![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.”
[snip – read the Heartland press release, no where does it say “endorsement”- mod]
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.
You’re on to something, J. Murphy. Stay tuned.
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.
Thanks for the kind words, dbstealey. You, like Mr. Murphy, have the correct take on this.
More info is coming at the right time.
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.
[Snip. Grow up. — mod.]
You might want to update this since the CAS has issued a statement about this:
http://english.llas.cas.cn/ns/es/201306/t20130615_104626.html
Needless to say, they are not happy with Heartland….
(Snip. ~mod.)
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.
(Snip. ~mod.)
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.
.
(Snip. ~mod.)
What? No update to this posting yet? Surely Mr. Watts will eventually update… surely!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/06/14/heartland-institute-statement-chinese-edition-climate-change-reconsider
I note that “Eli Rabett” cites “Eli Rabett” as his authority.
If that is the best Eli can do, then Eli has no credibility.
Plain Richard says June 15, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Richard –> Null file
.
(Snip. ~mod.)
(Snip. ~mod.)
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.
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.
.
(Snip. ~mod.)
(Snip. ~mod.)
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.
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.
(Snip. ~mod.)