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

Dr. Chris de-Freitas, editor of the American academic journal Climate Research, boldly published a peer-reviewed article that does not conform to the political direction – but is true – and concludes that recent warming is not an anomaly if climate change over the past millennium is taken against the backdrop.

The article caused an uproar, and international warmers soon launched an attack on Dr. de Freitas, demanding that he be removed from his editorial position and university faculty position.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) immediately released the figures, and so far in 2003, many parts of the world have experienced the hottest summers in history. The maximum temperature in the Swiss town of Grono reached 41.5 degrees Celsius, breaking the record for 139 years; The temperature in London, England, reached 38.1 degrees Celsius, breaking the record set in 1990; Similarly, the lowest temperature at night in Paris, France, was 25.5 degrees Celsius, which also broke the record since 1873; In addition, Taiwan/Beishang/Haiwu/Hanfu/Zhou and other places in China/China have broken the local record of the highest temperature...... The effects of the greenhouse effect are already inevitably affecting all parts of the globe.

The British newspaper The Guardian published a report on the economics of climate change, which shows that if the lifestyle of 2003 continues, the global temperature will rise by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 by 50 percent. If the temperature rises, it will disrupt the lives of millions of people around the world, and even the global ecological balance, and eventually lead to large-scale migration and conflict around the world.

For a moment, Chris De Freitas was like a rat crossing the street, suffering almost an all-round blow. The U.S. mainland is even more noisy.

Major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Seattle Post, have discussed this matter. The issue of the greenhouse effect has once again come to the fore in this debate.

As the most influential newspaper in North America, the New York Times naturally didn't miss reads(). However, the New York Times was not the first to express its views. Rather, after a series of investigations, on October 18. A month after Dr. Chris de Freitas's controversy temporarily receded, a professional commentary was published under the headline "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" actually boldly published it, which really caused an uproar.

Havel's article raises the skeptical theory. "The global climate hasn't warmed for more than a decade since the nineties."

Climate scientist Kevin-Trenberth said, "The fact that we can't explain why we haven't seen warming is ironic for a reason." However, Kevin also said that it is only if people believe in the premise of those computer models that the climate is not warming as expected.

In other words, the global climate is indeed warming, but computer models significantly exaggerate the impact of increased carbon dioxide on climate warming. As Chris's article puts it: Warming now is a natural phenomenon that has been going on for the past thousand years. It is not caused by so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Only real industry insiders know that the theory of the threat of climate change has benefited many people. It allows government/government funds to flow into related academic research projects, and becomes a route for the government/government to expand the bureaucracy. This argument is an excuse for governments to raise taxes and make taxpayers pay for corporate subsidies, and a lure to lure huge donations to charitable foundations that promise to save the planet. Furthermore, the greenhouse effect is also one of the important excuses used by Western countries to condemn sanctioned countries.

It is conceivable that a simple greenhouse effect involves too many interests. If Chris's journal article merely triggered a series of conditioned reflexes, then the New York Times article poked directly at the hornet's nest. The whole United States and even the whole world have completely fried the pot.

From October 18. Within a week, from meteorologists to government/government officials. From the World Meteorological Organization to the United Nations Commission on Meteorological Change, from North America to Africa, from Asia to South America, there are close discussions

The "New York Times," which was in the eye of the storm, had to publish a sequel to the first article on October 24, also written by Javier, "Whose interests are being poked at by the greenhouse effect?" ”

In this article, Havel takes a closer look at the world's greenhouse effect research. Unlike the first report, Javier stressed that the greenhouse effect is indeed affecting people's lives, and this cannot be ignored. Havel cites the Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored study of the greenhouse effect as evidence.

The Amazon rainforest is disappearing, adding to the crisis, according to the study. The Amazon rainforest, known as the lungs of the earth, covers 5 percent of the earth's surface, produces 20 percent of the world's oxygen and produces 30 percent of all living species, and has been lost to 20 percent in the past 40 years due to illegal logging and reclamation. This will exacerbate global warming, and many of the creatures that can only survive in the rainforest will be in danger of extinction.

But at the same time, Havel also said that the greenhouse effect must be given corresponding attention, but people blindly trust the research of scientists and the calculations of computers, so that they blindly invest in greenhouse effect research, only to know that they are growing* spread.

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

After this review in the New York Times 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 the "New York Times" are indeed eye-catching, those foundations take advantage of people's awareness of environmental protection for welfare, corruption and bribery* are inexorably breeding, and the action to save the earth is urgent, and these people are still risking the future of all mankind.

At the same time, Chris de Freitas has said publicly that this is what he wrote the article in the first place, because the 2004 presidential election is approaching, and the issue of the greenhouse effect has become the authority of candidates to win public support, but few are actually willing to devote themselves to scientific research.

This has thoroughly inflicted the wrath of environmentalists.

No one noticed that Chris made this remark after an ordinary cold-faced lawyer visited Chris three times before and after; Nor did anyone notice that after Chris's remarks, charges against him were dropped, and his position at the university and as editor-in-chief of Climate Research were retained.

Because at this time people are focused on the demonstrations!

Environmentalists are planning a massive demonstration in front of the New York City Hall on November 1; On November 8, the marchers arrived at the gates of the White House in Washington, D.C., and unexpectedly, Green Bay Packers star Gawain Strello also came to Washington to show their support, not only Gawain, but also his teammates and coaches, as well as Green Bay Packers' president and CEO Mark-Murphy.

Due to the arrival of well-known personalities on the scene, the scale of the parade immediately increased to a new level. On November 9, the NFL press release also expressed support for the demonstrations, "Everyone has a responsibility to protect the environment, and no matter when the greenhouse effect causes a disaster, it belongs to our planet." Subsequently, leading stars, including Peyton Manning (-Manning) and Tom Brady (Tom-Brady) expressed their support.

Things in the United States first movement support, gradually began to ferment into a more powerful force.

When the march arrived at the gates of the Los Angeles City Hall on November 15, the cast led by Edward Norton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Julia-Rpberts, Kevin-Y and others joined the demonstration, and the whole of Hollywood was a sensation, mobilizing more than 8,000 marchers to push the controversy to the highest level.

As the march progressed, so did the media attention, and not only did the presidential candidates come forward to express their position in righteous words -- there was no alternative to environmental protection; At the same time, the investigation of the Environmental Protection Foundation is also in full swing.

An anonymous whistleblower was the first to expose the secrets of a Silicon Valley-based charitable foundation that was collecting money in the name of "protecting the environment" and that in fact all the charitable donations were used for their own enjoyment. This pulled out a long vine, and a series of small gourds hung from the vine, and the inside story of the Foundation* was exposed, and it became infamous for a while.

Against this backdrop, the march escalated further, with the National Weather Service in Silver Spring, Maryland, lasting three days on December 5, gathering more than 6,000 demonstrators. On December 12, the protests returned to the White House in Washington, D.C., where more than 10,000 demonstrators sat on the ground, hoping that the government would take environmental issues seriously.

From September to December, no one could have predicted that the long-standing greenhouse effect would become the hottest issue after the start of the presidential election. (To be continued.) )

ps: Today's third update, the normal update is sent! Plea to subscribe!