![chinaccrcover[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/chinaccrcover1.jpg?quality=83)
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.”
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.
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…
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.
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…?
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.
So we can say that “The Academy of Sciences” of 19.09% of the world’s population has endorsed the two books from HI.
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.
Truly excellent news! It means these reports can no longer be ignored quite so easily. The IPCC and all the rest of them will not be happy. 🙂
“Heartland’s NIPPC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony”
NIPPC ?
[Typo fixed, thanx. — mod.]
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!!
The East
iswill be well-read!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?
“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.
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.
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.
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!
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
“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
Meanwhile the Europeans are saving the planet one PPM at a time and creating all them jobs.
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.
(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.)
Bloke down the pub June 12, 2013 at 10:20 am – That CO&8322 is good stuff, keeps you alive.
Congratulations to The Heartland Institute, and thank, thank you, thank you…
Typo:
As mentioned earlier, not “NIPPC”, should be NIPCC”.
[Thanks, typo fixed. — mod.]
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.