![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.”
Ten bucks says they just added it to their library and aren’t really interested in the nonsense contained therein.
{ 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.
{ Plain Richard says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm }
Adjust the resolution of your reading glasses.
They have, but it wasn’t reported here. ‘Natch. From January 20, 2011.
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.
Not to be forgotten
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1106044.ece
Looks like I called it. Thanks to Plain Richard for documenting the hoax. See his second link and this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/14/climate-change-heartland-chinese-academy-sciences
Bunk is bunk.
Is the post going to be updated to reflect the new reality that CAS did not in any way “accept” the nipcc?
(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.)
Right after Mann retracts the hockey stick.
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.
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.
(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.)
(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.)
Ryan says:
June 14, 2013 at 1:01 pm
You are obtuse.
(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.)
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”?
(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.)
(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.)
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.
(Snip. ~mod.)
(Snip. ~mod.)
(Snip. ~mod.)
Oh, I’ve got plenty of friends here. I just got late to the comments, and most have left the field to just us.
About taking back everything you said here …
The PDF of the book translated into Chinese, click the link below:
http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/climate_change_reconsidered-cn.pdf
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
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
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