Graham Readfearn: The undiscerning climate bookshelf

Climate sceptic book Taxing Air coming to an undiscerning book store near you

by Graham Readfearn, 

 

SHELVES in popular book stores can be undiscerning little buggers, as can the book stores themselves.

For example, I recently had cause to wander through the tightly-bound and bulging aisles of my local Dymocks book store. They have some really quite “special” offerings both online and in-store.

Even though we essentially know that astrology is, for all intents and purposes, basically b******s, I can report that the paperback version of “Practical Astrology” is “in stock.”

Failing that, there’s also “Homeopathy for your Cat” within the pages of which you can find out how magic water can cure your ginger’s urinary tract issue.

Are you a book shopping parent who has “wished for a handbook on each child”? Well tough, because Dymocks has sold out of “Homeopathy and Your Child” so you’ll have to work out your kid’s “physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs” some other way (by the way, I’m not singling out Dymocks here – most of the big high street book sellers also hawk similar enlightenment-crushing garbage).

And there are the books on climate change.

Without any prior knowledge, it’s easy to see how the average punter might be easily fooled by the line-up of  books cosying-up in Dymocks and elsewhere. As you can see by the image above, there’s some excellent stuff on offer from well credentialed authors and scientists.

There’s What We Know About Climate Change by MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science Kerry Emanuel. Just beneath, is The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the front lines from Professor Michael Mann, director of Earth System Science at Penn State University, also in the U.S.

And sharing the same shelf space, is Taxing Air written by Dr Bob Carter, an Australian geologist and advisor to about a dozen climate science denial organisations around the world, and John Spooner, a cartoonist for The Age newspaper in Melbourne, Australia.

Bob Carter’s fringe views on climate change (it’s all natural) make him a favourite of fossil fuel-funded propaganda unit the Heartland Institute and many, many other groups with similarly dismissive views on human-caused climate change and its risks.
Carter was recently let go by James Cook University in Queensland, where he had been an unpaid adjunct professor for over a decade, because he wasn’t pulling his weight.

Carter hinted – and his supporters screamed – that he had been booted out because he was a climate sceptic. I covered that case for DeSmogBlog and also summarised this and other recent goings on for the ABC Science Show.

But back to Taxing Air, which is yet another climate sceptic book with strong links to a conservative “think tank” – in this case, the Institute for Public Affairs, where Dr Carter is the Science Policy Advisor.

The IPA paid for copies to be sent out to Australian members of parliament and has also hosted a launch event for the book. Research has found that almost four out of five climate sceptic books published since the early 80s have links to conservative think tanks.

Dr Carter, it should be noted, has only written one scientific paper on atmospheric climate change, which claimed – wrongly as it turned out – to have found that recent global warming was down to natural cycles of water temperatures in the Pacific. 

One group of leading climate scientists who analysed carter’s paper concluded that the conclusions he and his co-authors drew were “not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper.”

But is Taxing Air any good? Well, I have a copy which I’m still trudging through (I may not get to the end). But one academic who has finished it is Australian Ian Enting, and he is none too impressed. Mathematical physicist Enting (author of the Australian Mathematical Scences Institute book Twisted: The distorted mathematics of greenhouse denial) worked at Australia’s leading science agency, the CSIRO, for 24 years in atmospheric research and modelling of the global carbon cycle.

Enting has analysed the book, describing it as a “polemic” characterised by “half-truths and slanted misrepresentation” and “appalling hypocrisy.”

At one point, Enting’s document notes how one chart  in Taxing Air is taken from a leaked draft of the not-yet-published United Nations IPCC Assessment Report 5 (due out in two weeks).

The chart has been altered, Enting’s document notes, removing a shaded area that shows the uncertainty range which, had it been left in,
shows how climate models agree with the observations within the range of uncertainty. Enting finds dozens of other examples like this.

But my real reason for going into the Brisbane Dymocks store was to hunt out a copy of Killing the Earth To Save It, written by UK-based climate science denialist and wind-farm hater James Delingpole.

In the UK, it was published under the name Watermelons. There was something remarkable about the book which I had read and was keen to confirm.

The book was published by Connor Court, which has published several other climate sceptic books. The editorial board of Connor Court also includes the IPA executive director John Roskam.

The IPA also paid for Delingpole to tour Australia to promote his book in September 2012 – a favour which he returned by running a public appeal for people to donate cash to the Melbourne-based group, which doesn’t reveal its funders but has run a long campaign of climate misinformation.

But none of these are the “remarkable thing” I referred to earlier.

The remarkable thing was an entry in Chapter 8 – “Welcome To The New World Order.” Delingpole continues to spruik on his Daily Telegraph blog, most recently earlier this week. Here’s what Delingpole says on page 174 of my newly purchased copy:

Probably the best analysis of the Club of Rome’s tangible effects on global environmental policy comes courtesy of a website called “The Green Agenda”:

While researching [...] and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many website claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government. I am not a conspiratorial person by nature and was faced with a dilemma when I first read their reports. But it’s all there – in black and white.

 Indeed.

So what exactly is “The Green Agenda” which Delingpole tells his readers is offering this leading analysis? Here’s the source of the quote, on the website “The Green Agenda.” And who runs “The Green Agenda”? It is a sister site of The Watchman’s Post - which describes itself as a “Christian/ Messianic  End Time Messenger!” based in New Zealand.

That’s right. Delingpole’s “analysis” of a jumped-up conspiracy theory about plans for a one world government come direct from a group of Christian fundamentalists who preach about second comings and “end times.” The watchman’s website details the coming of an “anti-Christ,” “times of distress and tribulation” and “Triads of evil.”

Here’s a taster:

True Christians will be seen at best as ‘insane’ and at worst as worthy of elimination. However, note; the period being introduced at that time and rightly called the ‘Time of Tribulation’ will quickly degenerate into a terrible time of trouble for almost everyone in the whole world, not just believers in Jesus. [We will explain more, later!] We can add with conviction, that we believe the ‘Time of God’s judgmental anger’ is a separate period of time as indicated by the pouring out of the ‘Bowls of Wrath’ when all true Believers will be sovereignly protected! [We will explain later.]

Perhaps it might be worth checking a few more of Delingpole’s sources in “Killing the earth to Save It” which is described by News Corp. columnist Andrew Bolt on the back cover as “wonderful” with “devastating facts and lacerating anecdotes.”

Not just devastating and lacerating, but potentially world ending – apparently – just not in the way Bolt and Delingpole might have expected.

Oh, did I say that Killing the World To Save It and Taxing Air are available in “all good bookshops”?

http://www.readfearn.com/2013/09/the-undiscerning-climate-bookshelf/

Read More

Heartland Institute - the Keystone Cops Of Climate Science Denial - Strike Again

by Graham Readfearn, DeSmogBlog, June 18, 2013

THERE’S a section on the Heartland Institute’s website pointing readers to “Stuff We Wish We Wrote.”

After events over the last year or so, the chaps at the fossil fuel-funded “think tank” might want to add a new section with the title “Stuff We Wish We Hadn’t Wrote.”

The Heartland Institute, for those who don’t know, is a Chicago-based group promoting any view or position that argues we shouldn’t do anything about human-caused climate change. They run campaigns, hold conferences, write op-eds in the media and pay contrarian scientists.

Right there on the think-tank’s homepage, the group proudly displays a quote from The Economist magazine describing Heartland as “The world's most prominent think-tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change.”

Yet as is the case with most things Heartland says about climate change, things are not always as they seem. Heartland’s boastful quote is taken out of context and comes from this article in The Economist, documenting a spectacular own goal by Heartland.

Heartland, The Economist wrote, had lost an estimated $825,000 in funding after running a billboard campaign that equated acceptance of human-caused global warming to the values of serial killer Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski.

So when The Economist was describing Heartland as a prominent think-tank promoting climate science denial, it wasn’t doing it in a good way. No wonder then that Heartland didn’t hyperlink the quote.

This brings us to Heartland’s most recent example of self-aggrandizing – implying the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) thinks they’re awesome because it translated two of Heartland’s reports, only to be told by aforementioned academy to apologise for misrepresenting what they had actually done. Here are the nuts and bolts of the story. On June 11, Heartland released a statement detailing how CAS had translated two volumes of its NIPCC reports  – Climate Change Reconsidered.

The main contributors to the reports, contrarian scientists Craig idso, Fred Singer and Australia-based Robert Carter, were due to fly to Beijing to launch the report, Heartland said. Internal Heartland documents have shown that in 2012, Heartland planned to pay Idso $11,6000 a month for his work on the NIPCC report. Singer was to receive $5,000 per month and Carter would get $1,667 monthly.

On June 12, Jim Lakely, Heartland’s communications director, took to the think-tank’s blog -- “Somewhat Reasonable” -- with unfettered excitement. Under the headline “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming,” Lakely wrote that CAS’s translation now placed “enormous scientific heft” behind the “questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet.”

In a typically restrained and understated manner, Lakely quotes Heartland President Joseph Bast as saying: “This is a historic moment in the global debate about global warming.”

Bast then tries to drive a wedge between China and other countries involved in United Nations negotiations to agree a deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. China’s previous refusal to sign a deal, Bast claimed, was now justified because CAS had translated the Heartland book and this “indicates the country’s leaders believe their position is justified by science and not just by economics.”

Professor Carter told Lakely that Chinese companies would soon leave their Western counterparts in the competitive dust becuase, he said, they were still “hindered by the IPCC’s leaden and outdate global warming ideology.”

Climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts was similarly excitable, running a post with the title “Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony.” That these statements were published on a Heartland blog with the title “Somewhat Reasonable” seems beautifully ironic, given what followed. Presumably finding Heartland’s actions Somewhat Unreasonable, the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which carried out the translation, released a statement. It read:

…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.

In fact, the translation was “purely non-official academic activities [of] the group of translators” and “they do not represent, nor they have ever claimed to represent, CAS or any of CAS institutes.” Perhaps Heartland had made an innocent mistake?  Nope.

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. 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. 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.

Just in case anyone was in any doubt, the overarching Chinese Academy of Sciences also issued a statement urging the public to ignore Heartland’s “misleading information.” Heartland promptly threw its previous bravado-soaked statements down the memory hole, deleting all pages. In the intervening days, Bast no longer seems to think this to be a “historic moment.” Cue embarrassing climb down.

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.

It’s worth bearing in mind that less than a week after Heartland had tried to tell followers that China was doubting the risks of human caused climate change, the country launched the first of seven emissions trading schemes.

Perhaps a better way to describe The Heartland Institute might be “The Keystone Cops of the climate science denial movement” but they’ll probably just stick with the line from The Economist.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/18/heartland-institute-keystone-cops-climate-science-denial-strike-again

Read More

Chinese Academy in Climate Change Uproar

by Christina Larson, ScienceInsider, June 17, 2013

BEIJING—Every year, the National Science Library here, affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), coordinates the translation, rights, and publication of thousands of papers and books from other languages into Chinese. Usually this activity doesn't cause a stir. Last week was the exception, when CAS released a Chinese-language edition of Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute, which is a libertarian think tank in Chicago, Illinois, that disseminates research arguing that human activity is not driving climate change.

Jim Lakely, Heartland's director of communications, told the conservative online news site 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." (The Brietbart.com article featured a picture of a wincing Al Gore.)

CAS sees things differently. Heartland's characterization of the Academy's decision to translate Climate Change Reconsidered was "strongly misleading … implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views." A CAS official points out that the decision to translate Climate Change Reconsidered was made by the National Science Library. In his preface to the translated edition, Zhang Zhiqiang, the library's deputy director, stated that the project was undertaken "to help Chinese researchers understand different points, opinions and positions in debates on climate change."

Heartland's spin has forced CAS to be more assertive. Before a release ceremony for the translation at the science library on 15 June, the CAS official says, the academy's headquarters told Zhang to make explicit in his remarks at the ceremony that CAS does not endorse Climate Change Reconsidered's findings. Heartland has since issued a statement acknowledging that the translation does not amount to an endorsement.

*Clarification, 2:20 p.m., 18 June: The decision to translate Climate Change Reconsidered was made by the National Science Library, not by Zhang Zhiqiang, the library's deputy director.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/chinese-academy-in-climate-chang.html

Read More

Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy

by Dana Nuccitelli, Skeptical Science, June 14, 2013

Update: the Chinese Academy of Sciences has released a statement about Heartland's "misleading statement."  See below for details.

As Cook et al. (2013) (also known as The Consensus Project) showed, the consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that humans are causing global warming has been growing over the past two decades.  In 2011, 98% of papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

Percentage of "global warming" or "global climate change" papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus.  From Cook et al. (2013).

However, as Graham Readfearn recently documented, over those same two decades, fossil fuel interests have engaged in a number of campaigns to cast doubt on the existence of the consensus on human-caused global warming. Convincing the public that this settled science is still in dispute has long been a top priority for industry groups.

The results of Cook et al. (2013) juxtaposed with some fossil fuel-funded campaigns to deny the scientific consensus.  Image by jg.

The latest such effort comes from the Heartland Institute. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report is primarily a Heartland product. Recently, a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences translated the NIPCC report. The Heartland Institute has trumpeted this fact far and wide, claiming for example:

"The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) will present the two books at a June 15 event in Beijing, a landmark event that puts enormous scientific heft behind the questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet."

"The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable,"

"Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country’s leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics."

These comments sure make it sound like the Chinese Academy of Sciences has been convinced by the contrarian content of the NIPCC report!  So what did the Chinese Academy actually say?

Here are relevant comments from the translator's preface on page 8 of the PDF:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued four assessment reports synthesizing scientific findings on climate change.  The most recent report, released in 2007, was IPCC AR4, which 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."

"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"

So basically they acknowledge the existence of the consensus, and the fact that a few contrarians have "differing viewpoints," and want to give the contrarians a chance to make their case.  Thus they translated the NIPCC report simply as a representation of "differing viewpoints," and specifically note the translation does not indicate that they agree in anyway with the views of the NIPCC.

Similarly, when asked about the NIPCC report translation and Heartland claims, the Chinese Academy of Sciences responded:

"...this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved.

A few CAS experts participated in the translation of the book, aiming to demonstrate different voices in the global scientific field to the Chinese science community, however, that does not mean that we CAS joined the research or agree with their view point; neither does it mean that CAS will decide "promote" the climate "skeptic" view or group."

In fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has signed onto this joint statement, in which they endorse the IPCC consensus position on human-caused global warming and note:

"Responding to climate change requires both mitigation and adaptation to achieve a transition to a low carbon society and our global sustainability objectives."

Clearly the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the country's government have not bought into the Heartland NIPCC contrarianism.  In fact, China has recently been taking a leading role in addressing climate change.  They're testing out a carbon cap and trade system, are trying to ensure that their coal consumption has peaked, and have reached an agreement with the USA to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions, which are potent greenhouse gases. CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generation in China have been falling steadily as they diversify towards more low-carbon energy sources. Does this sound like a country that denies that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change, as Heartland's Joe Bast suggests?

As if Heartland's misrepresentation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the nation's government weren't bad enough, they also distorted the positions of the Russian and Polish Academy of Sciences, claiming the translation "follows strong statements by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Polish Academy of Sciences dissenting from claims that global warming is either man-made or a crisis."

If you follow those links, they lead to stories that are very different from Heartland's (mis)representations. The Russian Academy of Sciences claim is based on a statement from a single scientist from the Institute for Fundamental Problems of Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. What does the Russian Academy of Sciences actually say about global warming?  They signed the same joint statement as the Chinese Academy of Sciences, endorsing the IPCC consensus view that humans are causing global warming, and that we must "transition to a low-carbon society."

The Polish Academy of Sciences claim is based on a statement from the Academy's geologic science committee.  The statement does express some skepticism about the causes of global warming, but the committee acknowledges:

"There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions."

Like its Chinese and Russian counterparts, the full Polish Academy of Sciences has signed statements endorsing the human-caused global warming consensus, for example, in 2007 (Google English translation) and in 2010:

"It is widely agreed that human activities are changing Earth’s climate beyond natural climatic fluctuations.  The emission and accumulation of greenhouse gases associated with the burning of fossil fuels, along with other activities, such as land use change, are the principal causes of climate change."

So Heartland's claim about "the trend toward skepticism" (where "skepticism" actually means contrarianism) is pure fantasy. The reality is that the Chinese, Russian and Polish Academies of Science all endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming, and that consensus position is growing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

As for the NIPCC report itself, it's BS (Bad Science). Just as one example, the 2009 NIPCC report has an entire sub-section devoted to global warming "fingerprints," and yet it only discusses one -- the tropical troposphere "hot spot" (a part of the atmosphere expected to warm particularly fast as a result of global warming). The NIPCC report has no mention of the many actual fingerprints of human-caused global warming which have been observed (Skeptical Science discusses 10 here).  Instead, the NIPCC focuses on the one fingerprint which may (or may not) be missing, even though it's a fingerprint of any global warming, and is not specific to human-caused warming. 

If that BS represents the "differing viewpoints" the Chinese will be exposed to, I wouldn't expect them to back off their endorsement of the human-caused global warming consensus any time soon.

---

Update: the Chinese Academy of Sciences has released a statement about Heartland's "misleading statement," which reads in part:

"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..."

"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."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heartland-cas-fantasy.html

Read More

Completely disgraced Heartland Institute apologizes for its lies to the Chinese Academy of Sciences

The Shoe Drops on the Table

by Eli Rabett, Rabett Run, June 15, 2013

On Thursday, Eli went to an interesting debate at R Street about whether a carbon tax was the best way to organize the response to climate change.  R Street an offshoot of Heartland, formed when Heartland jumped the billboard shark.  Led by Eli Lehrer, R Street basically represents the interests of the insurance industry, in a lobbying sort of way.  Eli took notes, more on the debate later
James Taylor from Heartland represented the forces of darkness, e.g., the lumps of coal.  Eli had a chance to talk with him later after he did the Gish gallop on another guy (more on that later).  The Rabett provoked by asking what Taylor's POV was about the BRICs, the C being played by China, the others being Brazil, Russia and India, and Taylor replied in so many words that China was moving to their side as evidenced by the translation of the NIPCC report and the seminar to be held Sat in Beijing.  Eli remarked in passing and no further, that Taylor would be wise to count his cards.
Heartland just pulled the ace of spades. Their friends in the Chinese Academy of Sciences just posted a demand letter

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.

Heatland's announcement has again vanished but the grovel has appeared (Tip of the ear to Big City Lib) from Jim Lakeley

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, 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.' "

Clearly they hope to have Fred Singer exfiltrated from Beijing with no further collateral damage; however, some bunnies, not Eli to be sure, have been web citing like crazy.

For those of you interested in how not to dance with the dragon, Stephan Lewandowsky has the instructions:

 Anyone familiar with the activities of deniers will recognize that this affair follows a fairly standard three-step template: First, a spectacular announcement is made that is at the very least misleading if not outright mendacious. Then, true skeptics (usually scientists) discover and correct the misrepresentation. Finally, the responsible party retreats into its shadowy lair of irresponsible ideology with an "apology" that blames a "confusion" on parties unknown.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-shoe-drops-on-table.html

Read More

The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report” 时间: | 2013-06-14 | | 【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

Read More

The Heartland Institute's skeptical Chinese fantasy

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

US and Chinese flags in front of the White House. The USA and China recently agreed to reduce emissions of HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP

 

by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus: The 97%, The Guardian, June 14, 2013

The Heartland Institute is a fossil fuel-funded think tank that gained notoriety in May 2012 for launching an ad campaign comparing those who agree that humans are causing global warming (that's 97% of climate scientists and the majority of the rest of us) to the Unabomber and Osama bin Laden.

 

Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway in Maywood, Illinois. Photograph: The Heartland Institute 

  Heartland also funds a report written by a group calling themselves the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which tries to be the contrarian response to the IPCC. The NIPCC report itself is BS (Bad Science), repeating numerous long-debunked climate myths and cherry picking data.

However, a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences recently decided to translate the NIPCC report. The Heartland Institute has triumphantly trumpeted this as evidence that the Chinese are becoming "skeptics" and the climate consensus is crumbling, claiming for example,

"The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable,"

"Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country's leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics."

However, Heartland's interpretation of these events does not jibe with the statements or actions of the translators, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, or the Chinese government. Here are relevant comments from the NIPCC translator's preface [PDF]:

"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."

"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"

And here is the Chinese Academy of Sciences' response to inquiries about the translation and Heartland's (mis)interpretation of its meaning:

"...this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved.

A few CAS experts participated in the translation of the book, aiming to demonstrate different voices in the global scientific field to the Chinese science community, however, that does not mean that we CAS joined the research or agree with their view point; neither does it mean that CAS will decide "promote" the climate "skeptic" view or group."

These are not quite the ringing endorsements of the NIPCC report or the climate contrarian position that the Heartland comments imply. In fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has signed onto this joint statement along with 12 other Academies of Science, in which they endorse the IPCC consensus position on human-caused global warming and note,

"Responding to climate change requires both mitigation and adaptation to achieve a transition to a low carbon society and our global sustainability objectives."

In short, the Chinese Academy of Sciences endorses the IPCC consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They recognize that there are dissenting views (from the 2–3% minority in the scientific literature), and they offered to translate the NIPCC report as an opportunity for climate contrarians to make their case. However, the translators and Chinese Academy of Sciences explicitly note that this translation does not mean they agree with the contrarian position or the contents of the NIPCC report.

In fact, China has recently been taking a leading role in addressing climate change. They're testing out a carbon cap and trade system, are trying to ensure that their coal consumption has peaked, and have reached an agreement with the USA to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions, which are potent greenhouse gases. China has also been diversifying towards more low-carbon energy sources.

Does this sound like a country that denies that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change, as Heartland suggests?

As if Heartland's misrepresentation of China and its Academy of Sciences weren't bad enough, they also distorted the positions of the Russian and Polish Academies of Sciences, claiming the translation "follows strong statements by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Polish Academy of Sciences dissenting from claims that global warming is either man-made or a crisis."

The claim about the Russian Academy of Sciences is based on a statement from a single scientist affiliated with the Academy. What does the Russian Academy of Science actually say about global warming? They signed the same joint statement as the Chinese Academy of Sciences, endorsing the IPCC consensus view that humans are causing global warming, and that we must "transition to a low-carbon society."

The claim about the Polish Academy of Sciences is based on a statement from the Academy's geologic science committee. Like its Chinese and Russian counterparts, the full Polish Academy of Sciences has signed statements endorsing the human-caused global warming consensus. For example in 2007 (Google English translation) and in 2010:

"It is widely agreed that human activities are changing Earth's climate beyond natural climatic fluctuations. The emission and accumulation of greenhouse gases associated with the burning of fossil fuels, along with other activities, such as land use change, are the principal causes of climate change."

So Heartland's claim about "the trend toward skepticism" (where "skepticism" actually means contrarianism) is pure fantasy. The reality is that the Chinese, Russian, and Polish Academies of Science all endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Moreover, as our recent study found, that consensus position is growing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As Graham Readfearn recently documented, over the past two decades, fossil fuel interests have engaged in a number of campaigns to cast doubt on the existence of the consensus on human-caused global warming. Convincing the public that this settled science is still in dispute has long been a top priority for industry groups.

 

Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus results and notable anti-consensus campaigns. Image by John Garrett
Heartland's misrepresentation of the positions of the Chinese, Russian and Polish Academies of Science is the latest in this long line of efforts to cast doubt on the expert consensus on climate change. However, if the Bad Science in the NIPCC report represents the "differing viewpoints" the Chinese will be exposed to, I wouldn't bet on them reversing their endorsement of the human-caused global warming consensus anytime soon. Global temperatures will continue to rise, and the expert consensus on human-caused global warming will continue to grow along with them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/14/climate-change-heartland-chinese-academy-sciences

Read More

Was the Chinese Academy of Sciences mislead by the Heartland Institute's faux "science"? A bunny might think so

Porkie Pies at Midnight

by Eli Rabett, Rabett Run, June 13,2013

And so begins a very tangled tale, which is yet developing.

The short of it is explained in a letter that a number of bloggers have received from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but starting there would be little fun.  It actually begins with a web page put up by Eli's friends at the Heartland Institute

CHICAGO (June 12, 2013) – The Chinese Academy of Sciences has 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 [hardly!] data on climate change originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011. . .

and

The Chinese Academy of Sciences will present the new publication at a “Ceremony of Climate Change Reconsidered and the Workshop on International Climate Change Science Viewpoints” on Saturday, June 15, in Beijing with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) . Click here to read the Academy’s press release announcing the publication of Climate Change Reconsidered.

What! ##% the Bunnies ask, the Commies and the Libertarian Corporatist Right playing together?

The news tell us that  libertarians have developed a fondness for the 中 middle kingdom.  Eli rather suspects it is a misreading of the ethos of the place where bunnies can get away with anything except being noticed or envied by the powers that be, in which case they turn into stew.

Well, the Heartland page has gone up and down and up a couple of times since then.  It now appears to be up, but just to be sure Eli has taken a copy, but the Click Here link to the CAS page is now down; however, it remains in the Google Cache where the Rabett reads:

NIPCC is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. In 2009 and 2011, NIPCC publicized two reports named Climate Change Reconsidered, providing evidences the IPCC ignores and questioning the proposal of IPCC that climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

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. The International Symposium of Global Changes is held on this occasion to enhance exchanges on the new advancements internationally and researches. A press conference will be held, with lead authors of NIPCC reports Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter (Australia), S. Fred Singer (USA) and many other prominent scholars of the field presenting.

The Press Conference is maybe to be at a hotel in Beijing on Saturday.  Developing as they say but the first clue as to what is going on in the website is not the CAS website but the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.  While somebunnies may think that the CAS is  the Royal Academy or the NAS of China, it also runs STEM graduate education in China.  Before 1978, there were no doctoral degree granting institutions in China (something to do with western imperialism) partially explaining why so many Chinese came out to the west for degrees.  UCAS is the overarching institution which runs doctoral training through Chinese universities.  Looking at the downed page, one sees a contact email which points to the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library of the CAS:

Lanzhou Branch Library mainly collects print and digital resources about earth sciences, resources and environmental sciences, chemistry & chemical industry, nuclear science and electronic technology, as well as documents and information resources on applied mathematics, biology, computer science and other general documents and information. Lanzhou Branch Library has a special collection of literatures about cold regions, arid regions, polar regions, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Loess Plateau resources and environment, natural calamities and engineering.

The CAS, of course, has a position on climate change.  It is a signatory on the Joint Academies Statement on the Global Response to Climate Change

We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments to help develop and implement the national and international response to the challenge of climate change.

and has issued a recent report on the threat of climate change to China

Global warming threatens China's march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods, says the government's latest assessment of climate change, projecting big shifts in how the nation feeds itself.

The warnings are carried in the government's "Second National Assessment Report on Climate Change," which sums up advancing scientific knowledge about the consequences and costs of global warming for China -- the world's second biggest economy and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution.

So Eli imagines that the CAS was none too pleased by the NIPCC report translation and press conference.  Upon inquiry, they responded

Thank you for your attention to the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The news that you saw on the website of UCAS is actually a careless mistake caused by translation and compilation.

There is indeed a book named "Climate Change Reconsidered" to be published in China by the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library,  CAS, with a book release on June 15th. However, this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved.

A few CAS experts participated in the translation of the book, aiming to demonstrate different voices in the global scientific field to the Chinese science community, however, that does not mean that we CAS joined the research or agree with their view point; neither does it mean that CAS will decide "promote" the climate "skeptic" view or group.

Attached are the cover of the book and the preface by the president of Heartland and translator's preface by the curator of the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library, expressing their own viewpoint, respectively.

UCAS is formerly the Graduate University of Chinese Academy Sciences ( GUCAS) and is renamed as UCAS (http://english.ucas.ac.cn/Pages/default.aspx) in 2012 with the official approval of the Ministry Education of China. It is one of the two universities owned by the CAS, with the other one called the University of Science and Technology of China (http://en.ustc.edu.cn/),

Thank you again for your attention to the CAS and here is our website (http://english.cas.cn/) and the website of the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library (http://english.llas.cas.cn/), please stay focused on our research progress, any of your suggestions will be warmly welcomed.

If you have any questions on CAS, please do not hesitate to ask.

Mistranslation is always useful.  But, as Eli said, developing, certainly the folks in Mordor think that they have a win, but maybe not so much as they think as the heavyweights in the CAS take note.  Nails that stick out getting hammered is not only a Japanese principle.

Read More