IN Australia and other so-called developed Western nations there is very little tolerance of contrary opinion when it comes to one of the biggest contested scientific issues of our time – climate change. Indeed the mainstream research community is closed to skeptics and skepticism. 
Not so in China, however, where on Saturday June 15, 2013 an International Workshop was held in Beijing to launch the publication of a Chinese edition of Climate Change Reconsidered. This is an abridged version of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s (NIPCC) 2009 and 2011 reports.
Four members of the NIPCC were in Beijing for the workshop and launch of the publication, Australia’s very own Bob Carter with Professors Fred Singer, Craig Idso and Madhav Khandekar.
This new volume, all in Chinese, was translated by a team of scientists from the Chinese Academy of Science to promote scientific dialogue in the debate over potential CO2-induced global climate change.
For more information visit…
http://nipccreport.org/reports/chinese/chinesetranslation.html
The original NIPCC reports from which the Chinese translation was prepared can be found at http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/reports.html.
****
For a very good reference document on climate change that is in English read Professor Carter’s new book called Taxing Air… All you might ever want to know about the science and politics of global warming…
http://www.taxingair.com
For Why China might be a better superpower read Murtaza Hussain… http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201362584334716870.html
The following photographs from Professor Carter show delegates at the workshop, and out-and-about in China. For a better view and to see the entire photograph click on each image...
[...] Chinese Academy of Science Open to Skepticism (jennifermarohasy.com) [...]
LOL! 🙂 🙂 🙂
How on earth could you come up with that comment from what I just posted?
What do you think I'm not reading or listening to Luke?
You don't read or listen do you Debs. Engage brain last.
What scientists think?
You're kidding aren't you?
It's bleeding obvious from the plethora of contradictory information that Scientists THINK all sorts of different things about all sorts of different topics.
Your last comment was a very thinly veiled appeal from authority and/or the much quoted 'consensus' Luke.
Poor form.
You could have at least emailed the author for a pdf reprint or searched for an online pdf. Lazy and sneaky technique John. Paper's conclusion doesn't suit your argument.
Ridley is a zoologist and it shows. He's on about TCR. I'll take the published paper. In which equilibrium climate sensitivity hasn't really changed.
"Didn’t read the paper eh John? Caught with pants down."
no I didn't as I'm not prepared to pay for research papers cos as you know, this is not my field.
But I am therefore prepared to take the word of Matt Ridley, who is a scientist and a esteemed science writer which why I posted his remarks.
Now - care to dispute Matt Ridley's analysis?
No really Debs - very straight forward really - simply shows the level of your denial. Crappy coz truth hurts.
But anyway more interesting is your ongoing assumption as to what "scientists" think - an interesting part of a series on climate communication from none other than Gavin Schmidt - I think many will be surprised at this comments and conclusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=axRU9Ljozvs#t=1075s
Crappy and meaningless rhetorical definition Luke, 🙂
But I found the comments amusing.