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.
Watching the Deniers 
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.
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?
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?
It would certainly seem to be a candidate… http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax
[…] 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 […]
Eagerly awaiting Eric’s response on this one!
And of his deputy Mark
Eric’s having a little break, so will not be able to respond.
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?
Lewandowsky hits the nail squarely:
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.
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.
Can’t you see it coming, Heartland ” it was just a misunderstanding due to translation”
well the flying monkeys will buy it
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.
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.
Don’t worry, I webcited the post from Watts.
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
No Mark. HI was trumpeted it across the internet. Sceptic websites did. And sceptics on this board did as well. At least be honest.
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.
“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”
“A historic moment in the global debate about climate change”.
Yes, I can see it was all a misunderstanding on everyone else’s part.
Well at least the know that Historic starts with a H and not with an I.
“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.
“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.
Found a profitable year for the Oz yet???
Not looking…you asserted they were unprofitable every year for 40years. I asked for evidence. You offered no evidence but tried to backtrack by reversing the onus of proof.
As a matter of accounting there is no evidence either way. the exact profitability of any one newspaper gets lost in the cross subsidies of the group.
I posted a link to what I thought of as being of interest. I didn’t comment in the slightest (I just drew attention to it), didn’t endorse (I just drew attention to it), didn’t recommend (I just drew attention to it)
Says it all.
and then the bum fell out of it.
and the mistake? I had already agreed that I’d linked to it.So what other mistake?
You just drew attention to it.
Now I am not commenting on it, not endorsing it, not recommending it
I just find the loss of money by The Australian interesting
http://www.afr.com/p/national/murdoch_abandons_ship_1WwGyk1L5YJhyLlZrZexWP