Here's another document that it's interesting to read in the light of johanna's perceptive comment at 8:16 AM. It's the "Joint U.S.-China Statement on Climate Change" signed in April during US Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to China. Note how the wording sounds positive and forceful - but is virtually meaningless. I liked this for example: "The two countries took special note of the overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change ..." Well yes: sceptics have been taking note, even special note - but that doesn't mean they agree with it. And I liked the way that action in view of "the urgent need to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" should be "nationally appropriate". That gives China plenty of wriggle room.

Also it's interesting that the Chinese leader of the new "Climate Change Working Group" is Mr. Xie Zhenhua. Mr. Xie is Vice Chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, cited by the Independent. And he's the same Mr. Xie who was quoted as saying (after Copenhagen):

There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There's an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude. It is already a solid fact that climate is warming. The major reasons for this climate change is the unconstrained emissions produced by the developed countries in the process of industrialisation. That's the mainstream view [but] there are other views. Our attitude is an open attitude.

Hmm - those Working Group meetings might be interesting.

PS re Jiminy Cricket's and joanna's comments: some years ago, I spent many days negotiating with senior Chinese officials. Yes, a humbling experience.

An excellent point, RKS – although it's probably going too far to claim that burgeoning emissions by China, India etc. during a period of temperature stasis are “completely disproving” the AGW hypothesis. Nonetheless, this remarkable co-occurrence is undoubtedly a huge and continuing embarrassment to the alarmists.

Add to that the practical point that the developing economies’ repeated refusal to agree to emission restraint means Western unilateral action is not just economically and socially damaging but, in any case, completely pointless, and it’s easy to see why the alarmists are eager to embrace any hint that China in particular may be changing its mind. Hence all the current excitement about a reported (but unconfirmed) Chinese proposal to introduce a cap on emissions – even though no one knows if such a proposal is real, would be accepted or what might be the level of the cap - or what demands China might make in return.

These uncertainties are confirmed by this article ("Reports of a Chinese cap on carbon emissions are inaccurate — or perhaps just premature") that provides a link (in Chinese) to the origin of the story. It concludes by suggesting that the report, although inaccurate, may just be premature – because “pollution” may come to be seen by the Chinese government as a political threat. That’s probably true. But cleaning up air pollution in Chinese industrial cities is a completely different proposition from curbing CO2 emissions.

Yet another article has just been published about that Chinese proposal to cap their CO2 emissions - the proposal that's got the greenies so excited. An extract:

greens would do well to put their celebrations on hold: This move has nothing to do with emissions, and everything to do with political savvy and China’s economic future. It has been clear for a long time that China is going to have to take on air pollution, among many other environmental issues. It’s also clear that China wants to reduce the energy intensity of its economy—the need to import more and more energy as the economy expands is a huge expense and a strategic vulnerability.

Richard: you entitled this thread "Fantasy China". But what’s the real China?

It seems clear from the discussion above that the Chinese government rejects CAGW - indeed, it appears not to accept AGW. But how about its view on the international politics of climate change? There seem to be two, very different, possibilities:

1. It cannot believe that, given all the uncertainty, the West is so foolish that it believes this CAGW stuff. So (it surmises) we must be up to something: it’s a cunning plot. This is exemplified by Ding Zhongli’s comment (he’s VP of the Chinese Academy of Sciences – see my comment and link (above) at 6:35 PM on May 15):

Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions.

Further evidence for this view is found in a book, Low Carbon Plot, available in China and, significantly perhaps, sold in government-controlled book shops. This extract is a (very brief) summary of its message:

The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles.

2. But there's another way of looking at this intriguing and – given its international significance – key question. It’s this: the Chinese government views with amazement how the once-powerful Western economies, already seriously weakened by the banking crisis, are busily making things worse for themselves by an obsession with global warming / climate change.

For years, China has smarted at Western high-handed arrogance. So it would be surprising if it didn’t view this reversal with some satisfaction. After all, it’s not so long (only yesterday in Chinese terms) since Mao was happy to contemplate a nuclear war with equanimity:

If worse came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the world would become Socialist.

It’s unlikely that China is any longer hoping for the destruction of the West: apart from anything else, we’re an important, although diminishing, market. But a humiliated West – humiliated by its own hand – would, I suspect, be quite acceptable. So China is more than happy to help us on our way by, for example, dropping hints that emission cuts are in the offing, showing visiting dignitaries just how “green” it’s becoming and keeping those endless and fruitless international talks going. And, in the meantime of course, continuing its sales of “renewable” components and products.

So which is it – a cunning West or a foolish West?

Here (another article by Walter Russell Mead) provides a good example of how China is stirring things up for Western economies. Its conclusion:

There’s an even bigger problem for those in the Europe and the US who see clean tech as a solution to the jobs crisis: globalization. Even without subsidies, China can produce cheaper solar panels than Europe, just as it already does with manufactured goods from textiles to toys. There’s no reason this same principle shouldn’t apply to solar panels just because they’re “green.” Europe is learning the hard way that calling something green doesn’t exempt it from economic realities.

Oh dear - the Chinese must be enjoying this.

I asked above whether China sees the West as cunning (CAGW a device to restrict emerging economies' development) or foolish (an obsession with CAGW exacerbating our many other problems). My view is that I don't suppose that China's leaders really care: they're not falling for the first and, if it's the second (as surely they recognise by now), they're happy to watch us self-destruct. Either way, their policy is unaffected. Indeed, they probably view the whole issue with detached amusement.

PS: one source of such amusement might for example be the mess we seem to be getting into regarding the shipping of biomass - see Radical Rodent / richard verney et al's discussion.

Here's another story about Europe and its problems with cheap Chinese solar panels. The problem is that the EU trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, wants to impose a 47% duty on such imports. However, 18 members of the Union, including Germany, need these panels to meet their renewable targets - so they're opposing the move. And the Chinese are threatening retaliation.

Here's the bit I liked:

The Commission is now left with querulous complaints against its own constituents — to wit, a bureaucrat who stated: “I would be lying if I said we did not consider it annoying” that we were not supported. And he added plaintively that China “is a country that knows extremely well how to play the divide and rule, using carrots and sticks.” (Oh, for the days of the 19th-century Opium Wars, when Europe used the same tactics against the decaying Qing dynasty)

[My emphasis]

This is surely an extraordinary development. Not only has the Chinese Academy of Sciences produced a Chinese edition of the Heartland Institute's 1,200 page rebuttal of the IPCC's 2007 report (story here), but it's to release it "at a major ceremony in Beijing" this Saturday - notice here.

This is yet further evidence of Chinese scepticism about CAGW. Is it possible to imagine, for example, the Royal Society giving this report its imprimatur and inviting leading "deniers" such as Robert Carter and Fred Singer to speak at its launch - describing them as "prominent scholars of the field"? Er ... no.

WUWT is now reporting this remarkable Chinese Academy of Sciences initiative.

An extract from the Heartland announcement:

The Chinese Academy of Sciences is the world’s largest academy of sciences, employing some 50,000 people and hosting more than 350 international conferences a year. Membership in the Academy represents the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists. The Nature Publishing Index in May ranked the Chinese Academy of Sciences No. 12 on its list of the “Global Top 100” scientific institutions – ahead of the University of Oxford (No. 14), Yale University (No. 16), and the California Institute of Technology (No. 25).

The warmists must be wondering just how Big Oil managed such a coup.