JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Australian teachers — pick up your free copy of Ian Plimer’s new book

 The Education Department and the CSIRO push their propaganda and scare our children with apocalyptic, unscientific scenarios.

They are even trying to target pre-schoolers. The ABC has accepted grants from the Climate Change Foundation to work the Climate Change message into ‘DirtGirl’, an ABC4Kids TV. Then there are demonstrations of bias like this from a school in Sydney.

They’re trying to train the next generation to “think” their way. We’d be mad to let them get away with it.

Thanks to the Gallileo Movement and donors, 300 FREE copies of Professor Ian Pilmer’s new book ‘How to get expelled from school’, are available to schools in Australia.

 The Galileo Movement’s aim is to expose the unscientific claims made by climate change scientists and political attempts to unnecessarily control our freedom and future prosperity. If you are a teacher or you know one, you can help ensure that your local school library has a balance of books on climate change science.

Can you convince your Federal, State or Local member to talk the local school on your behalf?

The books are available to schools within Australia, all they need to do is fax a Purchase Order from their school to Connor Court, the publishers, on fax number (03) 5303 0960.

Free offer for Teachers: Details here

My review of the book

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.0/10 (47 votes cast)
Australian teachers -- pick up your free copy of Ian Plimer's new book, 8.0 out of 10 based on 47 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7eebqag

42 comments to Australian teachers — pick up your free copy of Ian Plimer’s new book

  • #
    gnome

    Or if you teachers want a free copy after the first 300 are gone, get one of the kids to get hold of one. (Don’t ask.)

    Kids don’t need to pay for anything like that anymore if they don’t want to!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    I understand that the Senate Estimates Committee recently queried the CSIRO school program on Carbon Kids on the basis that it was propaganda. Does anyone know if that was the case and if so, what the outcome was?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Good initiative – I sure hope it works. I have posted on it here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2012/02/who-will-help-our-schools-push-back-on.html, where I wonder if the requirement for a formal ‘purchase’ by the schools is liable to inhibit uptake of this offer.
    I have also done a brief review of Plimer’s book here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2012/02/three-new-books-for-climate-classroom.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Is the name of Pilmer’s book a little bit alienating for those who tend to respect authority?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mobilly1

    Breaking News, Climate change is Happening , On the 1st of March Australia will undergo Autumn ,Unbelievably the Northern Hemisphere will undergo Spring .
    Go figure , Who would have thunk it . Guess the warmists were right or did I mean left (sac)
    Can I have the left over books , I hear they make great furtilizer and or mulch.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mobilly1

    Sorry I did not read all of the post, Save the book ban the ABC Shows ,
    Go the Gallileo movement , The rest of my comment still stands .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Carbon dioxide causes earthquakes and tsunamis now.

    http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-is-set-to-shake-the-earth-20120228-1tzr2.html

    These fraudulent frootloops have gone to far.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      This smh has no listed author, nor does it allow comments…
      I started counting basic errors of fact and soon got bored.
      Anybody still talking about remorseless sea level rise is a f$&@ing idiot. No wonder there is no authors name.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    • #
      memoryvault

      From the beginning Judith Curry has been whatever Judith Curry has ascertained at the time as best for Judith Curry’s survival.

      I well remember just after Climategate #1 and Judith suddenly discovered that there just might be two sides to the “global warming” story, and Anthony Watts was kind enough to feature her as a “guest writer” a few times. It took no less than three fairly “strongly worded” replies by Willis Eisenbach just to get her to stop using the term “denier” when “reaching out” to us as “friends”.

      Judith Curry will be a “passionate” whatever it takes to keep Judith Curry in the limelight and keep the gravy train flowing for her.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Hi MV. I picked her up on her blog on her usage of “denier” when talking about us skeptics. Got a nice long intellectual explanation of why it was right.

        My interpretation of the explanation is below.

        “You’ll become a denier, which the “educated” ones among them will carefully explain to you, just means you deny stuff but all the grownups in the room know it really means you’ve just dropped down the morality ladder to the level of a holocaust denier, which you’re being likened to.”

        http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-yes-theyve-been-lying-to-you/

        Pointman


        Report this

        00

      • #

        I am surprised at your comment Memoryvault.

        Just 3 years ago she would never have stated this at all.From Markus’s link are two revealing answers from Dr. Curry:

        OP. What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change? How do you think such a revelation, if true, will affect the world economy, and possibly shatter public confidence in scientific institutions that have said we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet?

        JC: Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart’ way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had ‘discernible’ evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report. As a result of this, we have only been considering one policy option (CO2 stabilization), which in my opinion is not a robust policy option given the uncertainties in how much climate is changing in response to CO2.

        and this,

        OP: You are well known in climate and energy circles for breaking from the ranks of the IPCC and questioning the current information out there. What do you see as the reasons for the increase in skepticism towards global warming over the last few years.

        JC: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding. Because of recent criticisms of the IPCC and a growing understanding that the climate system is not easily understood, an increasing number of scientists are becoming emboldened to challenge some of the basic conclusions of the IPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science.

        No she has changed for the better in the last few years.She has slowly realized that the skeptic camp has been on the right track all along.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          She has slowly realized that the skeptic camp has been on the right track all along.

          No. It was an almost instantaneous, “miraculous” conversion that happened in the couple of weeks following “Climategate #1″ when the wheels started to fall off the IPCC gravy train.

          Ms Curry and the “father of post-modern science” Ravetz, fell over themselves, lining up to do guest posts on WUWT, explaining while it was true the IPCC had been naughty, it didn’t alter the fact that we “deniers” were still not understanding the “science”. They were clamoring to jump on the skeptic bandwagon, WITHOUT actually becoming skeptics in the eyes of their warmist buddies.

          It didn’t work – they have ostracised and demonised her, driving her even further out on a limb.

          I suggest you go to WUWT, find the articles and read them, to better understand where the lady is REALLY coming from. Also read the “comments” to see how it went over at the time with regular WUWT readers.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Oh come on!

            You by accident (?) agree with me when you referred to the comments in reaction to her guest posts at WUWT es evidence that many do not think she changed much in what she believed at the time.

            But it has been over two years since then and running her own blog shows her slow transformation in being more open to skeptics and increasingly unhappy with the IPCC and other AGW believers.You must not have read her exchanges with Dr. Gleick on his over the top lie filled attack on Donna LaFramboise’s book.She also just the other day state that the IPCC may have to disband now of after the next published report LINK

            Does this read like an AGW/IPCC fanatic to you? LINK

            JC: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding. Because of recent criticisms of the IPCC and a growing understanding that the climate system is not easily understood, an increasing number of scientists are becoming emboldened to challenge some of the basic conclusions of the IPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science.

            or this,

            JC: The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. Lets see what the next assessment report comes up with. But we are getting diminishing returns from these assessments, and they take up an enormous amount of scientists’ time.

            .

            This recent blog by Dr. Curry should put to rest your contention that she is a skeptic pretender:

            Gleick’s ‘integrity’

            She gave a smackdown against Gleick,Mann,mandia and Desmoblog ending her words with:

            The climate insanity factor has just jumped upwards a big notch.

            Three years ago she was sure that skeptics were getting “oil” funding and even called us deniers.

            Not any more.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Yeah.

          She’s even gone so far as to recently express the opinion that it “might” be a good idea after all to “allow” the teaching of “the controversy” (her own newly minted, politically correct name for “denialism”) in classrooms, along with “the consensus” (the “correct” science).

          Not, mind you, because there might be anything valid in “the controversy”, but because being exposed to “the controversy” – and finding the faults in the fallacious arguments presented – “might” help teach students something about critical thinking.

          With friends like that, who needs enemies?


          Report this

          00

    • #

      Markus I think you are going overboard in making this statement:

      Judith Curry is no longer a Luke Warmer. She is a passionate sceptical scientist.

      She is still a lukewarmer who has realized in the last 2-3 years that skeptical scientists do have a legitimate place at the debate table.That was her big change that now made it possible for her to learn what she formerly failed to see.The skeptics now have her attention and it shows up very well in her blog.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The skeptics now have her attention and it shows up very well in her blog.

        The skeptics now have more positive and public attention and that is being reflected in her blog.

        I suspect that is nearer to the truth right now. She is a political animal, like anybody in the soft sciences.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    If you want positive attention and to be taken seriously, why on earth would any of you want Plimer’s book promoted anywhere? I’d love to meet the proof readers.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rohan Baker

      I haven’t read Plimers book, so I can’t comment on the contents. However, if the only thing that this book does achieve is that a few children learn to ask intelligent questions and not take things at face value, then so much the better. One of the most critical life skills that a formal education should achieve, is developing the individuals ability to question and then review the answers in order to form one’s own opinion. This then enables that child to make informed decisions later in life.

      This I believe, is one of the primary goal of Plimers book.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        I think you need to read the book and the book that preceded it.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Ah Gee Whiz

          Nothing to contribute so let’s go nit picking again.

          Please note that most students taught in the Post Modern Education system that instructs students in the dangers of Man Made Global Warming by CO2 incineration would not have sufficient education to understand the meaning of the apostrophe in lets.

          If we are going to nit pick let us look at the NSW education system where last nights

          TV program claimed that Asian schools had overtaken us in the last few years.

          That was totally wrong.

          The damage to our education system goes back so far that even the parents of our

          current young teachers have suffered. Well almost – at least 30 years of slow death to

          academic progress.

          Of course Lawyers don’t need to know much science they can hire “experts”?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            I think Slipper would call you on relevance.

            So you think that giving kids a rubbish book to ask their rubbish teachers in a rubbish system, will make it all better?


            Report this

            00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    “I’d love to meet the proof readers”

    He couldn’t afford any after all the grant money was given to Global Warming students.

    :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    “I’d love to meet the proof readers”

    And I agree. The proof reading really was the only thing wrong with “Heaven”.

    :)

    A real Tour De Forcing.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Gee Aye, I have read Ian Plimers work. Sure — you may be able to list a page-full of proof reading errors, but not errors of reasoning or fact that show his main thesis is wrong. He has so many references, and so much evidence, that you can knock down points, but the rest still stands.

    What is a more useful publication: one that’s has perfect spelling and references, but is based on flawed assumptions and a misunderstanding of what science is and ignores half the evidence, or one that is rough on the edges, but gets the big picture right?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      I realise that the only specific comment I made was regarding proofing errors so the focus of replies are on that. I should have left out that pithy sentence.

      Plenty of others have addressed the book’s contents and with them I agree and disagree in different ways but on the whole I can’t agree with you that his use of references or clarity of reasoning is demonstrable.

      I have a role where I assist people to find the truth about this and other topics and I steer them to resources to help them, as well as offering some opinions (some might call this lobbying). Despite my doubts about anthropogenic sources of global warming I cannot in good conscience recommend this book to anyone and have actively suggested to several people to not mention it as a source of their scepticism.

      The other place where this latest book is problematic is the attitude implied in the title and the way the questions are phrased (including the many that have nothing to do with evidence for AGW). It is the reason I would not send my kids to school armed with questions like these…

      1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

      2. DARWIN’S TREE OF LIFE. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

      3. HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

      It is not the teacher’s job to deconstruct questions like these nor even do they need to be able to. Creating more fog does not help anyone see.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Markus Fitzhenry

    It is a travesty that more than 1/2 $Bil is found for rationalising their energy policy with Joe Public, so he pays more for energy by appliance replacements and expensive renewables, while the IPCC best case scenario is being more than already satisfied.

    Clive Best has got this to say about how wrong the IPCC are;

    http://clivebest.com/data/Poster.pdf

    This is what our Government propitiates with sheer propaganda;

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/media/whats-new/info-sessions.aspx

    Hitting the road to explain energy efficiency programs 27/02/2012

    More than 700 people from an array of government, the labour community and private sector organisations attended a series of information sessions run around the country by the department to showcase and explain the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP-$400mil) and Low Income Energy Efficiency Program (LIEEP -$140mil)

    The circuses, which wound up last Friday, attracted people from non-profit organisations [beggers], city councils [robbers], local clubs [targets], community organisations [targets] , environmental groups [brown shirts], state governments [gravy train], and both traditional [for ridicule] and renewable [ra ra] energy companies.

    Designed to explain the rorts to funding recipients, Big Tops were held throughout February in Perth, Hobart, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne.

    Members of the department’s Energy Branch[gansters] conducted the propaganda sessions.

    The gangsters also wanted people living in rural and remote areas of Australia to have access to the disinformation, so two webinars were broadcast on the [future NBN] to cater for those living outside the metropolitan capitals, and are now available on Clean Energy Future’s YouTube channel and the Clean Energy Future website.

    CEEP and LIEEP are programs designed to reach a broad range of concerned ecowarriors across Australia.
    They represent the Gang’s commitment to ripping off Australians of all stripes.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Markus

      After listening to the bright bubbly, young DJs reading the material you talk about above,

      all I can say is help!

      We are in deep doo doo when we have this sort of mindless propaganda floating on the

      airwaves as our youth drive to school, or work, (after their gap year) or to the POLLING

      BOOTH.

      Who could resist saving the planet when it is SO obvious what needs to be done?

      The only way this can be stopped is to prise the Keys to the Treasury from the “cold dead

      hands” of the current governments that back this stuff.

      We are too complacent: we understand that CAGW is nonsense but the baddies are still

      wheeling barrow-loads of cash out of the place where out taxes are stored.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Markus Fitzhenry

        Yes KK, ‘she’ll be right mate’, IS slipping away.

        There is a generation of mindless quibblers, indoctrinated with sociographic nonsense. They think life is a Video Game. Deep doo doo.

        Once we get the keys to the treasury we also need to obtain the keys to the chancellors offices. All the money in the world won’t stop a sick mind.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Luke Purse

    What do you think the conspiracy is, Jo?

    What vested interestest are there in reducing carbon emissions? Where does the money go?

    Clearly there is an evil motivation behind climate alarmists that we all need protection from, but they hide it so well I just can’t work it out.

    How does future freedom and prosperity of Australia look under a deregulated model?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      There are too many Global Warming Death by CO2 fanatics helping politicians

      RAID THE PUBLIC PURSE!

      Friends with the friendly ethanol concessions to supply eco friendly fuell additives.

      More jobs and grants for Climate Science Fiction

      More jobs for nephews and nieces on cushy climate review committes (Big Tim eg)

      Well it’s ALL about the MONEY honey.

      :)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi Gee Aye

    “what I want to know is how do you make the little “2″?”

    It’s like Global Warming.

    It just appears naturally without any human input.

    :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Australian teachers — don’t forget to pick up your free copy of Ian Plimer’s new book! [...]


    Report this

    00