水博分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/zbt92 资深水利水电能源工作者

博文

喜欢用谣言诬蔑方舟子的人士务必请注意

已有 4630 次阅读 2010-9-29 07:35 |个人分类:三峡|系统分类:博客资讯| 方舟子, 骗子, 打假, 亦明

《喜欢用谣言诬蔑方舟子的人士务必请注意》

诬蔑方舟子的亦明是一个匿名的“骗子”

水博

 

最近偶然看到亦明署名的文章《方舟子是打人還是打假?》(方舟子一伙假打假、报私仇、谋私利的案例清单)。发现其中有一节所谓“环保人士案”的案例,竟然是公开的盗用我的名义进行造谣。

该文说“20054月,方舟子伙同何祚庥等人,在水电势力的资助下,到云南考察怒江。主持此事的张博庭后来承认,水电势力之所以花钱供他们高规格免费旅游,就是要他们打击反对在怒江建坝的环保人士。方舟子果然不辱使命,考察尚未结束,就对环保人士大打出手。他给环保人士扣上伪环保、接受国外反华势力资助、要挟政府公布国家机密等等罪名。后来,他接受水电势力资助的事情被《纽约时报》报道,方舟子从此不敢再提此事。”

 

我就是主持此事的张博庭本人,我在任何场合从来也没有表示过“承认水电势力之所以花钱供他们高规格免费旅游,就是要他们打击反对在怒江建坝的环保人士”的意思。相反,作为怒江考察活动的组织者,我对打假人士方舟子用事实揭露伪环保的谣言,一直非常的敬佩。

关于怒江考察的细节,我曾经在很多公开发表的文章中强调过。200393,个别环保官员利用自己的职权,主要召集了一批具有反水坝思潮的专家、学者召开的怒江环评论证会,制造出了一系列怒江生态江的谣言。并在某些新闻媒体的配合下,在社会上掀起了一股所谓保留怒江生态江的风潮。为了能揭露谣言,让公众了真正解到怒江的实际情况,我们水电学会特地组织了由怒江水电规划的总工程师、全国水电规划的负责人和水电专家陆佑楣院士以及全国著名的打假人士何祚庥院士、方舟子博士和司马南学者,共同到怒江进行了实地考察。考察之后何祚庥、陆佑楣、方舟子、我和司马南在云南大学分别做了演讲,用考察中所见到的事实和数据,揭露伪环保人士的谎言。

方舟子博士在报告当众指出,不仅怒江的一些支流已经建有很多水电站,就是干流上也早已经建设有装机十万千瓦的查龙水电站,当场揭露了极端环保人士所编造的怒江是世界唯一一条没有建坝的河流,和要求保留最后的生态江的煽情谣言。

方舟子揭露伪环保欺骗宣传的行为,到底是“打假”还是“打人”,不仅我可以作证,在场听报告的上千名云南大学的学生都可以作证。不仅如此,参加怒江考察的两院院士还把考察的情况写成了报告,直接上报给党中央和国务院,进一步揭露伪环保的欺骗宣传。(参见:20051023《新京报》两院士上书建议开发怒江水电)

此外,关于匿名骗子亦明所说方舟子“后来,他接受水电势力资助的事情被《纽约时报》报道,方舟子从此不敢再提此事。”的说法也是赤裸裸的谎言。事实是在《纽约时报》的污蔑揭露伪环保造假文章发表后,方舟子曾专门写文章予以严正驳斥。《纽约时报》则从此再不敢提及此事。(参见附后的文章)

总之,种种事实说明,这个号称是美国学者的亦明不过是一个匿名的骗子,只会躲在阴暗的角落里制造谣言,诬蔑我国的打假英雄方舟子博士。一些被方舟子博士打过假和痛恨方舟子打假的人,也乘机利用转贴这个匿名的骗子谣言,达到诬蔑方舟子打假的目的。

为了维护社会正义,支持方舟子打假,维护方舟子和我的名誉权。我郑重的提醒所有转贴意冒充我的名义造谣诬蔑方舟子打假的转贴者和网站,在48小时内删除你们所转贴的匿名骗子亦明的文章《方舟子是打人還是打假?》(方舟子一伙假打假、报私仇、谋私利的案例清单),否则,我们将固定证据,并通过法律手段追究不听劝告侵犯我和方舟子名誉权的个人和网站(特别是在不能准确地提供被告信息情况下,又不主动删贴的网站)的法律责任。

2010929 730

 已发现涉嫌侵权的造谣文章(欢迎大家发现后随时添加):

序号

网站、论坛名称

造谣文章名称

转贴者

1

科学网、科学博客

方舟子是打人還是打假?

蒋劲松

2

北京大学科学传播中心-

方舟子一伙假打假、报私仇、谋私利的案例清单

一阶科学传播:科学纵横

3

新浪博客、

方舟子一伙假打假、报私仇、谋私利的案例清单

求悟

4

新浪博客、

方舟子一伙假打假、报私仇、谋私利的案例清单

新哲学

5

天涯社区、天涯杂谈

方舟子一伙假打假、报私仇、谋私利的案例清单

caiwu2009

6

中国网、中华论坛

亦明:方舟子打假的四项基本原则

白不黑

7

凯迪网络、猫眼看人

[转贴]方舟子打假的“四项基本原则”

旺才灰狗

 

 

 

 

 

8

科学网博客

方舟子一伙假打假、报私仇、谋私利的案例清单

吴国胜

 

最后,我们再把下面的一篇文章转给大家,大家看后就可以清楚的知道,这亦明在《纽约时报》的问题上到底是怎么样造谣诬蔑方舟子打假的了。

 

参考文章:《就有关怒江建坝争议的报道致《纽约时报》
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_47406879010001zd.html
 
作者:方舟子
 
    做为访问怒江并通过攻击环保人士而吸引了公众广泛的关注(《法治:
对中国的愤怒之河寻找公共声音》,Jim Yardely20051226报道)的学者之一,我感到有必要纠正Yardely先生报道中的错误。
     如果Yardely先生能重视我在2005127回答其提问的电子邮件(全文见附件)的话,该报道中的不准确和不实之处大部分都可以避免。然而,在Yardely先生的笔下就好像没有环保人士的反对者回答其采访要求,他显然
完全忽视了我的意见,只报道环保人士的一面之辞。
     首先,我想要说明我参与的对怒江的访问并非如Yardely先生报道的那样由大坝开发者赞助,而是由国家水电水利规划总院资助的。该机构负责编写环保人士现在要求公示的有关怒江项目的环评报告。请注意,在我们访问怒江之前,该机构也资助过一些环保人士访问怒江。
     怒江并非如Yardely先生断言的那样是中国仅有的两条自由流淌的河流之一。在怒江的干流已经有两座水坝:比如水坝(1990年完工)和查龙水坝(1995年完工)。与Yardely先生所认定的相反,争议中的新坝并非要建在世界自然遗产地,对那个地区的生物多样性也几乎没有什么影响。事实上,怒江计划建坝的地区的生态和环境实际上都已被毁灭,是由于数百年来当地居民过度的开发(砍伐森林、开荒、修路等等)造成的。建坝反倒有可能在某种程度上有助于恢复那里的生态系统,例如通过改变当地居民的生活方式而停止砍伐森林和开荒,并为保护当地的生态提供足够的资金。
     Yardely先生进而报道说:近几个月来中国国内媒体的有关报道已被禁止。
     这不是事实。在近几个月来,在中国大陆的全国性报刊上有许多关于怒江建坝争议的报道。其中大部分是支持环保人士的。以下是一些例子:
《水电还是环保 是一个问题》,《国际先驱导报》20051121
《怒江之争折射社会进步阵痛》,《科学时报》2005117
怒江保卫战逆转?》,《商务周刊》20051021
    Yardely先生又报道说:但是中国水利部注意到有关国际河流的政府报告被视为专有的信息,宣布环评中的一小部分内容属于国家机密,并禁止其发布。
     这也不是事实。中国水利部并没有参与怒江规划,也未卷入争议,从未如此宣布过。怒江环评报告在完成之后,全文就被归为机密,这甚至发生于有关争议出现之前,纯粹是由于法律的原因(不是在说法治吗?):在20001229制定的一部法规规定有关国际河流的科研资料属于机密;而怒江是一条国际河流。据我所知,该环评报告中并没有什么内容需要保密、不宜让公众知道的。事实上,我将乐于见到该环评报告被公示,因为我相信这将会澄清有关怒江项目的不实报道和误解。那些环保人士应该很清楚这个法律问题,因为他们中有人(例如蒋高明研究员)参与了环评,手上应该有一份环评报告。如果他们真的希望该报告获得公示,他们应该首先要求政府修改法律。因此我相信他们的呼吁不过是试图使局势复杂化,混淆视听。
     自从1990年到美国以后,我便是《纽约时报》的忠实读者。在批评中国媒体糟糕的新闻操守时,我经常将《时报》做为好新闻的标准加以引用。我希望在将来我还能这么做。像这样有倾向性的、不准确的报道只会损害《时报》的信誉。
 附英文原文:
 To the Editor:
 As one of those scholars who "toured the Nu and attracted wide public attention by attacking the environmentalists"  (Rule by Law: Seeking a Public Voice on China's 'Angry River', by Jim Yardley, December 26, 2005), I feel obliged to correct the mistakes in Mr. Yardley's report. 
 Much of its inaccuracy and misinformation could have been avoided if Mr. Yardley had paid any attention to my email reply to his questions dated December 7, 2005 (see the enclosure). However, writing as if none of opponents of the so-called "environmentalists" had answered his interview requests, Mr. Yardley had apparently ignored my opinions and reported only one side of story told by the "environmentalists".
 First of all, I would like to make it clear that the trip I attended was not "sponsored by dam developers" as Mr. Yardley reported, but by the National Hydropower and Water Resources Planning and Design General Institute. This institute was in charge of the environmental assessment report on the Nu River Project which the "environmentalists" now want to make public. Please note that the same institute also sponsored some "environmentalists" to visit the Nu River before our visit.
 The Nu River is not "one of only two free flowing rivers in China" as Mr. Yardley asserted. There are already two dams in the mainstream of the Nu River: Biru Dam (completed in 1990) and Chalong Dam (completed in 1995). In contrast to Mr. Yardley's assertion, the controversial new dams will not be built in the World Heritage Site area and will have little impact on the biodiversity of that area. In fact, the ecology and environment of the Nu River in the areas planned for the dams has been virtually destroyed because of over-exploitation (deforestation, farming, road building etc.) by local people during past few hundreds of years. The dam project may instead help restore the ecological system in ways such as stopping deforestation and farming by changing the life style of local people, and providing sufficient funds to protect local ecology.   
 Further, Mr. Yardley reported: "Domestic media coverage has been banned in recent months." That is not true. There have been many reports on this controversy in national newspapers and magazines in mainland China during past months. Most of them supported the "environmentalists." Here are a few examples:
 Hydropower or Environment Protection? This Is a Question, by International Herald (Guoji Xianqu Daobao), Nov. 21, 2005 
 Controversy of the Nu River Reflects the Pain of Social Progress, by Science Times (Kexue Shibao), Nov. 7, 2005
 "The Battle of Protecting the Nu River", Has the Situation Changed? By Chinese Business Weekly (Shangwu Zhoukan), Oct. 21, 2005
 Mr. Yardley also reported: "But the Ministry of Water Resources, noting that government reports about international rivers were considered proprietary information, declared a small section of the assessment to be a state secret and forbade its release."
 This is not true either. The Ministry of Water Resources was not involved in this project or the controversy, and never made such declaration. The environmental assessment report of the Nu River Project as a whole was classified as confidential right after its completion, before the controversy even started, for a purely legal reason (talking about "Rule by Law"): One current Chinese law, enacted on Dec. 29, 2000, prescribes that scientific data about international rivers are confidential; and Nu River is an international river. To my knowledge, nothing in this report is secret or inappropriate to be known by the public. In fact, I will be glad to see that the environmental assessment report is made public, because I believe it will clarify the misinformation and misunderstandings about the dam project. Those "environmentalists" should have known this legal problem very well because some of them (e.g. Prof. Jiang Gaoming) participated in the assessment study and should have a copy of the report. If they do want the report to be publicized, they should have asked the government to change the law first. Therefore I believe their appeal has no merit except complicating the issue and misleading the public.
 Having been a loyal reader of the New York Times since I came to the US in 1990, I had often been citing the Times as the standard of good journalism when I criticized bad journalism of Chinese media. I certainly hope I can do the same in the future. Biased and inaccurate reports like this one will only hurt the credibility of the Times.
 Sincerely,
 Shi-min Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi) 
New Threads Chinese Cultural Society, Inc.
P.O.Box 26194
San Diego, California 92196


https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-295826-368021.html

上一篇:方、肖之争不仅是科学之争,更是利益之争
下一篇:对开发水电重要性和必要性的认识
收藏 IP: .*| 热度|

4 刘全慧 李传亮 胡健波 chtang

发表评论 评论 (73 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-6-16 05:08

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部