rss
43

Plimer leads IPA fund-raising push for new climate denial book

Print Friendly

Leading climate change denier Professor Ian Plimer is leading a new fund-raising campaign from Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s favourite conservative think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, to raise money for a new book attacking climate science, carbon pricing and renewable energy targets.

Plimer, a geologist, sent out an email to a bunch of folk today calling for tax deductible donations to support the new book, which features climate science denier luminaries such as Andrew Bolt, James Delingpole, Donna Laframboise, Lord Nigel Lawson, Professor Richard Lindzen, Joanne Nova, Mark Steyn, Anthony Watts and one John Abbot (no relation, not enough “t”s).

The fund raising campaign comes as the Climate Change Authority issued a report saying Australia needed to dramatically accelerate its emissions reductions program, and as a new study from the UK criticised Australia for back-tracking on its climate policies.

The IPA has been highly influential in those decisions, and is not shy of claiming credit. Its new target is the renewable energy target, even though some of the costs it has claimed, and which have been repeated by business lobby groups, are hopelessly wrong.

climate change denial

Plimer’s email begins with a triumphant boast that the IPA has helped kill the emissions trading scheme and the carbon tax, and appears to be about to do the same thing with the renewable energy target. “Australia is still suffering under bad policies (like the renewable energy target) based on bad science,” he writes.

Donors even get the opportunity to have their name acknowledged on the back cover of the book, to be called Climate Change: The Facts 2014. They have to cough up $400 first. Taxpayers will return nearly half of that, depending on their income bracket.

According to an email forward to RenewEconomy, Plimer says.

Today, you and I are winning. Kevin Rudd’s ETS is gone. Julia Gillard’s carbon tax is about to be repealed.

None of this would have happened without the Institute of Public Affairs and its members. But more needs to be done. Australia is still suffering under bad policies (like the renewable energy target) based on bad science.

I want the IPA to continue winning the climate change debate in this country. That’s why I’m asking you to make a tax-deductible donation to the IPA today so they can bring together the world’s biggest names on climate change.

The IPA needs your tax-deductible donation to publish a new book of research, Climate Change: The Facts 2014 featuring Andrew Bolt, Professor Bob Carter, James Delingpole, Donna Laframboise, Lord Nigel Lawson, Professor Richard Lindzen, Joanne Nova, Dr Patrick Michaels, Mark Steyn and Anthony Watts. I’ll be writing a chapter too. I’ve already made a donation.

Here’s what some of the contributors say about Climate Change: The Facts 2014:

“I salute what my friends at the IPA have done to make Australians start to see sense on climate change. The IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts 2014 is a very important book.”
– Mark Steyn, contributor to Climate Change: The Facts 2014

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

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

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

John Roskam has told me he’ll send a copy of Climate Change: The Facts 2014 to every federal member of parliament. And he’s also told me about all the IPA members and supporters who want to stand up and be counted on climate change. Which is why if they choose, every person who makes a tax-deductible donation of $400 or more will be acknowledged by name on the outside back cover of the book.

 

  

RenewEconomy Free Daily Newsletter

Share this:

  • Coaltopia

    With the book, they they should issue a set of playing cards tied to each name.

    • juxx0r

      What are you going to do with 52 jokers?

      • Alen

        Maybe include one king, king Abbott? He is as clueless and useless as the rest of these fundamentalist creationists, god give them some sense

  • juxx0r

    These people should hang their heads in shame. It’s not just about the climate, what about clean air, clean water, clean food? How many premature deaths, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and hospital admissions are their ‘science’ going to be responsible for.

    Since when did scientists ignore a particular facet (health) because it doesn’t agree with their opinions on climate?

    By judging renewable energy on clean water, clean air, clean food and healthy people, ignoring any climate effects entirely, then how can you be happy about reducing the clean energy targets?

    • wideEyedPupil

      No, it’s really about the climate. Health effects of coal and CSG mining and burning are significant in Australia, but they are dwarfed by the enormity of the harm Climate Change brings and which it will bring in ever more serious doses of reality.

      • juxx0r

        But if you pretend that doesn’t exist like these people do, then what?

        • wideEyedPupil

          These people are not interested in other peoples well being.

      • klem

        No, its about politics and that’s all its about.

        We’ve had 17 years of no warming. Alarmists like yourself should be cheering and claiming that your curly light bulbs and wind farms are the reason for the pause. Yay, we’re saved! But you don’t cheer. Instead you proudly deny the 17 year pause. That’s politics, pure and simple.

        Many of you secretly wonder how you didn’t hear about the 17 year pause until only recently, maybe only over the last few months. The IPCC and climate elite have managed to keep you in the dark for 16 years. You should be upset about this, but instead you gladly choose to ignore this 16 years of darkness. That’s politics too.

        cheers

        • Alen

          Average global temperatures may have not increased in this period, but the rate and level of extreme weather events has continued to increase during this period as found by studies, exactly what CC predict I.e increase of extreme events The fact that oceans are getting warmer and land ice continues to melt at rapid rates supports the theory that the ocean has absorbed much this heat. A absorption limit by the ocean will be reached soon, specially since warm ocean means less CO2 will be absorbed by them from the atmosphere, so where will this heat and CO2 go to then? It only reasons to result inwarmer temp very quick.

          • klem

            An absorption limit by the ocean will be reached soon? That’s a good one, I’ve never heard that lie before. You alarmists are truly grabbing at straws now. Perhaps you might want to read up on the latent heat of water before you spew that one too often. Only an arts major would make such a claim.

            BTW, the ocean’s Argo system only reaches depths of 2000 meters, while the average depth of the worlds oceans is around 4000 meters. Therefore we cannot measure the average temp of the worlds oceans simply because we can’t reach it all, so all of your crap talk about the oceans getting warmer and hitting a thermal absorption limit is bizarre fantasy.

            But carry on Alan. I need a good laugh once in awhile.

          • Alen
          • klem
          • Alen

            From the report released this week by CSIRO and BoM seven of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. In this 17 year period there have also been more severe and frequent weather events which is exactly what CC is saying will occur. You have warming oceans, relatively rapid land ice and permafrost melt, sea level rise and acidification of oceans as high now as they were 25 million years ago. All directly linked to CO2 and heat. But stick to your denial theories, if you believe it hard enough it might come true

          • klem

            You too.

            cheers

        • karabar

          Actually it is more religion than politics. The warmist zealots worship their deity “The Science” (whatever that is) and their high priests exact a monstrous tithe from not only the true believers, but from every man woman and child on this planet. The world spends a billion dollars A DAY on this lunacy. The perpetrators of this scam are running out of sacare stories. The recent UN survey of over 6 million souls placed the mythical “climate change” at the very bottom of concerns. The nutjobs that deny the slow, steady, but intermittent decline of temperatures for the last 8000 years have a right to put their faith in dangerous nonsense, but the rest of us will not featherbed your idiotic delusion.

          • Alen T

            So I’m guessing the Pope and the World Council of Churches have converted to this new Science religion? Afterall they are advocating for meaningful climate action too.

          • karabar

            EXACTLY! The Sacred Church of Climatology.

          • Alen T

            Do you honestly buy any of that rubbish you’re preaching? You keep mentioning lefties believe in this anthropogenic climate change, how do you justify all the conservative led governments in Europe or even China’s stance on the issue, not to mention the leading banks who publicly accept the science of CC, or the world’s biggest miner,BHP.. (so does Abbott by the way, according to his G20 speech that is.

            Your denial of evidence and facts seems to be fanatical to the extreme. Again, do you actually believe any of the nonsense your spreading?

        • chaton91

          So… When the BOM tell us that the 3 hottest years on record were all after 2002, they’re lying, yes? Or they can’t take measurements? Or you just dont want to know?

    • Bill Koutalianos

      According to Rod Sims of the ACCC, ridiculously high Renewable Energy Targets have been pushing up electricity prices. One might also note that wind and solar PV don’t work most of the time. Next time you walk into a supermarket or hospital you might notice that our society is heavily dependant upon a reliable electricity supply. Failure to do may adversely affect our society’s health and even cause premature deaths.
      On the topic of climate science the evidence speaks for itself. Perhaps you haven’t noticed we’ve gone from so called ‘settled science’ to various competing explanations to explain the current global warming standstill, now its 18th year according to RSS data.
      The questions which need to be asked are; why have some scientists denied the standstill or flat trend for so long and why have some sections of the media been complicit in this cover up. An ill informed public votes in ill informed politicians who then bring in ill informed policies. Sounds like a job for the IPA.

      • Alen

        The RET target is inline with most other nation, and many have targets aiming for a higher renewable share following 2020. There are plenty of reports evaluating that only around 3% of the cost in a bill is due to the RET and also affirming that the wholesale electricity price is often prevented from skyrocketing during high demand periods, i.e. Kept at low prices.
        Many countries already have and are planning for considerably more ‘intermittent’ renewable power. Abbott and others are sprouting rubbish when they claim renewables are not reliable. Software predicting weather and generating conditions are very accurate and thus leave plenty of notice to cover the potential power output reduction from a source. Again many countries plan for high amounts of renewable share and they are confident enough that power will be available for those that depend on it.

        • JH

          Alen,
          Peak prices don’t set the bill. Power is sold by Contracts for differences to large generators. These accept a strike price with retailers. Above that price the retailer pockets the difference. This is how retailers protect themselves.

          Not the generators. The generators require big loans from banks and they can only be achieved by loans, wheter fossil or renewables.

          The fact is high prices are designed to occur to send price signals that peak demand is occurring. Hence new capacity can be rought to market. Government have screwed the narket by heavily subsidising renewables and then screwed themselves because they paid way overr the odds, and then screwed the taxpayer twice – the fundmentl cost is through the roof, and the Government needs bailing out, so the taxpayer is grewed – twice – now the taxpayer loses his job ( certainly at the lower end while comfortable office job types think they can solve the worlds problems wit no consequence to themselves. Sad about the blues collars in manufacturing – but now there are less blue collars, guess where the bill is going.

          Hasn’t anybody noticed – espeialy the giant brain with the answer to the world’s ills, that three types of countries push for renewables? Tose with big manufacturing bases, those with no fossil fuels and those who have renewable bases. within established industrial bases eg Denmark in Europe, They don’t give a hoot about GW, its about their jobs. Wake up Australia – what a stupid bunch of inherited wealth buggers we are.

          • Alen

            Keeping peak prices to a minimum reduces the risk to retailers of prices fluctuating over time, and thus lowers prices they are likely to charge in contracts.

            From now until 2020 the EU will spend 20% of their budget on climate action, that seems to be quite a commitment for someone who doesn’t care about GW.
            Where does the US fit in in your renewable theory?

            Australia has great potential for every single type of renewable energy source, not.countries can claim this, and as proven around the world embracing renewables leads to mass local jobs, eg in 2013 there were more solar jobs then in coal and gas combined. So why continue relying on energy source that benefits the minority, not to mention all the externalities that are significant but still ignored in modern society

          • JH

            mass local jobs..really..what jobs? You mean roof installers? Certainly you do not mean manufacturing in Australia to compete with Germany and China?

            The EU did their sums, the money they spend gets them out from under Russian energy supply, and the local build keeps their volumes up so their exports remain huge and cost competitive. China has a huge local market and doing the same. Not for one second are they doing it solely for GW. Its a Climate screen for creating a world market for their goods.

            Australia had sun, has sun and will have sun..but so what?

            You can’t put electrons on a boat and ship them out,

            Our captive market is peanuts, households and no manufacturing base, and certainly no intensive energy industry-that all left a few years before Ford closed, Holden closed, Toyota closed, and before that Mitsubishi closed.

            We are left with a future consisting of a massive import bill for panels and a few souls installing roof top panels for a few years – so where are the sustainable jobs?

            Our labour costs are too high relative to others, so we buy their panels, install at our costs and apart from a bunch of smug and comfortable buggers in leafy green suburbs feeling good about themselves, what exactly does everyone else do with resulting electricity costs higher than everyone else?

            The whole scheme you propose is nothing more than a version of the build lots of houses and flip them to each other creating a huge trade deficit because we can’t make or sell anything to export.

            The only things making serious money are iron ore, coal and some agriculture. Apart from the 200,000 people doing this and about 1m supporting them, what is the other 9 million workers going to do other than sit around in offices dreaming up regulations and rules or waitressing and haircuts?

            You think you have a plan, but its airy fairy fluff, headline contentless nonsense.

          • Alen

            You like to look at the bad side of things don’t you. There are plenty
            more technologies than PV solar that are potential job markets in the
            green industry and a lot more occupations than just roof installers.
            iron
            ore and coal are only making serious money because for so many years
            now all Australia has been stubbornly focusing on, we should have
            expanded and broadened out a long time ago. How do you imagine the other
            developed countries managed to prosper and advance even though they
            have nowhere near the minerals Australia has.
            We don’t have to buy
            ‘their’ panels, again we just choose to ignore any other industry other
            than mineral extraction. US has a mass panel manufacturing base and the
            federal government has been encouraging their development, they now have
            one of the best thinfilm PV cell developers/companies there. Australia
            can easily become successful in this field too, by for example spurring
            the organic solar cell research developed by the CSIRO. Big opportunity
            there.
            But as I said there are plenty more jobs than just in solar.
            The CEFC is one example that funds big projects that create a lot of
            jobs, and thus far all their “risky” projects have turned out to be
            anything but.

            Holden or ford should have advanced with the times
            and stopped building their petrool guzzeling bulky cars. Nissan or even
            better the new Tesla have moved forward and building what people today
            want, i.e. cheap to run EVs. Wooloongong University is developing an
            Australian version of a plug-in-hybrid, we have the manufacturing
            infrastructure and skill to turn this into the Australian version of the
            Tesla S.

          • wideEyedPupil

            Tesla do not make and will never make hybrids. #justsaying

          • Alen

            My thought is that hybrids are more likely to be adopted in Aus, since driving 100km down to the coast is common and not thought of as a big distance and pure EVs aren’t that ideal for these distances yet, and hybrids can help make up that small difference, just my thought could very well be wrong.
            Tesla model S–>Ausla model S

    • Guest

      These people should hang

      juxx0r you started on the right track then went soft, when people begin dying by the million perhaps then we might take this issue seriously and hold these people to account for their crimes, but then it will be too late so this will just become meaningless revenge…..

      • karabar

        Actually millions of people die because 1.3 billion people do not have electricity for refrigeration, cooking or heating. At the same time, because of this green nonsense these people are continually denied the opportunity to better their lot through the construction of coal fired power stations. At the same time the
        Green Blob wastes a billion dollars a day on useless studies, environment-damaging “renewable” energy, and junkets to exotic places for conferences where Greenpiss can damage a national treasure. Who did you say should hang?

  • wideEyedPupil

    Andrew Bolt can now add climate science author to his list of impressive contributions to humanity.

  • Chris Fraser

    Can’t really see myself wanting to be a name on the back of THIS book … and you say I can get 40% back from everything I waste, er invest. I can think of much better spends this year.

  • Steve Phillips

    Why is any of this tax deductible? Since when is the IPA a charity doing charitable work? They are a lobby group, and, as such, should be unable to claim tax deductible status.

  • JH

    Plimer, a geologist,….Leading climate change denier Professor Ian Plimer. ha ha ha..what would a geologist know about Global Warming.

    Giles Parkinson is founder and editor … Giles Parkinson, journalist ha ha ha he knows everything about everything. Just ask him.

    • Miles Harding

      What would a geologist know about global warming?
      Apparently a lot more than they know about the difference between weather and climate.
      Ignoring this distinction is very useful to the IPA in their search for literary relevance and in Ian Plimer’s case, it doesn’t look intellectually good for him to have failed here.

      Much more concerning than Ian Plimer, who is likely ‘fighting the good fight’, misguided as it may be, are the supposed experts in relevant fields, who certainly should know better.

      One only has to consult the records to see how ridiculous the central statement of the upcoming IPA publication is. That assertion that the climate has failed to warm since 1998 is very difficult to make without grossly misstating the facts and ignoring all of the inconvenient evidence.

      • klem

        True, they can’t get around the 17 year pause, that’s for sure.

        Climate science is based on climate models, but the models didn’t predict the 17 year pause therefore the models are wrong. They tried to say the oceans ate the heat, but the models didn’t predict this either, so once again the models are wrong. Lol!

        As a result, most climate alarmists simply deny the 17 year pause. Its the alarmists who are the deniers now. I absolutely love it.

        • karabar

          You’ve no doubt noticed every single comment ins a logical fallacy. Most of them argument ad hominem and not a single attempt to refute a single thought in the book. Typical of the vacuous Left, a book review consists of reading the title.

  • If we cannot get this matter fixed by ordinary recourse to scientific reason and honest intellectual dialog, then given the potential consequences of not dealing with the outstanding climate agenda, we face the prospect of war. I am not going to stand around wringing my hands as the future of my children and grandchildren burns. That is just not going to happen.

  • Alen

    Some of the authors are Professors, how are they allowed to teach and educate students if they themselves deny an overwhelming science consensus? In other words, they will only believe or teach something if it suites them, even if that belief is only supported by a significant minority in the scientific community on that topic, keeping in mind the vast majority is in census in support. Universities are responsible for teaching the ‘correct’ ideas as supported by evidence, thus having a professor that is openly and very publicly denying science should be very worrying for the institution.

  • Leslie Graham

    Shamefull and disgusting.

    These people should face trial in the near future.

    At least we now have Plimer’s confession in writing.

    Starting out right off the bat with the “no warming since 98” myth gives one an idea as to what the rest of their “facts” will be like.

    Fortunately, the tiny minority of climate stupids are almost entirely old, white, right-wing and of the anglo-saxon gene pool. They are dying out anyway and if we DO get an El Nino this year then the 2010 surface temperature record will be smashed again.
    That – combined with the extreme weather that is occuring all over the world now – will help to reduce the number of whackjobs still further.
    Lets hope we still have time to leave a livable climate to our kids.

    • JH

      Leslie,

      Wow – did you hate your parents so much? Judging by your comments I think they went to the crematorium screaming.as you pushed them in.

      Just remenber – you are dying every day too – and guess what – your attitude will infect your kids, and when they see what your attitudes wrought on them i.e. the unintended consequences, perhaps they’ll rush you to the crematorium fast too – stupid ols person, wasting our oxygen.

      I assume you have kids to leave something too – so I do expect them to look at you one day as a waste of space too – well intentioned but stupid “poor old Mum”.

  • Biologyteacher100

    Incredible! Plimmer is the worst of the worst. He’s the one who says that the strong and consistent up trend in atmospheric CO2 is caused by volcanos when science says that volcanos are about 1% compared to 99% for fossil fuels. When we look at the years when large eruptions occured there is not detectable effect on CO2. Even the simplest look at data and evidence proves Plimer and his group wrong over and over.

    • Alen

      Volcanoes emit large quantities of aerosols into atmosphere which cause a short term global temperature cooling, until they’re precipitated out or removed by other means from the atmosphere. A recent study has linked the slowed warming or hiatus period to the increased volcanic activity during this period.

      • Biologyteacher100

        Alen: Yes, I know about the aersol effects and agree with the science that you describe. What Plimmer says is that atmospheric CO2 is increasing because of volcanos, not fossil fuels. The evidence that fossil fuels are responsible for essentially all of the increase is one of those settled issues. The positive evidence is very strong and alternatives receive no support.