Skip to main content

Last week, the Heartland Institute went positively giddy announcing that its work debunking climate science was being translated into Chinese by the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences. Today three of Heartland's best, um, scientists are in Beijing discussing their groundbreaking findings, which generally could be summed up as "The Koch brothers paid us to say that 97% of other scientists are wrong." There's only one problem: the Chinese don't appreciate their lies, and they're saying so in uncharacteristically blunt terms.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences, in its own words: "The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false."

(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.

Shorter Chinese: Chinese translators got hold of bad science, Heartland seized on it as vindication of its views, and now the real Chinese scientists are furious. Heartland has since taken the page down, but it hasn't apologized. Nor should the Chinese Academy of Sciences expect an apology from a rogue conservative think-tank last seen associating climate science with the Unabomber.

Dana Nucitelli, writing at the Guardian, has more on how Heartland's shenanigans got translated into Chinese and on the many steps China is taking to combat carbon pollution.

An equally interesting question is why Heartland is engaging with the Chinese in the first place.

Badly bruised by its Unabomber ad, Heartland has lost relevance in the United States. Meanwhile, the coal barons search for new markets overseas as their business model is dying in the United States. It's not a coincidence that Heartland is making overtures to the Chinese. It's simply the tactic of a cornered, doomed dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus Triceratops Charles Knight

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Heartless Institute fails again (15+ / 0-)

    You know they are desperate when they try to implicate the Chinese despite their obvious efforts to green their country.

    from the last link

    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?
    不好, Heartless Institute. 不好.

    And remember: if we fail on climate change, nothing else matters. - WarrenS

    by LaughingPlanet on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 01:36:59 PM PDT

  •  Cue Beck Hannity Levin....etc.....not a good month (6+ / 0-)

    for God's chosen (snark).

  •  Interesting (5+ / 0-)

    I think your last sentence sums things up quite well.

    “Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” -- FDR, 1936

    by SolarMom on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 02:26:36 PM PDT

  •  Failure is more certain than success. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller, Eric Nelson

    So, the cons are naturally attracted to failure. Not to mention that it lets them try and try again. That said, it occurs to me that the penchant for failure is also influenced by the fact that, like death, failure gets more attention than success. In other words, attention seekers have an additional incentive to fail. Attention seeking is also good camouflage because we assume that malefactors are secretive and overlook when attention seekers are up to no good.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 02:33:09 PM PDT

  •  Big lies require bigger coverups and the Chinese (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaughingPlanet, RLMiller, Eric Nelson

    did not bite instead lash out at the Koch Brothers shil scientists.  We avoid science at our peril so the Koch fools and their paid stooges are hideous to behold and the Chinese agree, at least a bit of their old rejection of the powerful, super rich lie producers has stayed with them.

  •  Rupert Murdoch & Hearland blocked Denialgate.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller, koNko, Glen The Plumber
    The world at large also needs to know that Rupert Murdoch's media empire - which often cites the Heartland Institute as a source for "climate science" - has managed to block publication of anything relating to this denialgate story in all but two of its outlets.
    The Heartland Institute And Murdoch Media

    A part of that story exposed more fraud:

    First, a few words about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.  The IPCC report is one of the most impressive, comprehensive scientific documents in existence.  Every ~5 to 7 years, the IPCC invites some of the world's best climate scientists to contribute to the report, putting together a chapter on their respective fields of expertise.
    Then there is the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report.):
    which is sometimes referred to as "Not the IPCC report," and for good reason; the NIPCC report is everything the IPCC report is not.
    In short
    ..the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).
    Also: Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts.
    The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012).

     The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

    Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

    So the Heartland financed NIPCC (the climate denialists @ the Heartland institute) couldn't get away with butchering the scientists findings

    Nice digging & reporting   RL Miller - tipped & recced

  •  Does this fall under (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS"?

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 05:41:25 PM PDT

  •  There is zero possibility they will get traction (4+ / 0-)

    in China

    Every day we face the effects of pollution and climate change, which is one of the top 3 public concerns and a high priority for the government.

    To some degree, Americans and Europeans have benefited from the transfer of dirty industries to Asia and particularly China; your air and water have become cleaner, your industrial emissions have significantly declined, and this gives frauds like the Heartland Institute the opportunity to claim there is not a problem.

    But no sane Chinese believes this. Everyday we breath the air and some of the crap in our lungs (a high percentage) has little American and European flags on it.

    We are not going to buy it. I am positively sure about it.

    Great diary, T+R.  And how is your new job?

    400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

    by koNko on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 07:40:06 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site