webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Inst of Public Affairs oz ipa

see hybird node?

---

Stand Up For Freedom Of Intellectual Inquiry

Kurt Wallace

“Open, honest, and fearless discussion of climate science is more important than ever before” said Gideon Rozner, promoting the publication of Climate Change: The Facts 2020. The latest instalment will bring together expert authors to present research on climate change that is too often ignored by our public institutions. Watch Gideon’s video here.

You can make a tax deductible donation to support the publication of this new book of research here.

Not everyone agrees that there should be an open conversation about climate change. The Conversation Australia has implemented a “zero-tolerance approach” to “dangerous” “climate change deniers” on their website. Commentators on the government and university funded website will have their comments deleted and accounts banned if they dare question the climate change orthodoxy.

A new version of Monopoly where female players are awarded 40 more monopoly dollars for passing ‘Go’ than their male counterparts has been released. As Madeleine Kearns pointed out in the National Review last week, Ms. Monopoly “symbolizes the pointlessness of a certain type of feminism” that cares more about affirmative-action themed board games than actually helping women.

In the latest expansion of the surveillance state, all Victorian driver licence holders will have their photos uploaded to the National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution. The Victorian government argues this is needed for “combating identity fraud” and that access to the database will be limited, but we’ve seen how this worked with the data retention database – how long until we have 60 agencies joining in the surveillance?

Sunday marked 70 years since the publication of economist Ludwig von Mises’ magnum opus, Human Action. Richard Ebeling noted Mises’ great work is a “cornerstone for understanding the nature of the free society and the workings of the market economy” at the American Institute for Economic Researchon Sunday.

December 2014

Donna LaFramboise is a contributor to thebook Climate Change: The Factspublished by the Institute of Public Affairsand featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company. [14]

The book includes essays and articles from a range of climate change skeptics, with contributors including the following:

According to Editor Alan Moran in a post at Catallaxy Files blog on Climate Change: the facts 2014, “Donna Laframboise notes the scandalous attribution of Nobel Prize status to all involved in the IPCC” in her contribution to the book. [15]

January 28, 2014

Australia’s richest person, mining magnate Gina Rinehart, has been revealed as a key funder of the right wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) — a major pusher of climate science denial.

Rinehart’s company, Hancock Prospecting Proprietary Ltd (HPPL), donated $2.3 million to the IPA in 2016 and $2.2 million in 2017, according to disclosures made to the New South Wales Supreme Court.

As part of a long-running legal dispute over the use of company funds, Gina Rinehart’s daughter Bianca had served a subpoena to access documents that would have shed light on the two donations from HPPLto the IPA.

The IPA is an influential right wing think tank with close ties to Australia’s governing Liberal Party. IPA fellows regularly appear in the media. The payments suggest that more than a third of the IPA’s income in 2016 and 2017 was from HPPL — majority-owned privately by Gina Rinehart

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/07/17/billionaire-mining-magnate-gina-rinehart-revealed-key-donor-australian-climate-science-denial-promoter-institute

==

==

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/26/marohasy-s-machine-learning-paper-gets-schooled

This is a guest post by **ClimateDenierRoundup** 

The big news in denierworld this week is obviously the latest (and peer-reviewed) #ExxonKnew study.

But before Exxon stole the spotlight on Tuesday, the newest paper of note in the Denivory Tower was one published earlier this month in an obscure and soon-to-be discontinued journal. The paper claims current warming is driven by natural forces, and is not uniquely human-caused.

Despite being based entirely on usually denier-derided computer modeling, the study was immediately–and lazily–championed by the climate denial fake news apparatus. Co-author Jennifer Marohasy wrote about the study in an op-ed for the Spectator and at her own blog; her description of her findings was uncritically copy-and-pasted into a Michael Bastasch story at the Daily Caller, reposted at WUWT and TallBloke, praised by James Delingpole at Breitbart andbriefly linked to at Drudge (complete with an irrelevant photo of Al Gore).  

Yet a quick fact check on science Twitter shows the study’s conclusions are “based on inaccurately cited data that's incorrectly scaled & incorrectly aligned in time.” What’s more, even if the authors had used the data correctly, it’s still “essentially just a complicated curve-fitting exercise,” as And Then There’s Physics points out in a short and simple debunking of this complicated exercise. Marohasy et al’s paper tries to use machine learning to find natural patterns in warming unrelated to carbon pollution, and admits that it doesn’t take actual real world physics into account. As And Then There’s Physics concludes, the study uses a “naive approach – that completely ignores [the] physics” that govern the climate system.

Given that the study itself admits as much, it’s a bit bizarre that the authors couldn’t have seen these many intelligent criticisms about their artificial intelligence paper coming. Unless, of course, they did, and the allure of fawning fake news coverage and a convenient talking point about the denier-beloved Medieval Warming Period was just too great to resist.

There’s also the added bonus that the study was funded by a denier and that the authors work for an Australian industry-funded think tank. Doesn’t take any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, to deduce what’s going on here.

You can lead AI to denial, but you can’t make it think.

ref

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/blessed-are-the-sceptics/news-story/308d54429bd5649b80075e85da8ecae0

bs

...So what is this partnership between the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland to support environmental research about? What are we doing it for?

There are two main reasons.

First, to provide a haven for our scholars without ideological or commercial interference and with no prescription as to the end point of their inquiries. If they challenge orthodoxies and assumptions, particularly mine, then that's good. If they find that conventional wisdom is correct, then that's good, too.

The only criterion is to seek empirical evidence.

Second, it is important that any research that our scholars undertake is made available to aid the development of better, more rational public policy.

Good public policy means applying our resources more efficiently to achieve the outcomes we desire, such as lifting the poor out of their poverty, feeding the hungry, healing the sick and, in our case, managing our environment sensibly and productively.

I would like to think that what we have launched today is just the first step in something much bigger. I envisage that, in the future, to environmental lawyers and scientists we will add other disciplines: biologists, economists, statisticians, even philosophers. What we need to do is shine the hard light of reason and critical thinking on our environmental problems, aided by multiple skills and points of view.

As they say, from tiny acorns do mighty oak trees grow; or, to make the metaphor more geographically relevant, from tiny gumnuts do mighty river red gums grow.

That's all I have to say but I would like to leave you with one thought. For those of you have a feeling of despair about the direction that some aspects of environmental science is taking, remember that most people now believe that Galileo was right.

This is an edited version of a speech by Perth philanthropist Bryant Macfie, who is funding a research partnership between the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/12/australian-mp-heading-las-vegas-heartland-institute-climate-denial-conference

AN Australian Federal MP is planning to join some of the world’s noisiest deniers of the science of climate change at a conference in Las Vegas in a few weeks time.

George Christensen, the National Party member for Dawson in the coal-friendly state of Queensland, will be hanging around the Mandelay Bay Resort with a rag-tag bunch of mostly long-retired academics and well paid think-tank associates for the Heartland Institute conference, starting on 7 July.

The Heartland Institute, funded over the years by fossil fuel corporations and conservative philanthropists, is itself one of America’s loudest climate science denial organisations. This will be the organisation’s ninth gathering of climate sceptics, denialists and fossil fuel apologists.

Before its 2012 conference, Heartland took out a billboard advertisement with a picture of terrorist and triple murderer Ted “unabomber” Kaczynski next to the words: “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”

Just to push the envelope further, the institute issued a press release stating: “Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers and tyrants.”

Glad we got that one cleared up.

Christensen has put his own “sceptical” views on climate change on the record in the past.  He is not sure that humans can cause climate change.

In his maiden speech to Australia’s Parliament, Christensen said: “Despite what the political and media elite tell us to think, the truth is the science on climate change is not settled.”

In November 2013, Christensen told Parliament that his doubts about climate change came from “the well-publicised antics” of climate scientists when thousands of private emails were illegally hacked from Britain’s the University of East Anglia and then published. 

Numerous investigations into the so-called “climategate” affair found there had been no scientific misconduct, but this news obviously had not reached Christensen.

Christensen also promoted Heartland's climate change reports which he said were from “real climate scientists” and showed “the science is nowhere near to being settled”.

In Parliament in February, he downplayed a spate of “so-called record heat waves” by saying other parts of the globe had experienced “record cold”. In fact, according to the US National Climate Data Center, January 2014 was the globe’s fourth hottest since records began in 1880 and was the “347th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average”.

I wanted to know more about Christensen’s trip to the Heartland conference and his views on climate change, so I emailed his press officer. Here’s what I asked.

  1. Why are you attending the conference? 
  2. Right now, what are your own thoughts on the causes of climate change? Do you think humans cause it?

3.  How much of the conference will you be attending (you're down to speak on July 9) and how is the trip being financed?

  1. How did your attendance come about?  Were you invited or did you ask to attend?
  2. The Heartland Institute came in for criticism at its conference in 2012 with a billboard campaign featuring a picture of unabomber Ted Kaczynski beside the words “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”. An accompanying press release stated : “The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” What's your view of these sentiments and did they make you pause before deciding to attend this conference?

When I chased up the email, Christensen’s media officer told me by phone he would not be responding to my questions. I was told there was “no point talking to a climate activist blog” and they could “not find anywhere where you have not pilloried the views of someone who does not think like you do”.

Ouch. 

So where does Christensen get his ideas about climate change from? 

One revealing document is Christensen’s Parliamentary expenses report from 2012 listing 11 climate change and environmental policy books bought by his office. 

Titles include The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy Spencer; The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder InHistory by Christopher Booker and Killing The Earth To Save It: How Environmentalists Are Ruining The Planet, Destroying The Economy And Stealing Your Jobsby James Delingpole.

Six of the books were bought two months before Christensen was appointed by the then opposition to sit on a key committee to examine carbon price legislation.

Christensen’s office also bought 25 copies of Australian sceptic and mining entrepreneur Professor Ian Plimer’s book How To Get Expelled From School: A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters. 

The previous government’s Department of Climate Change issued a blow-by-blow rebuttal of Plimer’s book, saying it was “misleading” and “based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science”.

Viva Las Vegas

During the two-day Las Vegas conference, Christensen is scheduled to join Patrick Michaels, of the Cato Institute and the author of another of those books, to present some awards.

Christensen is also listed to sit down with fellow Australians for a panel session on the “global warming debate in Australia”.

Christensen will be joined by one of his own constituents, Dr Bob Carter, a “science policy advisor” for the Melbourne-based climate science denialist think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Carter advises more than a dozen climate science denialist organisations around the world. 

In February 2012, internal Heartland Institute documents revealed Carter was to be paid $1667 a month for his work on its project to produce reports to directly challenge the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Another panel member joining Christensen is Jennifer Marohasy, a former senior fellow with the IPA.

Marohasy is currently a research fellow at Central Queensland University — a post funded by the “B. Macfie Family Foundation”. 

Bryant Macfie is a Perth-based philanthropist and climate science sceptic. In 2009 the university accepted $195,000 from Macfie and in 2012 the CQU annual report said he had renewed his “significant support”.

In 2008, Macfie made a $350,000 gift to another university – the University of Queensland – that was facilitated by the IPAand criticised by some UQ academics.

When making the donation, Macfie claimed science had been damaged by “environmental activism” and wrote, “the crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine”.

Marohasy was working for the IPA at the time and she defended the donation in a story in The Australian.

The final name to join Christensen on the conference panel is William Kininmonth, who is described as a “consulting climatologist with the Australasian Climate Research Institute”.

The “Australasian Climate Research Institute” is actually Kininmonth’s personal business trading name. It is an “institute” with no business premises, no employees and no website.

The Heartland Institute points out that Kininmonth was the head of the National Climate Centre at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology for 12 years from 1985 to 1998. While this is true, his job was largely irrelevant to the study of climate change.

The bureau itself has previously released a statement clarifying that during Kininmonth’s tenure, the centre did not do any research on climate change and was instead mainly responsible for collecting observations of Australia’s rainfall and temperature.  The bureau said:

The processes and methodologies developed within the National Climate Centre have established that Australia has significantly warmed since 1910.  A warming trend was established and published by the National Climate Centre during the period of 1985 to 1998.

Other notable Heartland climate conference speakers include Patrick Moore, who Heartland bills as “Founder, Greenpeace” despite Greenpeace making clear several years ago that Moore in fact wasn’t a founder.

British climate science denialist and “birther” Lord Christopher Monckton will also take to the stage in Las Vegas.

There are lots of places where George Christensen could go to inform himself and his constituents on climate change. The Mandelay Bay Resort and Casino in the first week of July is not one of them.

TAGS:

george christensen

Heartland Institute

bob carter

las vegas

Jennifer Marohasy

bryant macfie

climate change

2014 international climate chnage conference

IPA

Institute of Public Affairs

William Kininmonth

Patrick Moore

lord christopher monckton

==

jewsih refugeee wwii

...In 1949, aged 20, he came to Australia as a Government-sponsored migrant and became a lumberjack in Manjimup.

"One of the local guys said to me, 'if you stay here you will be a plonker like me all your life', so he and the local sergeant of police helped me come to Perth and I went to night school to learn English," he said.

"I had various jobs after that, including as a union organiser, it was the first clerical job I had - maybe I shouldn't advertise that? In the finish, I decided Harry Hoffman and communism don't go together."

He married his wife Sylvia in 1953 and two children quickly followed. He went into real estate business in 1958.

He was starting to build a successful business when he found himself in court, accused of failing to declare an interest. After a drawn-out hearing, he was stripped of his real estate agent's licence.

The man who had started with nothing, now risked losing everything. With a young family to feed, in 1966 he decided not to reapply for his licence and instead became a developer, founding Ardross Estates. It was a life-changing decision.

With his wife running the office and Mr Hoffman concentrating on sales, subdivisions in Cockburn, Canning and Mundaring followed. Decades later, the company, now Ardross Holdings, is steadily approaching net assets of $1 billion. At 81, his company has embarked on its biggest project yet - a 10,000-block development at Jurien Bay.

Mr Hoffman regularly gives millions to charity, including the cause closest to his heart - education. "I was robbed of my educational opportunities, so I'm giving people the opportunities I did not have myself," he said.

A school at Carmel now bears his name. He is involved with Leadership WA and gives scholarships at Curtin University.

"My background was not making money. Knowledge, understanding, contributing to our future - that's what I really support," he said.

==

Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial here | The ...

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-no-denial-here/

Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial here. Jennifer Marohasy · Jennifer Marohasy. 22 August 2017. 7:49 AM. 22 August 2017. 7:49 AM ...

Author: Jennifer Marohasy | The Spectator Australia

Author: Jennifer Marohasy on The Spectator Australia.

Price of electricity is rising, not sure about temperatures | The ...

Jul 13, 2017 ... Jennifer Marohasy is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs and has blogged at jennifermarohasy.com since April 2005. Got something ...

I'm a doubter — and a sceptic too | The Spectator Australia

Mark Steyn is a contributor to the book *Climate Change: The Facts*published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company. [18]

The book includes essays and articles from a range of climate change skeptics, with contributors including the following:

Editor Alan Moran summarized Steyn's contribution as follows:

Mark Steyn’s essay ‘Ship of Fools’ demonstrates how environmen­tal activist, Professor Chris Turney inadvertently parodied Douglas Mawson’s Antarctic expedition. Turney had expected to see a path to the Pole cleared for his ship by global warming. After all, Al Gore had predicted an ice free Arctic by now. Instead, Turney’s Guardian backed expedition had to be rescued from expanding ice. A genuine scientist, as Turney claims to be, should have realised that Antarctic ice is expanding not increasing. [17]

offesnive / CRC:

The campaign countering non-profits goes global

The ripple effects of the U.S. campaign to 'defund the left' have been felt around the world. A U.S. mining company succeeded in having USAID funding for an Indonesian community group pulled. [2] A Fulbright scholarship to the U.S., helped the Senior Fellow at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Gary Johns develop a good working relationship with the American Enterprise Institute and escalate their emphasis on curtailing the activities of public interest groups.

The IPA themselves have targeted public interest groups in Malaysia and those working on issues inIndonesia. In mid-June 2004 the conservative Australian government released a consultancy report by the IPA's Gary Johns and John Roskam proposing the first steps to reduce the access that non-government organisations have to government decision making. [3]

In May 2002 Canadian PR consultant Ross S. Irvine, who approvingly cites Johns views in his articles, was a keynote speaker at the annual conference of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand. In his presentation Irvine identified "charitable organization legislation", now before parliament, as one of the key focal points to consider in New Zealand.

In August 2004, the New Zealand Greens Green MP Sue Bradford warned that the proposed charities legislation "poses a real threat to one of the cornerstones of our democracy - the ability of people to come together and advocate for all manner of social, economic and environmental causes. Freedom of speech would be clouded because organisations that speak out on political issues would risk being deregistered by the Charities Commission." [4]

In early September 2004, the Director General of the New Zealand Health Ministry, Karen Poutasi, sent a draft instruction to health and disability NGOs revealing that it was proposed that "the Ministry does not fund lobbying activity and such activity will not be included in any contracts". The instruction, however, did not propose that organisations would be excluded from government funding if funds raised from other sources were used for lobbying. See Intimidating democracy/New Zealand Health Ministry memo to NGOsfor the full text.

==

Anthony Watts has finally written a promo for a book put out last month by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) (archived here). The book is called, somewhat ambiguously: Climate Change the Facts 2014. Given the publisher and the contributors, the meaning is pretty obvious: Climate - change the facts - 2014.

The IPA is one of the few right wing lobby groups in Australia that campaigns for action to increase global warming and climate change. It tends to be pro-fossil fuel and anti-mitigation of global warming. It panders to right wing science deniers. Although influential in some quarters, when it comes to climate, the IPA gets short shrift by most thinking people in this country. We Australians don't particularly want hotter temperatures, worse droughts, more catastrophic fires or bigger badder floods. Our climate already has more than enough of all that.

This new book looks like it's a follow-up to a 2010 publication, which included chapters by such luminaries (in the fake sceptic world) as Richard Tol, Nigel Lawson, Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon and Ian Plimer. I don't know if anyone read that book. This time the IPA has given their book more publicity, right underneath a plea to support alleged defamer Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is heading for a tour down under, possibly fighting to extend freedom of speech beyond the acceptable, to embrace the right to defame, if histrack record is anything to go by.

Will this latest version of "change the facts" get more readers than the IPA's first (freebie) book did? Maybe by charging for it this time around the IPA will get greater exposure and commitment from deniers.

Given that Anthony Watts wrote a chapter I was wondering why he waited so long to boast about it. The book came out a month or so back. Turns out Anthony was waiting till the book was available on Kindle. That's the only way he's getting any payment for his contribution, according to him. (He doesn't say what his chapter is about. Russian steampipes? Insects?)

The IPA scoured the world for the more prominent climate science deniers and mixed them up with some less prominent and more wacky ones. The editor, Alan Moran, managed to get entries from the following:

What a ragtag bunch. According to RenewEconomy last year, the book was to have beenmailed out hither, thither and yon for free. (I've yet to receive my free copy.) People who aren't important enough to get a free copy and want to lap up nonsense like this have to pay for it. You'll have to cough up $AUD24.95 for a hard copy. You can pick up the Kindle version for a mere $US9.95.

I first wrote about this early last year when it was revealed that Australian taxpayers are helping to subsidise the book. (The IPA is registered as a non-profit organisation, therefore tax exempt. Also, donations to it are tax-deductible. This equates to a subsidy by Australian taxpayers. To rub salt in the wound, the IPA has over many years used the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as its freeby publisher. More subsidisation from Australian taxpayers.)

Anyone who was dumb enough to donate $400 or more would get their name emblazoned for all to see on the back cover. So if anyone has donated more than $400 to get this silly little book published, feel free to let me know and I'll give you some more free publicity :)

From the WUWT comments

Quite a few commenters at WUWT are well aware that this book won't go anywhere. That most of the people who'll buy it are science deniers who want to have their wishes "confirmed" by other science deniers. John Francis wrote:

February 14, 2015 at 4:50 pm

Excellent book. I read it as soon as I got it on Kindle. If only the general public read it!

jon sutton seems to think the only way to get it out there is to give it away for free.

February 14, 2015 at 9:36 am

I reckon this should be freely distributed……………… like the Gideon Bible :-))

Tom J  likes the writing style of deniers:

February 14, 2015 at 10:11 am

Is it just me? Is it just my biases? But it seems to me, just looking at that list of authors, that members of the skeptic community (gawd, how I hate that tribal generalization – but it is convenient) are hell’s bells better writers, and possess far better senses of humor (actually ‘better’ is an inaccurate term when the comparison is to, well … nothing) than the dour, self righteous, nose-in-the-air, humorless, screeds who populate the CAGW opportunistic industrial complex. I’ve enjoyed the clever humor of Michaels, the smoothness of McKitrick, and the others, and then, there’s … Mark Steyn.

pauline young doesn't think the freebies sent to Australian politicians had any impact:

February 14, 2015 at 6:56 pm

A copy was sent to every member of the federal government in Australia….. sadly I don’t think it has had much impact.

George McFly......I'm your density  liked it so much he read it out loud to his poor wife.

February 14, 2015 at 8:40 pm

Great book Anthony. I got a copy a few weeks ago and have read it already, some chapters twice! One section I read out aloud to my wife….seriously clever and funny. Worth every cent

Phlogiston is missing someone

February 14, 2015 at 4:45 pm

Where is Matt Ridley?

JDN notices the ambiguity of the title:

February 14, 2015 at 2:57 pm

The alarmistas are always saying the skeptics want to “change the facts”, now it’s the title of their new book. Maybe you can hire an editor who knows how a ‘:’ is used.

Climate Change: The Facts

by J.Abbot(Author), J.S. Armstrong (Author), A.Bolt (Author), R.Carter (Author), R.Darwall (Author), J.Delingpole (Author), C.Essex (Author), S.Franks (Author), K.Green (Author), D.Laframboise (Author), N.Lawson (Author), B.Lewin (Author), R.Lindzen (Author), J.Marohasy (Author), R.McKitrick (Author), P.Michaels (Author), A.Moran (Author), J.Nova (Author), G.Paltridge (Author), I.Plimer (Author), W.Soon (Author), M.Steyn (Author), A.Watts (Author), Alan Moran (Editor)

An excellent new book --Barbara Kay, The National Post (Canada)

A fascinating new book --Matt Ridley, Quadrant (Australia)

A great gift for any friend with an open mind who enjoys a good read --Jay Lehr, PhD, The Heartlander

About the Author

The authors of Climate Change: The Facts number some of the most prominent dissenters from Big Climate alarmism, including scientists Richard S Lindzen and Willie Soon, recently targeted by grandstanding congressmen seeking to get them fired from their jobs; Nigel Lawson, Britain's former Chancellor of the Exchequer; Ross McKitrick, whose analysis inflicted irreparable damage on the famous global-warming "hockey stick"; and Mark Steyn, currently being sued by the creator of the self-same hockey stick, Michael E Mann, in a landmark free-speech case. Plus John Abbot & Jennifer Marohasy, Andrew Bolt, Robert M Carter, Rupert Darwall, James Delingpole, Christopher Essex, Stewart W Franks, Kesten C Green & J Scott Armstrong, Donna Laframboise, Bernie Lewin, Patrick J Michaels, Joanne Nova, Garth W Paltridge, Ian Plimer and Anthony Watts

Paperback: 336 pages

Publisher: Stockade Books; First edition (April 21, 2015)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0986398306

ISBN-13: 978-0986398308

Stockade Books and The Institute of Public Affairsare proud to publish Climate Change: The Facts, featuring 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.

--

J.Abbot

4.4 out of 5 stars 446

==

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. It has close links to the Liberal Party of Australia, with its Executive Director John Roskam having run for Liberal Party preselection for a number of elections. Following the 2007 federal election defeat for the Liberal Party, The Australian's journalist Christian Kerr noted that a new group of federal Liberal politicians were "receiving support from former Howard government staffer John Roskam" at the IPA.[1]

The IPA key policy positions include: advocacy for privatisation and deregulation; attacks on the positions of unions and non-government organisations; support of assimilationist indigenous policy (cf. the Bennelong Society) and refutation of the science involved with environmental issues such as climate change.

Contents[hide]

History

The IPA is a non-profit company, which has a restricted membership of 54 people. It was established in 1943 by G. J Coles and a group of businessmen based in Melbourne who appointed Charles Kemp as the first director. From the outset, it had close ties to the Liberal Party under its leader Robert Menzies. Australian journalist Paul Kelly argues that the IPA's C.D. Kemp was “probably the principal architect of the original Menzies platform” ("The End of Certainty: The Story of the 1980s", p. 47).

The IPA was not influential again until the 1980s, when C.D. Kemp's son, Rod Kemp took up the leadership. Rod Kemp transformed it from a conservative organisation to a neoliberal one, funded mainly by major corporations groups, and pursuing a pro-free-market, pro-privatization, pro-deregulation and anti-union agenda.

According to Cahill (2004: 210) members of the IPA executive from 1976-1984 included David L. Elsum, Hon Vernon Wilcox, Sir Frank Espie, Douglas Hocking, Sir Wilfred Brookes, James Balderstone, Hugh Morgan, Peter Bunning and Charles Goode.

Throughout the 1980's the IPA's primary focus was on issues such as economic policy, privatisation and industrial relations policy. It also dabbled in a few broader issues such as the role of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the role of churches in public policy debates. It wasn't until 1989 that the IPA began to pay any sustained interest to environmental issues. Since then it has campaigned against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, promoted the use of genetically engineered crops and defended the logging of native forests.

More recently, the IPA has been the driving force behind the establishment of a number of new non-profit front groups, including the Australian Environment Foundation - which campaigns for weaker environmental laws - Independent Contractors of Australia - which campaigns for an end to workplace safety laws and a general deregulation of the labour market, and the ironically named Owner Drivers Australia, which campaigns against safety and work standard for truck drivers.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, in a speech to the IPA justifying the 2003 Iraq War, commented that "the Institute has played a role in shaping, as well as articulating, our nation’s values."[2]

Right Wing?

IPA Executive Director John Roskam has objected to the group being described as being "right wing". "We are many things – but 'right wing' is not one of them. Any combination of free market, liberal, conservative (on some issues), liberal/conservative, (even) libertarian (on occasion), would be an appropriate description of the IPA – but not right wing. Since when has being in favour of small government, lower taxes, and less government been 'right wing'?," he wrote in a letter to Crikey.[3]

In a letter in response, Niall Clugston described Roskam's argument as "disingenuous". "The left/right spectrum is best understood as denoting relative positions, and the IPA is certainly poles apart from anyone described as left-wing. By the way, a key characteristic of right-wingers is that they shun the label. Perhaps they should explain why that is."[4]

Media impact

Following the publication of a column in 2008 questioning the impact of think tanks such as the IPA, Chris Berg, the editor of the IPA's journal, IPA Review, responded:

"Andrew Crook weirdly asserts that the Institute of Public Affairs has been 'effectively frozen out of the national debate' since Kevin Rudd won office. If being frozen out of the national debate is getting more than 200 op-eds published in the national media during the year and having had hundreds and hundreds media mentions and media appearances -- then we're pretty happy with that. We’re not doing too badly for an organisation with a budget of much less than $2 million."[5]

Case Studies

The IPA and climate change

In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, IPA Executive Director John Roskam confirmed the IPA's key role in supporting Australian climate sceptics. '"Of all the serious sceptics in Australia, we have helped and supported just about all of them in their work one way or another," he says, listing some prominent figures on the local circuit. "Ian Plimer - we launched his book - Bob Carter, Jo Nova, William Kininmonth."'[6]

In 2008, the institute facilitated a donation of $350,000 by Dr G. Bryant Macfie, a climate change sceptic, to the University of Queensland for environmental research. The money, which was routed via the IPS, was to fund three environmental doctoral projects with the IPA suggesting two of the three agreed topics. George Bryant Macfie was described as a "medical doctor and philanthropist" and a "long-standing IPA member." Announcing the grant, Macfie complained that "environmental activism" was akin to a new religion infecting science. "The crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine," he said. The topics for the research included an examination of agricultural practices and chemical usage and the effectiveness of banning tree-clearing in Australia as a way to store carbon.[7] At the time Macfie held 634,846 shares in Strike Resources Limited, making him one of the was a top 20 shareholders.[8] (By 2010, Macfie had increased his shareholding to 800,000 shares, representing .615% of the company's shares.[9]) Strike Resources is a Perth-based mineral exploration company which is seeking to develop an iron project in Peru and the Berau Thermal Coal Project in Indonesia.[10]

The IPA and the Murray River

For all their talk of 'transparency' though, the IPA has beem embroiled in controversy over failure to disclose funders of its work. In June 2004 it was revealed that Australia's largest irrgation company, Murray Irrigation Limited, contributed $40,000 to the IPA. The IPA's environment unit director Jennifer Marohasy played a critical role in persuading a government committee to overturn recomendations to increase the volume of water released into the Murray River. [1]

However, Marohasy did not disclose the donation to the committee. When asked by the Australian Financial Review about the MIL donation, Marohasy would not confirm or deny whether she knew about the donation while writing her report or giving evidence to the committee. She said she did not take "an interest in who funds IPA".

IPA executive director Mike Nahan stated the donation did not affect the organisation's position. While Nahan stated in late 2003 that the names of donors would be revealed, the information is still not disclosed on the organisations website.

In June 2006, Bill Hetherington, Chairman of Murray Irrigation Ltd from 1995 to 2005 - including the period when Murray Irrigation Ltd was a major funder of the IPA - was appointed to the IPA's board of management.

Associated Events

Funding

The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:

In 2003, the Australian Government paid $50,000 to the Institute of Public Affairs to review the accountability of NGOs.[4]

However, financial support for the IPA has diminished over the seven years from 1995-96 when the IA received $1.4 million to just over $669,000 in 2001-2002 (figures unadjusted for inflation).

Even Rio Tinto, the conservative mining company, abandoned the IPA because of its strident advocacy against Aboriginal self-determination. [5].

Personnel

Staff

As of August 2011, the IPA website stated that the Board of Directors comprises:[12]

Former staff

IPA Board

As of August 2011, the IPA website stated that the Board of Directors comprises:[12]

Former Board Members

Contact information

The Institute of Public Affairs

Level 2, 410 Collins Street

Melbourne VIC 3000

AUSTRALIA

Phone: (03) 96004744

Fax: (03) 9602 4989

Web: http://www.ipa.org.au

Other Sourcewatch Resources

External links

References

  1. ↑ Christian Kerr, "Liberals' growing hunger", The Australian, November 25, 2008.
  2. ↑ John Howard, "Address to the Institute of Public Affairs, The Australian Club, Melbourne", May 19, 2004. (This is archived in the Internet Archive).
  3. ↑ John Roskam, "Re. 'Tabcorp board – too few doing too much'", Crikey, March 16, 2007.
  4. ↑ Letter to the editor", Crikey, March 19, 2007.
  5. ↑ Chris Berg, "Think tanks", Crikey, December 15, 2008.
  6. ↑ Ben Cubby and Antony Lawes, "The benefit of the doubt", Sydney Morning Herald, May 8, 2010.
  7. ↑ Andrew Trounson and Greg Roberts, "Dispute over climate sceptic uni grant", The Australian, May 7, 2008.
  8. ↑ Strike Resources, "2008 Annual Report", October 2008, page 99.
  9. ↑ Strike Resources, "2010 Annual Report", November 2010, page 91.
  10. ↑ Strike Resources, "Company Overview", Strike Resources website, accessed August 2011.
  11. ↑ Mike Nahan, "National value destroyed", Australian Financial Review, April 24, 2011, page 66.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Institute of Public Affairs, "People and Associates", Institute of Public Affairs website, accessed August 2011.
  13. ↑ Institute of Public Affairs, "Rod Kemp: Appointed Chairman of Institute of Public Affairs", Media Release, July 18, 2008.
  14. ↑ "About The Lavoisier Group", Lavoisier Group website, accessed August 2008.
Search the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco Industry
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library:

Categories: Coal Issues | Energy | Tobaccowiki | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements | Think tanks | Australia | Tobacco documents organizations | Co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009)

Last week's revelations about the Heartland Institute, probably the most important climate science denying organisation in the United States, raise some questions about the murky influence of think tanks on the climate debate in this country.

Confidential documents from the Heartland Institute reveal how wealthy individuals have actively promoted the campaign to attack the credibility of the world's top climate scientists and create the impression that there is a controversy about the main propositions of global warming science.

In fact the bulk of Heartland's climate science denial campaign - which includes plans to promote anti-science in schools - has been funded by one donor, whose name did not appear in the purloined documents.

There is a direct Australian link in the Heartland Institute files. Bob Carter, an adjunct research professor at James Cook University, has a long-standing record of denying climate science. Now it is revealed that he is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, to the tune of $1,667 per month for unspecified work. On his personal webpage, Carter declares that "he receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments," a claim that on the scale of truth matches his reporting of climate science.

Carter is also a fellow at the right-wing Melbourne think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), which has for many years been the principal originator of anti-climate science propaganda in this country. The IPA is closely linked to the Heartland Institute, not least through its sponsorship of two of its recent conferences.

The secret funding of the Heartland Institute once again focuses attention on the financing of the IPA and particularly it sustained attacks on climate science and all policies aimed at cutting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPA is notoriously secretive about its sources of funding. Its senior staff have refused to answer journalists' questions, although over the years enough information has leaked out to suggest that much of its funding has come from the oil and mining industries, including Exxon, Shell, Caltex and BHP-Billiton.

The IPA's executive director John Roskam, who used to work for Rio Tinto, has said that donors to the Institute want to remain anonymous because they "have been intimidated because of their supposed support for us".

The IPA's coyness is all the more hypocritical because a few years ago it launched a sustained attack on NGOs by claiming they were unaccountable, unrepresentative and not worthy of charitable status. The demand for transparency applies to everyone but itself.

Despite its refusal to divulge, we can make a good guess at where a large part of its recent funding has come from - right-wing mining billionaire Gina Rinehart.

In August 2010 the Institute's magazine carried a prominent article by one of its staff titled "Unleash the North". It advocated the creation of a special economic zone to cover the northern half of the continent where companies would have lower levels of regulation, cheap labour could be imported from developing countries and tax rates would be cut.

This proposal exactly parallels Gina Rinehart's campaign for a special economic zone in northern Australia where companies like hers could enjoy special privileges. She has set up a lobby group called Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision (ANDEV) to promote the idea.

Within months the Institute had established a new ‘North Australia Project', with its own website, and from May 2011 began churning out media releases promoting the special economic zone, beginning with a "landmark Galaxy poll" that purported to show that 60 per cent of Australians "think Canberra is out of touch with Northern Australia".

(In a move that shows polling groups will pose the most absurd questions if paid enough to do so, Galaxy asked whether "in your opinion, do decision makers in Canberra understand the needs of families and businesses living in Northern Australia?" as if the average punter is au faitwith the needs of families and businesses in semi-tropical Australia and equally well-informed what "Canberra" thinks about it.)

The new director of the North Australia Project, Hugh Tobin, declared:

The government should put in place a Special Economic Zone in Northern Australia. A low tax, low regulation zone would drive continued long term investment in the Australian resource industry.

John Roskam also began spruiking the marvels of Rinehart's northern zone.

Subsequent media releases warned of an out-of-touch Canberra, the danger of falling iron ore prices, the fragility of the resources boom, skills shortages, and the need to cut taxes and simplify regulation. They call for a "business friendly", "low tax, low regulation Special Economic Zone". The IPA's outpourings have been reproduced in mining industry magazines and will undoubtedly soon be echoed by right-wing newspaper columnists.

If the words in the media releases were not dictated down the phone by Gina Rinehart, then they could have been. I would be willing to bet $1,000 that she is now a major funder of the Institute of Public Affairs. In fact, the IPA has admitted that it is "working with Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision", Rinehart's lobby group.

In June 2011 the IPA said it was conducting a series of seminars throughout Northern Australia to "build the case for, and gather input into the establishment of a Northern SEZ". It has taken Bob Carter to Weipa, Kunanurra, Darwin, Broome, Mount Isa and several more towns.

Clearly, like its long-running involvement in the climate debate, the IPA is conducting a political campaign, which brings us directly to the question of whether the Institute is abiding by the laws under which it operates as a deductible gift recipient.

In 1987 the IPA restructured itself as a company limited by guarantee, which means that its directors are not liable for any debts it might incur. The restructure enabled it to apply to become an Approved Research Institute (ARI) and thus be eligible for endorsement as a deductible gift recipient (DGR). In other words, donors to the Institute would be able to claim a tax deduction for their donations. DGR status is the most valuable asset of an organisation like the IPA because without it virtually no-one would donate.

In order for the IPA to become a DGR it had to apply to the Secretary of what is now the Federal Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research giving various undertakings.

Most importantly, it had to undertake to use all tax-deductible donations exclusively for scientific research, more particularly, "scientific research which is, or may prove to be, of value to Australia". In this context, the authorities have ruled that "scientific research" includes social scientific research.

The IPA also had to undertake to create a separate bank account into which all tax-deductible gifts must be deposited. The Institute's financial statements show that it keeps some of its cash in an account called "NAB Research Account". On June 30, 2010 it held $385,647.

It must also ensure that all disbursements from this research account are evaluated and approved by "a suitably qualified research committee" of at least five members, the majority of whom are appropriately qualified in the field of research that is to be undertaken or have appropriate experience in reviewing research, and who should be nominated on the basis of their "proven ability to direct a research program". As far as I can tell, the IPA has not made public the membership of its research committee.

The rules state explicitly that tax-deductible funds may not be used for "the organisation of conferences, congresses and symposia and the publication of information (other than the results of the ARI's own research work, undertaken through this program)."

All of this raises the question of whether donations to the IPA for which the donor has claimed a tax deduction are being used in compliance with the law.

The IPA has devoted considerable resources to staging public meetings to campaign against the Federal Government's carbon tax. In the year to June 30, 2010 it hosted 40 events around the country. This is clearly a political campaign; in no sense could these activities be called scientific research. So were the public meetings funded from tax deductible gifts? Did the Institute's research committee approve spending on these events? It may well be that they were funded from other sources, but we can't tell because of the IPA's lack of disclosure.

Similar questions can be asked about the series of seminars the IPA is conducting in northern Australia to build support for a special economic zone. It would be hard to defend these activities as "scientific research". The funds, it would seem, are being spent on "the organisation of conferences, congresses and symposia" on which tax-deductible gifts may not be spent.

Last year the IPA paid for two full-page advertisements in the Australian attacking the Government's climate change policy. The cost would have been in the order of $100,000. Who paid for them? Were they paid for with tax deductible gifts?

While we cannot be sure why the IPA refuses to come clean about its sources of funds, or what those sources are, if it were to be revealed that they included the mining industry or mining magnates then journalists would be obliged to report the fact each time they wrote a story about the IPA. The environment groups that the IPA has attacked for lack of accountability are transparent about their funding, yet the IPA knows that its credibility would be shot if it were seen to be the mouthpiece of big business with an interest in undermining climate science and climate policy.

The public may not have the means to shed light on the murky world of IPA finances, but the Tax Commissioner does. He should open up the Institute's books to ensure it is complying with the law and to force on the IPA the transparency it demands of others.

Clive Hamilton is Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra. He was formerly the executive director of the Australia Institute, which he founded in 1994. View his full profile here.

===

The ripple effects of the U.S. campaign to 'defund the left' have been felt around the world. A U.S. mining company succeeded in having USAID funding for an Indonesian community group pulled. [2] A Fulbright scholarship to the U.S., helped the Senior Fellow at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Gary Johns develop a good working relationship with the American Enterprise Institute and escalate their emphasis on curtailing the activities of public interest groups.

The IPA themselves have targeted public interest groups in Malaysia and those working on issues in Indonesia. In mid-June 2004 the conservative Australian government released a consultancy report by the IPA's Gary Johns and John Roskam proposing the first steps to reduce the access that non-government organisations have to government decision making. [3]

In May 2002 Canadian PR consultant Ross S. Irvine, who approvingly cites Johns views in his articles, was a keynote speaker at the annual conference of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand. In his presentation Irvine identified "charitable organization legislation", now before parliament, as one of the key focal points to consider in New Zealand.

In August 2004, the New Zealand Greens Green MP Sue Bradford warned that the proposed charities legislation "poses a real threat to one of the cornerstones of our democracy - the ability of people to come together and advocate for all manner of social, economic and environmental causes. Freedom of speech would be clouded because organisations that speak out on political issues would risk being deregistered by the Charities Commission." [4]

In early September 2004, the Director General of the New Zealand Health Ministry, Karen Poutasi, sent a draft instruction to health and disability NGOs revealing that it was proposed that "the Ministry does not fund lobbying activity and such activity will not be included in any contracts". The instruction, however, did not propose that organisations would be excluded from government funding if funds raised from other sources were used for lobbying. See Intimidating democracy/New Zealand Health Ministry memo to NGOs for the full text.