![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.”
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
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)
(2)
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’ …
.
(Snip. ~mod.)
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.
.
Well as long as we are looking for majic words, how about what the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library wrote:
———–
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:
———–
Clearly what we have here is a failure to communicate
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.
(Snip. ~mod.)
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?
(Snip ~mod.)
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?
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.
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.
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’.
.
(Snip ~mod.)
@_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.
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.
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]
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).
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.
As much as it seems to gall the moderator, that would be Professor (or just plain Dr) Halpern.
Just sayin’, for accuracy’s sake…
Bernard J,
That would be Professor Bunnyboi, right?
Such an impressive title… ☺
(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.)
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.
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.
Hassenfeffer, Eli