Movie Master

On September 18, 2003, a piece of news that had nothing to do with the entertainment industry sparked widespread discussion.

Dr. Chris-de-Freitas, editor of the US academic journal Climate Research, has the audacity to publish an apolitical – but factual – peer-reviewed article that concludes Yes: Recent warming is not anomalous if the climate change of the past millennium is the background.

Following the publication of the article, there was an uproar, and international global warmingists quickly launched an attack on Dr. de Freitas, demanding that he be revoked as an editor and university professor.

The World Meteorological Organization immediately announced relevant data. So far in 2003, many places around the world have ushered in the hottest summer in history. The highest temperature in the town of Grono, Switzerland reached 41.5 degrees Celsius, breaking the 139-year record; the temperature in London, England reached 38.1 degrees Celsius, breaking the record set in 1990; The lowest temperature in Paris at night was 25.5 degrees Celsius, which also broke the record since 1873; The highest temperature recorded locally... The impact of the greenhouse effect has inevitably affected all parts of the world.

The British "Guardian" published a report on the economics of climate change, which shows that if the 2003 lifestyle continues, by 2100, there will be a 50% chance that the global temperature will rise by 4 degrees Celsius. Once the temperature rises, it will disrupt the lives of millions of people around the world, and even the global ecological balance, eventually leading to large-scale migration and conflicts around the world.

For a time, Chris De Freitas was like a mouse crossing the street, suffering almost all-round blows. The United States is even more noisy.

Major newspapers including the "Wall Street Journal", "Los Angeles Times", and "Seattle Post" have discussed this matter one after another, and the issue of the greenhouse effect has once again become the focus of this debate.

As the most influential newspaper in North America, the "New York Times" will naturally not miss it. However, the "New York Times" did not express its opinion immediately, but after a series of investigations, on October 18, one month after the controversy of Dr. Chris De Freitas temporarily dropped, Professional reviews were published under the title "Is the Greenhouse Effect Really That Dangerous?"

Judging from the title, this article written by Javier Ulliel actually defended Chris and sided with Chris, and the "New York Times" boldly published it, which really caused an uproar.

Havel's article raised doubts, "Since the 1990s, the global climate has not shown a warming trend for more than a decade."

Climate scientist Kevin-Trenberth (Kevin-Trenberth) said, "The fact that we can't explain why there is no warming is undoubtedly ironic." However, Kevin also said that only in People can only say that the climate is not warming as expected if those computer models are believed.

In other words, the global climate is indeed warming, but computer models significantly exaggerate the effect of increasing carbon dioxide on climate warming. As stated in Chris's article: The current warming is a natural phenomenon that has developed over the past thousand years, and is not caused by the so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

After this article in the "New York Times" was published, it completely detonated the bomb.

Only real industry insiders know that the threat of climate warming has benefited many people a lot. It has made government funds flow into relevant academic research projects and has become a route for the government to expand its bureaucracy. This rhetoric is an excuse for governments to raise taxes to make taxpayers pay for corporate subsidies, and it is also a bait to attract huge donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Furthermore, the greenhouse effect is still one of the important excuses used by Western countries to condemn and sanction China.

It is conceivable that a simple greenhouse effect involves too many interests. If Chris's journal article only triggered a series of conditioned reflexes, then the "New York Times" article directly hit the hornet's nest, and the entire United States, and even the world, were completely fried.

Starting from October 18th, within a week, everyone from meteorologists to government officials, from the World Meteorological Organization to the United Nations Committee on Meteorological Change, from North America to Africa, from Asia to South America, all launched close discussion,

The "New York Times", which was in the eye of the storm, had to publish a continuation of the first report on October 24, also written by Havel, "Whose Interests Does the Greenhouse Effect Hit?"

In this article, Havel further analyzed the global greenhouse effect research. Different from the first report, Havel emphasized that the greenhouse effect is indeed affecting people's lives, which cannot be ignored. Havel cites research on the greenhouse effect sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation as evidence.

Adding to the crisis, the Amazon rainforest is disappearing, research says. Known as the lungs of the earth, the Amazon rainforest covers 5% of the earth's surface, produces 20% of the world's oxygen and 30% of biological species. In the past 40 years, 20% of them have disappeared. This will exacerbate global warming, and many creatures that can only live in the rainforest will also face the crisis of extinction.

But at the same time, Havel also said that the greenhouse effect must be given corresponding attention, but people blindly believe in the research of scientists and computer calculations, so that they blindly invest in the research of the greenhouse effect, but they do not know that they are spreading the spread of corruption.

At this point in the topic, Javier changed the subject and directly pointed the finger at many foundations determined to "save the earth". The relevant funds of the foundations have not been invested in corresponding research, and at the same time, they have not been invested in saving the earth. in real action. Regardless of whether the development of the greenhouse effect is serious or not, sustainable development is an issue that must be taken seriously, and these foundations are consuming people's awareness of environmental protection.

After the New York Times commentary was published, the whole society was in an uproar. I have to admit that, as the largest newspaper in North America, the perspective and intention of "New York Times" are really eye-catching. Those foundations use people's awareness of environmental protection to seek benefits, corruption and bribery are growing irresistibly, and actions to save the earth There is no time to wait, and these people are still risking the future of all mankind.

At the same time, Chris De Freitas also publicly stated that this was the original intention of his writing that article, because the 2004 presidential election was approaching, and the issue of the greenhouse effect became a power for candidates to win public support, but Those who are really willing to invest in scientific research are rare.

This completely aroused the anger of environmentalists.

No one noticed that Chris made this statement after three visits by an ordinary grim lawyer; and no one noticed that after Chris made this statement, the charges against him were dropped, Both the post at the university and the position of editor-in-chief of Climate Research were retained.

Because at this time people are focusing on demonstrations!

Environmentalists are planning a massive demonstration. On November 1st, at the gate of the New York City Government; on November 8th, the demonstrators came to the gate of the White House in Washington. Unexpectedly, the star of the Green Bay Packers Gao Vin Strelow also came to Washington to give his support. Not only did Gavin arrive at the scene, but his teammates and coaches also all arrived at the scene. Green Bay Packers President and CEO Mark Murphy (Mark Murphy) -Murphy) also gave support.

Due to the arrival of well-known personalities, the scale of the parade immediately rose to a new level. On November 9, the NFL league press release also expressed support for the demonstrations, "Everyone is responsible for protecting the environment. No matter when the disaster caused by the greenhouse effect will break out, this belongs to our earth." Subsequently, including Star players including Peyton-Manning and Tom Brady expressed their support.

With the support of the No. 1 Movement in the United States, things gradually began to ferment with more powerful forces.

When the parade came to the gate of the Los Angeles City Hall on November 15th, Edward-Norton (Edward-Norton), Leonardo-DiCaprio (Leonardo-DiCaprio), Julia-Roberts (Julia-Roberts) Rpberts, Kevin-Spacey (Kevin-Spacey) and others, joined the demonstration collectively, and the whole Hollywood was a sensation. More than 8,000 marchers were mobilized to bring this debate to an end. Pushed to the highest peak.

Along with the progress of the parade, the attention of the news media is also gradually heating up. Not only the candidates for the presidential election have stood up and expressed their positions righteously - in terms of environmental protection, there is no other choice; The Environmental Defense Fund's investigation is also in full swing.

An anonymous whistleblower is the first to expose the internal secrets of a charitable foundation in Silicon Valley. They collect money in the name of "protecting the environment", but in fact all charitable donations are used for pleasure. With this pull, a long vine was pulled out, and a series of small gourds hung on the vine. The inside story of the foundation's corruption was exposed to the world, and it became notorious for a while.

Against this background, the parade further escalated. On December 5th, the National Weather Service in Silver Spring, Maryland, lasted for three full days, and more than 6,000 demonstrators were called together, which was huge; ten On February 12, the demonstrations returned to the gate of the White House in Washington again. More than 10,000 demonstrators sat on the ground, hoping that the government/government could seriously face the issue of environmental protection.

From September to December, no one could have predicted that the long-standing greenhouse effect would become the hottest issue after the presidential election. Will climb again.