Saturday, June 15, 2013

Chinese Academy Of Sciences Issues A Statement; Heartland Institute Issues A Grovelling Apology

First, from the CAS site:

The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was published in May 2013 through Science Press. 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.

To clarify the fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is now making an official statement as follows:

Firstly, the translation is organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and published by Science Press as a product of science communication aiming at introducing diverse academic arguments.

Secondly, neither the translation nor the publication represents any views of the Chinese Academy of Sciences or its affiliations on related issues.

Thirdly, it is earnestly called upon by the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the general public not to accept and disseminate any misleading information related to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Now from HI's Jim Lakeley:

"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.' "

I have not reproduced HI's full statement out of decency's sake; click through the link to experience the full measure of Jim Lakely's self-abasement.  The date on Google Search (6 hours ago) suggests that Jim was up at midnight last night rhetorically flogging himself, which is unusual.  Its more typically HI to try and bluster their way through.

Oh, and in case you haven't been following, background is here and here.

1 comment:

deb Scott said...

nice work! the HI are as bad as the Fraser Insitute for spindoctoring supposed scientific results.
glad its been rectified!