Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony

chinaccrcover[1]Note: I’ve been aware of this effort being underway for sometime, and I’m happy to be able to report it today. The fact that the Chinese undertook the effort speaks volumes. – Anthony

Here is the Heartland press release from their website:

The Chinese Academy of Sciences in June 2013 translated and published a Chinese edition of Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, two hefty volumes containing more than 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data on climate change originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.

The two books present a sweeping rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ controversial Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports were widely cited as the basis for taking action to stop or slow the advance of climate change. More recently, the IPCC has been surrounded by controversy over lapses in its quality control and editorial bias.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences is the world’s largest academy of sciences, employing some 50,000 people and hosting more than 350 international conferences a year. Membership in the Academy represents the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists. The Nature Publishing Index in May ranked the Chinese Academy of Sciences No. 12 on its list of the “Global Top 100” scientific institutions – ahead of the University of Oxford (No. 14), Yale University (No. 16), and the California Institute of Technology (No. 25).

The first 856-page volume of Climate Change Reconsidered, published in 2009, and its follow-up, the 430-page Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report,were produced by a team of scientists originally convened by Dr. S. Fred Singer under the name of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The volumes were coauthored and edited by three climate science researchers:

  • Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, editor of the online magazine CO2 Science, and author of several books and scholarly articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life;
  • Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a marine geologist and research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of Climate: the Counter Consensus; and
  • S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and a distinguished atmospheric physicist and first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

All three men will be in Beijing for the Chinese Academy of Sciences event on June 15, 2013 to speak about the translation of Climate Change Reconsidered. Scores of additional scientists, economists, and policy experts reviewed and contributed to the volumes.

Here is what Breitbart had to say about it:

Breitbart News can exclusively report on Tuesday night that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a Chinese edition of two massive climate change volumes originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.

The volumes, Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, are chock full of 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data concerning the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Together, they represent the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, which have been the basis of the climate change legislation movement across the planet.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences is set to present the publication on June 15 at a major ceremony in Beijing. The Academy employs approximately 50,000 people and hosts 350 international conferences each year, and is one of the most prestigious scientific academies in the world, ranked ahead of every Ivy League school save Harvard

Jim Lakely, director of communications at the Heartland Institute, told Breitbart News, “Translating and publishing nearly 1,300 pages of peer-reviewed scientific literature from English to Chinese is no small task, and indicative of how important CAS considers Climate Change Reconsidered to the global climate change debate. That CAS has invited the authors and editors of Climate Change Reconsidered to a conference this Saturday in Beijing to introduce the studies is yet another indicator of how important it is to get this information out to a wider audience.”

About these ads

150 thoughts on “Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony

  1. Excellent news. I have a tendency to see other issues stand out above the main issue being presented, though.
    “The Nature Publishing Index in May ranked the Chinese Academy of Sciences No. 12 on its list of the “Global Top 100” scientific institutions – ahead of the University of Oxford (No. 14), Yale University (No. 16)(GP: and the other ivy league, except Harvard) , and the California Institute of Technology (No. 25).”

    I have been harping a bit on the decline of University scholarship in the West as personified by the shoddy science of climate science, but it isn’t the only area. I’m shocked that such as CIT, a once prolific generator of science has sunk to a lower level and I even fear that it will get worse before it gets better. I consider myself better educated as an old engineer than the thousands of metric tonnes of PhD’s and their supervisors who have apparently abandoned the methods of science and taken up a political science form. Oh dear, the mess that has to be cleared up after the collapse. The only solace I can muster here is it was ranked by the plummeting Nature rag. How dare this fallen organization have anything to say about excellence in science. But they aren’t wrong this time.

  2. Excellent news, indeed!!!! I have read both the original reports & they were excellent, full of rational logical argument.

  3. Great news – and congratulations to the authors of the report, as well as to The Heartland Institute. So refreshing to see an internationally-respected scientific Academy treat such ‘counter consensus’ climate research with the same respect and open-mindedness so noticeably lacking (if not entirely absent) from western scientific organisations.

  4. Malicious gossip might have it that the Chinsese have a special interest in that kind of stuff as they are globally exposed to be one of the biggest “polluters”.
    As for me I’ll take it as another great step for unequivocal clarification about what’s really going on.

    Kudos!

  5. To John Tillman (above),

    India abandoned the IPCC three years ago on an official basis and follows its won advisory board (they are too smart to do otherwise).

    Bruce

  6. The Commies are happy to foment internal discord within their greatest rival. Tread with caution.

  7. Since they accepted help fro the Chinese the Heartland Institute is clearly in the pocket of both communism and big government which strangely puts them more towards the mainstream within the climate community.

  8. James at 48 says:
    June 12, 2013 at 10:39 am
    “The Commies are happy to foment internal discord within their greatest rival. Tread with caution.”

    You mean we should all unite under the warmist banner against the evil ChiComs and do what? Oh, I see, buy solar panels from them to run circles around their stagnating economy, yeah, I see how that’ll work… /sarc

  9. Their mega nation, run by engineers rather than culture war lawyers who nearly invoke civil wars, threatens to fertilize the whole planet that we will soon be overrun by vines.

  10. Wow, I can’t wait to hear the reaction from the Team and all their hangers on. Someone’s going to have to start a RealClimate in Chinese.

  11. Now all they need to do is invite Professor Murry Salby to present a lecture and its game over for the ‘team’.

  12. I’ve heard that the following statement, or something similar to it, was attributed to Deng Xiaoping: ‘It doesn’t matter if it’s a black cat or a white cat, if it kills mice, it’s a good cat.’

    That statement seems similar to this piece of wisdom: ‘Pick your friends where you find them.’

    For some reason the foregoing statements seem to apply here.

  13. Hmmm. On the one hand, they love coal, and are none too keen on the IPCC trying to tell them what to do. On the other, their solar industry is huge. Hard to say what their motives are, but all in all, it seems like good news.

  14. Who cares what their motives are, if it benefits humanity – and hopefully it will throw a monkey wrench into der Fuehrer’s idiotic and destructive plans. And hopefully the Chinese will take this to the UN and tell Obersturmfuehrer Kerry to shove it.

    Wonderful news, withal.

  15. Bruce Cobb says:
    June 12, 2013 at 11:50 am
    “Hmmm. On the one hand, they love coal, and are none too keen on the IPCC trying to tell them what to do. On the other, their solar industry is huge. Hard to say what their motives are,”

    Making the panels as cheaply as possible and sell them to Germany. There’s no significant panel manufacturing in Germany left. The subsidy guarantees for newly installed panels are still in force. And this will continue until 53 GWpeak are reached. We’re a little above 30 GWpeak now.

    I see more and more hillsides that are difficult to farm covered with acres of panels.

  16. Oh that’s got to sting! But then the Chinese can do something the Russians can do but most others can’t.

    Still put astronauts into space…

  17. I would not attach such importance to an event endorsed by Communist Party of China (for no event other than that kind is supposed to occur in a tyranny). It has nothing to do with truth or science, a mere political message from the Rulers of the World, no more & no less than that.

  18. Berényi Péter says:
    June 12, 2013 at 12:09 pm
    “I would not attach such importance to an event endorsed by Communist Party of China (for no event other than that kind is supposed to occur in a tyranny). It has nothing to do with truth or science, a mere political message from the Rulers of the World, no more & no less than that.”

    As opposed to what the NSA Empire does… or what the unelected EU comission decides…?

  19. China is not a communist state in the traditional sense. Heck, the joint produces more millionaires every year than the rest of the world combined. We’re not talking about North Korea here.
    I personally don’t believe the Chinese government had a hand in the Academy decision to translate the NIPCC reports.

  20. So we can say that “The Academy of Sciences” of 19.09% of the world’s population has endorsed the two books from HI.

  21. Gary Pearse – I agree with you about the decline of University scholarship in the West, shoddy science, the abandonment of the methods of science, and the mess that will have to be cleared up.

    I blame Thomas Kuhn.

  22. “Heartland’s NIPPC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony”

    NIPPC ?

    [Typo fixed, thanx. — mod.]

  23. Ric Werme says:
    June 12, 2013 at 10:55 am

    SkS and RC might as well be written in Chinese as they make no sense in English!!

  24. As the US Democratic Party is to democracy, so the Chinese Communist Party is to communism. In both cases the real objective is self-advancing authoritarianism. The Chinese leadership are riding on a rocket ship called the Chinese people. The rocket will take them far if they pilot it skillfully, and the rocket will kill them if they get too happy with the controls.

    During one of my 14 visits to China, I had a conversation about the Tiananmen Square Massacre with a Chinese colleague, He had heard nothing about it before I described it to him, though he had known of a “vague time of troubles and unrest”. After pondering my account, he respectfully stated that he thought I must be mistaken, and that the story was cooked up by western governments and media to slander the Chinese government. When I asked him why he believed that, I expected his answer to be that the Chinese leaders are too benevolent to do such a thing. His actual reply was that it couldn’t have happened because, if it became known that the Chinese government had murdered students, the people would rise up and overthrow the government. That is how much the Chinese venerate learning and education, not to mention their children. (Quality control… not so much.)

    So I find it not at all surprising that their academy would welcome well-done science whether politically correct or not. Could there be a political motivation involved? Sure. But I expect the Chinese scientific establishment is far less politically compromised than its counterpart in the US, because they are trying to grow and prosper whereas we are trying to appease ideological gods.

    Ironic, ain’t it?

  25. “China is not a communist state in the traditional sense.”

    Indeed, as the late Joe Sobran pointed out, all modern states are basically national socialist…though as he noted, for some reason nobody seems to want to use the label.

    That’s two points in their scoring column. 1 point for rule of law in Hong Kong, and 1 point for a willingness to consider all the facts before reaching a conclusion.

  26. Mike Jonas says:
    June 12, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    “I blame Thomas Kuhn.”

    I blame academic departments stupid enough to hire people who treat Kuhn’s work as more than a set of elementary exercises.

  27. At this time, the only reasonable position to take is that Chinese scientists wanted to publish a valuable critique of the IPCC. All speculation about motives at this time is likely to be projection.

    The IPCC does not practice science and has never practiced science. Their goal has always been to edit scientific work for the purpose of promoting to the public the belief that huge sums must be spent to prevent catastrophic global warming. No enterprise whose conclusion is set in stone can be scientific. Science is the most critical and self-critical of all human endeavors. That is why so very few succeed at it.

  28. Actually the Russians also seem to have a more serious dynamic Science environment today than the US or West.Thats what we read from many of their Physicists who maintain AGW is CXXX!

  29. Serious science has declined dramatically in in Australia’s mainstream Universities who employ Lewansky, Cook and Flannery types. The smaller Universities are the one producing the goods Carter etc and Salby

  30. “All speculation about motives at this time is likely to be projection.” (Theo Goodwin)

    Well, maybe. But, on September 7 2009, Ding Zhongli (A distinguished geophysicist and, in particular, VP of the Chinese Academy of Sciences – described as ‘the final word on climate science for the Chinese Communist Party’) published an article in Beijing’s Science Times. Here’s an extract from an abridged English translation**:

    “… there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods. At least human activity is not the only factor to cause the global temperature increase. Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change.”

    ** http://www.energytribune.com/2621/china-fights-back-scientists-find-no-solid-scientific-evidence-to-strictly-correlate-global-temperature-rise-and-co2-concentrations#sthash.7PBBQBK5.dpbs

  31. Meanwhile the Europeans are saving the planet one PPM at a time and creating all them jobs.

  32. Robin Guenier says:
    June 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    Strikes me as a reasonable, non-Alarmist position. As with all science, the final word is skepticism.

  33. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  34. Bloke down the pub June 12, 2013 at 10:20 am – That CO&8322 is good stuff, keeps you alive.

  35. Typo:

    As mentioned earlier, not “NIPPC”, should be NIPCC”.

    [Thanks, typo fixed. — mod.]

  36. Don,

    Re: Tinanmen Square, the “tank man” has never been identified, and he was never been heard from again, after he stood up to the tanks.

    No wonder the Chinese gov’t restricts the internet.

  37. Pages are to truth as ……….
    and
    Gaggles are to geese…..
    If there is nobody to listen, has it made a sound ?
    Anybody listening ?

  38. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  39. Baa Humbug says:
    June 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm
    China is not a communist state in the traditional sense. Heck, the joint produces more millionaires every year than the rest of the world combined. We’re not talking about North Korea here.

    We are talking about a hypothetical Soviet state, as it could have fared if Lavrentiy Beria had his way after Stalin. The West would have just as willingly dug its grave as it does right now with China, by outsourcing all industries there, exploiting slave labor provided by a totalitarian state. More than shameful, after Tienanmen Square it is a grave mistake & utter miscalculation.

    I personally don’t believe the Chinese government had a hand in the Academy decision to translate the NIPCC reports.

    Apparently you are not familiar with the internal working of communist power. Of course the government as such has nothing to do with it. There is a dual power structure in those states, each institution having its own Party Group. Which executes decisions made at higher levels of the Party, by the Politburo itself, if necessary. This particular move has such a weight, that it was surely done that way.

  40. Plain Richard says: at 4:56 pm

    Oh? Did they? I can’t find anything on the page of the Chinese Academy of Sciences about it, only the link that is provided seems to point to some event:

    http://english.ucas.ac.cn/Lists/Events/ListDispForm.aspx?List=dc8f2138-7d88-4a0d-bad4-6939139997da&ID=164

    ———————-
    It says at this link,…”China information center for global change studies of CAS edited and published the Chinese version of “Climate Change Reconsidered: Report of the NPICC” to facilitate Chinese scholars’ understanding the opinions of NIPCC.”

    CAS is the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

    Your link,.. http://www.globalchange.ac.cn./ is not working for me…

  41. Ok, so I’m having a bad day…the link is working now.

    It still indicates that the China Information Center for Global change Studies is a part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to me…

  42. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  43. Plain Richard says:
    Oh? Did they? I can’t find anything on the page of the Chinese Academy of Sciences about it, only the link that is provided seems to point to some event:

    http://english.ucas.ac.cn/Lists/Events/ListDispForm.aspx?List=dc8f2138-7d88-4a0d-bad4-6939139997da&ID=164

    However, the translated document says it is translated by http://www.globalchange.ac.cn
    Not by the Chinese Academy of Sciences….

    I’m amazed by your interpretation. The text in that link had:
    “Notice on the Release of A Review on Climate Change, Report of the NIPCC (Chinese version)” and “China information center for global change studies of CAS edited and published the Chinese version of “Climate Change Reconsidered: Report of the NPICC” to facilitate Chinese scholars’ understanding the opinions of NIPCC.” (boldface added)

    If you didn’t understand that “CAS” is the Chinese Academy of Sciences, you need to brush up your reading comprehension.

  44. Other posters have commented on the sad state of science.
    William Briggs points us to the following piece of pseudo-academic drivel:

    “The paper suggests that in the transmogrification of old to new eugenic discourses, disability becomes reinscribed as an outlaw ontology reinvesting eugenic discourse in a new language that maintains an ableist normativity.” (The Hunt for Disability: The New Eugenics and the Normalization of School Children)

    My translation: If you think being able-bodied is normal then you’re a Nazi pig.

    Get a PhD and learn how to disguise your lame political spewing as academic discourse.

    One of the things we have learned from the climate wars is that our usual standards of scientific conduct do not protect us from anything. It would be nice if the result were some kind of solution to the problem.

  45. @Plain Richard
    In more detail, the China Information Center for Global Change Studies is part of Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (SICRECAS). See here: http://english.las.cas.cn/au/org/lzb/

    So, yes, it was edited and published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

  46. Plain Richard says: at 5:59 pm

    @Ben D
    “It still indicates that the China Information Center for Global change Studies is a part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to me…”

    Where? How?
    ————————————–
    Katherine has explained what you are missing, do please confirm if you still don’t get it.

  47. Plain Richard says: at 6:27 pm

    Now tell me. Where in this document:

    http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/climate_change_reconsidered-cn.pdf

    does it say that the Chinese Academy of Sciences is involved in the translation?
    ———————————–
    Please read slowly and carefully…

    Quote from the linked document –

    PREFACE FOR CHINESE ̄LANGUAGE EDITION

    This translation into Chinese of Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered ̄2011
    Interim Report is a major accomplishment for which we have many people to thank. We begin by thanking
    our friends at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. ( Science
    Press) for their diligence and hard work in translating two very lengthy and technical documents.
    The two volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidere
    d series (a third volume is in production).
    – End of quote

  48. Plain Richard says:
    @Katherine

    “In more detail, the China Information Center for Global Change Studies is part of Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (SICRECAS). See here: http://english.las.cas.cn/au/org/lzb”

    Links to a library? What has it got to do with:

    http://www.globalchange.ac.cn../

    ? I still see no connection.

    Obviously you didn’t bother to read it:
    “Founded in October 1955, the Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (SICRECAS), also named Lanzhou Library of Academia Sinica (LLAS), is under the direct jurisdiction of the Chinese Academy of Sciences of PRC. The present name [LanZhou Branch Library] started to be called while keeping the name of Lanzhou Library of Academia Sinica in October 1997. The center commenced the opening to the public in 2002 and shares the duty of Gansu Provincial Library of Science and Technology. In 2003, the center became Lanzhou Mirror Site of the National Science and Technology Library (NSTL).In 2006, the center became one of the branch libraries of NSL, an indispensable part of the Library.”

    Further down that same page:
    “SICRECAS comprises Resources Department, Information Service Department, Information Technology Department and Information Research Department, and 10 open cross-research centers such as: Lanzhou Center for SCI & TECH Innovation Investigation and Consultation of CAS, the Research Center for Earth Sciences, Resources & Environment Strategy, Center for Scientific & Technical Information Analysis and Evaluation, the Research Center for Regional Development, Information Consultation Center of the Development of West China, Information Center for Global Change Studies of Chinese National Committees of IGBP and IHDP, Data Service of Earth Sciences, the Research and Development Center for Digital Library Technology and Application, the Center for Information Theory and Practice, etc.”

    And if you go to the “About Us” page of the China Information Center for Global Change Studies
    http://www.globalchange.ac.cn/menuview.jsp?typeid=012020120725101839000000#
    and translate that, the last line just before the contact information says, “China Global Change Research Information Center is affiliated with the Institute of Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences Lanzhou Branch).”

  49. Plain Richard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    “Where does it say that the Chinese Academy of Sciences is involved in the translation?”

    Richard, if you would stop trolling for a minute and do a little thinking, you would realize that nothing has ever been or will ever be translated by the “Chinese Academy of Sciences.” Academies do not translate. As pointed out to you by helpful others, a communications group with the CAS did the translation. Some communications groups do translation. They have that job.

  50. James H said @ June 12, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    Translating a document does not mean they accept it. Makes perfect sense that they want Chinese scholars to have access to counter-consensus views even if they are known to be bunk supported by empirical evidence.

    There… fixed it for you :-)

  51. This sounds great, but… (too skeptical, tonight, I guess)… I would sure like to hear soon from a BILINGUAL (in English and Mandarin or whatever Chinese dialect was used in the translation), with a proven reputation for veracity, NON-humans-control-earth’s-climate, scientist who can

    verify

    that the translation was accurate and fairly represents the original document.

    Is there any independent authentication anyone knows of by a known anti-AGW, bilingual, scientist?

    Would be nice to know.

    Until then, I’ll believe the translation is accurate, but, for me, that is only a belief, at this point.

  52. What a great post, I always thought the Chinese had more sense than to take any notice of the IPCC idiots but translating these books has really shown their stance. As to the solar panel production someone raised, well having a rational view of climate change does not stop an interest in solar power. Maybe if the Chinese actually put a lot of development into it it will become more efficient. There are many good uses of solar power, it’s just the ‘green’ obsession with getting rid of all fossil fuels that is stupid. Though I’d be very happy to see wind-farms disappear forever!
    An excellent read and some great comments, enjoyed reading them all.

  53. My congratulations to the scientists involved, and to the Heartland folks for sponsoring it. Well done all!

    w.

  54. Baa Humbug says:
    June 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm
    China is not a communist state in the traditional sense. Heck, the joint produces more millionaires every year than the rest of the world combined. We’re not talking about North Korea here.
    ———————————————

    Reeducation camps sound pretty traditionally Communist to me:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cry-help-forced-chinese-labor-195252989.html

    Unfortunately, the West is becoming politically more like Communist China at the same time as the Mainland has adopted some aspects of capitalist economics in order not to be left behind by the ever less free Free World.

  55. Ten bucks says they just added it to their library and aren’t really interested in the nonsense contained therein.

  56. { Ryan says:
    June 13, 2013 at 11:06 am
    Ten bucks says they just added it to their library and aren’t really interested in the nonsense contained therein. }

    If so, ten bucks says it’s filed right next the the current IPCC AR report, nonsense du jour.

  57. { Plain Richard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm }

    Adjust the resolution of your reading glasses.

  58. John Tillman says:
    June 12, 2013 at 10:06 am
    Maybe India will get on board & reject Pachauri’s pandering.

    They have, but it wasn’t reported here. ‘Natch. From January 20, 2011.

    A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday.

    Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

    In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.

    ‘Cosmic ray impact ignored’
    Releasing Dr. Rao’s findings as a discussion paper on Thursday, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh noted that “the impact of cosmic ray intensity on climate change has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream scientific consensus.” He added that the “unidimensional focus” on carbon emissions by most Western countries put additional pressure on countries like India in international climate negotiations.

    The continuing increase in solar activity has caused a 9 per cent decrease in cosmic ray intensity over the last 150 years, which results in less cloud cover, which in turn results in less albedo radiation being reflected back to the space, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.

    Environment Minister says Ramesh it could have serious policy implications. If human activity cannot influence such a significant cause of climate change as cosmic rays, it could change the kind of pressure put on countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    “International climate negotiations are about climate politics. But increasingly, science is becoming the handmaiden of politics,” he said.

    Not to be forgotten

    In November 2009, Mr. Ramesh had released a report by glaciologist V.K. Raina claiming that Himalayan glaciers are not all retreating at an alarming pace. It had been disputed by many Western scientists, while IPCC chairman R.K. Pachauri dismissed it as “voodoo science.” However, Dr. Raina was later vindicated by the IPCC’s own retraction of its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
    “Since then, Western Ministers have reduced talk about the glaciers to me, they have stopped using it as frequently as a pressure point for India to come on board,” said Mr. Ramesh.

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1106044.ece

  59. Is the post going to be updated to reflect the new reality that CAS did not in any way “accept” the nipcc?

  60. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  61. But the Hockey Stick isn’t wrong…you can still find it and dozens of others showing a similar graph all over the place.

    If the NIPCC has been “accepted by the CAS” then so has every other book in the CAS library. It is a misleading title and Heartland was purposefully deceptive to market it the way they did.

  62. I just left this comment at The Guardian. I share it here, as well:

    To throw some cold water on the “gotcha glee” around here …

    Guardian Headline: The Heartland Institute’s skeptical Chinese fantasy

    Guardian Subhead: The Chinese Academy of Sciences translated a Heartland report, but endorses the climate change consensus

    In a shocker, these statements are accurate, if snarky. Heartland never said CAS “endorses” AGW skepticism.

    Story cites CAS:

    “The most recent [IPCC] report … found that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, represents the consensus scientific opinions on international climate change studies. Yet, as with any academic topic, there are still differing viewpoints and debates on the causes, facts, impacts and trends in climate change.”

    Here CAS is citing what the IPCC says. It is not citing its own research, nor is it saying what it as an organzation believes. To the contrary, it points out that there are “differing viewpoints” that are valid and need to be given a respectful airing — which is why they published the book:

    “In order to help Chinese researchers to understand different opinions and positions in debates on climate change, at the end of 2011, we contact The Heartland Institute, the publisher of these two reports. … The work of these translators, organizations and funders has been in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect that they agree with the views of NIPCC”

    CAS makes it clear its does not endorse Climate Change Reconsidered — which is good, because Heartland didn’t say it did, either. But CAS actually goes a step further, saying in the preface that they are in the business of “promotion” of “scientific dialogue” that includes Heartland’s collection of peer-reviewed research. All Heartland said was that CAS translated and distributed the book (a term with a bit more passivity than CAS’s “promote”).

    Joe Bast’s statement that the CAS publication of Climate Change Reconsidered is an important milestone in the global warming debate is a valid opinion and does not put words in the mouths of folks at CAS.

  63. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  64. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  65. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  66. Your reading comprehension is quite poor, Richard. But trolls often struggle with that.

    If CAS is *now* saying it is not promoting Climate Change Reconsidered after having Heartland’s press release on this event misrepresented by leftist journalists taking another swipe at their favorite obsession (us), that’s unfortunate, and it differs from their original press release. But that also does not change the fact of this statement from the “Translators’ Preface” in the Chinese version of CCR, which I have in front of me: … “In the past year, roughly twenty researchers have been involved in this translation project from three organizations of Chinese Academy of Sciences …”

    Earlier in the “Translator’s Preface”: “As with any topic, there are still differing viewpoints and debates on the causes, facts, impacts and trends of climate change. … These two unsual reports took a skeptical ‘Second Opinion’ against the IPCC assessment reports based on different scientific studies.”

    And, from the original press release that CAS might have made disappear: “The work of these translators, organizations and funders has been in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect that they agree with the views of NIPCC …”

    What is your beef? Where is the egg on Heartland’s face? Or are you just flabbergasted that “20 researchers” from CAS would dare entertain an discussion of science over dogmatic “belief”?

  67. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  68. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  69. Yeah. It sounds like the truth. Heartland announced this Wednesday morning. Not a peep out of CAS. Lefty reporters purposely misrepresent our statements in email queries … and suddenly on Friday morning there’s a story out there to write that avoids the fact of the matter: CAS translated and published an enormous collection of peer-reviewed science that is skeptical of alarmist dogma.

    Y’all can make as much hay out of all this that you’d like. That fact will remain a fact.

  70. The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was published in May 2013 through Science Press. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.

    To clarify the fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is now making an official statement as follows:

    Firstly, the translation is organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and published by Science Press as a product of science communication aiming at introducing diverse academic arguments.

    Secondly, neither the translation nor the publication represents any views of the Chinese Academy of Sciences or its affiliations on related issues.

    Thirdly, it is earnestly called upon by the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the general public not to accept and disseminate any misleading information related to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

    http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html

    http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201306/t20130615_104625.shtml

  71. The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”
    时间: | 2013-06-14 |
    The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, published in May 2013 through Science Press, with an accompanying workshop on climate change issues in Beijing on June 15, 2013. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.

    The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following statements:

    (1) The translation and publication of the Chinese version of the NIPCC report, and the related workshop, are purely non-official academic activities the group of translators. They do not represent, nor they have ever claimed to represent, CAS or any of CAS institutes. They translated the report and organized the workshop just for the purpose of academic discussion of different views.

    (2) The above fact was made very clear in the Translators’ Note in the book, and was known to the NIPCC report authors and the Heartland Institute before the translation started. The false claim by the Heartland Institute was made public without any knowledge of the translator group.

    (3) Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.

    (4) If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group.

    Information Center for Global Change Studies,

    Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences,

    June 14, 2013.

    http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201306/t20130615_104625.shtml

    http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html

  72. The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”
    时间: | 2013-06-14 | 编辑: | 【大 中 小】【打印】【关闭】
    The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, published in May 2013 through Science Press, with an accompanying workshop on climate change issues in Beijing on June 15, 2013. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.

    The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following statements:

    (1) The translation and publication of the Chinese version of the NIPCC report, and the related workshop, are purely non-official academic activities the group of translators. They do not represent, nor they have ever claimed to represent, CAS or any of CAS institutes. They translated the report and organized the workshop just for the purpose of academic discussion of different views.

    (2) The above fact was made very clear in the Translators’ Note in the book, and was known to the NIPCC report authors and the Heartland Institute before the translation started. The false claim by the Heartland Institute was made public without any knowledge of the translator group.

    (3) Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.

    (4) If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group.

    Information Center for Global Change Studies,

    Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences,

    June 14, 2013.

    http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html

    http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201306/t20130615_104625.shtml

  73. So the only explanation at the end of this sorry saga is that the leftist Communist Chinese were overwhelmed by the massed ranks of the leftist press (working in tandem with that vast conspiracy I read so much about on this site), and have now been forced to fall into line. At least it means that the commie Chinese can be hated again now and the temporary blip of praise for them can be erased from history/forgotten/ignored.

  74. J. Murphy,

    From the the frantic Chinese comments above, it is clear that the alarmist Narrative has been contradicted. That cannot be allowed to stand. Some Chinese have escaped from the alarmist Reservation, and now they must be rounded up and brought back into the fold. They cannot be permitted to express their honest opinions — particularly not on the internet’s “Best Science” site, where many thousands of people can read about it.

    From those responses, it does seem like someone has received a talking-to. No doubt, from those many sudden and desperate comments, that money, status and behind-the-scenes threats are involved.

    I believe Jim Lakeley and the NIPCC. Heartland does a tremendous amount of good on a shoestring budget. They provide reporting that we would not see otherwise. The fact that the recipients of climate alarmist money and influence have been told to go on the attack here is enough to convince me that the truth hurts them. So kudos to Heartland. They provide a much needed pount of view, to counter the official alarmist Narrative. We already get too much of that.

  75. An alternative explanation, given in the translator’s preface and therefore before any press releases, is that these documents are presented for the interested to try to understand why there is a debate and what kind of arguments the “skeptical” side uses. Thats a rather academic exercise and is rather unlikely to change any mind in China. Try looking up the word skeptical.

  76. Well clearly there is mistranslation going on, because the Chinese Academy of Science certainly believes its position was misrepresented by the Heartland Institute, and, indeed, the Heartland Institute agrees, as per their most recent statement issued by Mr. Lakeley for Mr. Bast
    —————————–
    “Some people interpreted our news release and a blog post describing this event as implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences endorses the views contained in the original books. This is not the case, and we apologize to those who may have been confused by these news reports.

    “To be clear, the release of this new publication does not imply CAS and any of its affiliates involved with its production ‘endorse’ the skeptical views contained in the report. Rather, as stated in the translator’s preface of the book, ‘The work of these translators, organizations and funders has been in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect that they agree with the views of NIPCC.’ ”
    —————————

    Now some, not Eli to be sure, might remind Mr. Lakeley of the first rule of holes: Stop digging. EOTOH enjoys the entertainment value.

  77. Eli Rabett says June 15, 2013 at 2:56 pm:

    Well clearly there is mistranslation going on, because the Chinese Academy of Science certainly believes its position was misrepresented by the Heartland Institute, and, indeed, the Heartland Institute agrees, as per their most recent statement issued by Mr. Lakeley for Mr. Bast
    —————————–
    “Some people interpreted our news release and a blog post describing this event as implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences endorses the views contained in the original books. This is not the case, and we apologize to those who may have been confused by these news reports.

    “To be clear, the release of this new publication does not imply CAS and any of its affiliates involved with its production ‘endorse’ the skeptical views contained in the report. Rather, as stated in the translator’s preface of the book, ‘The work of these translators, organizations and funders has been in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect that they agree with the views of NIPCC.’ ”
    —————————

    Now some, not Eli to be sure, might remind Mr. Lakeley of the first rule of holes: Stop digging. EOTOH enjoys the entertainment value.

    Where, hare, exactly, are you seeing this supposed ‘endorsement’, in writing or in word, take place?

    I speculate you planted a ‘bug’ (literally: a thought via correspondence or in person) in someone’s ear which fostered said ‘demand’ letter.

    Smoke, but no fire showing as of this moment (AFAICT), rabbit.

    .

  78. I note that “Eli Rabett” cites “Eli Rabett” as his authority.

    If that is the best Eli can do, then Eli has no credibility.

  79. Plain Richard,

    Anyone who comments in the 3rd Person has a screw loose. You will understand why I don’t put any credence in a bunniboi named “Eli Rabett.” If that is one of your heroes, you are desperate.

  80. Plain Richard says June 15, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    You’re being extremely juvenile; this does not go over well with adults. Disappear already.

    .

  81. The sad part is that most of the people who only saw this post when it first went up will still think the nipcc is being seriously considered as scientific research by CAS in 2014. That’s the problem with bad information. It takes time to refute.

  82. Plain Richard,

    You have your opinion — and this is my opinion: you and others cite the Chinese Academy of Sciences as one of the largest science organizations on the planet. So answer this:

    When, exactly, did the CAS meet in order to formulate their putative response? Because you not only expect us to believe that you are reporting the official response of the CAS, but also that you are privy to the inner workings of the CAS.

    So what was the date and time of the CAS meeting in question? Was there even a meeting?? Or are you just winging it — like the couple of Chinese wannabe spokespersons here who pretend/presume to officially speak for the CAS?

    Keep that spin cycle going. But be aware that the rest of us know what you’re doing: promoting the latest alarmist narrative.

    Of course, I could be wrong. If so, simply post the date and time of the meeting in question right here.

    The credibility ball is now in your court.

  83. Why of course, Jim
    ——————-
    I speculate you planted a ‘bug’ (literally: a thought via correspondence or in person) in someone’s ear which fostered said ‘demand’ letter.
    ——————
    Now there are some, not Eli to be sure, (a href=”http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2012/05/from-web-page-of-reuters-article-is.html?showComment=1338379211307#c1959111662235426650″>come on down Hans von Storch) would rather discuss endlessly what they thought somebunny said, rather than ask that bunny. Eli is not one of those although it does tend to shorten comment threads. Polite inquiries often get answered.

    Ethon is an effective raptor, but Eli, Eli is but a stuffed bunny with lots of contacts from his Hip-Hop days touring as BunE

  84. Posting ‘finds of fact’ I have these two (2) pages to enter into the record against the conjecture, misrepresentation and vivid imaginings of others:

    (1)

    The statements on the Chinese Translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered-NIPCC Report”

    2013-06-15

    The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered-NIPCC Report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was published in May 2013 through Science Press. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying That the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports Their views, in Contrary to what Clearly it is stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.

    To Clarify the fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is now making an official statement as follows:

    Firstly, the translation is organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and published by Science Press as a product of science communication aiming at introducing various academic arguments.

    Secondly, Neither the translation nor the publication Represents any views of the Chinese Academy of Sciences or its affiliations on related issues.

    Thirdly, it is earnestly called upon by the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the general public not to accept and disseminate any misleading information related to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

    The Press Office of Chinese Academy of Sciences

    June 15, 2013.

    (2)

    Heartland Institute Clarifies Misleading News Release on “Climate Change Reconsidered – NIPCC Report”

    2013-06-15

    The Press Office of Chinese Academy of Sciences has noticed That the Heartland Institute had issued a clarifying declaration on the misleading news release about “Climate Change Reconsidered – NIPCC Report”, we hereby forward the declaration as follows for reference:

    Screen shot of the clarifying declaration from the Heartland Institute
    (Image by CAS)

    The following statement was released today by Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast:

    “Earlier this week, the Information Center for Global Change Studies, an Information group of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, published a Chinese edition of” Climate Change Reconsidered ‘, translating and combining the contents of two volumes in a series with the same title previously published by The Heartland Institute. ”

    “Some people Interpreted our news release and a blog post describing this event as implying That the Chinese Academy of Sciences Endorses the views contained in the original books. This is not the case, we apologize to Those Who May have been confused by thesis and news reports. ”

    “To be clear, the release of this new publication does not Imply CAS and any of its affiliates Involved with its production ‘Endorse’ the skeptical views contained in the report. Rather, as stated in the translator’s preface of the book, ‘The work or thesis translators, organizations and funders has leg in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect thatthey agree with the views or NIPCC. ” ”

    (The Press Office of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

    I still don’t find the word ‘endorse’ as purportedly used by HI wrt CAS; maybe rabbet can locate that clause (if indeed it is ‘fact’ and not over-worked imagination or ‘mentally imagined hearsay’) and make a factual posting on it.

    It would seem to be, at this point ‘much ado about nothing’ except in the mind of certain ‘beholders’ …

    .

  85. Still looking for postings of facts, boys, as opposed to continued conjecture and ‘mental hearsay’ and the ‘reading’ you do between the (normal. rational, reasonable interpretation of ) “lines” that lucid ‘functioning’ people in the real world put together.

    .

  86. The “Lanzhou Branch”, eh?

    They do not speak for the CAS. Only the CAS speaks for the CAS.

    This is just the end result of behind-the-scenes jockeying for position.

  87. Plain Richard says:

    “What alarmist narrative did promote here? Please tell me!”

    ====================================

    The central narrative in the entire debate: that CO2 ["carbon"] is the cause of any measurable global warming.

    My apologies if that is not your position. Is it? But if it is not, why would you care about any of this?

  88. dbstealey says:June 15, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    The “Lanzhou Branch”, eh?
    They do not speak for the CAS. Only the CAS speaks for the CAS.

    Here’s what the CAS says.

    “All three men will be in Beijing for the Chinese Academy of Sciences event on June 15, 2013…”
    Are there photos?

  89. Plain Richard says:

    “yes, co2 is the cause of measurable global warming.”

    Provide verifiable, testable, empirical measurements showing that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

  90. Nick Stokes,

    That link is totally inconclusive.

    Further, as you have been wrong on numerous occasions, but never acknowledge your errors, your credibility is zilch, and I will not be drawn into a debate with someone like you. If/when you admit that you are wrong on occasion, that may change. Until then, you are just noise.

    Plain Richard:

    You can post a chart like this one, showing empirical obaservations proving that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T — if you can locate such a chart.

    But if you cannot find a chart showing that CO2 causes changes in global temperature, then that will be sufficient evidence that your belief has been falsified.

  91. Facts boys, you’ll only win in court with facts … got any?

    Conjecture and innuendo work to win a case in the ‘press’, don’t they rabbet? But facts … strangely they require functioning minds to comprehend (vs just relying upon that emotional appeal) … Right?

    So far, you guys are short on ‘facts’.

    .

  92. @_Jim – you’re asking the wrong folks “where did HI say ‘endorse'”? That is the opinion of CAS, as demonstrated in quotes from CAS press releases. If you think CAS is wrong for feeling misrepresented, take it up with CAS.

  93. Plain Richard deflects:

    “yes, co2 is the cause of measurable global warming.”

    Those are your words, bunky.

    And now, you are incapable of providing any verifiable, testable, empirical measurements showing that CO2 causes global warming. That is because there are no such measurements. So your religious belief fails.

    You’re spinning your wheels here, trying to pretend you have any measurable evidence to support your “carbon” conjecture. Run along back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs, where they eat up baseless assertions like yours. Here, we need facts. And you are sadly fact-free.

  94. Somehow db, Eli is reminded…
    [snip - Somehow Anthony is that your little rabett droppings aren't welcome here due to your boorish behavior, Mr. Halpern]

  95. Don’t worry Eli, if you had been in China, your treatment would have been much worse. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored ( Aldous Huxley).

  96. My goodness, the Heartland Institute stuffed up (yet again). End of story. All the filibustering here doesn’t change the bleeding obvious. To continue to argue otherwise shows a tenuous grip on reality and places any further comments on climate change or anything else by proponents who say the HI has been misrepresented in serious doubt. Let it go, for God’s sake.

  97. As much as it seems to gall the moderator, that would be Professor (or just plain Dr) Halpern.

    Just sayin’, for accuracy’s sake…

  98. (Note: “Plain Richard” is a sock puppet for Reich.Eschhaus. This is in violation of site Policy. Comments snipped. Further infractions will result in a permanent ban. ~mod.)

  99. First the REAL CAS is distributing the materials they had nothing to do with and the Lanzhou arm had nothing to do with, and pointing out that The Information Center is different from them.

    Then the Lanzhou arm webpage has the Info Center stating what the CAS does and does not endorse and who should be apologizing.

  100. Margret, China, like Russia, has evolved into a cross between the wild west and East Germany. The ethos of the place is that bunnies can get away with anything except being noticed or envied by the powers that be, in which case they turn into stew. Thinking of it that way pretty much tells you what happened in Lanzhou.

Comments are closed.