(Si Jin Note: Recently, due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, energy issues have been flooded almost every day, and various analysis has many different opinions. I noticed that some analysis is a statement of facts and logic is self-consistent ; however, many judgments may be biased. It happened that "Energy Overlimit Warfare" (published on June 1, 2016) planned by me nearly 10 years ago and co-authored by Pang Zhongjia , analyzed all aspects of energy problems, especially the conclusion pointed out: "The difference between humans and animals is not in the use of tools, but in the use of energy. The theory of energy crisis has always been false and real. Oil and fossil fuels have run out of exhaustion. One day, the development of new energy, especially unconventional oil and gas resources, has made the contemporary energy crisis a false proposition. "... It seems out of date now, so start from July 6, select some of the contents to share with you...)
Energy, environment and population
(continued) At the 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Poznan, Poland), in December 2008, Lenny, Professor of Statistics at the London School of Economics. Smith said that many scientists currently exaggerate the research conclusions too much, which will have many negative effects and waste a lot of valuable time. He said that at a critical time when countries around the world are working together to explore new ways to fight climate change, the data obtained by scientists relying solely on experimental reference models has been exaggerated by governments, organizations, and individuals who are eager to formulate plans to deal with climate change. The results of this situation are very dangerous.
Originally, climate science is a relatively new discipline in many academic research in humans. The theoretical foundation and research practice are very weak. There are very few authoritative experts with excellent knowledge. Now, the nature of Lianyun is still unclear, and the weather forecast will be inaccurate in three days. Faced with super topics such as "global warming", humans really have few rules. Ewing involves a wide range of disciplines with many categories. The so-called "separate roads are like mountains" makes it easy for people to generalize with only a few knowledges. Therefore, the research on this issue should advocate the coexistence of multiple fields and the coexistence of multiple theories. Different scientists debate and give different insights space to discuss, which is conducive to the improvement of understanding and the discovery of truth. You must never make arbitrary conclusions, and you cannot use the Great Leap Forward, to release satellite , and the way of mass movement is huge.
In recent years, the mainstream media has almost one-sided effect on greenhouse . The thrilling and emotional publicity of Hollywood is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. Most of the experts, scholars and people from all walks of life who have expressed their opinions are laymen in the climate field. The Copenhagen Conference actually held a conference of 10,000 people. It is said that as many as 34,000 people were required to enter the venue at the peak. "Environmental Protection" activists from the people instantly filled the streets and alleys of Copenhagen . Millions of people around the world are carrying out "global actions" for the last opportunity to save mankind, which has actually become a huge pilgrimage mass movement.
The "warming faction" ignored the "unconclusive conclusion" of the "skeptics" and tried to force the passage of a series of major global decisions using administrative means and public opinion pressure, which aroused strong dissatisfaction among the "skeptics". They pointed out that this is the result of extreme environmentalism and scientific researchers creating illusions and misleading the media in order to win donations and funding; and even more, the issue of global warming has become a political issue, an extraordinary means of the competition for the interests of various factions, and even a breeding ground for corruption between the political and scientific communities.
The world's three major climate camps attended the Copenhagen summit - EU , the umbrella group led by the United States (referring to other developed countries except the EU, including the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand , etc. From the map, the connection between these countries is very similar to an umbrella.) and developing countries, including China and 77 (as of June 2008, the G77 had 134 official members), as well as 44 least developed countries, and the small island alliance facing the high risk of "sinking", etc., are very controversial on key issues.It reflects their own different interests and determines the negotiations to deal with climate change, and it will inevitably become a "Blame Game" that is both erratic and erratic, or a "Don't-Blame-Me Game".
Something happened suddenly, but not unexpectedly. On the eve of the opening of the Copenhagen Summit, a "Climate Gate" scandal broke out in the British scientific community, adding a ridiculous and weird background to the conference.
Computer hackers broke through the servers of the University of East Anglia in the UK. On November 17, up to 16 meteorological scientists publicly disclosed on a website of meteorological scientists, including thousands of emails and more than 3,000 documents that have been communicated between senior meteorological researchers in the UK and the United States over the past 10 years. Some shocking phenomena were exposed: a large number of global "top" meteorological experts who advocate the warming of the earth are not only unable to determine their research results, but even artificially tamper with important original data that are unfavorable to their academic propositions to prove that human activities play a huge role in climate change.
For example, on November 16, 1999, Professor Phil Jones, a famous British climate scholar and head of the Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia, wrote: "Just just now, Mike from the magazine "Hanlin " used a trick. The temperature increased at each stage of nearly 20 years (from 1981). This is to conceal this fact, and the temperature actually decreased..." After the
scandal was exposed, Professor Jones admitted that "there is indeed a problem of selective data adoption." He was suspended that night.
Czech theoretical physicist Lubos Motl Pilsen said on the blog "The Reference Frame" that after reading these archives and emails in detail, he believed that these scientists not only fabricate information, but also manipulate stakeholders. He found a file that “provides 20 suggestions from propagandists”, including how to “use emotions” and that the warning must be “connected with neighboring areas.” He accused, "climate scientists are more intimate, preventing certain research reports from being published, and even teamed up to remove the journal "Climate Research" from the peer evaluation list."
These emails tell us the fact that a large number of scientists are trying to exclude aliens, but the reasons used are not climatology and physics, but are related to psychology and sociology. The climate computer models controlled by these scholars inevitably remind people of the financial model scam that gave birth to this round of financial crisis. The research objects of these models are complex "chaotic systems", and behind them are a super industry that cannot be defeated, which can bring unbearable catastrophic consequences.
Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, the world's authoritative body for studying natural and anthropogenic climate transitions, plays a leading role in the writing of the United Nations report. Given the seriousness of the scandal, the United Nations Intergovernmental Climate Change Group announced before the General Assembly that it would investigate the matter. University of East Anglia itself has also set up an "independent" investigation team. Jones' colleague, another main figure who advocates "global warming", Professor Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania, was also investigated by the university for its involvement. (To be continued)
(Sijin Note: Except for the author, all articles are original by Sijin. Original articles, any form of reproduction without retaining the author's relevant information is not allowed. [Disclaimer] This article only represents the personal discussions and views of the original author. Readers are advised to make their own judgment. The content or data is for reference only and does not constitute any specific investment advice, does not serve any commercial purposes, and is not responsible for its authenticity. Investors act on this basis at their own risk.)
