Chinese Academy of Sciences calls Heartlands actions “misleading” demands apology!

For several days sceptics have been claiming the Chinese Academy of sciences “accepted” a Heartland Institute think tank publication sceptical of the science. Apparently this was a sign of the consensus breaking down.

Anthony Watts and sceptics on the forums here couldn’t help contain themselves, crowing this signaled “the death” of global warming. Said Anthony on Watts up with that a mere three days ago:

 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

Actually, what speaks volumes is the CAS are now demanding an apology from Heartland for its dishonesty:

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.

Speaks volumes does it not?

Heatland’s lies are standard operating procedure for the sceptic movement.

Spread the word.

About these ads
Tagged , , ,

34 thoughts on “Chinese Academy of Sciences calls Heartlands actions “misleading” demands apology!

  1. Mark says:

    I read the Heartland press release – I think I even linked it in one of the threads here. I don’t recall reading or getting the impression that the CAS was endorsing the NIPCC report,although CAS did initiate the translation process . I came away with the view that HI were just happy that the 50K members of CAS were going to be exposed to an alternate view. It seems that’s still going to happen

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      No Mark. HI was trumpeted it across the internet. Sceptic websites did. And sceptics on this board did as well. At least be honest.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      This is what you said:

      Submitted on 2013/06/13 at 2:20 am
      Speaking of Heartland:

      http://heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-change-reconsidered-translation-chinese-academy-sciences

      At least have the decency to admit a mistake.

    • john byatt says:

      “On June 12th, the Heartland Institute crowed that

      The Chinese Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious scientific academies in the world, has translated and published two massive volumes of peer-reviewed climate science first published by The Heartland Institute.

      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.

      ‘This is a historic moment in the global debate about climate change,’ Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said.

      Chinese response

      (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.

      “They do not represent, nor they have ever claimed to represent, CAS or any of CAS institutes.”

      Mark “although CAS did initiate the translation process”

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        “A historic moment in the global debate about climate change”.

        Yes, I can see it was all a misunderstanding on everyone else’s part.

    • “And I’ll cite them whenever I think its valid. If you only access your data from pre-approved sources you are unlikely to ever break out of your little box.” Well, Mark, I’ll continue to play in my little box of science. You can have your *relatively* larger box of anti-science propaganda. A true sceptic questions their sources.

    • Mark says:

      “At least have the decency to admit a mistake.”

      What mistake? HI was mentioned, I went to see what they had to say about badgers, and while there noticed the press release. I posted a link to what I thought of as being of interest. I didn’t comment in the slightest, didn’t endorse, didn’t recommend, just drew attention. I guess its an mistake to mention anything that doesn’t conform to the governing meme.

  2. john byatt says:

    Can’t you see it coming, Heartland ” it was just a misunderstanding due to translation”

    well the flying monkeys will buy it

    • john byatt says:

      access denied on the Heartland site for the Chinese translation article

      • And lots of lots and lots of posts now sitting on the WTFUWT front page, burying the bad news. Heartland has stepped in trying to defend the indefensible. It must be really, really bad. Tom Harris has written an article trying to claim the middle ground. And Monckton is the sticky post (kinda like sticks to the bottom of the shoe). When in doubt, distract.

        It’ll be a giggle for a day or two – and then, like monkeys everywhere, they’ll forget and recommence flinging faeces.

        • BBD says:

          Without repetition, the Big Lie dies. But there are problems ahead. If repetition is all you’ve got and the evidence is going against you, FUD has a limited shelf-life.

          I think Sou’s view is that this is why WTFUWT is increasingly chaotic and silly. They feel it in their bones.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Don’t worry, I webcited the post from Watts.

  3. Gregory T says:

    Please let me digress from the thread a moment. I think we should count ourselves lucky that we only have the dynamic duo, to contend with here. I just left the Bloomberg site and was totally blown away by the comments regarding AGW. The story is about Obama raising the carbon price from $23.80 to $38.00 in 2015, but the unmitigated crap regarding global warming is enough to make you cry.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/tougher-regulations-seen-from-obama-change-in-carbon-cost.html

    Again my apologies.

  4. BBD says:

    Blatant, self-serving lies from HI? Climate denier shills lying in furtherance of their sponsors’ vested interests?

    Well, I’m shocked to the core.

    Note, all you contrarians out there: yet again one of “your” core organisations has been shown up to be coated in filth. Yet again. Consider the company you keep and the tactics it routinely employs.

    Ask yourselves: why is my “side” constantly exposed as lying, misrepresenting, cherry-picking, employing baboon logic etc? Why is that?

    You *really need* to ask yourselves this question because it goes right to the heart of the problem. It demonstrates that those tasked with the rejection of a scientific consensus who do not themselves have a coherent scientific counter-argument are forced to employ other means.

    They lie and they misrepresent and they engage in cheap rhetoric. Continuously.

    • And as the climate ostriches see themselves as values oriented, I would add the question whether chronic lying fits to your conservative values. Is that how you would like your kids to behave?

      • BBD says:

        Lewandowsky hits the nail squarely:

        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.

        • You can apologize once, but at least in my moral system an apology should be sincere. Lying and apologizing continuously is obviously not sincere and a bad example to the youth. But okay, I am preaching to the wrong people here.

  5. mgm75 says:

    Eagerly awaiting Eric’s response on this one!

  6. […] on the Chinese Translation of the?Climate Change Reconsidered?NIPCC Report?—-???????????????? Chinese Academy of Sciences calls Heartlands actions “misleading” demands apology! | Wat… Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy Sign in or Register Now to […]

  7. Political public relations companies, with anonymous donors, masking as educational charities, may finally, and rightfully, be under attack. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html

    Monckton’s father in law too. Excellent.

    Could Heartland be next?

  8. Wow, that is a clear statement!!

    “the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity”

    This is a small slip, however. This formulation would suggest that one would expect academic integrity from Heartland, whereas Heartland is not an academic institute, but a shameless PR institute.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Speaks volumes does it not? Re small slip – very true ;)

      • It begs the question, why is there an exclamation point in the headline, “CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CALLS HEARTLANDS ACTIONS “MISLEADING” DEMANDS APOLOGY!” Who is surprised by dog biting man?

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 767 other followers

%d bloggers like this: