国产免费人成视频在线观看,国产极品粉嫩馒头一线天AV,国产精品欧美一区二区三区,亚洲 古典 另类 欧美 在线

首頁 > 文章 > 國際 > 國際縱橫

“氣候門”揭全球變暖陰謀:“圍繞政策編造氣候數(shù)據(jù)”

Michel Chossudovsky · 2009-12-09 · 來源:烏有之鄉(xiāng)
氣候問題 收藏( 評(píng)論() 字體: / /
 

全球變暖:“圍繞政策編造氣候數(shù)據(jù)”  

Michel Chossudovsky  

超過15000人將齊聚哥本哈根參加聯(lián)合國氣候變化框架公約(UNFCCC)第15次締約國大會(huì)。  

參加此次會(huì)議的有來自192個(gè)國家的官方代表團(tuán),以及以觀察員身份參加的各主要商業(yè)組織。以觀察員身份登記的非政府組織中包括,商業(yè)圓桌會(huì)議、洛克菲勒基金會(huì)、美國商會(huì)、國際商會(huì)。(獨(dú)立金融機(jī)構(gòu)和跨國公司并未正式登記,他們將以有觀察員資格的商業(yè)組織的贊助方身份參加)  

環(huán)保組織和民間社會(huì)組織也將列席代表。(參與方與觀察員)  

國家首腦和政府首腦們將被安排出席峰會(huì)活動(dòng)的后一部分。(參見2009哥本哈根聯(lián)合國氣候變化大會(huì)http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=876)  

值得注意的是,15次大會(huì)的關(guān)鍵性的決定和目標(biāo),已經(jīng)于5月份在哥本哈根舉行的世界全球氣候變化商業(yè)首腦峰會(huì)(WBSCC)上達(dá)成了,它比第15次大會(huì)提前了6個(gè)月。  

全球氣候變化商業(yè)首腦峰會(huì)聚集了一些世界上最杰出的商業(yè)管理人士和包括艾爾·戈?duì)枺绹案笨偨y(tǒng))和聯(lián)合國秘書長潘基明在內(nèi)的世界領(lǐng)袖。(氣候變化商業(yè)首腦峰會(huì),包括網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播)  

這些高層磋商的結(jié)果被傳達(dá)給丹麥政府和參與國政府,普華永道會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所將代表參與峰會(huì)的企業(yè)執(zhí)行官們,起草一份所謂的決策者總結(jié)報(bào)告。此報(bào)告同環(huán)境保護(hù)幾乎無關(guān),它主要是一份以全球變暖共識(shí)為借口的利益驅(qū)使的議程。(詳情見氣候理事會(huì):全球氣候變化商業(yè)首腦峰會(huì))  

“峰會(huì)的根本目標(biāo)是應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化與經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的雙重挑戰(zhàn)。峰會(huì)的參與者考慮,如果政府和商業(yè)組織合作,如何將這些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)危為機(jī),而何種政策、刺激方案和投資將最有效地刺激低碳經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長”(氣候理事會(huì))  

作為“有史以來最重要的集會(huì)之一,它被稱作世界曾見過的最復(fù)雜和最重要的協(xié)議”,哥本哈根氣候峰會(huì)(2009年十二月7日至18日)的議程是得到了各國政府,商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖和非政府組織團(tuán)體的共同支持。  

CO2排放被稱為人類未來一個(gè)最重要的威脅。  

嚴(yán)格說來,峰會(huì)的焦點(diǎn)是環(huán)境議題,沒有提到這個(gè)詞“戰(zhàn)爭”——即美國和北約發(fā)動(dòng)的戰(zhàn)爭對(duì)環(huán)境的毀滅性后果。  

沒有提到作為“和平制造”工具的而先發(fā)制人使用的核武器。  

沒有提到作為環(huán)境爭議一部分的——五角大樓的人道主義核彈產(chǎn)生的放射性塵埃。根據(jù)五角大樓授權(quán)的科學(xué)鑒定,戰(zhàn)略性核武器“對(duì)附近的居民是安全的”。  

沒有提到“氣象戰(zhàn)爭”或“環(huán)境更改技術(shù)”(ENMOD)以及氣候戰(zhàn)爭。  

沒有提到軍用的名為“擁有天氣”的美國空軍“2025發(fā)展規(guī)劃”對(duì)于氣候變化的爭論。 (參見FAS,  Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning...| (Ch 1)SPACE.com -- U.S. Military Wants to Own the Weather)   

盡管存在大量的科學(xué)依據(jù),故意操縱氣候以用作軍事目的的問題已經(jīng)不再是聯(lián)合國氣候變化議程的一部分。然而,它卻是1992年里約地球峰會(huì)議題的一部分。(參見Michel Chossudovsky, Environmental Warfare and Climate Change, Global Research, 27 November 2005,另見 Michel Chossudovsky,  Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare , The Ecologist, December 2007)  

CO2是用來描述全球性危機(jī)的標(biāo)志。其他變量則不被考慮。  

進(jìn)一步說,由于碳減排概念依賴于全球變暖這一共識(shí)的,所以任何有效的反污染清潔空氣政策都不會(huì)直接以碳減排的名義來制定。  

由全球經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退引起的“貧窮”、“失業(yè)”和“疾病”等并不是問題的重點(diǎn),因?yàn)闄?quán)威性的金融媒體毫不含糊地聲明:“經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退已經(jīng)結(jié)束”。  

而中東和中亞的戰(zhàn)爭不是戰(zhàn)爭,只是“一場旨在打擊恐怖主義和強(qiáng)盜國家的人道主義行動(dòng)。”  

真正的危機(jī)  

哥本哈根峰會(huì)不僅為那些在巨額碳交易項(xiàng)目上下注的有實(shí)力的大企業(yè)的利益服務(wù),它促使大眾的注意力從“真正的危機(jī)”帶來的毀滅性結(jié)果上轉(zhuǎn)移開,這個(gè)“真正的危機(jī)”潛在于經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化過程和利益驅(qū)動(dòng)的無國界戰(zhàn)爭中,這種無國界的戰(zhàn)爭也被五角大樓稱之為“長期的戰(zhàn)爭”。  

我們站在了現(xiàn)代歷史最嚴(yán)重危機(jī)的十字路口。戰(zhàn)爭和經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退是真正的危機(jī),然而政府和媒體都將注意力放在了由二氧化碳排放而引起的環(huán)境破壞上,把它看作是對(duì)人類最大的威脅。  

上千億美元的碳交易體系  

碳交易體系對(duì)金融機(jī)構(gòu)來說是一個(gè)上千億美元的賺錢機(jī)會(huì)。賭注極其高昂而代表華爾街利益的不同游說集團(tuán)也已經(jīng)為他們自己牟取了一席之地。  

根據(jù)最近的一份報(bào)告,“按照通過歐盟的排放交易體系交易溫室氣體排放配額的新型城市玩家的說法,碳市場的規(guī)模可以是巨大的石油市場規(guī)模的兩倍……增長的速度取決于哥本哈根峰會(huì)是否會(huì)給低碳經(jīng)濟(jì)一個(gè)許可,但是埃杰說,不管發(fā)生什么,像排放交易體系這樣的項(xiàng)目都將在全球擴(kuò)張。” (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)  

曾涉及衍生品交易的大型金融企業(yè)集團(tuán),包括摩根大通、美林銀行、巴克萊、花旗銀行、野村證券、興業(yè)銀行、摩根士丹利和高盛都積極地參與到碳交易當(dāng)中來了。( FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)  

碳交易體系的合法性建立在全球變暖共識(shí)的合法性上,它將二氧化碳排放看作是對(duì)環(huán)境的唯一威脅。而對(duì)于華爾街來說,碳交易體系則是一個(gè)方便而又安全的賺錢方法,可以讓少數(shù)大企業(yè)集團(tuán)輕易地把上千億美元裝進(jìn)腰包。  

“每家大的金融機(jī)構(gòu)都在紐約和倫敦已經(jīng)設(shè)立了碳交易業(yè)務(wù)。非常大的數(shù)字在他們的腦海中盤旋,而他們需要用它們來彌補(bǔ)在房地產(chǎn)泡沫破裂中蒸發(fā)的‘財(cái)富’”,巴克萊投資銀行環(huán)境市場的負(fù)責(zé)人Louis Redshaw告訴《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》,“碳將是世界上最大的市場。”巴克萊認(rèn)為碳市場將在十年內(nèi)從當(dāng)前600億美元的增長至1000億美元。從前是電力交易商的Redshaw,在四年前還無法找到任何人討論碳問題。(Mark Braly, The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008)   

全球變暖的數(shù)據(jù)庫  

全球變暖的共識(shí)是基于可靠的數(shù)據(jù)嗎?  

有跡象表明,關(guān)于溫度和包括CO2在內(nèi)的溫室氣體排放的觀念和數(shù)據(jù),都已經(jīng)被調(diào)整和修改過,以使其符合聯(lián)合國氣候變化專門委員會(huì)的議程。  

幾年來,聯(lián)合國氣候變化專門委員會(huì)的聲明及其所包含的數(shù)據(jù)庫已經(jīng)受到質(zhì)疑。(參見 Global Research's Climate Change Dossier: Archive of more than 100 articles)   

一些著名科學(xué)家參與的報(bào)告已對(duì)全球變暖共識(shí)提出批評(píng)性分析。  

正如麻省理工氣象學(xué)家Richard S. Lindzen在其著作中表達(dá)的那樣,在這一點(diǎn)上,已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)平息批評(píng)者聲音的持續(xù)努力。(參見 Richard Lindzen, Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence., Global Research, 7 April 2007)  

對(duì)這種危言聳聽提出異議的科學(xué)家們已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn),他們的贊助基金消失了,他們的工作被人嘲笑,而他們自己也被貼上了行業(yè)小丑、科學(xué)黑客或更糟的標(biāo)簽。結(jié)果,關(guān)于氣候變化的謊言自公然違背科學(xué)基礎(chǔ)的那天起就獲得了真實(shí)性。(同上)  

氣候門及電子郵件丑聞   

在2009年十一月,僅僅在哥本哈根峰會(huì)開幕幾周前,氣候變化科學(xué)家和研究者之間超過3000封的往來電子郵件數(shù)據(jù)庫被曝光。  

電子郵件并沒有證明整個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)庫是偽造的,盡管如此,它們卻指出部分與UNPCC有關(guān)的著名科學(xué)家的科學(xué)造假和欺詐行為。  

這些電子郵件暗示數(shù)據(jù)被修改過,以支持業(yè)已確定的政策議程。正如這些電子郵件信息所披露的那樣,“修改氣候數(shù)據(jù)以符合政策”是直接與聯(lián)合國氣候變化專門委員會(huì)工作相關(guān)的頂級(jí)科學(xué)家的做法嗎?  

英國媒體已經(jīng)知道,科學(xué)家決心要操控氣候變化的數(shù)據(jù),同時(shí)摒除批評(píng)者的聲音:  

【下面引用的評(píng)論來自每日電訊報(bào)】  

發(fā)件人: Phil Jones. 收件人: 多人. Nov 16, 1999  

“我剛剛完成了Mike在《自然》【科學(xué)期刊】里玩的把戲,通過在過去20年中(即從之前的1981年)的每個(gè)系列的真實(shí)溫度中加入數(shù)據(jù)而對(duì)Keith的工作則從1961年起加入數(shù)據(jù)以隱藏(溫度)下降(的事實(shí))。”  

批評(píng)者引用這段話作為數(shù)據(jù)已被修改以掩蓋全球溫度是在降低的事實(shí)。瓊斯教授則聲明“把戲”這個(gè)詞的意思已經(jīng)被曲解了。  

發(fā)件人:Phil Jones收件人:  Michael Mann (賓夕法尼亞州立大學(xué)). July 8, 2004  

“我不能在下個(gè)IPCC報(bào)告中看到它們中的任何一個(gè),Kevin和我將用某種方式剔除它們——即使我們不得不重新定義同行評(píng)審的文獻(xiàn)”  

IPCC是負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)控氣候變化的聯(lián)合國機(jī)構(gòu),科學(xué)家們希望它不考慮對(duì)“全球變暖是真實(shí)的且是人為造成的”這種觀點(diǎn)提出挑戰(zhàn)的研究。  

發(fā)件人: Kevin Trenberth (美國大氣研究國家中心). 收件人: Michael Mann. 十月12, 2009  

“事實(shí)是我們不能明說缺乏氣候變暖(的依據(jù)),而且這是一種歪曲,我們不能……我們的觀測(cè)系統(tǒng)是不充分的。”  

Trenberth教授似乎已經(jīng)接受了全球變暖懷疑論者的一個(gè)論點(diǎn)——沒有證據(jù)表明過去10年來溫度上升了。  

發(fā)件人: Phil Jones. 收件人: 多人 三月 11, 2003  

“我會(huì)把這個(gè)期刊電郵給他們,告訴他們我不會(huì)再同它有任何聯(lián)系了,除非他們能擺脫那個(gè)令人討厭的編輯”  

瓊斯教授似乎正通過游說以開除《Climate Research》的這名編輯,《Climate Research》是一份發(fā)表了反對(duì)氣候變化的論文的科學(xué)期刊。  

發(fā)件人 Phil Jones. 收件人: Michael Mann. 日期: 五月 29, 2008  

“你能刪除你可能同Keith關(guān)于AR4的任何往來郵件么?Keith也會(huì)這么做。”  

氣候變化懷疑論者試圖借助信息自由法令來獲取一份提交給IPCC的稱為AR4報(bào)告的原始?xì)夂驍?shù)據(jù)。這個(gè)科學(xué)家不希望電子郵件往來的有關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)被公開。  

發(fā)件人: Michael Mann. 收件人: Phil Jones 和 Gabi Hegerl (愛丁堡大學(xué)). 日期: 八月 10, 2004  

菲爾和我不久將樂此不疲地回復(fù)白癡們更加假大空的批評(píng)。

科學(xué)家們從不試圖掩藏他們的鄙棄——?dú)夂蜃兓瘧岩烧撜邆儗?duì)科學(xué)家們的工作要求更多的資料。

(東安哥拉大學(xué)來信:最有爭議的論述—電報(bào)訊 2009年 11月23日)  

有爭議電子郵件的完全列表―――在Alleged CRU Emails能找到,由eastangliaemails.com:網(wǎng)站發(fā)布。

重要的是,電子信件的作者們直接參與了聯(lián)合國氣候變化專門委員會(huì)的工作:

“(他們)是一小組科學(xué)家,多年來推動(dòng)了在全世界范圍內(nèi)發(fā)布關(guān)于全球變暖的警告,在這方面多年來比其他同行更有影響力,其作用超出了他們?cè)诼?lián)合國政府間氣候變化專門委員會(huì)(IPCC)核心扮演的角色。

菲利普·瓊斯教授,英國東安吉里亞大學(xué)的氣候研究所(CRU)的主任,他負(fù)責(zé)兩部分關(guān)鍵性的數(shù)據(jù)資料,IPCC用來起草它的報(bào)告。通過它連接的哈德利中心,該中心屬于英國密特辦公室的一部分,選擇大部分IPCC的重要科學(xué)貢獻(xiàn)者們。菲利普教授的全球氣溫記錄是四組氣溫?cái)?shù)據(jù)資料中最重要的部分,IPCC和各個(gè)政府都依賴這個(gè)資料,它們不僅預(yù)測(cè)說世界將變暖到災(zāi)難性的程度――除非花費(fèi)幾千億美元方能避免,甚至更多。

瓊斯博士還是一個(gè)緊密組合團(tuán)隊(duì)的關(guān)鍵人物。即美國和英國科學(xué)家們負(fù)責(zé)傳播的世界溫度圖表,此圖表由邁克·麥恩的“曲棍球之桿”圖表承載和傳送,10年前因展示此圖表改變了氣象歷史的方向,“經(jīng)過一千多年的下降,全球氣溫最近攀升到了有記錄以來的歷史的最高水平”(克瑞斯托夫·布克教授,氣候變化:這是我們這一代最壞的科學(xué)丑聞,電報(bào)訊,2009年11月28日)

有爭議的信件之一是瓊斯博士的(發(fā)表于---東安哥拉信箱網(wǎng)址),它指出資料被故意歪曲利用了。

親愛的Ray,Mike及Malcolm:

一旦Tim在這里得到圖表,我們馬上發(fā)出,不晚于今晚和明早。

我剛剛完成了Mike在《自然》【科學(xué)期刊】里玩的把戲,通過在過去20年中(即從之前的1981年)的每個(gè)系列的真實(shí)溫度中加入數(shù)據(jù)而對(duì)Keith的工作則從1961年起加入數(shù)據(jù)以隱藏(溫度)下降(的事實(shí))。Mike的系列的有了每年陸地和海洋的數(shù)據(jù),其他兩個(gè)也有了20年中4月到9月北半球陸地的數(shù)據(jù)。后邊兩個(gè)對(duì)1999年是真實(shí)的,大致估計(jì)1999年北半球綜合起來相對(duì)于61-90年上升了0.44度。算上10月份,全球估計(jì)1999年相對(duì)上升0.35攝氏度,1998年則是0.57度。

感謝你的意見,Ray!

干杯!

Phil

菲爾·瓊斯教授

氣候研究中心 電話+44 xxx xxxx xxxx

環(huán)境科學(xué)院 傳真+44 xxx xxxx xxxx

東安哥拉大學(xué)

挪威 瓊斯教授電子信箱[email protected]

NR4 7TJ

UK

來源:Alleged CRU Emails――可查資料由 eastangliaemails.com網(wǎng)站發(fā)布

美國國會(huì)調(diào)查  

哥本哈根峰會(huì)開幕僅僅還有兩周,美國國會(huì)現(xiàn)在正在調(diào)查“全球變暖電子郵件”。

美國國會(huì)開始調(diào)查氣象科學(xué)家,通過黑客進(jìn)入他們的電子郵件和文件,去看他們的全球變暖理論是否進(jìn)行了誤導(dǎo),歪曲了事實(shí)背后的氣候變化原因。

調(diào)查員已經(jīng)開始“研究”上周黑客們偷竊出的1079條電子郵件和3800多個(gè)文件,這些信息來自英國東安哥拉大學(xué)的氣候研究所(CRU),記者達(dá)瑞歐·艾薩從加利福尼亞向華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)報(bào)告

被發(fā)表在網(wǎng)頁上的一些泄露的電子郵件和文件,如www.Wikileaks.org和www.EastAngliaEmails.com,表明了科學(xué)家和懷疑論者之間的日漸緊張氣氛。其他的是一些關(guān)于馬上來臨的會(huì)議和研討日程的一般聲明。

根據(jù)他的網(wǎng)頁,來自俄克拉荷馬州的眾議員James Inhofe周一說,泄露出來的來往郵件顯示,研究人員“煸炒科學(xué),使得這些事情看起來似乎科學(xué)被搞定了,當(dāng)然我們知道從來也沒有定論。

白宮科學(xué)顧問John Holdren也被調(diào)查了。因?yàn)樗囊粭l2003年的電子郵件被黑客盜竊了。這條是寫給賓夕法尼亞州立大學(xué)邁克·麥恩(Michael Mann)的。

“我很高興準(zhǔn)備對(duì)這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)交流提出我的看法。我認(rèn)為任何人讀到我寫的全部信件后,都將看到那是一個(gè)非常嚴(yán)肅和平和的態(tài)度,對(duì)于‘證明之負(fù)擔(dān)’的質(zhì)疑,在這種語境情形下,探討與科學(xué)密切相關(guān)的公共政策分歧。”Holdren說。

同時(shí),東安哥拉大學(xué)說,他們將協(xié)助警方,并將開始他們自己的內(nèi)部調(diào)查。該大學(xué)發(fā)布公告稱,這個(gè)泄密是“惡作劇行為”,并說要協(xié)助警方的調(diào)查。

這個(gè)公告還闡明,CRU的主任瓊斯教授解釋了他在1999年11月份的電子郵件中說的那句話,“我剛好完成了Mike的自然把戲——把此前20年(即從1981年以來)每個(gè)系列的真實(shí)溫度增加了,把1961年以來了Keith的下降數(shù)據(jù)隱藏了。”

瓊斯說,“把戲”這個(gè)詞用作“口語,意思是做明智的事情”,如果說這個(gè)詞引起了誤解隱喻了任何負(fù)面意思的話,那是荒唐可笑的。

數(shù)據(jù)資料泄露恰巧發(fā)生在12月7日-18日在哥本哈根召開聯(lián)合國氣候大會(huì)的兩周之前,屆時(shí)192個(gè)國家將與會(huì),并討論出解決方案,如何在全球范圍減少二氧化碳的排放,以及其他溫室效應(yīng)氣體。(國際商業(yè)時(shí)報(bào),2009年12月24日)

同時(shí),“國際共同體(international community)”(由主流媒體支持)發(fā)表了反擊,指責(zé)正在開展的批評(píng)運(yùn)動(dòng)是污蔑狂潮

IPCC的主席—Rajendra Pachauri,上周準(zhǔn)備好了他的團(tuán)隊(duì)在2007年的研究結(jié)果。這個(gè)研究是關(guān)于全球氣候反應(yīng)的基礎(chǔ),包括美國和中國這星期共同提出的二氧化碳排放目標(biāo)。

目前為止,氣象學(xué)家們尚未提到泄露的郵件會(huì)削弱氣候變化證據(jù)材料的嚴(yán)密性。實(shí)際上,在科學(xué)雜志上的一項(xiàng)新的研究結(jié)果顯示,極地冰覆蓋層的融化速度比幾年前預(yù)測(cè)的要快。

在本周一個(gè)記者電話會(huì)議上,一位電子郵件被泄露的科學(xué)家——賓夕法尼亞州立大學(xué)的氣象地理學(xué)家邁克·麥恩(Michael Mann)說,無論電子郵件被怎樣炒作,絕對(duì)沒有任何郵件會(huì)在氣候變化的深層次共識(shí)上產(chǎn)生問題。

這是個(gè)“用來分散公眾注意力的污蔑狂潮”,麥恩說,麥恩是哥本哈根診斷(the Copenhagen Diagnosis)的共同執(zhí)筆人,這個(gè)氣候變化的報(bào)告發(fā)表在本周,在哥本哈根大會(huì)召開之前。他又說,“那些反對(duì)氣候行動(dòng)的人們,根本沒有科學(xué)站在他們一邊。”

東安哥拉大學(xué)CRU的Trevor Davies教授把偷竊資料說成是一個(gè)最新范例,一股企圖“打亂理性探討”的潮流,即攪亂哥本哈根馬上要召開的關(guān)于全球氣候變化的峰會(huì)。(例如“氣候門”看門狗們?cè)诟绫竟鍟?huì)臨近之際的全球變暖大辯論,見csmonitor.com;基督教科學(xué)箴言報(bào),2009年11月29日,特別增加)

但是在這次反擊中意味深長的是,(泄露的)電子郵件的真實(shí)性沒有被IPCC的科學(xué)家們質(zhì)疑。

科學(xué)家們沒說“我們沒干”,他們的意思是全球變暖共識(shí)(深入人心),已經(jīng)可以毫不顧及他們選擇性地曲解數(shù)據(jù)以及把批評(píng)者從氣候變化的科學(xué)討論中排斥出去的行為。

民間社會(huì)組織和環(huán)保組織是什么立場呢?  

民間社會(huì)組織正在進(jìn)行動(dòng)員,他們的看法是推動(dòng)官方政府代表團(tuán):

“兩年前,在巴厘島的聯(lián)合國氣候大會(huì)上,所有會(huì)員國政府同意設(shè)定時(shí)間表,確保哥本哈根大會(huì)上達(dá)成的強(qiáng)力的氣候措施能夠按時(shí)推進(jìn),許多不言而喻的事情預(yù)示著這個(gè)目標(biāo)是達(dá)不到的,甚至是不可想象的。如果你需要被說服的理由,我們就轉(zhuǎn)而說一下我們合作的伙伴——電影——愚昧年代。

各國元首應(yīng)當(dāng)參加的這個(gè)會(huì)議,在最后三天,將試圖達(dá)成一項(xiàng)龐大的復(fù)雜多樣的協(xié)議,旨在減少二氧化碳,為緩解和適應(yīng)(危機(jī))提供財(cái)政支持,以及支持技術(shù)由北向南轉(zhuǎn)移。

這在歷史上是個(gè)主要的里程碑,民間社會(huì)必須對(duì)此發(fā)出一種聲音,號(hào)召公平、雄心和不懈努力。我們準(zhǔn)備好了,但我們需要讓領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們知道全世界也有準(zhǔn)備,是吧?(締約方第15次哥本哈根氣候大會(huì)

涉及氣候變化郵件丑聞,民間社會(huì)活動(dòng)家們站在什么位置呢?

這些民間社會(huì)組織,許多都是由大基金會(huì)和政府創(chuàng)建的,它們將會(huì)繼續(xù)無保留地?fù)碜o(hù)全球變暖的共識(shí)嗎?

世界野生動(dòng)物基金會(huì)(WWF)和綠色和平組織是它們中間的若干關(guān)鍵民間組織,它們正在推動(dòng)哥本哈根會(huì)議的議程。它們的立場不會(huì)動(dòng)搖。

環(huán)境學(xué)家們的組織要求減低CO2排放,并非是以此為手段對(duì)付污染難題,而是為了以此為武器來扭轉(zhuǎn)全球變暖的進(jìn)程。對(duì)于許多這樣的組織來說,聯(lián)合國氣候變化框架公約(UNFCCC)就是“圣經(jīng)”,它是不能被挑戰(zhàn)的,盡管那些支持全球變暖共識(shí)的氣象數(shù)據(jù)資料變得可疑或有爭議。

當(dāng)包括綠色和平組織和WWF在內(nèi)的主流非政府組織團(tuán)體繼續(xù)支持這個(gè)共識(shí)的時(shí)候,已經(jīng)有一股小的正在增長的趨勢(shì)——挑戰(zhàn)哥本哈根第15次締約國峰會(huì)議程的合法性,同時(shí)指責(zé)UNPCC篡改數(shù)據(jù)。這種數(shù)據(jù)的篡改直接服務(wù)于利益驅(qū)動(dòng)下的碳貿(mào)易陰謀。

另類峰會(huì):09年氣候論壇  

NGO們將召開一個(gè)類似的另類峰會(huì)——09年氣候論壇。預(yù)期將每天將有超過一萬人出席09年氣候論壇的各種探討。

主要的國際非政府組織和環(huán)境科學(xué)家團(tuán)體將出席,它們中間包括地球之友(the Earth),反對(duì)氣候變化運(yùn)動(dòng)(Campaign against Climate Change)。

09年氣候論壇最后達(dá)成的宣言草案,將提出一個(gè)更公正的世界社會(huì)的社會(huì)理想,同時(shí)強(qiáng)調(diào)為了應(yīng)對(duì)全球變暖和糧食主權(quán),有必要促成社會(huì)的重大變化,以及社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的重大變化。(見09年氣候論壇宣言

盡管在NGO團(tuán)體中存在對(duì)上千億的碳交易體系的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì),另類峰會(huì)將不挑戰(zhàn)全球變暖共識(shí)和此理論所依據(jù)的數(shù)據(jù)庫。(所有事件——09年氣候論壇

盡管批評(píng)和活躍的聲音將在另類論壇的各種討論中出現(xiàn),09年氣候論壇的組織內(nèi)容安排中仍將服從正式的議事日程。考慮各方因素,09年氣候論壇的丹尼斯主辦者們將與主辦官方峰會(huì)的當(dāng)?shù)卣〉寐?lián)系,同時(shí)間舉辦這個(gè)另類峰會(huì),(政治平臺(tái)·09年氣候論壇)這就意味著替代性峰會(huì)上的不同意見的界限將被謹(jǐn)慎地界定。

這里沒有真正的行動(dòng)主義,除非說假話和暗箱操縱的UNPCC活動(dòng)——包括數(shù)據(jù)庫和上千億利益驅(qū)動(dòng)的碳交易陰謀被完全曝光、公開討論,并使公眾覺悟。

_________________________

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

志愿翻譯小組

相關(guān)閱讀:軍事用途的“環(huán)境更改技術(shù)”(ENMOD)與氣候變化被排除在哥本哈根會(huì)議議程之外

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16413

Excluded from the Copenhagen Agenda:   

Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and Climate Change  

The manipulation of climate for military use  

   

by Michel Chossudovsky  

   

The term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)

"Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war." (Eco News) 

"[Weather modification] offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies." (US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report)  


World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 with a view to reaching an agreement on Global Warming. The debate on Climate Change focuses on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and measures to reduce manmade CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.    

The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability. Neither the governments nor the environmental action groups, have raised the issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)." for military use. Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of climatic manipulations for military use has been excluded from the UN agenda on climate change.  

John von Neumann noted at the height of the Cold War (1955), with tremendous foresight that:  

 "Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters ....will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present... [T]his will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done." (Quoted in Spencer Weart, Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes, Global Research, December 5, 20090  

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (AP, 18 May 1977). Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.   

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, ... and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (...) Recognizing that military ... use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military ... use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. ... and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (...) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military ... use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)   

The Convention defined "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)   

The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in very general terms in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:   

"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction."  (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992)   

Following the 1992 Earth Summit, the issue of Climate Change for military use was never raised in subsequent climate change summits and venues under the auspices of the UNFCCC. The issue was erased, forgotten. It is not part of the debate on climate change.   

In February 1998, however, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program.

The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:   

"Considers HAARP.[The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program  based in Alaska].. by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).   

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).   

In 2007, The Daily Express reported --following the release and declassification of British government papers from the National Archives-- that:  

"The [declassified] documents reveal that both the US, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had secret military programmes with the goal of controlling the world's climate. "By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather, " one scientist is said to have boasted.   

...  

These claims are dismissed by sceptics as wild conspiracy theories and the stuff of James Bond movies but there is growing evidence that the boundaries between science fiction and fact are becoming increasingly blurred. The Americans now admit that they invested L12million over five years during the Vietnam war on "cloud seeding" - deliberately creating heavy rainfall to wash away enemy crops and destroy supply routes on the Ho Chi Minh trail, in an operation codenamed Project Popeye.   

It is claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in targeted areas, making the weather-manipulation weapon a success. At the time, government officials said the region was prone to heavy rain. (Weather War?, Daily Express, July 16, 2007)  

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military agenda, while formally acknowledged by official government documents and the US military, has never been considered relevant to the Climate debate. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.   

The HAARP Program  

The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, has been in existence since 1992. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere" [upper layer of the atmosphere]:   

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004  

Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar. (Ibid)   

HAARP also has the ability of triggering blackouts and disrupting the electricity power system of entire regions:   

"Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a(chǎn) gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.   

Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’. HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.   

According to a report by the Russian State Duma: ‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’   

Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries." (Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007)  

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World. According to an official US Air force report   

"Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels." (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ emphasis added)   

Copenhagen CO15  

The manipulation of climate for military use is potentially a greater threat to humanity than CO2 emissions.    

Why has it been excluded from the debate under COP15, when the UN 1977 Convention states quite explicitly that "military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare"? (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques United Nations, Geneva, 1977)

Why the camouflage?

Why are environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) not being debated by the civil society and environmentalist organizations under the auspices of the Alternative Forum KlimaForum09?  

  




Related articles

Spencer Weart, Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes, Global Research, December 5, 2009

Weather War?, Daily Express, July 16, 2007

Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007

Michel Chossudovsky, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004  


ANNEX  

Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976. The Convention was opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977.   

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques   

The States Parties to this Convention, Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,   

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,   

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,   

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,   

Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,   

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,   

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,   

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,   

Have agreed as follows:   

Article I 1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.   

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.   

Article II As used in article 1, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.   

Article III 1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.   

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.   

Article IV Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

Article V 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.   

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.   

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.   

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.   

5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.   

Article VI 1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.   

2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.   

Article VII This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.   

Article VIII 1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.   

2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to this Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.   

3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to this Convention concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.   

Article IX 1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.   

2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.   

3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.   

4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.   

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.   

6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.   

Article X This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.   

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention   

Done at Geneva, on the 18 day of May 1977.   

Annex to the Convention   

Consultative Committee of Experts 1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.   

2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.   

3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.   

4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.   

5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committee's work.   


 Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky  

   

「 支持烏有之鄉(xiāng)!」

烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運(yùn)行與維護(hù)。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站,宣傳紅色文化!

注:配圖來自網(wǎng)絡(luò)無版權(quán)標(biāo)志圖像,侵刪!
聲明:文章僅代表作者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn),不代表本站觀點(diǎn)——烏有之鄉(xiāng) 責(zé)任編輯:執(zhí)中

歡迎掃描下方二維碼,訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)

收藏

心情表態(tài)

今日頭條

點(diǎn)擊排行

  • 兩日熱點(diǎn)
  • 一周熱點(diǎn)
  • 一月熱點(diǎn)
  • 心情
  1. 反抗吧,我的人民,反抗吧
  2. 再說掩耳盜鈴
  3. 評(píng)上海富二代用豪車揚(yáng)我國威:豪車統(tǒng)治著富人和窮人
  4. 彭勝玉:公安部定性電詐存在嚴(yán)重問題,本質(zhì)是恐怖組織有組織綁架販賣囚禁中國人口,強(qiáng)烈建議移交中國軍方解決
  5. 湖北石鋒|讓“個(gè)人崇拜"論見鬼去吧!
  6. 吃飽了才會(huì)有道德嗎?
  7. 為什么總有人把毛主席放在后四十年的對(duì)立面?
  8. 毛主席,為什么反不得?
  9. 劉繼明|隨想錄(20)
  10. 簡評(píng)蘇俄知識(shí)分子的厄運(yùn)
  1. 孔慶東|做毛主席的好戰(zhàn)士,敢于戰(zhàn)斗,善于戰(zhàn)斗——紀(jì)念毛主席誕辰131年韶山講話
  2. “深水區(qū)”背后的階級(jí)較量,撕裂利益集團(tuán)!
  3. 大蕭條的時(shí)代特征:歷史在重演
  4. 央媒的反腐片的確“驚艷”,可有誰想看續(xù)集?
  5. 瘋狂從老百姓口袋里掏錢,發(fā)現(xiàn)的時(shí)候已經(jīng)怨聲載道了!
  6. 到底誰“封建”?
  7. 張勤德|廣大民眾在“總危機(jī)爆發(fā)期”的新覺醒 ——試答多位好友尖銳和有價(jià)值的提問
  8. 兩個(gè)草包經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家:向松祚、許小年
  9. 該來的還是來了,潤美殖人被遣返,資產(chǎn)被沒收,美吹群秒變美帝批判大會(huì)
  10. 掩耳盜鈴及其他
  1. 北京景山紅歌會(huì)隆重紀(jì)念毛主席逝世48周年
  2. 元龍:不換思想就換人?貪官頻出亂乾坤!
  3. 遼寧王忠新:必須直面“先富論”的“十大痛點(diǎn)”
  4. 劉教授的問題在哪
  5. 季羨林到底是什么樣的人
  6. 十一屆三中全會(huì)公報(bào)認(rèn)為“顛倒歷史”的“右傾翻案風(fēng)”,是否存在?
  7. 歷數(shù)阿薩德罪狀,觸目驚心!
  8. 陳中華:如果全面私有化,就沒革命的必要
  9. 我們還等什么?
  10. 只有李先念有理由有資格這樣發(fā)問!
  1. 車間主任焦裕祿
  2. 地圖未開疆,后院先失火
  3. 孔慶東|做毛主席的好戰(zhàn)士,敢于戰(zhàn)斗,善于戰(zhàn)斗——紀(jì)念毛主席誕辰131年韶山講話
  4. 孔慶東|做毛主席的好戰(zhàn)士,敢于戰(zhàn)斗,善于戰(zhàn)斗——紀(jì)念毛主席誕辰131年韶山講話
  5. 何滌宙:一位長征功臣的歷史湮沒之謎
  6. 央媒的反腐片的確“驚艷”,可有誰想看續(xù)集?