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.
Bernie Lewin’s chapter ought to be common knowledge .
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.
I bought the kindle for PC version in February.
Book is strongly recommended.
Lindzen’s chapter is invaluable.
John
[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]
.mod,
When I look at the Kindle store, I only see one Kindle version of any book.
KIndle ebooks are now able to be read on any device via the Kindle reading apps:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/fiona/kcp-landing-page?ie=UTF8&ref_=sv_kstore_4
.mod,
What I meant is that to see a Kindle supplied book on a PC you need to install the free Kindle for PC application on your PC. I guess (but do not know) the book I received on my PC in the Kindle for PC application is exactly the same as what people see on the Kindle devices. I have never used a Kindle device.
John
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
Yes, indeed, Bubba — I’m repeating your Q, for I’ve been wondering for days and this seems like the time to shout out:
We miss you, O Researcher Extraordinaire!
In stock at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-The-Facts-J-Abbot/dp/0986398306/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1431692408&sr=8-1
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…”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
I made a donation to assist with production costs & have a copy of the book.
Bought it about 3 months ago.
Just bought my copy.
Just bought my copy.
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. @ur momisugly 8:16……Maurice Strong up to his eyeballs in the Iraq oil for food scam. Lives in China.I believe
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.
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.
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
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!
Loop Hole: A tax break that someone else uses.
“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.
Call your local library and ask them to purchase a copy.
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.
@cementafriend,
How’s the PDO calculated?
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.
Please post your University or Science journal papers that contradict AGW. Have you found even one yet?
“C02 effects world temperature is a fact, but feedbacks are unknown”
Precisely. Facts can be measured or demonstrated.
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!
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.
Yes, I agree, golf is hard.
The ball will break downhill.
That’s true for any lie.
Just ordered 3 copies.
Put a copy in the waiting room where you practice.
I hope there’ll be a 2015 sequel. There are good essays and authors that should be anthologized.
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?”
0.0355
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).
I should say adapt while maintaining current civilization and improving it. As noted, so far increased CO2 has been a boon to humanity.
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.
I think a bigger worry is the rest of life keeping up, not humans.
dbstealey,
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.
Anthony is right, as usual.
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.
Lindzen is paid not to get it. 3C/century x 2 centuries? 3 centuries? 5 centuries? How long do current species survive?
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!
Bought a copy.
Always happy to support all my heroes.
Supporting science and free speech.
When buying a copy from Amazon, consider doing it through the Instapundit website.
This way you also support Glenn Reynolds who also is a supporter of free speech and a CAGW skeptic.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=global+warming
We obtained ours through the IPA. Already read a while ago. Pity people like Tim Flannery, Al Gore etc would not read it.
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.
Will
Read the “The Integrity of Science” http:///wp.me/p3KQlH-JJ
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.