A division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences—the world’s largest science academy, ranked the12th most influential science organization in the world by Nature magazine—in June translated and published a Chinese edition of Climate Change Reconsidered, originally published by The Heartland Institute in two volumes in 2009 and 2011.
Historic Moment in the Debate
The book presents a sweeping rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports have been widely cited as the basis for taking action to stop or slow the advance of climate change. The IPCC has been surrounded by controversy over editorial bias and lapses in its quality control.
“This is a historic moment in the global debate about climate change,” said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, which also publishes Environment & Climate News. “The translation and publication of a comprehensive critique of the IPPC’s alarmist reports by a leading national academy of sciences is one more sign of the trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism.”
The new volume represents a collaborative effort among Heartland and some 20 researchers with the Information Center for Global Change Studies and the Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Bast noted the translation is intended to stimulate academic discussion and promote scientific dialogue in the debate over potential carbon dioxide-induced global climate change.
Authors Speak in Beijing
The English-language volumes were coauthored and edited by Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a marine geologist and former research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia; and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
On June 15, an international workshop was held in Beijing for Idso, Carter, Singer, and Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D., a former research scientist from Environment Canada who is presently on the editorial board of the Journal of Natural Hazards and served as a reviewer for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
The four also presented their findings at an international symposium held at the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Beijing on June 17. That meeting was organized and chaired by Professor Weihong Cui of the Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, CAS, and head of NIPCC-China.
A new volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series is being prepared for release this fall, in advance of the IPCC’s expected release of its Fifth Assessment Report.
In the days immediately following Heartland’s June 12 announcement of the Chinese translation, as the authors were in the air on their way to Beijing, there had been some concern the scheduled events would not take place.
Environmental activists had falsely claimed Heartland’s news release stated CAS endorsed the skeptical position on global warming. Those claims led the Chinese to threaten to cancel the scheduled events. Negotiations between Heartland and the Chinese were successful and the events took place as planned.
Heartland had made no such claims of “endorsement” by the Chinese. The English preface of the translated book explains the project was undertaken “to help Chinese researchers understand different points, opinions and positions in debates on climate change.”
Heartland responded to the environmentalists’ attack by reiterating in a statement, “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.'”
“We are grateful to the Chinese scientists who have helped us make this important research accessible to their countrymen,” said Bast, “and to bloggers and reporters such as those at Breitbart, Watts Up With That, and Science who covered this story accurately.”