全球变暖：“围绕政策编造气候数据”　　

　　

　　Michel Chossudovsky　　

　　

　　超过人将齐聚哥本哈根参加联合国气候变化框架公约(UNFCCC)第15次缔约国大会。　　

　　

　　参加此次会议的有来自192个国家的官方代表团，以及以观察员身份参加的各主要商业组织。以观察员身份登记的非政府组织中包括，商业圆桌会议、洛克菲勒基金会、美国商会、国际商会。（独立金融机构和跨国公司并未正式登记，他们将以有观察员资格的商业组织的赞助方身份参加）　　

　　

　　环保组织和民间社会组织也将列席代表。（参与方与观察员）　　

　　

　　国家首脑和政府首脑们将被安排出席峰会活动的后一部分。（参见2009哥本哈根联合国气候变化大会

　　

　　值得注意的是，第15次大会的关键性的决定和目标，已经于5月份在哥本哈根举行的世界全球气候变化商业首脑峰会(WBSCC)上达成了，它比第15次大会提前了6个月。　　

　　

　　全球气候变化商业首脑峰会聚集了一些世界上最杰出的商业管理人士和包括艾尔·戈尔（美国前副总统）和联合国秘书长潘基明在内的世界领袖。（气候变化商业首脑峰会，包括网络直播）　　

　　

　　这些高层磋商的结果被传达给丹麦政府和参与国政府，普华永道会计师事务所将代表参与峰会的企业执行官们，起草一份所谓的决策者总结告。此告同环境保护几乎无关，它主要是一份以全球变暖共识为借口的利益驱使的议程。（详情见气候理事会：全球气候变化商业首脑峰会）　　

　　

　　“峰会的根本目标是应对气候变化与经济危机的双重挑战。峰会的参与者考虑，如果政府和商业组织合作，如何将这些风险转危为机，而何种政策、刺激方案和投资将最有效地刺激低碳经济的增长”（气候理事会）　　

　　

　　作为“有史以来最重要的集会之一，它被称作世界曾见过的最复杂和最重要的协议”，哥本哈根气候峰会（2009年十二月7日至18日）的议程是得到了各国政府，商业领袖和非政府组织团体的共同支持。　　

　　

　　CO2排放被称为人类未来一个最重要的威胁。　　

　　

　　严格说来，峰会的焦点是环境议题，没有提到这个词“战争”——即美国和北约发动的战争对环境的毁灭性后果。　　

　　

　　没有提到作为“和平制造”工具的而先发制人使用的核武器。　　

　　

　　没有提到作为环境争议一部分的——五角大楼的人道主义核弹产生的放射性尘埃。根据五角大楼授权的科学鉴定，战略性核武器“对附近的居民是安全的”。　　

　　

　　没有提到“气象战争”或“环境更改技术”(ENMOD)以及气候战争。　　

　　

　　没有提到军用的名为“拥有天气”的美国空军“2025发展规划”对于气候变化的争论。 (参见FAS, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning...| (Ch 1) 和 SPACE.com -- U.S. Military Wants to Own the Weather) 　　

　　

　　尽管存在大量的科学依据，故意操纵气候以用作军事目的的问题已经不再是联合国气候变化议程的一部分。然而，它却是1992年里约地球峰会议题的一部分。（参见Michel Chossudovsky, Environmental Warfare and Climate Change, Global Research, 27 November 2005,另见 Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare , The Ecologist, December 2007）　　

　　

　　CO2是用来描述全球性危机的标志。其他变量则不被考虑。　　

　　

　　进一步说，由于碳减排概念依赖于全球变暖这一共识的，所以任何有效的反污染清洁空气政策都不会直接以碳减排的名义来制定。　　

　　

　　由全球经济衰退引起的“贫穷”、“失业”和“疾病”等并不是问题的重点，因为权威性的金融媒体毫不含糊地声明：“经济衰退已经结束”。　　

　　

　　而中东和中亚的战争不是战争，只是“一场旨在打击恐怖主义和强盗国家的人道主义行动。”　　

　　

　　真正的危机　　

　　

　　哥本哈根峰会不仅为那些在巨额碳交易项目上下注的有实力的大企业的利益服务，它促使大众的注意力从“真正的危机”带来的毁灭性结果上转移开，这个“真正的危机”潜在于经济全球化过程和利益驱动的无国界战争中，这种无国界的战争也被五角大楼称之为“长期的战争”。　　

　　

　　我们站在了现代历史最严重危机的十字路口。战争和经济衰退是真正的危机，然而政府和媒体都将注意力放在了由二氧化碳排放而引起的环境破坏上，把它看作是对人类最大的威胁。　　

　　

　　上千亿美元的碳交易体系　　

　　

　　碳交易体系对金融机构来说是一个上千亿美元的赚钱机会。赌注极其高昂而代表华尔街利益的不同游说集团也已经为他们自己牟取了一席之地。　　

　　

　　根据最近的一份告，“按照通过欧盟的排放交易体系交易温室气体排放配额的新型城市玩家的说法，碳市场的规模可以是巨大的石油市场规模的两倍……增长的速度取决于哥本哈根峰会是否会给低碳经济一个许可，但是埃杰说，不管发生什么，像排放交易体系这样的项目都将在全球扩张。” (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业集团，包括摩根大通、美林银行、巴克莱、花旗银行、野村证券、兴业银行、摩根士丹利和高盛都积极地参与到碳交易当中来了。( FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)　　

　　

　　碳交易体系的合法性建立在全球变暖共识的合法性上，它将二氧化碳排放看作是对环境的唯一威胁。而对于华尔街来说，碳交易体系则是一个方便而又安全的赚钱方法，可以让少数大企业集团轻易地把上千亿美元装进腰包。　　

　　

　　“每家大的金融机构都在纽约和伦敦已经设立了碳交易业务。非常大的数字在他们的脑海中盘旋，而他们需要用它们来弥补在房地产泡沫破裂中蒸发的‘财富’”，巴克莱投资银行环境市场的负责人Louis Redshaw告诉《纽约时》，“碳将是世界上最大的市场。”巴克莱认为碳市场将在十年内从当前600亿美元的增长至1000亿美元。从前是电力交易商的Redshaw，在四年前还无法找到任何人讨论碳问题。(Mark Braly, The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008) 　　

　　

　　全球变暖的数据库　　

　　

　　全球变暖的共识是基于可靠的数据吗　　

　　

　　有迹象表明，关于温度和包括CO2在内的温室气体排放的观念和数据，都已经被调整和修改过，以使其符合联合国气候变化专门委员会的议程。　　

　　

　　几年来，联合国气候变化专门委员会的声明及其所包含的数据库已经受到质疑。(参见Global Research's Climate Change Dossier: Archive of more than 100 articles)　　

　　

　　一些著名科学家参与的告已对全球变暖共识提出批评性分析。　　

　　

　　正如麻省理工气象学家Richard S. Lindzen在其著作中表达的那样，在这一点上，已经出现平息批评者声音的持续努力。(参见 Richard Lindzen, Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence., Global Research, 7 April 2007)　　

　　

　　对这种危言耸听提出异议的科学家们已经发现，他们的赞助基金消失了，他们的工作被人嘲笑，而他们自己也被贴上了行业小丑、科学黑客或更糟的标签。结果，关于气候变化的谎言自公然违背科学基础的那天起就获得了真实性。（同上）　　

　　

　　气候门及电子邮件丑闻　　

　　

　　在2009年十一月，仅仅在哥本哈根峰会开幕几周前，气候变化科学家和研究者之间超过3000封的往来电子邮件数据库被曝光。　　

　　

　　电子邮件并没有证明整个数据库是伪造的，尽管如此，它们却指出部分与UNPCC有关的著名科学家的科学造假和欺诈行为。　　

　　

　　这些电子邮件暗示数据被修改过，以支持业已确定的政策议程。正如这些电子邮件信息所披露的那样，“修改气候数据以符合政策”是直接与联合国气候变化专门委员会工作相关的顶级科学家的做法吗？　　

　　

　　英国媒体已经知道，科学家决心要操控气候变化的数据，同时摒除批评者的声音：　　

　　

　　【下面引用的评论来自每日电讯】　　

　　

　　发件人: Phil Jones. 收件人: 多人. Nov 16, 1999　　

　　

　　“我刚刚完成了Mike在《自然》【科学期刊】里玩的把戏，通过在过去20年中（即从之前的1981年）的每个系列的真实温度中加入数据而对Keith的工作则从1961年起加入数据以隐藏（温度）下降(的事实)。”　　

　　

　　批评者引用这段话作为数据已被修改以掩盖全球温度是在降低的事实。琼斯教授则声明“把戏”这个词的意思已经被曲解了。　　

　　

　　发件人:Phil Jones收件人: Michael Mann (宾夕法尼亚州立大学). July 8, 2004　　

　　

　　“我不能在下个IPCC告中看到它们中的任何一个，Kevin和我将用某种方式剔除它们——即使我们不得不重新定义同行评审的文献”　　

　　

　　IPCC是负责监控气候变化的联合国机构，科学家们希望它不考虑对“全球变暖是真实的且是人为造成的”这种观点提出挑战的研究。　　

　　

　　发件人: Kevin Trenberth (美国大气研究国家中心). 收件人: Michael Mann. 十月12, 2009　　

　　

　　“事实是我们不能明说缺乏气候变暖（的依据），而且这是一种歪曲，我们不能……我们的观测系统是不充分的。”　　

　　

　　Trenberth教授似乎已经接受了全球变暖怀疑论者的一个论点——没有证据表明过去10年来温度上升了。　　

　　

　　发件人: Phil Jones. 收件人: 多人 三月 11, 2003　　

　　

　　“我会把这个期刊电邮给他们，告诉他们我不会再同它有任何联系了，除非他们能摆脱那个令人讨厌的编辑”　　

　　

　　琼斯教授似乎正通过游说以开除《Climate Research》的这名编辑，《Climate Research》是一份发表了反对气候变化的论文的科学期刊。　　

　　

　　发件人 Phil Jones. 收件人: Michael Mann. 日期: 五月 29, 2008　　

　　

　　“你能删除你可能同Keith关于AR4的任何往来邮件么？Keith也会这么做。”　　

　　

　　气候变化怀疑论者试图借助信息自由法令来获取一份提交给IPCC的称为AR4告的原始气候数据。这个科学家不希望电子邮件往来的有关数据被公开。　　

　　

　　发件人: Michael Mann. 收件人: Phil Jones 和 Gabi Hegerl (爱丁堡大学). 日期: 八月 10, 2004　　

　　

　　菲尔和我不久将乐此不疲地回复白痴们更加假大空的批评。

　　

　　科学家们从不试图掩藏他们的鄙弃——气候变化怀疑论者们对科学家们的工作要求更多的资料。

　　

　　（东安哥拉大学来信：最有争议的论述—电讯 2009年 11月23日）　　

　　

　　有争议电子邮件的完全列表―――在Alleged CRU Emails能找到，由eastangliaemails.com:网站发布。

　　

　　重要的是，电子信件的们直接参与了联合国气候变化专门委员会的工作：

　　

　　“（他们）是一小组科学家，多年来推动了在全世界范围内发布关于全球变暖的警告，在这方面多年来比其他同行更有影响力，其作用超出了他们在联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）核心扮演的角色。

　　

　　菲利普·琼斯教授，英国东安吉里亚大学的气候研究所（CRU）的主任，他负责两部分关键性的数据资料，IPCC用来起草它的告。通过它连接的哈德利中心，该中心属于英国密特办公室的一部分，选择大部分IPCC的重要科学贡献者们。菲利普教授的全球气温记录是四组气温数据资料中最重要的部分，IPCC和各个政府都依赖这个资料，它们不仅预测说世界将变暖到灾难性的程度――除非花费几千亿美元方能避免，甚至更多。

　　

　　琼斯博士还是一个紧密组合团队的关键人物。即美国和英国科学家们负责传播的世界温度图表，此图表由迈克·麦恩的“曲棍球之杆”图表承载和传送，10年前因展示此图表改变了气象历史的方向，“经过一千多年的下降，全球气温最近攀升到了有记录以来的历史的最高水平”（克瑞斯托夫·布克教授，气候变化：这是我们这一代最坏的科学丑闻，电讯，2009年11月28日）

　　

　　有争议的信件之一是琼斯博士的（发表于---东安哥拉信箱网址），它指出资料被故意歪曲利用了。

　　

　　亲爱的Ray，Mike及Malcolm：

　　

　　一旦Tim在这里得到图表，我们马上发出，不晚于今晚和明早。

　　

　　我刚刚完成了Mike在《自然》【科学期刊】里玩的把戏，通过在过去20年中（即从之前的1981年）的每个系列的真实温度中加入数据而对Keith的工作则从1961年起加入数据以隐藏（温度）下降(的事实)。Mike的系列的有了每年陆地和海洋的数据，其他两个也有了20年中4月到9月北半球陆地的数据。后边两个对1999年是真实的，大致估计1999年北半球综合起来相对于61-90年上升了0.44度。算上10月份，全球估计1999年相对上升0.35摄氏度，1998年则是0.57度。

　　

　　感谢你的意见，Ray！

　　

　　干杯！

　　

　　Phil

　　

　　菲尔·琼斯教授

　　

　　气候研究中心　电话+44 xxx xxxx xxxx

　　

　　环境科学院　传真+44 xxx xxxx xxxx

　　

　　东安哥拉大学

　　

　　挪威　琼斯教授电子信箱[email protected]

　　

　　NR4 7TJ

　　

　　UK

　　

　　：Alleged CRU Emails――可查资料由　eastangliaemails.com网站发布

　　

　　美国国会调查　　

　　

　　哥本哈根峰会开幕仅仅还有两周，美国国会现在正在调查“全球变暖电子邮件”。

　　

　　美国国会开始调查气象科学家，通过黑客进入他们的电子邮件和文件，去看他们的全球变暖理论是否进行了误导，歪曲了事实背后的气候变化原因。

　　

　　调查员已经开始“研究”上周黑客们偷窃出的1079条电子邮件和3800多个文件，这些信息来自英国东安哥拉大学的气候研究所（CRU），记者达瑞欧·艾萨从加利福尼亚向华尔街日告

　　

　　被发表在网页上的一些泄露的电子邮件和文件，如和表明了科学家和怀疑论者之间的日渐紧张气氛。其他的是一些关于马上来临的会议和研讨日程的一般声明。

　　

　　根据他的网页，来自俄克拉荷马州的众议员James Inhofe周一说，泄露出来的来往邮件显示，研究人员“煸炒科学，使得这些事情看起来似乎科学被搞定了，当然我们知道从来也没有定论。

　　

　　白宫科学顾问John Holdren也被调查了。因为他的一条2003年的电子邮件被黑客盗窃了。这条是写给宾夕法尼亚州立大学迈克·麦恩(Michael Mann)的。

　　

　　“我很高兴准备对这个观点交流提出我的看法。我认为任何人读到我写的全部信件后，都将看到那是一个非常严肃和平和的态度，对于‘证明之负担’的质疑，在这种语境情形下，探讨与科学密切相关的公共政策分歧。”Holdren说。

　　

　　同时，东安哥拉大学说，他们将协助警方，并将开始他们自己的内部调查。该大学发布公告称，这个泄密是“恶作剧行为”，并说要协助警方的调查。

　　

　　这个公告还阐明，CRU的主任琼斯教授解释了他在1999年11月份的电子邮件中说的那句话，“我刚好完成了Mike的自然把戏——把此前20年（即从1981年以来）每个系列的真实温度增加了，把1961年以来了Keith的下降数据隐藏了。”

　　

　　琼斯说，“把戏”这个词用作“口语，意思是做明智的事情”，如果说这个词引起了误解隐喻了任何负面意思的话，那是荒唐可笑的。

　　

　　数据资料泄露恰巧发生在12月7日-18日在哥本哈根召开联合国气候大会的两周之前，届时192个国家将与会，并讨论出解决方案，如何在全球范围减少二氧化碳的排放，以及其他温室效应气体。（国际商业时，2009年12月24日）

　　

　　同时，“国际共同体(international community)”（由主流媒体支持）发表了反击，指责正在开展的批评运动是污蔑狂潮

　　

　　IPCC的主席—Rajendra Pachauri，上周准备好了他的团队在2007年的研究结果。这个研究是关于全球气候反应的基础，包括美国和中国这星期共同提出的二氧化碳排放目标。

　　

　　目前为止，气象学家们尚未提到泄露的邮件会削弱气候变化证据材料的严密性。实际上，在科学杂志上的一项新的研究结果显示，极地冰覆盖层的融化速度比几年前预测的要快。

　　

　　在本周一个记者电话会议上，一位电子邮件被泄露的科学家——宾夕法尼亚州立大学的气象地理学家迈克·麦恩（Michael Mann）说，无论电子邮件被怎样炒作，绝对没有任何邮件会在气候变化的深层次共识上产生问题。

　　

　　这是个“用来分散公众注意力的污蔑狂潮”，麦恩说，麦恩是哥本哈根诊断（the Copenhagen Diagnosis）的共同执笔人，这个气候变化的告发表在本周，在哥本哈根大会召开之前。他又说，“那些反对气候行动的人们，根本没有科学站在他们一边。”

　　

　　东安哥拉大学CRU的Trevor Davies教授把偷窃资料说成是一个最新范例，一股企图“打乱理性探讨”的潮流，即搅乱哥本哈根马上要召开的关于全球气候变化的峰会。（例如“气候门”看门狗们在哥本哈根峰会临近之际的全球变暖大辩论，见csmonitor.com；基督教科学箴言，2009年11月29日，特别增加）

　　

　　但是在这次反击中意味深长的是，（泄露的）电子邮件的真实性没有被IPCC的科学家们质疑。

　　

　　科学家们没说“我们没干”，他们的意思是全球变暖共识（深入人心），已经可以毫不顾及他们选择性地曲解数据以及把批评者从气候变化的科学讨论中排斥出去的行为。

　　

　　民间社会组织和环保组织是什么立场呢？　　

　　

　　民间社会组织正在进行动员，他们的看法是推动官方政府代表团：

　　

　　“两年前，在巴厘岛的联合国气候大会上，所有会员国政府同意设定时间表，确保哥本哈根大会上达成的强力的气候措施能够按时推进，许多不言而喻的事情预示着这个目标是达不到的，甚至是不可想象的。如果你需要被说服的理由，我们就转而说一下我们合作的伙伴——电影——愚昧年代。

　　

　　各国元首应当参加的这个会议，在最后三天，将试图达成一项庞大的复杂多样的协议，旨在减少二氧化碳，为缓解和适应（危机）提供财政支持，以及支持技术由北向南转移。

　　

　　这在历史上是个主要的里程碑，民间社会必须对此发出一种声音，号召公平、雄心和不懈努力。我们准备好了，但我们需要让领导们知道全世界也有准备，是吧？（缔约方第15次哥本哈根气候大会）

　　

　　涉及气候变化邮件丑闻，民间社会活动家们站在什么位置呢？

　　

　　这些民间社会组织，许多都是由大基金会和政府创建的，它们将会继续无保留地拥护全球变暖的共识吗？

　　

　　世界野生动物基金会(WWF)和绿色和平组织是它们中间的若干关键民间组织，它们正在推动哥本哈根会议的议程。它们的立场不会动摇。

　　

　　环境学家们的组织要求减低ＣＯ２排放，并非是以此为手段对付污染难题，而是为了以此为武器来扭转全球变暖的进程。对于许多这样的组织来说，联合国气候变化框架公约（UNFCCC）就是“圣经”，它是不能被挑战的，尽管那些支持全球变暖共识的气象数据资料变得可疑或有争议。

　　

　　当包括绿色和平组织和ＷＷＦ在内的主流非政府组织团体继续支持这个共识的时候，已经有一股小的正在增长的趋势——挑战哥本哈根第15次缔约国峰会议程的合法性，同时指责UNPCC篡改数据。这种数据的篡改直接服务于利益驱动下的碳贸易阴谋。

　　

　　另类峰会：09年气候论坛　　

　　

　　NGO们将召开一个类似的另类峰会——09年气候论坛。预期将每天将有超过一万人出席09年气候论坛的各种探讨。

　　

　　主要的国际非政府组织和环境科学家团体将出席，它们中间包括地球之友（the Earth），反对气候变化运动（Campaign against Climate Change）。

　　

　　09年气候论坛最后达成的宣言草案，将提出一个更公正的世界社会的社会理想，同时强调为了应对全球变暖和粮食主权，有必要促成社会的重大变化，以及社会经济结构的重大变化。（见09年气候论坛宣言）

　　

　　尽管在NGO团体中存在对上千亿的碳交易体系的强烈反对，另类峰会将不挑战全球变暖共识和此理论所依据的数据库。（所有事件——09年气候论坛）

　　

　　尽管批评和活跃的声音将在另类论坛的各种讨论中出现，09年气候论坛的组织内容安排中仍将服从正式的议事日程。考虑各方因素，09年气候论坛的丹尼斯主办者们将与主办官方峰会的当地政府取得联系，同时间举办这个另类峰会，（政治平台·09年气候论坛）这就意味着替代性峰会上的不同意见的界限将被谨慎地界定。

　　

　　这里没有真正的行动主义，除非说假话和暗箱操纵的UNPCC活动——包括数据库和上千亿利益驱动的碳交易阴谋被完全曝光、公开讨论，并使公众觉悟。

　　

　　_________________________

　　

　　Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

　　

　　志愿翻译小组

　　

　　相关阅读：军事用途的“环境更改技术”(ENMOD)与气候变化被排除在哥本哈根会议议程之外

　　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, 　　

　　

　　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 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, 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 theUN 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　　

　　

相关文章 马也：第三世界的声音，终审判决--从里约到德班（4-5）郎咸平：气候问题大骗局---欧盟征收碳排放税的荒诞理由德班世界气候大会：资本主义富国判贫困国家人民气候死刑！福斯特：《京都议定书》的失败丁一凡：要防止低碳成为新的金融投机的借口气候政策和行动：中国和美国的比较南美召开“世界人民气候大会”受关注从里约走来--哥本哈根思考之一西南赤地千里，华北沙暴肆虐--亟需计划经济应对气候变化与环境危机王中宇：哥本哈根：闹剧后的沉思哥本哈根会议检讨刘仰：哥本哈根之后中国的“低碳危局”