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.
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.
[SNIP policy violation – mod]
Sounds great, even if a few decades too late.
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:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
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.
With all due respect, what of the prey that just keeps taking the bait ?
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.
missed a decimal place, warren
Duly purchased. Looking forwards to reading it.
Just ordered a copy and started reading the Kindle version.
Bought our copy today.
Just ordered mine . Had to buy paperback in US as Canadian Amazon only has Kindle version.
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.
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.
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.
Amazon:
That’s the printed version, I suppose. Sorry, Kindle is no alternative because I’ll pass it on after reading.
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!
And at the risk of repeating myself…..
“Climate Change – The Facts” from James Delingpole? Surely you jest Anthony?
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 ?
Ordered my copy! Thanks Anthony!
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.
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.
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?