报告揭示了洛克斐勒家族秘密的气候变化计划

2019年8月9日14:05:00报告揭示了洛克斐勒家族秘密的气候变化计划已关闭评论 539 28197字阅读93分59秒
摘要

为什么有那么多才华横溢的科学家发表论文,发表观点,却从未得到任何关注?为什么他们会被主流社会嘲笑和暗杀?这是怎么回事?

报告揭示了洛克斐勒家族秘密的气候变化计划

事实:20世纪80年代,洛克菲勒兄弟基金会成为全球变暖的权威。他们为什么要这么做?这些人是真的关心我们的星球,还是仅仅为了别有用心的目的而从加强安全状态中获利并为之辩护?

反思:为什么有那么多才华横溢的科学家发表论文,发表观点,却从未得到任何关注?为什么他们会被主流社会嘲笑和暗杀?这是怎么回事?

The climate is changing,and it has been changing for a very long time.In fact,the climate has always been changing,and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more.If you're not educated on climate science,it's easy to adopt the"doomsday"perspective that's often dished out by mainstream media.However,when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying,it doesn't seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media's"climate hysteria"narrative.

气候正在变化,而且已经变化了很长一段时间。事实上,气候一直在变化,影响气候变化的因素有很多,比如太阳活动等等。如果你没有接受过气候科学方面的教育,很容易接受主流媒体经常抛出的"世界末日"的观点。然而,当你看看实际的气候科学家在说什么,似乎没有任何一方同意媒体的"气候歇斯底里"的叙述。

The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been since we started to record them,currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million(ppm).It's not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that CO2 causes some warming of our atmosphere,that seems to be a fact that's firmly established in scientific literature.But what's never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now;in fact,CO2 levels have been in thousands ppm and Earth's temperature has been much warmer than it is now.The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in the climate is not scientifically valid,yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward,putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.

那些认为这是歇斯底里观点的人的主要论点是,自从我们开始记录以来,二氧化碳水平达到了有史以来的最高水平,目前大约处于百万分之415。气候科学家并不反对二氧化碳导致大气变暖的观点,这似乎是一个在科学文献中已经牢固确立的事实。但是从来没有提到的事实是,二氧化碳水平已经明显高于现在的水平;事实上,二氧化碳水平已经达到了几千 ppm,而且地球的温度比现在要高得多。认为人类的二氧化碳排放导致了气候的变化和改变的观点在科学上是站不住脚的,然而对我们的环境没有任何作用的政策倡议正在产生和提出,把大量的钱放进了一些非常有权势的人的口袋里。

"Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago,when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million!Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago,with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm.When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago,the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm–still five times the current level."–Dennis T.Avery,agricultural and environmental economist,senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia,and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S.Department of State(source)

"我们的作物大约在4亿年前进化,当时大气中的二氧化碳含量约为百万分之5000!我们的常绿乔木和灌木大约在3.6亿年前进化,二氧化碳水平大约在4000ppm。大约1.6亿年前,当我们的落叶树进化时,二氧化碳水平约为2200ppm——仍然是目前水平的5倍。"-Dennis t.Avery,农业和环境经济学家,弗吉尼亚全球粮食问题中心高级研究员,前美国国务院高级分析师

CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument,but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase,or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?

引起温度上升的二氧化碳是全球变暖论点的支柱,但二氧化碳是否甚至导致温度上升,或者温度上升是否导致二氧化碳上升?

"The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature?The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up.Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase.Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence?Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true.Why isn't this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?"–Dr.Tim Ball,(source)former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg

"问题是,政府间气候变化专门委员会政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)如何确定大气中二氧化碳的增加导致了全球气温的上升?答案是,他们假设情况确实如此,并通过增加计算机气候模型中的二氧化碳水平和气温上升来证实了这一点。科学必须忽略这样一个事实,即他们编写的计算机代码告诉计算机随着二氧化碳的增加而升高温度。科学必须要问这个序列是否得到了经验证明的证实?一些科学家这样做了,发现经验证明表明这不是真的。为什么这不是所有关于人为全球变暖的辩论的中心?"-Tim Ball 博士,前温尼泊大学地理系教授

William Happer,American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics,Emeritus,at Princeton University,is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:

美国物理学家 William Happer 和普林斯顿大学物理学荣誉退休教授 Cyrus Fogg Brackett 教授是数以千计的主流媒体所不闻的学者之一,他们有着相同的观点:

In every careful study,the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises,and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls,temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years,there's no question about that.(source)

在每一个仔细的研究中,温度首先升高,然后二氧化碳上升,温度首先下降,然后二氧化碳下降,至少在过去的一百万年中,温度引起了二氧化碳的变化,这是毫无疑问的。(来源)

He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth's past when C02 levels were also extremely high,much higher than they are now,and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is"not all that good."

他还指出了地球过去的主要冰河时期,当时的二氧化碳水平也非常高,远远高于现在的水平。他这样做是为了说明二氧化碳和气温之间的相关性"并不那么好"

In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core,Petit et al(1999),they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years,but offer no explanation.They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other,but offer no explanation.The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts.At the onset of glaciations,temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall,suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.

在他们关于沃斯托克冰芯的论文中,petite et al(1999),他们展示了二氧化碳如何在冰川期开始时将温度滞后了几千年,但是没有提供解释。他们还观察到甲烷和二氧化碳并不是完全一致的,但是没有提供解释。重要的是,温度可能影响 C02的含量。在冰川期开始时,温度在二氧化碳开始下降之前降至冰川值,这表明二氧化碳在这些时候对温度调节的影响也很小。

In 1988,the NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer's warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels.Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.

1988年,美国宇航局科学家詹姆斯·汉森告诉美国参议院,夏季的温暖反映了二氧化碳水平的增加。甚至连《科学》杂志也报道,气候学家对此持怀疑态度。

The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector.One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong,a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer(who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN's Oil for Food program scandals).Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s,and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.Others like Olaf Palme and his friend,Bert Bolin,who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,were also involved as early as the 1970s.–Dr.Richard Lindzen(source)

我们现在之所以把这一立场当作教条,是因为政治行为者和其他人试图利用价值数万亿美元的能源领域的大量机会。莫里斯斯特朗(Maurice Strong)就是受益者之一,他是一位全球官僚和精明的商人(他在中国度过了人生的最后几年,显然是为了避免因在联合国石油换食品项目丑闻中扮演的角色而被起诉)。斯特朗经常被认为在20世纪80年代初发起了全球变暖运动,随后他帮助策划了里约会议,产生了《联合国气候变化框架公约》。其他人,比如 Olaf Palme 和他的朋友 Bert Bolin----美国政府间气候变化专门委员会储备委员会的第一任主席----早在20世纪70年代就参与其中。-Richard Lindzen 博士(资料来源)

Since 1999,this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers,but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes'extreme warming.'

1999年以来,这个理论已经在许多科学论文中被讨论过,但是没有一丝一毫的证据能够证实二氧化碳的增加导致了"极端气候变暖"

Doubling COinvolves a 2%perturbation to this budget.So do minor changes in clouds and other features,and such changes are common.In this complex multifactor system,what is the likelihood of the climate(which,itself,consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly)is controlled by this 2%perturbation in a single variable?Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic.Instead,you are told that it is believing in'science.'Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss.After all,science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the'overwhelming evidence'for forthcoming catastrophe.Without these claims,one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.Lindzen(source)

将二氧化碳排放量加倍需要对预算进行2%的干扰。云层和其他特征的细微变化也是如此,这样的变化是常见的。在这个复杂的多因素系统中,气候(其本身包含许多变量,而不仅仅是全球平均温度异常)被这个单一变量2%的扰动所控制的可能性有多大?相信这就相当于相信魔法了。相反,你被告知,它是相信"科学"这种说法应该是一个暗示,说明有些事情不对劲。毕竟,科学是一种探究的模式,而不是一种信仰结构。虚假和/或误导性声明的积累常常被称为即将到来的灾难的"压倒性证据"。如果没有这些说法,人们可能会合理地问,是否存在任何证据。林德森(来源)

Another quote stressing this point:

还有一句话强调了这一点:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system.The climate,a complex multifactor system,can be summarized in just one variable,the globally averaged temperature change,and is primarily controlled by the 1-2%perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable–carbon dioxide–among many variables of comparable importance.This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.It is,however,the narrative that has been widely accepted,even among many sceptics.This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified.Many politicians and learned societies go even further:They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable,and although mankind's CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere,they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control.Lindzen(source)

现在这里是目前流行的关于这个系统的叙述。气候是一个复杂的多因素系统,可以用一个变量——全球平均温度变化——来概括,主要由一个变量——二氧化碳——在许多具有可比重要性的变量中引起的能量收支的1-2%的扰动所控制。这是基于近乎神奇式思考的推理而得出的两个非同寻常的结论。然而,这种说法已被广泛接受,甚至在许多怀疑论者中也是如此。这种接受程度是雪花识别问题的一个强有力的指标。许多政治家和学者社会甚至走得更远:他们认可二氧化碳作为控制变量,尽管人类对二氧化碳的贡献与海洋和生物圈之间更大但却不确定的自然交换相比微不足道,但他们确信他们知道为了控制二氧化碳,应该实施什么样的政策。林德森(来源)

The quotes above comes from Richard Lindzen,an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.He was the Alfred P.Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7,"Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,"of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change(the organization that's pushing the global warming and climate change agenda).

上面的引用来自 Richard Lindzen,一位已经发表了200多篇科学论文和书籍的大气物理学家。他是麻省理工学院的 Alfred p.Sloan 气象学教授,实际上他是第7"物理气候过程和反馈"的主要作者,该章是美国政府间气候变化专门委员会第三次气候变化评估报告(该组织正在推动全球变暖和气候变化议程)

A number of times,Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians,not scientists.There will be more on that later in the article.

很多时候,林德森和其他许多人对这份由政治家而不是科学家得出的结论直言不讳。关于这个问题,我们将在后面的文章中进一步讨论。

According to Dr.Leslie Woodcock,emeritus professor at the University of Manchester(UK)School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science,is a former NASA scientist:

根据英国曼彻斯特大学化学工程与分析科学学院的名誉教授 Leslie Woodcock 博士的说法,他曾是美国宇航局的科学家:

The term'climate change'is meaningless.The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial,that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago.The theory of'man-made climate change'is an unsubstantiated hypothesis[about]our climate[which says it]has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years,causing the average temperature on the earth's surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the'greenhouse gas'causing'global warming'—in fact,water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere(around one per cent of the atmosphere)whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything in science,it's not significant…(source)

"气候变化"一词毫无意义。自古以来,地球的气候一直在变化,也就是说,自从地球在10亿年前形成以来。"人为气候变化"理论是一个未经证实的关于我们气候的假说,该假说认为,在过去100年中,化石燃料的燃烧对我们的气候产生了不利影响,导致地球表面的平均温度略有上升,但却带来了灾难性的环境后果。该理论认为,燃烧化石燃料所排放的二氧化碳是导致"全球变暖""温室气体"ーー实际上,水是一种更强大的温室气体,在我们的大气层中,二氧化碳的含量是其20(约占大气层的1%),而二氧化碳仅占0.04%。没有可再生的科学证据表明二氧化碳在过去100年中显著增加。轶事证据在科学上没有任何意义,它不重要...(来源)

In the IPCC documents,we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are,specifically in their findings titled'Climate Change 2001:The Scientific Basis.'Here was one of their recommendations:

在联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会的文件中,我们可以看到气候变化和二氧化碳排放之间的联系是多么的脆弱,特别是在他们题为"2001年气候变化:科学基础"的发现中
以下是他们的建议之一:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations.The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system,and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

通过开发多种模式计算集合,更充分地探索未来气候状态的概率特征。气候系统是一个耦合的非线性混沌系统,因此对未来精确气候状态的长期预测是不可能的。相反,重点必须放在通过生成模型解的集合来预测系统未来可能状态的概率分布上。

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC,we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science.The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

如果我们回顾一下1995年联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会的第二次评估报告,我们可以看到议程在多大程度上掩盖和压制了实际的科学。科学家们在草案中包括了以下三个声明:

1."None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed(climate)changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"以上引用的研究都没有明确证据表明,我们可以将观察到的(气候)变化归因于温室气体增加的具体原因。"

2."No study to date has positively attributed all or part(of observed climate change)to anthropogenic(i.e.man-made)causes."

"迄今为止,没有任何研究将(观测到的气候变化)的全部或部分归因于人为原因。"

3."Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"在气候系统自然变化的不确定性减少之前,任何对重大气候变化进行积极探测的说法都可能仍然存在争议。"

The"Summary"and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians,not scientists.The rules force the'scientists'to change their reports to match the politicians'final'Summary.'Those three statements by'scientists'above were replaced with this:

政府间气候变化专门委员会报告的"摘要"和结论陈述是由政治家而不是科学家撰写的。这些规定迫使"科学家"修改他们的报告,以符合政治家的最终"摘要"上面提到的科学家的三个观点被替换为:

1."The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

"证据的平衡表明,人类对全球气候有明显的影响。"

Here's another great point made by Lindzen:

林德森还提出了另一个重要观点:

How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth's climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness.Perhaps one should take a broader view of what's going on.(source)

为了理解气候实际上是如何运作的,我们是如何走到这一步的,科学家们开始对解释地球气候的非凡历史这个迷人的问题感兴趣,而不是致力于研究政治正确的一个组成部分。也许我们应该从更广阔的角度来看待这一切。(来源)

Below are some more comments by him regarding the politics of climate science.It's something I compare to the politicization of medical science and the corporate takeover of medical science by big pharma.Medicine is another area where we see brilliant minds creating awareness and publishing papers that,for some reason,get ridiculed and the authors are subjected to character assassination.

下面是他关于气候科学政治的一些评论。我把它比作医学科学的政治化和大型制药公司对医学科学的公司接管。医学是另一个领域,我们看到杰出的头脑创造意识和发表论文,出于某种原因,被嘲笑和作者受到人格暗杀。

97%的索赔

The mainstream media and people who support the idea that humans are warming the planet often quote the fact that'97 percent of scientists agree with them.'First of all,this is not true,and again,we don't know if humans are warming the planet.

主流媒体和那些支持人类正在使地球变暖这一观点的人经常引用"97%的科学家同意他们的观点"首先,这是不正确的,再说一遍,我们不知道人类是否正在使地球变暖。

"This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree.In either case,the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science.Mere agreement with the 97%will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster.This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people.The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented.A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer.One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased,that the Earth has been warming(albeit only a little)and that man has played some part.This is,indeed,something almost all of us can agree on,but which has no obvious implication of danger.Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism.Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger.If among these few,97%support catastrophism,the 97%is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts.One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor(a once respected and influential newspaper):"For the record,of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014,four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change."I don't think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons."–Richard Lindzen,from his paper "Straight Talk About Climate Change," where he goes into greater detail.

"这种说法实际上是对1988年《新闻周刊》封面上所有科学家都同意的说法的贬低。无论哪种情况,这种说法都是为了让非专家满意:他或她没有必要理解科学。与97%的人达成一致意见将表明一个人是科学的支持者,比任何否认灾难的人都要优越。这实际上满足了许多人的心理需求。索赔是由若干个人提出的,提出索赔的方式有若干种。巴斯特和斯宾塞在《华尔街日报》上对此进行了彻底的揭露。其中一个回避的问题是对科学家进行民意调查,看他们是否同意大气中的二氧化碳含量增加了,地球变暖了(尽管只是一点点),而人类在其中扮演了一定的角色。事实上,这是我们几乎所有人都能达成一致的,但却没有明显的危险含义。尽管如此,这被描绘成对灾难论的支持。其他的回避方法包括查看大量的摘要,其中只有少数真正涉及到危险。如果在这些少数,97%的支持灾变论,97%是属于更大的总体摘要。我最喜欢的一篇文章是《基督教科学箴言报》(Christian Science Monitor)最近发表的一篇文章:"我郑重声明,在2013年和2014年发表的近7万篇关于全球变暖的同行评议文章中,有四位作者反驳了人类是气候变化主要驱动因素的观点。"《基督教科学箴言报》曾一度受到尊重,我不认为只有专家才能认识到这种说法是一种奇怪的幻想,原因有很多。"年的今天,理查德·林德森(Richard Lindzen)在他的论文《直接谈论气候变化》(Straight Talk About Climate Change)中进行了更详细的阐述。

This is a deep topic and there are many points to make.Here's a great video by Alex Epstein,founder of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University,explaining the 97 percent myth and where it came from.

这是一个深奥的话题,有许多要点。以下是普拉格大学工业进步中心创始人亚历克斯·爱泼斯坦的一个很棒的视频,解释了97%的神话以及它从何而来。

Below is a video from Lindzen that sums up the issue quite well.

下面是一段来自 Lindzen 的视频,很好地总结了这个问题。

硬币的另一面

A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters claimed that 97%of climate scientists agreed with the'humans changing the climate'narrative in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words"global warming"or"global climate change"from 1991 to 2011.Not long ago,that paper hit 1m downloads,making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+journals published by the Institute of Physics(as Lindzen mentions above,many of these papers are being published by scientists outside of climate physics),according to the authors.

《环境研究快报》(Environmental Research Letters)2013年的一项研究称,在1991年至2011年的12,000篇学术论文中,97%的气候科学家同意"人类改变气候"的说法,这些论文包含"全球变暖""全球气候变化"等词汇。不久前,这篇论文的下载量达到了100万次,使其成为物理研究所(Institute of Physics)发表的80多种期刊中访问量最高的一篇(正如林德森上文提到的,其中许多论文是由气候物理学以外的科学家发表的)

A recent article that presents more scientific studies was published in the Guardian,titled'No Doubt Left About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming,say experts.'

《卫报》最近发表了一篇文章,提出了更多的科学研究,题目是《关于全球变暖的科学共识不容置疑,专家说》

为什么有这么多相互矛盾的信息?

Obviously,there is an ongoing debate surrounding climate change,and many people still think something fishy is going on here.It's similar to the vaccines argument,or a host of other issues that never receive any attention from the mainstream media.Instead of presenting the concerns of scientists from the other side,or the side often labelled'skeptics,'these scientists are often heavily ridiculed by mainstream media.

显然,围绕气候变化的争论仍在继续,许多人仍然认为这里面有猫腻。这类似于疫苗的争论,或者其他一系列从未受到主流媒体关注的问题。这些科学家没有表达对方科学家的担忧,也没有给对方贴上"怀疑论者"的标签,而是常常受到主流媒体的严厉嘲笑。

A great example is this dialogue,which is quite old now,between Lindzen and Bill Nye.It's not hard to see that Nye has no idea what he is talking about,and he's simply being used because,at that time,he had a large following.

一个很好的例子是林德森和比尔·奈之间的对话,这段对话现在已经很古老了。不难看出,奈完全不知道自己在说什么,他只是被利用了,因为在那个时候,他有一大批追随者。

The reason why so many people are unaware of the arguments made by climate'skeptics'is because their points are never presented by mainstream media in the same way the other side's are.The media controls the minds of the masses,but thankfully this is changing.

之所以有这么多人没有意识到气候怀疑论者提出的论点,是因为他们的观点从未被主流媒体以同样的方式呈现。媒体控制着大众的思想,但幸运的是,这种情况正在改变。

我们深切关注这个星球

We here at CE care deeply about our planet and creating harmony on it.Since we were founded in 2009,we've been creating massive amounts of awareness regarding clean energy technologies and the harmful industries polluting and destroying our planet.The issue is not with finding solutions,we already have those for the most part,the issue is with the systems we have that prevent these solutions from ever seeing the light of day.In fact,we have been heavily involved with multiple clean energy projects and assisting them in coming into fruition.

我们在这里深切关注我们的星球,并在其上创造和谐。自从我们在2009年成立以来,我们已经建立了大量关于清洁能源技术和有害工业污染和破坏我们地球的意识。问题不在于找到解决方案----我们已经有了大部分的解决方案----问题在于我们拥有的阻止这些解决方案见天日的系统。事实上,我们一直积极参与多个清洁能源项目,并协助它们取得成果。

Opposing the'doom and gloom'global warming narrative does not mean we do not care for our environment;in fact,it's quite the opposite.We feel that politicians meeting every single year for the past few decades have done absolutely nothing to clean up our planet,and instead have been coming up with ways to simply make money off of green technology that cuts CO2 emissions.

反对全球变暖前景黯淡的说法并不意味着我们不关心我们的环境;事实上,恰恰相反。我们感到,在过去几十年里,每年召开会议的政治家们在清理我们的地球上完全没有做任何事情,相反,他们一直在想方设法从减少二氧化碳排放的绿色技术中简单地赚钱。

If the people in power,with all of their resources,really wanted to change the planet,it would have happened by now.

如果那些掌权的人,拥有他们所有的资源,真的想要改变这个星球,现在早就发生了。

While our focus is on CO2,not nearly enough attention and resources are going into re-planting our planet,cleaning up our fresh water lakes and oceans,and changing our manufacturing habits to cause less waste and less pollution.If anything,this should be our main focus,especially when it's not really clear that C02 is an issue.

虽然我们的重点是二氧化碳,但对于重新种植我们的星球、清理我们的淡水湖泊和海洋,以及改变我们的制造习惯,以减少浪费和污染,我们的注意力和资源远远不够。如果有什么区别的话,这应该是我们的主要关注点,尤其是当我们还不清楚 C02是否是一个问题的时候。

Environmental and species protection should be our first priority,but it's not.I believe this green revolution is a distraction and,in many ways,further harms our environment by taking our focus off of what's really important and putting it on something that is not impacting our planet in a negative way.

环境和物种保护应该是我们的首要任务,但事实并非如此。我相信这场绿色革命会分散我们的注意力,在很多方面会进一步损害我们的环境,因为我们把注意力从真正重要的事情上移开,把它放在一些不会对我们的地球产生负面影响的事情上。

洛克菲勒报告

In the 1980s,the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda.The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

20世纪80年代,洛克菲勒兄弟基金会成为全球变暖议程的唯一权威机构。该基金引用其对1988年成立联合国政府间政府间气候变化专门委员会变化专门委员会和1992年成立联合国气候变化框架公约的强烈支持,自豪地称自己是全球首批主要活动家之一。

"The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises,we've seen it over and over again with war.

"全球精英总是以某种形式或形式从危机中受益,我们在战争中一次又一次地看到这种情况。

What is important,however,is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family–which historically was the architect of"Big Oil"–in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists,environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against"Big Oil"and the fossil fuel industry.

然而,重要的是承认洛克斐勒家族原子能机构在支持气候变化辩论以及资助科学家、环保主义者和非政府组织参与反对"石油巨头"和化石燃料工业的基层行动中的作用。

Debate on the world's climate is of crucial importance.But who controls that debate?

关于世界气候的辩论是至关重要的。但是谁控制着这场辩论呢?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship:Whereas"Big Oil"is the target of Global Warming activism,"Big Oil"through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement.Ask yourself Why?"–Michel Chossudovsky,Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa

两者之间存在着明显的矛盾关系:"石油巨头"是全球变暖活动的目标,而通过洛克斐勒家族石油协会和洛克菲勒兄弟信托基金会的"石油巨头"则慷慨地资助全球气候抗议运动。问问自己为什么?"-Michel Chossudovsky,加拿大经济学家,名誉教授渥太华大学经济学家

You can access the full report here.It was published by the Energy&Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.

你可在此浏览整份报告。能源与环境法律研究所于2016年出版了这本书。

影响气候的其他因素的例子——即将到来的冰河时代?

Nils-Axel Mörner from the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Institute states,

来自古地球物理学和地球动力学研究所的 Nils-Axel m rner ,

By about 2030-2040,the Sun will experience a new grand solar minimum.This is evident from multiple studies of quite different characteristics:the phasing of sunspot cycles,the cyclic observations of North Atlantic behaviour over the past millennium,the cyclic pattern of cosmogenic ra-dionuclides in natural terrestrial archives,the motions of the Sun with respect to the centre of mass,the planetary spin-orbit coupling,the planetary conjunction history and the general planetary solar terrestrial interaction.During the previous grand solar minima—i.e.the Spörer Minimum(ca 1440-1460),the Maunder Minimum(ca 1687-1703)and the Dalton Minimum(ca 1809-1821)—the climatic conditions deteriorated into Little Ice Age periods.

2030-2040年左右,太阳将经历一个新的大太阳活动极小期。这一点从以下十分不同的特征进行的多项研究中可以明显看出:太阳黑子周期的相位、过去千年北大西洋行为的循环观测、自然地球档案中宇宙成因的拉二核酸循环模式、太阳相对于质量中心的运动、行星自旋-轨道耦合、行星会合历史和一般的行星与地球的相互作用。在之前的大太阳极小期。气候条件恶化为小冰期时期;气候条件恶化为小冰期时期。

The idea that solar activity is not affecting Earth's climate is extremely fishy and doesn't make much sense when you go through the literature,but it seems to be brushed off within mainstream academia,and hardly studied.It definitely made me scratch my head when IFL Science,for example,put out a statement saying"The Sun simply does not have that large an effect on our climate compared to human activity."This is a very ridiculous and irresponsible statement.It's also important that readers recognize there isn't even any course to back up such a false claim.

认为太阳活动不会影响地球气候的观点是极其可疑的,当你仔细阅读这些文献时,你会发现这种观点没有多大意义,但是主流学术界似乎对此置之不理,几乎没有研究。例如,当 IFL 科学公司发表声明说:"与人类活动相比,太阳对我们的气候没有那么大的影响。"这是一种非常荒谬和不负责任的说法。同样重要的是,读者要认识到,甚至没有任何课程可以支持这种错误的说法。

Don't believe what is written,research what is written.What's worse is the ridicule factor,the way mainstream publications attack any narrative that presents an explanation for climate change that is not human induced.Something is very wrong with this picture,regardless of your stance on the'global warming'phenomenon.There is more on this later in the article.

不要相信书面的东西,要研究书面的东西。更糟糕的是嘲笑因素,主流出版物攻击任何对气候变化做出非人为解释的叙述的方式。不管你对"全球变暖"现象持什么立场,这种观点都是非常错误的。关于这个问题,稍后的文章会有更详细的介绍。

The paper by Morner goes on to make some very important points:

莫纳的论文继续提出了一些非常重要的观点:

报告揭示了洛克斐勒家族秘密的气候变化计划

So as you can see,the comment from IFL science quoted above,again,is simply not true.I've provided one of many sources available here,and I encourage other writers to do the same.

因此,正如你所看到的,上面引用的来自 IFL 科学的评论,再一次,是完全不正确的。我在这里提供了很多资源,我鼓励其他作者也这样做。

The author goes on to conclude:

作者接着总结道:

During the last three grand solar minima…global climate experienced Little Ice Age conditions.Arctic water penetrated to the south all the way down to Mid-Portugal,and Europe experienced severe climatic conditions…The Arctic ice over expanded significantly…By 2030-2040,we will be in a New Grand Solar Minimum,which by analogy to past minima must be assumed to lead to significant climatic deterioration with ice expansion in the Artctic..We now seem to be in possession of quite convergent data…This precludes a continual warming as claimed by the IPCC project,instead of this,we are likely to face a new Little Ice Age.

在过去的三个大太阳极小期里,全球气候经历了小冰河时期。北极的水一直渗透到南方的 Mid-Portugal,欧洲经历了严酷的气候条件......北极的冰层明显扩张......2030年至2040年,我们将处于新的大太阳活动极小期,与过去的极小期相类似,必须假定导致阿尔茨克蒂奇冰层扩张的气候严重恶化。.我们现在似乎拥有相当集中的数据......这阻止了 IPCC 项目声称的持续变暖,而不是这样,我们可能面临一个新的小冰河时代。

According to the Royal Astronomical Society(RAS,

根据英国英国皇家天文学会协会(RAS,

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat.The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun,one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the'mini ice age'that began in 1645.(source)

一个新的太阳周期模型正在对太阳11年心跳的不规则性做出前所未有的准确预测。该模型利用了太阳两层的发电机效应,一层靠近太阳表面,一层深入对流区。该模型的预测表明,太阳活动将在21世纪30年代下降60%,最后一次出现是在1645年开始的迷你冰河时期。(来源)

A few years ago,the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held,where Valentina Zharkova,a mathematics professor from Northumbria University(UK),presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible.She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent,and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a"mini ice age"in approximately fifteen years.

几年前,在威尔士举行的国家天文学会议上,来自诺桑比亚大学的数学教授 Valentina Zharkova 提出了一个模型,这个模型可以比以前更准确地预测太阳周期的样子。她说,这个模型可以预测它们的影响,准确率达到97%,并且表明地球将在大约15年内进入一个"迷你冰河时代"

Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called"principal component analysis"of the magnetic field observations,from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California.Looking forward to the next few solar cycles,her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity,which again,will lead to a mini ice age.According to Zharkova.You can read more about that here.

Zharkova 和她的团队使用一种叫做"主成分分析磁场观测"的方法提出了这个模型,该方法来自加利福尼亚州的 Wilcox 太阳观测站。展望未来几个太阳活动周期,她的模型预测,从2030年到2040年,太阳活动将显著减少,这将再次导致一个小冰河时代。根据扎尔科娃的说法。你可以在这里了解更多。

Again,these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.

同样,这些只是多位科学家指出这些事实的几个例子。

这里有什么议程吗?

In a recent episode of'The Collective Evolution Show'on CETV,Joe and CE team member Richard Enos dig deep into the science and break down the agenda behind the carbon tax and the related carbon emissions trading scheme.What becomes clear in our overall discussion is that the conclusions of scientists are not really getting out to the general public.All efforts are geared to try to make people believe that human activity through the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming,and that the science behind this is solid and well-established,even though it isn't.If you haven't signed up already for CETV,go here so you can get access to the full discussion.

在最近的一期CETV的集体进化秀节目中,Joe CE 团队成员 Richard Enos 深入挖掘了科学,分析了碳税和相关碳排放交易计划背后的议程。在我们的总体讨论中变得清晰的是,科学家的结论并没有真正公之于众。所有的努力都是为了让人们相信,人类通过燃烧化石燃料而进行的活动是全球变暖的主要原因,而这背后的科学依据是可靠的,而且已经确立,尽管事实并非如此。如果您还没有注册 CETV,请访问这里,您可以获得完整的讨论。

CETV is a platform we created to combat internet censorship,which is another topic.Why are they silencing and ridiculing certain narratives?Why not just oppose them with information and evidence?

CETV 是我们为对抗互联网审查而创建的一个平台,这是另一个话题。为什么他们要让某些故事沉默并嘲笑它们?为什么不用信息和证据来反对他们呢?

外延

Many things in our world,including science,have become extremely corrupted.We see it with medical science and the influence from big pharma,and we see it with regards to federal health regulatory agencies like the CDC and FDA being compromised by corporations.Climate science is no different,which is why we see the mass ridicule of those who oppose the agenda by mainstream media.

我们世界上的许多事物,包括科学,已经变得极其腐败。我们看到医学科学和大型制药公司的影响,我们看到联邦健康监管机构,如疾病控制中心和 FDA 被企业妥协。气候科学没有什么不同,这就是为什么我们看到那些反对主流媒体议程的人大肆嘲笑的原因。

Our Earth needs help,it needs to be cleaned up,and deforestation must halt as we are experiencing massive species extinction.None of this has anything,in my opinion,to do with human CO2 output.

我们的地球需要帮助,它需要被清理,森林砍伐必须停止,因为我们正在经历大规模的物种灭绝。在我看来,这些与人类的二氧化碳排放量没有任何关系。

来源:https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/08/06/report-sheds-light-on-the-rockefeller-familys-covert-climate-change-plan/

zhunbeizhuanbian
  • 本文由 发表于 2019年8月9日14:05:00
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均来自网络,转载请务必保留本文链接