How to Get Expelled From School

“A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters” – By Ian Plimer – When it comes to global warming and CO2, “you are being fed total nonsense,” says Professor Plimer. “You are being conned.”

How to get expelled from schoolHow to Get Expelled From School

A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters

By Ian Plimer

* * *

We’re being warned that we’re going to “fry-and-die if we don’t change our ways,” says Professor Plimer. “The government demands that we “respect the science” yet at the same time they mislead and deceive and give us no respect.”

“(But) the public has woken up to the hypocritical unctuous sanctimony and self-righteousness of high-profile environmentalists.”

Kindle version ($14.99):
How to Get Expelled From School – A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters

Print version ($29.95):
How to get expelled from school: A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters

Print version: ($29.95) Kindle version ($14.99):


When you’re ready to purchase, please return to Amazon via this page. They’ll give me a small commission, and it won’t cost you a penny extra. This will help fund my crusade to warn people of  the impending ice age.   – Thanks, Robert


“It’s well written, packed with references, and has an unapologetic, irreverent tone,” says review by

“If you are a skeptical teacher, this is an essential book; if you are an alarmist teacher, it’s doubly so. This is the ammunition that smart teenagers will use to point score against you. (Be prepared, eh?)”

Sample questions:

7. The temperature increase between breakfast and lunch is far higher than the 0.8 C temperature rise over the last 150 years. Why is such a small change over 150 years dangerous yet larger changes each day are not?

What can your teacher say? Maybe your teacher might argue that a 0.8 C temperature rise is a sign of terrible things to come. Who knows? Email me your teacher’s answer to

24. If Carbon dioxide drives global warming, how is it that we have had six major ice ages in the past yet atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher then than now?

This should make you extremely unpopular with an activist teacher. The aim of the question is to very quickly demonstrate that your teacher is an environmental activist using classes for political advocacy. How dare you ask a logical question based on knowledge that has been validated? Few school teachers have any knowledge of geology so the only way for an activist teacher to handle this question is to question your facts, slam you down, ignore you or throw you out for being disruptive. Don’t think that you will get an answer to this question. The teacher might be silly enough to try to argue that it is just geology and that processes that happened millions of years ago are too slow or do not operate today. Codswallop. The processes that operated in the past still operate today.

Ian Plimer twice winner of Australia’s highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize, is professor of geology in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and is author of seven other books written for the general public in addition to more than 120 scientific papers. He is a strong independent thinker (to put it mildly).

Also see Professor Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science


18 thoughts on “How to Get Expelled From School”

  1. Climate science arguments should NEVER degenerate into a “left versus right” or “capitalist versus communist” BS.

    I am one of the most vocal opponents of climate science who regularly comments here but I am and always have been a supporter of many practices many would classify as socialist including things such as Australia’s social security system and health care so my politics have absolutely no bearing on my anathema of climate “science”.

    Also the vast majority of Russian scientists – are they communists ? – passionately disagree with climate “science” as espoused by the IPCC.

    Climate “science” advocacy is NOT restricted to left wing thinkers – I know many extreme anti socialist thinkers who still advocate the climate “science” message.

    Stop this “us versus them” BS until climate “science” is dead and buried as it deserves to be.

    • uh huh supporting the aged and infirm is sorta smart, if you dont want starving ill and riots:-)
      once aus had the COMMONwealth Bank
      funds in it and interest etc went toward services FOR the common-wealth and well being of the nation.
      then it got privatised..
      like so much else the people paid for with taxes.. water power etc etc
      now staff are cut and tax gets shifed to os havens and WE as a nation LOSE OUT!
      so much for globalisation and freetrade.

    • Well said Rosco! Let’s be neutral and rational in bringing better science to their attention. Much more likely to succeed and saves us going down the quasi-religious fervour route so many warmists have taken.

    • Hey Rosco,

      Don’t disagree with your humanitarian ethos. To disclose: I am a member of the largest Conservative party in Oz (named Liberal to confuse folks from the USA ironically). It is possible to meld ethos and policy to suit the voting public. It happens all the time. So the “right” picks the odd bit from the left and the left from the right. The middle usually being as simulated by both.

      However – when dealing with the strongest advocates on AGW (and some other non “pure” sciences – ie – science that one can’t test and observe) their political allegiances are pertinent. A quick Google on the Club of Rome, for example. Or Haldron’s books from the 70’s and 80’s, or Tim Flannery’s The Future Eaters.

      These are all notable in AGW advocacy – and science. There are others. They are decidedly left, with pinches from the far right (fascism) mixed up and shaken.

      Normally I’d feel I’d want to support your argument regarding political labelling of science. But in this instance (and a few other disciplines) the labelling is accurate.

  2. Every country is entittled to have their own economic policies that is supported by its people…as long as everyone plays by the same rules I can care less…but as far as the climate is concerned we as a planet need the UN to stop feeding us bull****…it shouldnt be about protecting wealth or wealth redistribution it should be about the science and the lives that soon will be drasticly affected…in my humble opinion if it takes ice to cleanse us of this greed then so be it…the weather will help in this crusade let the smartest survive

    • Rosco, in the U.S. it is always the left (i.e. progressives) trying to push the CAGW agenda. That includes Republicans as well as Democrats. Therefore, it is not a war of political parties. There is practically no science involved in the papers and articles produced from the government or universities. It is all a wealth-transfer scheme so the government will happily participate by passing punitive regulations even if they are unconstitutional. NASA and NOAA continuously play with their data bases to the point that their output is mostly purely fictional. Therefore it has to be about us versus them.

    • Unfortunately no matter how smart an individual may be, they can only make smart decisions if they know the full facts. The warmists, their pet politicians and pet media make it very difficult for the full facts to get through.

  3. There is no link showing for this book on my iMac using the latest Safari. I will check back tomorrow, hopefully to find one. I want to give this book to my grandchildren and will happily wait a day or two to generate some support for your site.

    • Hi Ernest, I have added text-only links that should help you. You’ll find them just below the photo of the book.
      Kindle version ($10.09):

  4. I had no idea that the vast majority of Russian scientists disagree with global warming theory. Where can I read more about this, Rosco?


    Well here’s a breath of fresh air…I’m beginning to wonder just how many scientists agree with AGW or if they are just simply playing along in order to continue to recieve funding…can the private sector fund the opposition to global warming and match the government dollar for dollar…sadly right now what is needed is real science lobbyists with major cash to buy some of these politicians to stop the EPA and Obama…its gonna have to be the industries being killed by EPA regulations that need to get on the ball and push this agenda….industries like the auto or maybe the coal industry…regardless its gonna take money

  6. Rosco: The IPCC leadership has admitted that “climate change” is all about wealth transfer (communism) and not about science. It is all about far left agendas from beginning to end. Its not about science and never has been about science.

    • Bob: Exactly. Touting climate change’s disastrous (yet unproven) effects and the need to avert them means fundamentally changing how the world’s economies function. It is a transfer of wealth, and the mechanism by which that transfer takes place is through a political process. Therefore the whole of climate change is, conclusively, an ideology predicated upon guilting advanced countries into lowering their standard of living rather than raising up those of the lesser advanced.

  7. How to get an ‘A” in science class.

    If it is cold for months – that is called “weather”.

    If we have a hot day – that’s called “global warming”.

    See how simple it is!

  8. “Climate science arguments should NEVER degenerate into a “left versus right” or “capitalist versus communist” BS.”

    The reason it often becomes a ‘left vs right’ discussion is that the proponents of climate alarm almost universally propose collectivist / government (or world government) control ‘remedies’, using coercion of one form or another. The advocacy of climate alarm has little to do with science, it is primarily about expanding government control. Expanding government control is at the heart of leftist politics. Unfortunately, you can’t have a conversation about climate science without including politics .. because that is what it’s all about.

  9. Pingback: Anonymous
  10. If climate change activists were really about doing what’s best for the world, their #1 solution would be to promote nuclear. They are not. Nuclear energy would allow infinitely more freedom to correct the social and environmental ills of the world’s nations than so-called ‘green’ technologies. This fundamentally demonstrates nothing more than a non-science based political agenda.

    Why is it that fossil fuels, which have been the stalwart foundation for propelling global societies to unimaginable heights in less than a century, are now considered the scourge of All Things Yet To Come?

Comments are closed.