A 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(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)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Count on it.
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.
I think most people would.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lefebvre
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]
Suzuki never debates anyone who possesses real knowledge that counters his rhetoric.
Enjoyed the video from Australia posted on this blog in which it’s obvious that Suzuki doesn’t know who or what HadCRU and GISS are.
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.
Count on it to change the ‘facts’? Well that’s a sure bet.
How about this: buy two copies – one for yourself and one to donate to your local library.
Did that
Looks like a fine effort. Just purchased one paper copy and one electronic.
Count me in too! On my way to Amazon right now!
Weird…while I was there I thought I’d check on the progress of Mr. Nuttycelli’s book. Only 3 reviews. How odd! 😛
ATM, 87 reviews, and the paperback has sold out. Will need a new printing?
Downloaded to my Kindle, can’t wait to read it.
It’s a great book.
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.
Well explain to us what you are attempting to lie about, and we’ll try to explain where you once again went wrong.
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.
Bruce
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.
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/cartoon.png
Stockade Books is the publisher, not the IPA. The IPA, which has a DGR status, collected donations (that were tax deductible for the donors) to have the book published by Stockade.
You seem to be under the false impression that “non-profit” companies/organizations in the US are not allowed to make a profit, sell items or products etc.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/taxes-nonprofit-corporation-earnings-30284.html
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,
Whereas you know absolute truth before it is seen:
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.
Then reading stealey ought really piss you off at times.
His heart is in the right place, maybe a bit overzealous at times.
Who ain’t.
u.k.(us) ,
Yes, my heart is in the right place: on my sleeve.
Some other folks just can’t handle the truth.
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,
Filed for the next time you launch into your stock speech about noble cause corruption.
Still no supporting facts. At least your heart’s in the right place.
u.k.(us),
The feeling is mutual. Take that not as a critique, but an indication that I might understand your frustration.
I appreciate that you give me a stand up fight and mind the low blows.
We’ve all got our faults.
But never as bad as the other guy’s.
The difficulty lies with his Science, not his heart.
Flashy
“Not sure I understand the lie here”
I have yet to have evidence of you understanding anything, why would this be any different?
Rude.
True, but rude…
Man, you guys should be doing stand-up. I can always tell when I’m right here, all I get back is insults and irrelevancies.
Not as rude. Not as true, either.
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. But then you’d have to admit you were taken in by the hoax.
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]
Janice –
The fact that SHF has a thinking cap is not a fact in evidence.
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”???
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….
Cheers!
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.
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.”
Looks like projection. I wonder what tax breaks are being collected by DeSmogBlog and associates, and what is being funded with the money?
Suzuki Foundation (which takes donations from Big Oil).
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. 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.
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,
I know it’s not your argument, it’s part of my rebuttal.
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.
I guess I need to spell it out: who defines what’s harmful?
Yes, to prevent actions which I consider “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.
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
Will do
i will be using my copy as the basis for one my English Language classes in Chiang Mai – Northern Thailand.
I pictured Lew and Cook’s heads exploding when I read that. Made me smile like a Josh cartoon…
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.
Only Kindle version on Amazon.ca…
easy to convert to anything with Calibre
Got that a while back! Great read!
$9.95 on Kindle? Nice. The Steyn article alone will be worth that.
“… 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 …)
Could we just fly him to the moon instead of around the world so many times?
LOL, Sturgis — good one!
That would be lunar carbon pollution.
He’d surely go for the Amazon Women purportedly present there.
Please buy it at http://www.steynonline.com and help Mark with his fight against the Mann.
I’ve contributed more than a few times there already.
Thank you, just done that 😊
Ditto! All of Mark’s book are remarkably prescient and well worth buying.
I especially liked his movie review of Saving Private Ryan. I saw it at the website when it first came out. I can’t remember which book it ended up in, but I think it was Face of the Tiger. Steyn is very witty. And how can you not love a “One Man Global Content Provider?” Very efficient.
Done – TY for the suggestion!
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.
Ordered. Thx for the work to put this together.
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.
“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)?
I’m guessing that authors had responsibility for whole chapters or more and the the others were contributors.
Done.
Not available in Canada yet!
Received my copy yesterday.
Is there any point in sending a message to DeSmog? Can the stupid Doyles even read? Just sayin……
I read the NOOK book last month. Well done.
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…”
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.
To prevent repeating the history – more is needed than one. Human rights protect people from the horrors of central command.