization on, and if it changes dramatically that civilization is unlikely to be able to keep up.
        Rarely do we find a comment that is 100.0% wrong. Flashman’s comment fits the description.
        So, by the numbers:
        1. Even Lindzen doesn’t get it apparently. The climate is not “perfect” nor has it ever been
        Lindzen writes:
        Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages, and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in 100,000 year cycles for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced, to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
        For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

        2. …almost 8 billion of us…
        There are about 7 billion people.
        3. …civilization is unlikely to be able to keep up.
        Civilization has progressed steadily upward on a geometric curve, despite much worse climates than the present very benign global temperature situation. People are living longer and healthier lives. The world is becoming wealthier. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support Flashman’s Chicken Little scenario.
        Since “dangerous man-made global warming” (MMGW) is the basic premise of the climate alarmist cult, and since there is no real world evidence to support that belief, the scare attracts folks like Flashman. There’s no reason, but he still needs something to be scared about.
        Dangerous MMGW fits the bill.

      • dbstealey,

        Rarely do we find a comment that is 100.0% wrong.

        Proof positive you don’t read your own posts.

      • Gates gots nothin’ as usual, so he does a snide drive-by. He can’t find a comment of mine that is 100% wrong. Sure, I occasionally make an error. But I note that Planet Earth is busy making Gates 100.0% wrong.
        I’m with Lindzen. Gates is with Flashman. To each his own.

        • I’d just stop worrying about what Gates has to say, it is of no significance nor consequence.

      • I often read various places that nothing of consequence is said at WUWT, so it can be safely ignored. The typical WUWT responses to that go both ways as well. I’m happy to have a substantive debate any time, and have done so recently. Pretending that I don’t do that on a regular basis is telling. By all means, keep doing more of it.

      • Harry, what is your definition of dramatic climate change and when and where has that happened since the AGW hypothesis was introduced? For what reason do you have to believe it will change dramatically and abruptly in the near future?

      • “The climate is not ‘perfect’ nor has it ever been”
        Plain to see you’ve never been to Maui.

        • Warrenlb says “Lindzen is paid not to get it.”
          Hooray for Lindzen. I wish I could get paid not to get it. The number of things I don’t get is infinite — I’d be rich!

  24. Bought a copy.
    Always happy to support all my heroes.
    Supporting science and free speech.

  25. We obtained ours through the IPA. Already read a while ago. Pity people like Tim Flannery, Al Gore etc would not read it.

  26. Thanks for the update
    Bought a copy for my Kindle,
    Which I’m about to read;
    On books like this
    Our children should feed!
    I rhyme about climate,
    I care more than most,
    The death of real science
    Left behind us its ghost;
    An evil poltergeist,
    Pseudo-science it is called,
    And with this shadowy figure
    Politicians have us enthralled.
    Read the “The Integrity of Science” http:///

  27. I’ll have to get it on my Kindle not the hardcover. I can’t even leave such a book around my house with my liberal friends coming over. I would never be invited to go winery touring anymore.

    • I know, when I tell friends or family “climate change” is overblown hype their jaws drop and look at me like I have become a hybrid clone of Ted Cruz and Dick Cheney. Then they exclaim, “You don’t believe in Climate change!?” I usually answer there is enormous evidence that the climate changes, that humanity contributes to climate as all living and non-living things do, but there is no evidence that has demonstrated humanity controls climate or the current climate changes are negative in any way.
      It’s useless discussing further since beyond the memes there is only ignorance on the topic. When knowledge and reason is superseded by slogans and value judgments, (republicans are bad, CO2 is bad, fossil fuels are bad, man is ruining the planet, save the planet, etc) it is impossible to have a discussion.

      • Yes Alx, I have experienced the same. But I am still trying to learn the science involved. To that effect I have purchased the Kindle version and have reached chapter 2. Disappointing to say the least, no science at all so far. I have just read, with regard to climate sensitivity, of the “logarithmic dependence of the radiative impact of CO2” but absolutely no explanation of what this is. There must be a tutorial that explains how radiative emission from CO2 molecules can heat anything on the surface. It can certainly heat the air when the sun is shining, but heat the surface of the Earth below? Not according to the science of heat transfer by radiation. This of course raises the subject of NET transfer which seems to be verboten.

  28. Graham Redfern
    Smear merchants are part of the political class that can be safely classified as evil. I don’t mean evil as a supernatural force, but the human capability of being vile, dishonorable, corrupt, nefarious, vicious, and malicious.
    Actual Graham Redfern would make a great name for an evil character in a Batman comic.

  29. Let me clarify: noone – not Desmogblog, not me – is suggesting that anything illegal happened, so you can stop throwing that straw man out there. What they are saying is that it’s kind of grotesque to have taxpayers funding anti-science screeds by fossil fuel shills. Obviously that’s a matter of opinion, of course.

    • Flasher,
      The anti-science shills are man-made climate alarmists paid by governments and Big Oil. The pro-science reality advocates are skeptics, few of whom have any connection to fossil fuel bucks. Why do you lie?
      What is Freeman Dyson’s connection to Big Oil? His colleague William Happer’s? Burt Rutan’s? William Gray’s? What was Michael Crichton’s? Reid Bryson’s?

      • And which one of those names is actively involved in Climate Research? Perhaps we should applaud farmers for their contributions to solid state physics — or priests for their contributions to mathematics…?.
        But as Sturgis would say, ‘We can’t pay attention to those dang scientists doing the actual research –they keep coming up with answers we don’t like!”

    • Perhaps you should read this study:
      There are AGW proponents here who simply provide data when the skeptics here go overboard. And it does happen. They don’t use terms like “grotesque”, “anti-science” and “shills”. Based on the paper, that puts you squarely in the category of troll.
      Obviously, that is a matter of opinion, of course.

      • I used to link to real sciencey papers all the time, but the general rule around here is to dismiss what you don’t like. I figured that if that’s the game, it’s a whole lot easier to play, so count me in.

        • Sir Harry Flashman says “the general rule around here is to dismiss what you don’t like.”
          True enough. Elsewhere the general rule is to ban the writer so it’s pretty relaxed here.

    • warrenlb is mentally incapable of doing without his logical fallacies. The appeal to authority is one of his faves.
      I’ve posted literally thousands of links to peer reviewweed papers that contradict warrenlb’s closed-minded nonsense. He ignores them all. Then he keeps posting his favorite logical fallacy — but when someone else posts a few authorities, well then, the goal posts are immediately moved in order to keep anyone else from playing the same game as warren.
      warrenlb is a parody of a closed-minded climate alarmist lemming. He has taught his pseudo-science to so many for so long, that even when Planet Earth makes a fool of him, he continues as if he can force the data to conform to his beliefs.
      As I said, he’s a parody. But amusing.

      • More obfuscation –seems to be your speciality. Name some peer reviewed journal papers that contradict AGW. I think Dr James Powell found 2 from last year, out of 10s of thousand, or 0.2%. I bet you know them by heart.

  30. Just ordered mine . Had to buy paperback in US as Canadian Amazon only has Kindle version.

  31. When this book was first announced on WUWT, I contacted the publisher in Australa and bought two copies, one for me, and one for a friend.
    Great book, great read, lots of good stuff and should be read by any serious scientists researchingclimate or with an interst in climate change.

  32. I read it. It is a good book, but the title, “The Facts”, doesn’t cover the contents. Few hard facts, very little science but a lot of good opinions and analyses.

  33. Chris: But good analytical data are, in fact, facts. These then lead to solid defensible interpretations (not opinions).

    • The first 90 pages deal with the science. After that, it is about politics, economics and the climate change movement (some 200 pages).

      • That’s a pretty generous allocation of space for science.
        I’d argue the debate itself is 90% about Globalization, income inequality, global development, economic development, right v. left etc. I rarely see any politician, media person or even publicly available scientist speaking solely or even mostly on the science. At best you get a flippant reference to some science (probably incomplete or misquoted) followed by a rant about policy which is inevitably political or economic.
        The sooner people acknowledge this is an ideological debate, not a scientific debate, the sooner we can be done with it. Numerous studies have confirmed the ignorance of your average yay or nay CAGWer on the actual science.

  34. Amazon:

    Temporarily not available

    That’s the printed version, I suppose. Sorry, Kindle is no alternative because I’ll pass it on after reading.

  35. I glanced back at my order to check something, and I see Amazon is Temporarily out of stock.
    Guess the announcement here generated some orders!

    • It seems like you had something to say.
      I guess I’m not clever enough to figure out what it was.
      Care to try again ?

  36. Done! Sent my “message” but it is already out of stock. That’s okay, backorders indicate interest.
    Anyway, note for Brandon Gates. I’ve finished my review of Altemeyer’s book on Right Wing Authoritarians. Now I’m trying to refine and reduce my 28 pages of notes.
    I don’t think I am yet able to reduce his 260 pages to a useful sentence (a non-useful reduction is “I don’t like RWA’s”), but my sense at the moment is that of a lack of diagnostic particularity. He found what he sought but you might find the same thing under other rocks if you turned them as well.
    His own prejudice fails to turn up some of the most important factors of “High RWA”. He is so sure God does not exist that he fails to ask the obvious question of why people believe in God — the obvious one being they met him in some manner. First hand knowledge. It cannot be shared but it also cannot be argued against.

  37. Brandon Gates at May 16, 2015 at 8:48 pm says “so it can be safely ignored.”
    All blogs can be safely ignored. Your comment lacks particularity. Plain to see you are not ignoring this one and obviously neither am I.

  38. I ordered mine several days ago and Amazon responded with a mid-June delivery date. Yesterday they shortened the delivery time several weeks (I get it next week). I guess they “found” some more books now that back-orders are building. A case of Commerce trumping Politics?

Comments are closed.