【2015-09-05】 @whigzhou: 自从公开谈论旧石器食谱之后，我才发现，要做大师真是太容易了，因为你很难说服他们相信你不是大师，就算你反复说“我们这套迷信”，并声明完全不懂代谢学和营养学，他们大概也会觉得这是大师常有的谦逊风范。 @whigzhou: 在贵国，谈点自己的想法、介绍点新思想之类的事情，也总是有类似遭遇，无论追捧者还是嘲讽者，往往都会基于“你是把它当作科学定论或权威观点来谈论的”这样一种假定来评价你的言辞，他们压根就不相信一个人可以只是谈论自己觉得有点道理或有点意思的想法，根本没兴趣教导、说服或改变你们。 @真玄兔:那你何必要对别人说呢，你把这话说出来之后，是否教导说服改变别人就不是你能决定得了的了。要对自己的话负责。平时我哪怕在网上随便发条评论有拿不准的地方都会先查一下 @whigzhou: 你把菜刀卖出去之后，人家是否拿去切鸡鸡就不是你能决定得了的。要对自己的刀负责。哪怕卖刀也要确保它切不动肉  

The coup d'etat of 1714 - when the Whigs won 1714年辉格党人赢取的那场政变

作者：Matt Ridley @ 2014-8-2 翻译：陆嘉宾（@晚上不买白天买不到） 校对：Pyro，沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：作者个人博客，http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-coup-d'etat-of-1714-when-the-whigs-won.aspx Was an English Enlightenment delayed by the Hanoverian succession? 汉诺威王室入继大统拖延了英格兰的启蒙运动吗？ The centenary of the start of the first world war is getting much more attention than the tricentenary of the accession of George I, which also falls this week. As far as I can tell, no new biographies of the first Hanoverian king are imminent, whereas books on the great war are pouring forth. You can see why. 相比于同在本周的一战爆发百年纪念，乔治一世登基三百周年就没有那么引人注目了。据我所知，短期内没有这位汉诺威王朝首位国王的新传记出版，而关于一战的书籍却是铺天盖地。原因是显而易见的。 The replacement of a plump, if benign, queen by an ‘obstinate and humdrum German martinet with dull brains and coarse tastes’ (Winston Churchill’s words), who presided over a huge financial scandal and died unlamented after a short reign, need hardly detain us. 乔治在位经历了巨大的财务丑闻，不久便去世了，无人哀悼。用丘吉尔的话说，他是个“固执、无聊、头脑迟钝、品味糟糕的德国呆子”——这样一位国王取代一位胖得恰到好处的女王。算了吧，我们不必为此多费口舌了。 But forget the royals and focus on what we might call the reshuffle among politicians that accompanied the change. 还是忘记这些皇室成员，让我们把注意力放到那些伴随这一变故的所谓“政治洗牌”上来吧。 Here’s how Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, described the last week of July 1714 in a letter to Dean Swift: ‘The Earl of Oxford was removed on Tuesday. The Queen died on Sunday. What a world this is, and how does fortune banter us.’ 第一代博林布鲁克子爵，亨利·圣约翰，在一封写给斯威夫特教长【译注：即Jonathan Swift，文学家，《格列佛游记》作者，曾担任都柏林圣帕特里克大教堂教长】的信中是这样描写1714年7月最后一周的：“牛津伯爵【译注：Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford，安妮女王事实上的首席大臣】在周二被罢免，女王在周日去世。这是一个怎样的世界，命运如此戏弄我们。” The fall of the Jacobite-leaning Tories, led by Bolingbroke and his rival and former friend Oxford, with a coup d’état in the Privy Council by the Hanoverian-favouring Whigs, led by the Duke of Shrewsbury, on 30 July turned out to be a key moment in British history. It was never reversed, despite several attempts. In its own way it was as significant as 1215 and 1688. 发生在7月30日的两件事——博林布鲁克子爵及其前密友、现对手牛津伯爵所领导的亲詹姆斯派的托利党人失利，什鲁斯伯里公爵领导的亲汉诺威辉格党在枢密院政变成功——使这一天成为了英国历史上的关键时刻。尽管失败者数次试图反扑，但结果从未改变。这一年份在历史上和签署大宪章的1215年以及光荣革命的1688年同等重要。 The Tory Bolingbroke, a dazzling orator and spectacular libertine, had been stuffing positions of power with fellow Jacobites since becoming secretary of state and overshadowing his erstwhile ally the Earl of Oxford. 托利党人博林布鲁克能言善辩、风流成性，成为国务大臣之后一直忙于在重要职位上安插詹姆斯派党羽，压制前战友牛津伯爵。 But at an emergency privy council meeting on 30 July following the Queen’s stroke, he found himself outwitted by Shrewsbury, who unexpectedly summoned two fellow Whigs, the Dukes of Argyll and Somerset. The council got the barely conscious Queen to make Shrewsbury Lord Treasurer, then sat late into the night dispatching messages to alert garrisons and ensure that the Hanoverian succession was proclaimed. 但是在7月30日那次女王中风后的紧急枢密院会议上，他发现自己被什鲁斯伯里摆了一道。什鲁斯伯里出乎意料的招集了自己的两位辉格党同党——阿盖尔公爵和萨默塞特公爵。枢密院先是让几乎丧失意识的女王任命什鲁斯伯里为财政大臣，然后又连夜发送急件通知警备队保持警惕，以确保汉诺威王室宣告继位。 Had Bolingbroke prevailed at that meeting, we would probably have had a King James III, though there would almost certainly have been a civil war (instead of the minor fiasco of the Fifteen). Britain might have been more absolutist, more French influenced, more Catholic-tolerant and less commercial. 如果博林布鲁克在那场会议上取胜，我们也许会迎来一位詹姆斯三世国王，虽然那几乎一定会引发一场内战（而不是1715年詹姆斯党叛乱那种小闹剧）。不列颠也许会更加专制，受法国影响更大，更能容忍天主教，商业化也更少。 The stirrings of steam in the north that were to start the industrial revolution — the first faltering steps to turning heat into work — might have fizzled. The Act of Union with Scotland, agreed to some years earlier as part of the English insistence on the Hanoverian succession, might have unravelled. 北方那即将开启工业革命的滚滚蒸汽，也就是将热能用于生产活动的蹒跚尝试，也许就会胎死腹中。几年前通过的苏格兰联合法案——这是英国人坚持施加于汉诺威继承者的要求之一——，则可能就此解除。 At least, so goes conventional wisdom. In Churchill’s words, the outcome of that long meeting of the privy council was ‘No popery, no disputed succession, no French bayonets, no civil war’. 至少，传统的看法就是这样的。用丘吉尔的话说，枢密院那次长时间会议的结果是“没有罗马天主教，没有王位继承争端，没有法国的刺刀，没有内战。” However, there is another possibility. When not bonking, Bolingbroke was a philosopher, a religious free thinker greatly admired by Voltaire and Alexander Pope. 然而事情还有另一种可能性。当博林布鲁克并不沉迷于风月的时候，他是一位深受伏尔泰和亚历山大·蒲柏大力推崇的哲学家和宗教自由思想家。 His speeches and writings were read with avidity by the American founding fathers, who credited Bolingbroke with the idea that liberty means being free, ‘not of the law but by the law’. 其演讲和著作曾被后来的美国国父们如饥似渴地阅读，他们信奉博林布鲁克的这一理念：自由并不是“免于法律约束”的自由，而是“依靠法律而获得”的自由。 He invented the concept of an official political opposition and saw it as his duty to prevent the Whigs turning into a perpetual oligarchy. He proposed free trade with France. 博林布鲁克开创了正式政治反对派的概念，并将阻止辉格党成为永久性政治寡头视为己任。他还提出了与法国的自由贸易。 He was, in other words, a great deal more of an Enlightenment figure than the Whig who replaced him and, thanks to the blind support of George I and II, dominated politics for 20 years, while filling his pockets with ill-gotten gains: Robert Walpole. 换句话说，相比那个取代他的辉格党人——罗伯特·沃波尔，他远更像一位启蒙人物。而后者全靠乔治一世和二世的盲目支持，才主导政坛20年，并用不义之财塞满了自己的腰包。 Thus the cartoon version of history in which Whigs and Hanoverians brought liberty, parliament, Protestantism and trade, while Tories and Stuarts would have brought absolutism, Popery and civil war, may not be right. 因此，“辉格党和汉诺威王朝带来了自由、国会、新教和贸易，而如果换了托利党和斯图亚特王朝，带来的则会是专制、罗马天主教和内战”，这种卡通版历史可能是错误的。 You cannot quite help wondering if a Bolingbroke ascendancy might have given England a more vigorous Enlightenment, too, to rival those in France and Scotland. It has always puzzled me that the stars of the Enlightenment — Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, Smith and co. — included plenty of Scots and French, but no Englishmen. 你会不禁想象，如果当时博林布鲁克占据了主导，他也许会给英格兰带来一个更为活跃、足以媲美法国和苏格兰的启蒙运动。我一直有一个疑问，启蒙运动的璀璨群星，如伏尔泰、狄德罗、休谟和斯密等，其中有很多苏格兰人和法国人，却从来没有英格兰人。 Had Bolingbroke persuaded James Edward Stuart to turn Protestant, as he had tried to, then many British people would have welcomed a Stuart king. The idea of a German-speaking monarch was not at all popular. Shrewsbury’s coup might well have failed. 博林布鲁克曾尝试劝说詹姆斯·爱德华·斯图亚特【校注：即前述1715年叛乱的主导者，詹姆斯二世之子，史称“老僭王”】改信新教，如果他得以成功，那么许多不列颠人将会欢迎一位斯图亚特国王。由一位讲德语的人来当君主，这个主意从来都不受欢迎。这样的话，什鲁斯伯里的政变也许会彻底失败。 As it was, it was a close-run thing. There were plenty of Protestants who favoured James. I recently found out that my ancestor, who was Tory mayor of Newcastle that year, refused to declare the accession of George despite being a staunch Protestant. 其实就那时的情况来说，局面还是比较胶着的。当时有很多支持詹姆斯党的新教徒。我最近才发现我的祖先Richard Ridley那年担任纽卡斯尔的托利党人市长。虽然他是一位坚定的新教徒，但也拒绝宣布乔治登基的消息。 A rival faction did declare it, so Richard Ridley sent his thugs to stamp it out, resulting in a Friday night riot on the Quayside (nothing much has changed). 但有一个敌对派别宣布了，他就派手下的那些恶棍去摆平这件事情，结果某个周五晚上还在码头区导致了一场骚乱（这种情况现在也好不了多少）。 Still, it all worked out in the end. Britain may not have loved its new king, nor the corrupt grandees who ruled in his name and promptly debauched the currency in the South Sea Bubble. But George did give sanctuary to Voltaire when he was exiled from France, and gradually the country did take advantage of the largest free-trade area in Europe (England and Scotland) to sow the seeds of prosperity and incubate freedom. 尽管如此，事情最后还是得以解决。不列颠人也许从未爱戴过他们的新国王，更别说那些打着他名号统治，还在南海泡沫事件中快速贬值货币的腐败高官了。不过乔治毕竟在伏尔泰被法国驱逐之后给予其庇护，而且这个国家也逐步利用欧洲最大的自由贸易区（英格兰和苏格兰）播下了繁荣的种子，并且孕育了自由。 Bolingbroke’s most famous work, The Idea of a Patriot King, was written at Alexander Pope’s behest much later in 1738 to influence George I’s grandson Frederick, Prince of Wales, into being a monarch who rose above faction, was a father to his country and championed trade. 博林布鲁克最著名的作品《爱国者君主的观念》晚至1738年才在亚历山大·蒲柏的请求下写成，其目的是用来引导乔治一世的孙子，威尔士亲王弗雷德里克，成为一个超越党派、扮演国家慈父角色、并拥护贸易的君主。 Which, if you think about it, is roughly what we have now. 仔细想想，我们现在所拥有的体制，大体就是如此。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Rival theories for a global cooling 有关一次全球冷却事件的竞争理论    作者：Matt Ridley @ 2013-1-13 译者：史祥莆（微博：@史祥莆） 校对：Marcel ZHANG（微博：@马赫塞勒张），小册子（微博：@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：作者个人网站，http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/younger-dryas.aspx Did a cosmic impact cause the Younger Dryas cooling? 新仙女木降温事件是天体撞击导致的吗？ My latest Mind and Matter column for the Wall Street Journal: Scientists, it's said, behave more like lawyers than philosophers. They do not so much test their theories as prosecute their cases, seeking supportive evidence and ignoring data that do not fit-a failing known as confirmation bias. They then accuse their opponents of doing the same thing. This is what makes debates over nature and nurture, dietary fat and climate change so polarized. 我在《华尔街日报》Mind and Matter专栏的最新文章中说： 据说科学家表现得更像律师而不是哲学家。他们不像对待案件诉讼那样详细地检验他们的理论，他们寻找支撑证据并且忽略掉那些不合用的数据——这就是被称为确认偏误【校注：指个人选择性地回忆、搜集有利细节，忽略不利或矛盾的资讯，来支持自己已有的想法的片面诠释的现象。】的过失。接着他们指控他们的对手在做同样的事。就是这个原因，导致有关先天与后天、膳食脂肪和气候变化等问题上的争议变得如此两极化。 But just because the prosecutor is biased in favor of his case does not mean the defendant is innocent. Sometimes biased advocates are right. An example of this phenomenon is now being played out in geology over the controversial idea that a meteorite or comet hit the earth 12,900 years ago and cooled the climate. 但检察官对案件带有偏见，并不意味着被告人无辜。有时候带偏见地坚决拥护是对的。这种现象最近在地质学领域有了个例子，那就是关于12900年前陨石（或彗星）撞击地球导致气候变冷的争议。 That the climate suddenly cooled then, plunging the Northern Hemisphere back into an ice age for 1,300 years, is not in doubt. The episode is known as the Younger Dryas, because in Scandinavia abundant pollen from a tundra flower called the mountain avens, Dryas octopetala, reappears in soil from this date, indicating that the forest had once more given way to tundra. With the sudden arrival of cooler, drier and less predictable seasons, early human attempts at agriculture in the Near East ceased, and people returned to nomadic hunting and gathering. 气候在那时突然变冷，使北半球猛然回到冰河时期并持续长达1300年，这是毫无疑问的。这段插曲被称为新仙女木事件，因为在斯堪的纳维亚，大量来自苔原花朵仙女木的花粉，在这一时期的土壤中再次出现，意味着森林曾经又一次让位于苔原。因为更加寒冷干旱和更加难以预测的季节变化突然出现，人类在近东的早期农业尝试停止了，人们回到了游动性的捕猎采集生活。 The cause of this cold lurch was seemingly settled some time ago when Wallace Broecker, a Columbia University geochemist, suggested that a North American ice sheet collapsed, flooding the Atlantic with fresh water, which interrupted the normal circulation of the Gulf Stream. 早些时候，造成这次寒冷突变的原因看似已有了定论。哥伦比亚大学的地质化学家Wallace Broecker认为，因北美冰盖崩塌而新增的融水涌入大西洋，这使得墨西哥湾流的正常循环被打断。 Then a marine geologist, James Kennett of the University of California, Santa Barbara, said he had found evidence of the impact of a large object from space 12,900 years ago, in the form of carbon spherules in silt. 然而，加州大学圣芭芭拉分校的一位海洋地理学家James Kennett说，他从淤泥里碳球粒状体的形态中发现了12900年前大型天体撞击的证据。 Dr. Kennett's argument is that a swarm of meteorites punched through the atmosphere and caused a vast conflagration, filling the air with dust and soot. This shut out the sun, causing decades of continuous winter -sufficient to trigger an advance of ice sheets that, even when the dust cleared, kept the climate cool for more than a thousand years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Kennett博士的观点是，大量陨石击穿大气层并导致了大规模燃烧，使空气中充满了灰尘和烟雾。它们遮蔽了太阳，导致了持续数十年的冬天，从而引致冰盖大幅扩张。即使灰尘消散后，这些冰盖也足以使寒冷气候维持一千年以上，至少在北半球是这样。 Dr. Kennett prosecuted his case with gusto, also suggesting that the impact had extinguished North American mammoths, just as an earlier impact had finished off the dinosaurs (a theory hard to reconcile with the survival of mammoths for thousands of years longer on islands off Siberia and Alaska, where hunters could not reach them). Kennett博士兴致盎然地提出了他的根据，还认为这次撞击导致了北美猛犸象的灭绝，就像之前的一次撞击导致了恐龙灭绝那样（不过这个理论很难和如下事实协调起来：猛犸象在猎人无法到达的西伯利亚和阿拉斯加边缘岛屿又生存了几千年）。 He suffered a key setback in recent years when several groups failed to find the right kinds of spherules or otherwise duplicate the results of his team's work-and, worse, when a spherule sample from Younger Dryas rocks proved to be only 135 years old. 近年来他遭受的一个重要挫折是，几个小组都没能找到能印证该理论的其他球粒体，或者好歹和他的团队有同样的发现，并且更糟糕的是，一个新仙女木岩石中的球粒体样本被证明只有135年历史。 But spherules, dated to the right period, now have apparently shown up. Dr. Kennett and colleagues have published evidence in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that a "black mat" from the sediment of a Mexican lake dates to 12,900 years ago and shows a sudden peak of magnetic and carbon spherules, "nanodiamonds" of a kind known as lonsdaleite, and charcoal: all of it evidence of extreme heat. 但是如今，形成年代与该理论吻合的球粒体看来已经被找到了。Kennett博士和他的同事们在权威的《美国国家科学院院刊》(PNAS)上发表了证据，表明墨西哥湖沉积物中有一黑色薄层形成于12900年前，其中含有突然陡增的带磁性碳球粒体，一种被称为六方碳的“纳米钻石”，还有木炭：所有这些都是极端高温的证据。 Last year Michael Higgins of the University of Quebec published details of an underwater crater in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, arguing that it may also date from as little as 12,900 years ago. The crater, three miles across, has the characteristic central mound of a fresh meteorite impact. Its meteorite was probably too small to shift the climate, but perhaps it was part of a swarm. 去年，魁北克大学的Michael Higgins发表了关于圣劳伦斯湾一个水下陨石坑的细节，声称它也可以追溯到12900年前。这处3英里宽的陨石坑具有新陨石撞击坑所特有的中心土丘。这颗陨石可能太小，尚不足以影响气候，但也许它是一个陨石群的一部分。 After the previous debacles, the jury will take much convincing that the new results can be replicated. But the burden of proof has shifted a little in Dr. Kennett's favor. After all, Dr. Broecker and his followers, too, may be emotionally invested in his ice-sheet theory: Confirmation bias can affect us all. 先前的论点垮台之后，要让陪审团相信新结果能够重复观察到，还需要花很多功夫。但举证责任现在向有利于Kennett博士的方向偏移了一点。毕竟，Broecker博士和他的追随者们也可能已经在他的冰盖理论上投入了情感：确认偏误可以影响我们所有人。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Games Primates Play-People behave just like the apes they are 灵长类的把戏——人的行为就像猿猴 作者：Matt Ridley @ 2012-4-20 译者：张三(@老子毫无动静的坐着像一段呆木头) 校对：Drunkplane（@暂时只看书不旅行了-zny），小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：作者个人网站，http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/games-primates-play-(1).aspx Generally, junior professors write long and unsolicited emails to senior professors, who reply with short ones after a delay; the juniors then reply quickly and at length. This is not because the seniors are busier, for they, too, write longer and more punctually when addressing their deans and funders, who reply more briefly and tardily. The asymmetry in length and speed of reply correlates with dominance. 在学术界，一般来说年轻的教授会主动地给资深教授写长长的邮件，而后者会在拖延一段时间后简短地回复，然后年轻教授很快又详尽地回复。这并不是因为资深教授们更忙，他们自己也常常会在给他们的院长或研究资金提供者写信时把邮件写得较长较详细，然后在经过漫长的等待后得到一封简短的回复。邮件回复长度和速度上的这种不对称性，和双方关系中支配地位的归属有关。 When a subordinate chimpanzee grooms a dominant one, it often does so for a long time and unsolicited. When it then requests to be groomed in turn, it receives only a brief grooming and usually after having to ask a second time. 在动物界，地位较低的黑猩猩常常自愿为占主导地位的黑猩猩仔细梳理毛发，但当他反过来要求对方帮忙梳理毛发时，通常要一再要求才行，而对方往往也只是简单应付一下了事。 This gorgeous little juxtaposition of tales comes from a new book by Dario Maestripieri of the University of Chicago, who is both a professor and a primatologist (and a primate). His book, called "Games Primates Play," is devoted to ramming home a lesson that we all seem very reluctant to learn: that much of our behavior, however steeped in technology, is entirely predictable to primatologists. 这两个相互映照的趣味小故事来自一本叫《灵长类的把戏》（Game Primates Play）的新书，作者Dario Maestripieri教授供职于芝加哥大学，是一名灵长类动物学家（也是一头灵长类动物J）。他的书想让我们彻底认清一个我们似乎都极不情愿去了解的事实：尽管人类在科技上已经有了长足的进步，但我们的很多行为仍完全在一个灵长类动物学家的预料之内。 He observes two university colleagues in a coffee shop and notes how the senior one takes the chair with the back to the wall (the better to spot attacks by rivals or leopards), is less attentive to her colleague's remarks than vice versa, stares down her colleague when a contentious issue comes up and takes the lead on walking out the door at the end-all of it neatly corresponding to the behavior of two baboons when one is dominant. 他在一家咖啡店观察了两位大学同事的举止。他注意到，两人中较资深的一位选择了背靠着墙的椅子（更容易发现对手或者豹子，如果有的话），和对方相比在对话中较不专心，当发生分歧时双眼直盯着对方，最后出门时也走在前面。他们在整个过程中的表现和两只有着支配-从属关系的狒狒毫无二致。 (A new member of a committee on which I served once asked me why a senior colleague was being so horrible to him. I replied: "Oh, it's because when a new male baboon joins a troop, it's traditional for the alpha male to beat him up before becoming his best friend-soon he'll think the world of you." I was right.) （有一次，我所在委员会的一位新成员问我为什么一位资深同事对他那么差。我回答说：“哦，这是因为一只新的公狒狒加入一个群体时，群内雄一号通常会先暴揍它一顿，然后再成为它最好的朋友——那位同事不久就会成为处处为你着想的朋友了。”我果然猜对了。） Dr. Maestripieri's most intriguing chapter is entitled "Cooperate in the Spotlight, Compete in the Dark." He describes how people, like monkeys, can be angels of generosity when all eyes are on them, but devils of spite in private. Famously, the citizens of New York City turned to crime when the lights went out in the blackout of July 13, 1977-not because they were evil but because the cost-benefit calculus was altered by the darkness. Maestripieri博士书中最引人注目的一章名为：“光明促进合作，黑幕导致竞争”。他描述道，人就像猴子一样，在受人瞩目时可以慷慨得像个天使，但私下里却可以恶毒得像个魔鬼。正如广为人知的那样，在1977年7月13日夜晚那次大停电期间，纽约发生了很多恶性犯罪，这并不是因为人性本恶，只是由于黑暗使得犯罪成本降低而已。 Dr. Maestripieri then offers a fascinating analysis of the conundrum of peer review in science. Peer review is asymmetric: The author's name is known, but the reviewers remain anonymous. This is to prevent reciprocal cooperation (or "pal review"): I'll be nice about your paper if you're nice about mine. 然后，Maestripieri博士提供了一个对科学界同行评审机制的有趣分析。同行评审本身是不对称的：论文作者的名字是公开的，而评审者却是匿名的。这种机制是为了防止互惠合作（reciprocal cooperation），或者叫“熟人评审”——如果这次你对我的论文高抬贵手，那下一次我也会投桃报李。 In this it partly works, though academics often drop private hints to each other to show that they have done review favors. But peer review is plagued by the opposite problem-spiteful criticism to prevent competitors from getting funded or published. 这种机制还算发挥了一些作用，尽管学者们常常相互留下隐秘线索，表示自己已经照顾了人情。然而，同行评审中反面的问题却要严重得多：评审者可能用恶意差评来打击同行竞争者，以阻止对方发表论文或得到科研基金资助。 Like criminals in a blackout, anonymous reviewers, in the book's words, "loot the intellectual property of the authors whose work they review" (by delaying publication while pinching the ideas for their own projects) and "damage or destroy the reviewed authors' property" (by denying their competitors grants and publications). 就像停电时的罪犯，用书中的话来说，匿名评审者还会“掠夺了被评审作者的知识产权”（借助评审来拖延原作者论文的发表，然后窃取论文中的研究成果，用于自己的研究项目），而且“毁掉了原作者的劳动成果”（通过否决竞争者的研究资金申请和发表申请）。 Studies show that peer reviewers are motivated by tribal as well as individual rivalry. Says Dr. Maestripieri: "I am a Monkey-Man, and when I submit a grant application for peer review, I am terrified that it might fall into the hands of the Rat-People. They want to exterminate all of us…(because our animals are cooler than theirs)." 研究表明，同行评审者利用评审机制进行恶意竞争，既可能出于个人竞争，也可能出于学术派系斗争。Maestripieri博士说道：当我提交研究资金申请给同行评审时，我总是害怕它可能会落到一些卑鄙小人的手中，他们总想着把我们赶尽杀绝。因为他们是一群鼠辈，而我们好歹和猴子同属灵长类，比他们要高级。 His answer (and it applies to far more fields than science) is total transparency with the help of the Internet. The more light you shine, the less crime primates commit. Once everybody can see who's reviewing whose papers and grant applications, then not only will spite decline, but so will nepotism and reciprocity. Anonymity alters the cost-benefit balance in favor of competition; transparency alters it in favor of cooperation. （至于如何解决这一问题）他的回答是（还可适用于科研以外的更多领域），我们要利用互联网让评审达到完全公开透明。事情越公开，灵长类能犯的罪恶就越少。如果每个人都可以知道每一篇论文、每一项研究资金评审的评审者和作者，不仅恶意评审会减少，任人唯亲，互惠合作的现象也会减少。匿名机制使得成本收益的天平偏向竞争，而公开透明则使得合作成为较好的选择。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Where the Middle Class Goes to Die 哪里的中产阶级没活路？ 作者：Kevin D. Williamson @ 2014-9-18 译者：Marcel ZHANG（@马赫塞勒张） 校对：史祥莆（@史祥莆），慕白（@李凤阳他说） 来源：National Review，http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388336/where-middle-class-goes-die-kevin-d-williamson In progressive Manhattan, inequality is maxed out. 在进步主义盛行的曼哈顿，不平等已达到空前程度。 A new report being released today by the Census Bureau finds that Manhattan has the highest level of income inequality in the United States. That is not entirely surprising, though it would also not have been surprising if it had been San Francisco or another progressive fiefdom. 美国人口调查局(Census Bureau)今天发表的一份报告显示，曼哈顿是全美收入差距最悬殊的地方。而这并不怎么出人意料，就算是出现在旧金山或其他进步主义大本营也不会令人吃惊。 For all the rhetoric about wicked 1 percenters and inequality, progressivism is a luxury good, and progressive-dominated enclaves are generally pretty okay places to live if you have a fair amount of money, but sort of stink if you’re in the middle or at the lower end of the earnings curve. 不论怎样夸张描绘那可恶的“1%”【译注：在近年来美国有关贫富差距和反全球化的抗议（比如“占领华尔街”运动）中，抗议者常自称为“99%”，而将最富裕阶层称为“1%”】和收入差距，进步主义都是一种奢侈品。此外，如果你手头有些钱的话，这些由进步派主导的地方都是很不错的安居之地；但若你处于收入曲线的中段或末端的话，那就有点不妙了。 Because most Americans experience New York City as tourists or in television shows and movies, it is easy to forget that the hometown of Wall Street and a very large population of obnoxious celebrities is a poor city: New York City is not only poorer than the New York State average, its median household income is, in absolute dollar terms, lower than that of such dramatically less expensive areas as Austin, Texas, or Cleveland County, Okla., where the typical household income is a few thousand dollars a year more than in New York City but the typical house costs less than a third of what the typical New York City home costs — and 17 percent of what the average Manhattan home costs. (And it’s a house, not a two-room coop.) 由于大多数美国人都只是到纽约旅行过，或是在电影电视中了解的纽约，所以很容易忘了，这个华尔街的故乡，这个充斥着众多令人生厌的名流的城市，其实是个“穷人之城”——在富裕程度方面，纽约市不仅低于纽约州的平均水平，而且其家庭中位数收入（以不变价美元计算）甚至还低于诸如德克萨斯州的奥斯汀和俄克拉何马州的克里夫兰县这样物价远低于纽约市的地区，这些地区的典型家庭年收入比纽约市高出几千美元，但是其一般房价却不足纽约一般房价的三分之一，甚至仅相当于曼哈顿房屋均价的17%。（而且这可是独栋屋，不是两居室公寓。） Inequality per se is a relatively minor and generally misunderstood issue, inasmuch as if New York’s median household earned four times what it does now but its top–5 percent households earned ten times what they do, there would be more income inequality but a much higher overall standard of living for rich and middle-class alike. 不平等本身其实是个相对次要并且被广泛误解的问题，因为如果纽约的家庭中位数收入是现有水平的四倍，但收入排名前5%的家庭收入是现在的10倍，那么收入差距就会更加悬殊，但是富裕阶层和中产阶层的总体生活水平却大大提高了。 What is particularly salient about the progressive governance of places such as New York City and San Francisco is not the income inequality coincident with it — which has many causes, only some of which are directly related to public policy — but the myriad ways in which misgovernment makes these cities such hostile places to live for people of relatively modest means. 像纽约和旧金山这种城市的进步主义治理模式，其最显眼的地方，不是与这种治理模式相伴的收入不平等（收入不平等的原因有很多，而只有一部分与公共政策有关），而是对于相对不富裕的人群来说，这些城市处处表现出敌意，而那都是由于治理不善的缘故。 As indicated above, the income figures by themselves hardly tell the story. The median household income in the city of New York is a few hundred dollars a year more than the median household income in the state of Texas, but in practical terms the average New York City household is much worse off. 正如上文所指出，收入数据本身并不能解释一切。纽约的家庭中位数年收入比德州高出几百美元，但实际上纽约普通家庭的状况要差得多。 The most obvious issue is the cost of housing, which for New Yorkers is about four times what it is for Texans. Housing prices are a function of supply and demand, and demand for New York City housing is relatively high, a fact that probably does not have very much to do with public policy. I have lived in New York City for some time, and I have never met anybody who says he moved here because it is so well governed. 其中最明显的问题就是住房成本，纽约人的住房成本大约是德州人的四倍。房价乃供求使然，而且纽约的住房需求相对较高，这个事实恐怕跟公共政策没多大关系。本人在纽约住过一段时间，而我从未听闻有人说搬到这是因为这儿的治理有多么好。 On the other hand, supply is highly restricted, and that is a direct consequence of bad public policy, an economic reality that is obvious even to such sympathetic progressives as Matt Yglesias, who sensibly notes that limitations on the number of new housing units in places such as Washington, D.C., bias construction toward high-priced luxury homes, while hostile zoning codes in places such as San Francisco prevent markets from responding to demand and lead to “deliberately underutilized” mass-transit arteries. 另一方面，住房供给却是被严格限制的，而这就是不良政策的直接后果了，这个经济现状非常显而易见，就连Matt Yglesias这样抱同情之心的进步派人士都说，在像华盛顿这样的地方对新建住房单位数量加以限制，会导致高价豪宅数量增多，而在旧金山等地实施的限制措施则阻碍了市场对需求的回应，从而导致了“蓄意不充分利用的”公交要道的产生。 In New York City, housing prices are kept artificially high by draconian restrictions on new construction, rent control and the less aggressive “rent stabilization,” political interference with development financing, onerous union rules that drive up construction prices, byzantine regulation that imposes enormous compliance costs, and more. Even in a city in which four of the five boroughs are located on islands, there are vast tracts of underused real estate, the development of which could alleviate housing expenses for the middle class and the poor. 在纽约，房价被人为抬高的原因有很多：针对新建房屋的严苛限制、租房管制以及不那么激进的“租房稳定措施”、政治因素对开发融资的妨碍、抬升造价的繁冗的工会规定、错综复杂的监管规章带来的巨大合规成本，如此等等不一而足。即使是在这个五个行政区中有四个都坐落在岛屿上的城市，也有大片的地产都未被充分利用，对这些地产的开发，将能够减轻中产和贫困阶层的住房负担。 There is also the problem of the 13th month’s rent in New York City. 纽约市还有个第13个月房租的问题。 If you earn the median income of $52,223 in New York City and you live within the city limits — not just in Manhattan but in the distant Bronx and Staten Island, too — you pay the city nearly $1,800 a year in additional income tax for the privilege. 在纽约市，如果你能赚到该市的中位数收入52,223美元，并且住在纽约市区里（不仅仅是曼哈顿，还包括布朗克斯和史泰登岛），那么你就要为这项特权支付每年近1,800美元的附加所得税。 You can basically forget about owning a home — the median house price in the city is more than a half a million dollars — but renting won’t be easy, either: Applying New York landlords’ prevailing 40-times-the-rent rule, you can afford about $1,300 a month; not impossible if you’re single, but a substantial challenge for a family. 你基本可以不用想买房子的事了，因为这个城市的房价中位数已经不止50万美元，但租房住也不容易：套用盛行于纽约房东之间的“40倍房租规则”，你仅能负担不到每月1,300美元的房租，如果你是单身的话，这个数目不至于完全租不到够你住的房子，但这点钱要想租到够一家人住的房子，那就难咯。 But in any case, you’ll be paying a 13th month’s rent and change to the city for the privilege of residing within its boundaries. Assuming you are single, taxes and rent would consume between 50 percent and 60 percent of your income. Move to Houston, and you’d get a $3,000-a-year discount before even accounting for the lower cost of housing. 但无论如何，你都要为了居于城内这项特权支付这第13个月的租金给这座城市。假设你是单身，那么光缴税缴租都要花掉你收入的五到六成。如果搬到休斯敦，你就能每年少付3,000美元，就这还没算更低的住房成本呢。 If you are truly concerned about inequality, then that matters a great deal, because income inequality is only one kind of economic inequality, and one of the less important kinds: Wealth inequality is more significant. If the majority of your income is being consumed by taxes and rent, saving and investing becomes hard. 如果你果真对不平等耿耿于怀的话，那这就是关乎要害的大事了，因为收入不平等只是经济不平等的一种，而且还是不那么重要的一种——财富不平等更加重要。如果你的大部分收入都用来缴税缴租了的话，那就很难进行储蓄和投资。 And given progressives’ abysmal record in providing key municipal services such as effective law enforcement and decent public schools to low-income communities, there are powerful incentives to take on additional expenses by paying the premium for living in a better neighborhood or enrolling your children in private schools. 而且考虑到进步派在提供关键市政公共服务上（比如有力的执法和面向低收入社群的适宜的公立学校）的糟糕记录，那你就有很强动机想要居住在更好的街区，或让你的孩子就读于私立学校，但这就要支付额外的费用。 When it comes time to pay for college or to leave behind a bequest for children or grandchildren — an important means of building wealth within families — you’re almost certainly better off in San Antonio or Provo than in New York or San Francisco. 一旦到了该支付大学学费或为你的子孙后代留下遗产（这是一种积累家族财富的重要方式）的时候，那么几乎可以肯定的是，如果你住在圣安东尼奥或普罗沃的话，会比住在纽约或旧金山的情况要好。 Highly skilled, highly educated people are likely to do well wherever they are, and creative, dynamic, global cities such as New York are gold mines for them. But not everybody is going to be an investment banker or a tech entrepreneur. If you want to get a picture of what progressive policies look like for everybody else, try living in New York City for a year with an average New York City income — and try it with a family. 高技能水平、高学历人群可能在哪里都会过得不错，而且像纽约这样富有创意和活力四射的国际大都市对于他们来说更是一座金矿。但并不是每个人都能成为投行家，或创办一家科技企业。如果你想了解一下在其他人眼中进步主义政策是怎么样的，那就试试在纽约市拿着平均收入生活一年，而且要拖家带口。 Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review. Kevin D. Williamson，《国家评论》杂志流动通讯记者 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

In House Testimony, Botkin Dismantles the IPCC 2014 Report Botkin在众院听证中推翻了IPCC 2014年度报告 作者：Daniel B. Botkin @ 2014-5-31 译者：陈小乖（@lion_kittyyyyy) 校对：Eartha（@王小贰_Eartha），二校：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：Anthony Watts的博客（Watts Up With That?）, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-ipcc-2014-report/ Policycritic writes: You need to read this, Anthony. He dismantles the IPCC 2014 report for Congress. Policycritic写道：Anthony你得读读这个。他推翻了政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）提交给国会的2014年度报告。 Botkin’s bio: “Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004′s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.” Botkin的简历： “Daniel B. Botkin是一位享誉世界的生态学家，也是加利福尼亚大学圣塔芭芭拉分校生态、进化和海洋生物学系荣休教授兼环境研究中心主任，该机构对复杂的环境问题进行独立的、基于科学的研究。《纽约时报》称，‘他的著作《不谐和的和谐：二十一世纪新生态学》被众多生态学家认可为环保运动经典教科书。’他的《环境科学》一书目前已出到第六版，该书曾被教科书及学术作家协会评选为２００４年度最佳教科书。” Indeed, and I’ve made the full written testimony available, plus a video showing Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA) poses questions to the witness panel at the Full Committee hearing titled, “Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process.” where he grills Daniel B. Botkin with idiotic questions like: ‘Doctor, do you look both ways before you cross the street?’ 我找到了Botkin的书面证词全文，还有一段众议员Joe Kennedy（民主党，马塞诸塞州）的一个视频，内容是在主题为“审查联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会的工作进程”的全体委员会听证会上，对证人小组作出的提问。听证会上，Joe用诸如“博士，您过马路前两边都需要看吗？”等愚蠢问题刁难Daniel B. Botkin。 WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY. MAY 29, 2014 致众议院小组委员会关于科学、太空和技术的书面证词 DANIEL B. BOTKIN 证人：Daniel B. Botkin Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. 1968年至今，我发表的学术论文涉及全球变暖的理论问题、它的潜在生态效应，以及对人类和生物多样性的影响。我的整个职业生涯都致力于保护我们的环境及其丰富的物种多样性。为此，我一直努力尝试继承科学事业的优良传统，坚守一种客观的、智识诚实的和科学的工作方法。 I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” 因此，近几年，我对这个话题已被转变为一场政治和意识形态的辩论而倍感沮丧和失望。辩论双方都有我的同事，我坚信我们应当作为科学家共同努力，而不该为了先入为主的、基于情绪的“站队”互相争论。 I hope my testifying here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC 2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why. 我希望此次作证能有助于开启一条更平和、更理性的进路，以便应对包括但不仅限于气候变化的重大环境问题。IPCC 2014年度报告不具备这种我们本应有的理性讨论。我想告诉你为什么。 The IPCC 2014 report is actually a series of reports, each long, complex in organization, and extensive in scope. Since it’s not possible to discuss the Summary Reports for Policymakers in detail today, I will highlight some of my thoughts for you here as they relate to the reports, hoping to bring a saner, more sober approach to this highly charged issue. IPCC 2014年度报告实际上是一系列报告的集结。这些报告每一篇都结构复杂，篇幅冗长，涉猎广泛。因为今天不可能就其中《决策者参考摘要》进行详细讨论，所以我将着重谈谈我与这些报告有关的一些想法。希望它们能给这个极具争议的话题带来更理智、更冷静的处理方法。 To characterize where we are with this report and this issue, I would like to quote James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Energy Secretary, who said:“We have only two modes — complacency and panic.”—commenting on the country’s approach to energy (1977) 为了描述我们在这份报告以及这个问题上的处境，我想引用美国首任能源部长James R. Schlesinger于1977年就美国能源政策所做的评论，他说：“我们只有两种状态——怡然自得和惊慌失措。” Now to my major points. 现在来谈谈我的主要观点。 1.I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible. 1.我想声明在先，我们一直在经历由各种因素导致的变暖趋势。然而，我认为这并非异常，与IPCC及《国家气候评估》的描述恰恰相反，这些环境变化既不会带来世界末日也不是不可逆转的。 2.My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think. 2.我最担忧的是，这两份报告都展示了一系列推测性的结论，有时候还并不完备，但经过语言修饰后却具有了名不副实的科学份量。他们只是“听上去科学”，并非基于真实确定的事实，或者没有承认这一点。在全球环境问题上， 科学界公认的既定事实远比外行通常认为的少。 3.HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not. 3.一直在变暖吗？是的，我们一直在经历变暖的趋势，这一点毫无疑问。我们正在经历的升温速度也并非史无前例，持续变暖期的“神秘性”仅仅表明，全球生物圈具有内在的复杂性。变化是正常现象，地球上的生命从诞生之初就一直面临危险。然而，这两份报告令环境变化看起来像是末日灾难，并且无法逆转，可事实并非如此。 4.IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes. 环境变化是极其异常的现象吗？不是的，环境一直在经历变化。 5.ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly. 5.温室气体在增加吗？是的，二氧化碳浓度正快速上升。 6.IS THERE GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE?Yes, a great deal of it. 6.关于气候变化，有优秀的科学研究吗？有，有很多。 7.ARE THERE GOOD SCIENTISTS INVOLVED IN THE IPCC 2014 REPORT? Yes, the lead author of the Terrestrial (land) Ecosystem Report is Richard Betts, a coauthor of one my scientific papers about forecasting effects of global warming on biodiversity. 7.有优秀的科学家参与到IPCC 2014年度报告中吗？有，例如陆地生态系统报告的主要作者Richard Betts，他是我的一篇关于预测全球变暖对生物多样性的影响的科学论文的共同作者。 8.ARE THERE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENTS AT PLACES IN THE REPORT? Yes, there are. 8.在报告中是否有科学、精确的表述呢？有。 9.What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed. 9.我试图罗列读者能从这些报告中得到哪些有用的信息。遗憾的是，这些报告留给我的印象是：过分强调人为因素引起的气候变化的危险性，而对我们解决重大环境问题毫无贡献。恐怕报告前前后后都渗透了一个“意图”：一种关于人类及其活动必然有害、必须加以削减的暗示。 10.ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions. 10.报告中是否存在重大缺陷？是，在提出假设、数据使用、以及结论部分，都存在问题。 11.My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think. 11.我最担忧的是，这两份报告中都展示了一系列推测性的结论，有时候还并不完备，但经过语言修饰后，却具有了名不副实的科学份量。他们只是“听上去科学”，并非基于真实确定的事实，或者没有承认这一点。在全球环境问题上， 科学界公认的既定事实远比外行通常认为的少。【译注：此条似与第二条重复，原文如此】 12.The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warmingforecast by the global climate models is happening and will continueto happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically unproven. 12.这两份报告或假设或肯定地表示，全球气候模型所作的气候变暖预测正一步步变成现实，并将一直持续，越来越糟。目前，这些预测都远远脱离现实（图一）。和所有的科学理论一样，模型需要通过对照现实观测进行检验。模型验证领域的专家说，IPCC报告频繁引用的气候模型极少通过了验证。这意味着作为理论他们根本未经科学证实。 Figure 1: Climate model forecasts compared to real worldtemperature observations (From John Christy, University of Alabama and Alabama State Climatologist. Reproduced with permission from him.) 图一：气候模型预测结果与真实气温观测数据对比（来自John Christy,阿拉巴马大学、阿拉巴马州气候学家，经许可转载） 【图一】 13.The reports suffers from the use term “climate change” with two meanings: natural and human-induced. These are both given as definitions in the IPCC report and are not distinguished in the text and therefore confuse a reader. (The Climate Change Assessment uses the term throughout including its title, but never defines it.) There are places in the reports where only the second meaning—human induced—makes sense, so that meaning has to be assumed. There are other places where either meaning could be applied. 13.这些报告因混淆了“气候变化”的两层含义而变得更糟，气候变化可以自然发生，也可以因人类活动而起。IPCC报告为两者都给出了定义，但在行文中却并未明确区分，并因此而迷惑了读者。（《气候变化评估》中随处可见“气候变化”一词，包括报告标题，但从未明言它是哪一种。）报告中的一些地方，只有按照第二层含义——人类活动引起的气候变化，才能让人看懂，此时，我们不得不假定作者采用了这层含义。而在另一些地方，这两种含义由都对得上。 In those places where either meaning can be interpreted, if the statement is assumed to be a natural change, then it is a truism, a basic characteristic of Earth’s environment and something people have always know and experienced. If the meaning is taken to be human-caused, then in spite of the assertions in the report, the available data do not support the statements. 在那些两种含义均可的地方，如果该陈述被假定为一种自然现象，那这便是不言而喻的老调，是地球环境的基本特征，是人们早已了解并不断经历着的。而假如它指的是人类导致的暖化，那么尽管报告言之凿凿，现有数据却并不支持这些陈述。 14.Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions. For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion. 14.报告的部分结论与其所引用作为证据的文章给出的结论恰恰相反。例如，IPCC 2014陆地生态系统报告说：“北极的快速（气候）变化正影响着当地动物，这一论断具有中等可信度。比如，北极熊的19个亚种群中，有7个数量正在减少。”这一陈述引用了Vongraven和Richardson于2011年发表的一篇文章作为支撑。但原文所传达的信息与IPCC的报告恰好相反，他们认为“减少”是一种错觉。 In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation. 此外，我找到了这19个北极熊亚种群的可用数据。其中只有三个亚种群的数量被统计过两次，其余都只被统计过一次。因此，根本无法确定北极熊数量的变化速度。第一次统计完成于1986年，只对一个亚种群进行了计数。 The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges“Accurate estimates of the current and historicsizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–thespecies‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across internationalboundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.” 美国海洋哺乳动物委员会负有保护北极熊的责任，委员会承认“对北极熊当前及历史存量的精确估计非常困难，原因很多：这一物种的栖息地位于人迹罕至的地方，北极熊的活动跨越国境以及调查成本高。” According to Dr. Susan Crockford, “out of the 13 populations for whichsome kind of data exist, five populations are now classified by the PBSG [IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group] as ‘stable’ (two more than 2009),one is still increasing, and three have been upgraded from ‘declining’ to ‘datadeficient’. . . . That leaves four that are still considered ‘declining’‐ two of those judgments are based primarily on concerns of overhunting, and one is based on a statistically insignificant decline that may not be valid and is being reassessed (and really should have been upgraded to ‘data deficient’). That leaves only one population – Western Hudson Bay – where PBSG biologists tenaciously blame global warming for all changes to polar bear biology, and even then, the data supporting that conclusion is still not available.“ 根据Susan Crockford博士称，“在有部分数据的13个种群中，5个被PBSG【译注：PBSG，全称Polar Bear Specialist Group，是国际自然保护联盟物种存续委员会的北极熊专项小组】归为‘数量稳定’（比2009年多了两个），有1个数量仍在增加，有3个的数据信息从‘数量减少’更新为‘数据不足’……这样，被认为数量正在减少的就只剩下4个，其中有2个主要是受到过度捕猎的影响，另1个种群的数量减少在统计意义上则并不显著，这一数据信息可能无效，正在被重新评估（实在应该被更新为“数据不足”）。这样，唯一剩下的就是西哈德森湾种群。当地的所有北极熊生物学变化都被PBSG的生物学家坚定地归咎于全球变暖，而即便如此，仍然没有充分数据支持这一结论。” Polar Bear Status (Source: Polar Bear Science Website.) 北极熊的状况（来源：北极熊科学网站。） 【插图】 15.Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations. For example, the Terrestrial Ecosystems Report states that “terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems have sequestered about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by human activities in the past three decades (high confidence).” 15.有些结论无视统计上最有效的观测数据，甚至与其矛盾。例如，陆地生态系统报告指出“过去30年，陆地和淡水生态系统吸收了大约四分之一人类活动所排放的二氧化碳（高可信度）。” I have done the first statistically valid estimate of carbon storage and uptake for any large area of Earth’s land, the boreal forests and eastern deciduous forest of North America, and subtropical forests in Queensland, Australia. 我对地球上大面积陆地、北美寒带森林和东部落叶林以及澳大利亚昆士兰的亚热带森林对二氧化碳的储存和吸收做了第一次有效统计估计。【译注：意思是他这份更系统全面的研究却被无视了】 The estimates of carbon uptake by vegetation used by IPCC and in major articles cited by the reports are based on what can best be called “grab samples,” a relatively small number of studies done at a variety of times using a variety of methods, mainly in old- growth areas. The results reported by IPCC overestimate carbon storage and uptake by as much as 300 percent. IPCC报告及其所引用的主要文章在估计植物对二氧化碳的吸收时，采用的是最多能被称为“随意抓取样本”的方法，即一种在涉及多个时段、多种研究方法的课题上只做相对少量研究的做法，且集中于老林区域。IPCC报告的研究结果对二氧化碳的存储和吸收高估了百分之三百。 16.The report for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability repeats the assertion of previous IPCC reports that “large fraction of species” face “increase extinction risks” (p15). Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. And it has been clearly shown that models used to make these forecasts, such as climate envelope models and species-area curve models, make incorrect assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions, over-estimating extinction risks. 16.向决策者提供的《关于影响、适应性及脆弱性》的报告，重复了之前IPCC报告中的断言:“大部分物种”面临“持续增加的灭绝风险”（第15页）。然而，压倒性的证据与这一断言相抵触。如今我们已经很清楚，这些预测所用的模型，如气候包络模型、物种-面积曲线模型，设置了不正确的假设，从而导致了错误的结论，高估了物种灭绝的风险。 Surprisingly few species became extinct during the past 2.5 million years, a period encompassing several ice ages and warm periods.Among other sources, this is based on information in the book Climate Change and Biodiversity edited by Thomas Lovejoy, one of the leaders in the conservation of biodiversity. The major species known to have gone extinct during this period are 40 species of large mammals in North America and Northern Europe. (There is a “background” extinction rate for eukaryotic species of roughly one species per year.) 过去250万年间，尽管经历了多个冰川期和温暖期，灭绝的物种却少得惊人。得出这一结论的证据，包括Thomas Lovejoy编辑的《气候变化和生物多样性》一书，Lovejoy是保护物种多样性的领军人物之一。这一时期内灭绝的物种，主要为生活在北美和北欧的40种大型哺乳动物。（真核生物物种有一个“背景”灭绝率，大约每年有一个物种灭绝。） 17.THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable. 17.报告给人的印象是生物脆弱又呆板，无法应对变化，而事实恰恰相反。生命是持久的、具有良好的适应性和调整能力。 18.STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require environmental change. 18.稳态假设：IPCC 2014年度报告和《气候变化评估》中有一个基本的假设：所有的变化都是负面的，会带来麻烦；变化在生态和进化上是非自然的，对生物种群、物种、生态系统、地球上包括人类在内的所有生命都是有害的。这与现实完全相反：环境过去一直在改变，现在也仍然在变化着，生物需要适应这些变化。有趣的是，许多我所研究过或者了解的物种，如果不是大部分的话，需要环境的变化才能生存。 19.The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible. The past confirms this. Glaciers have come and gone repeatedly. The Northwest Passage of North America has gone and come again. The average temperature has greatly exceeded the present and forecasted and has declined only to rise again. 19.有关《影响、适应性及脆弱性》的决策者参考摘要中，不断使用“不可逆转的”变化这一说法。一个物种灭绝是不可逆转的，但其他环境现象很少是不可逆转的。历史证实了这点。冰川周期性地累积、消融。曾经消失的北美西北航道再次出现。【校注：指北大西洋经北冰洋至太平洋的航道，可能因冰层融化而变得可通行】（全球）平均气温曾远高于今天，也远高于我们对未来的预测值，只是后来下降了，然后再次回升。 Implicit in this repeated use of irreversible is the belief that Earth’s environment is constant — stable, unchanging — except when subjected to human actions.This is obviously false from many lines of evidence, including the simple experience of all people who have lived before the scientific-industrial age and those who live now and so such work as farm, manage rivers, wildlife and forests. 大量重复使用“不可逆转”，表明报告作者相信地球环境是始终如一的——稳定、一成不变——除非受到人类活动影响。种种证据表明这显然是错的。这些证据包括所有生活在科学和工业时代之前的人们，以及当代从事农耕，管理河道、野生动物和森林的人们的普通生活经历。 20.The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century. The Terrestrial report in a sense acknowledges this, for example by stating: “Climate stresses occur alongside other anthropogenic influences on ecosystems, including land-use changes, nonnative species, and pollution, and in many cases will exacerbate these pressures (very high confidence).” 20.过度强调人为因素对全球变暖的影响，已将我们的注意力从许多曾经备受关注的环境问题上转移开了，在21世纪，这些问题大都被忽视了。陆地生态系统报告在某种程度上承认了这点，比如，报告指出：“气候变化与其他对生态系统的人类影响同时发生，包括土地利用的变化，外来物种，污染等等，而且很多时候会加剧后者的压力（极高可信度）。” 【插图】 21.Do the problems with these reports mean that we can or should abandon any concerns about global warming or abandon any research about it?Certainly not, but we need to put this issue within an appropriate priority with other major here-and-now environmental issues that are having immediate effects. 21.这些报告中存在的问题，是不是就意味着我们能够或者应该对全球变暖这一问题漠不关心，或者放弃关于这一问题的任何研究呢？当然不是， 只是相比那些此时此地正对我们生活产生直接影响的主要环境问题，全球变暖议题应当被放在一个恰当的优先级上。 22.The concerns I have mentioned with the IPCC apply as well to the White House’s National Climate Assessment. I reviewed and provided comments on the draft White House’s National Climate assessment and, unfortunately, it appears that these issues have not been addressed in the final assessment. For example, I stated: 22.我提及的对IPCC年度报告的担忧，同样适用于白宫《国家气候评估》报告。我分析了白宫的国家气候评估报告草案，并提出了一些建议。可惜的是，我所指出的这些问题并没有在终稿中得到解决。例如，我曾表示： “The executive summary is a political statement, not a scientific statement. It is filled with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers.” “它的执行摘要是一份政治声明，而非科学声明。摘要中充斥着与得到公认且广为人知的科学论文相抵触的虚假陈述。” “Climate has always affected people and all life on Earth, so it isn’t new to say it is ‘already affecting the American people.’ This is just a political statement.” “气候一直影响着人类及其他地球上的生命，所以说它‘已经影响到了美国人民’是毫无新意的。这只是一个政治声明。” “It is inappropriate to use short-term changes in weather as an indication one way or another about persistent climate change.” “用天气的短期变化作为气候持续变暖或变冷的指标是不恰当的。” WHAT HAS GONE WRONG, AND HOW TO FIX IT 问题出在哪里，要怎么解决 1.Rather than focus on key, specific and tractable aspects of climate-change science, the long-term approach throughout the 20th century was to try to create de nova a complete model of the climate. 1.气候变化科学贯穿整个20世纪的长期做法，是试图创造一个全新的、完备的气候模型，而不是将焦点集中于气候变化的关键、特定、可把握的方面。 2.This approach has been taken despite a lack of focus on monitoring key variables over time in statistically and scientifically valid ways, e. g. carbon sequestering by forests; polar bear population counts. As a result, there is an odd disconnect between theory and observation. The attempt to create complete models of every aspect of climate has meant that many factors had to be guessed at, rather than using the best scientific methods. Too many guesses, too little checking against real, observed effects. 2.尽管缺乏对关键变量——比如，森林对二氧化碳的吸收，北极熊的种群规模计算——统计上和科学上有效的观测手段的持续关注，上述做法还是被采用了。结果，在理论与观测值之间出现了奇怪的裂痕。尝试建立一个囊括每个气候因素的完备模型，意味着许多因素要靠猜测，而不是依靠最佳科学方法。太多猜测，太少基于真实观测数据的检验。 3.The IPCC reports are the result of a very large number of people doing long reviews of the scientific literature. This easily leads to people being so overburdened that they misinterpret specific papers, fail to understand where the major observational gaps are, and have trouble making an accurate list of citations and all sources of information. The fundamental IPCC and White House Climate Change Assessment approach has been to gather a huge number of scientists from a large number of disciplines, on the assumption that a kind of crowd approach to what can be agreed on is the same as true scientific advance. While this might seem a reasonable and effective approach, there is some danger in relying on this “crowd-sourced” model of information sharing. 3.IPCC报告是一大群人进行大规模科学论文综述的结果。这很容易导致人们负担过重而曲解某些论文，他们不能很好地理解哪些地方会产生主要的观测误差，也无法准确罗列出参考文献和各种信息来源。IPCC和白宫《气候变化评估》所采用的基本方法，是基于“人多势众就是科学进步”的假设，集合大批涉及大量学科的科学家。虽然这是个看似合理有效的方法，但依赖于这样一个“源于大伙”的信息共享模型有一定的危险。 Groups of people, particularly when credentialed “experts” are involved, are very prone to a condition called an “information cascade” in which error is compounded by group think, assumptions become unchallenged “fact” and observations play second fiddle to unchallenged models. 一群人，尤其是有权威的“专家”参与其中，很容易出现所谓“信息裹挟”的问题，这种情况下，错误是集体“智慧”的结果，假设则成了无可辩驳的“事实”，观测到的真实信息在不容挑战的模型中居于次要地位。 The excellent scientists involved with the IPCC reports are no less prone to this than the excellent scientists who relied on Aristotelian models of a geocentric universe. Entrenched beliefs are hard to extricate, even amongst supposedly rational thinkers. This is probably in part responsible for the problems listed with the White House Climate Assessment report’s table of Biological Effects, discussed in my document reviewing that report. 参与IPCC报告的优秀科学家们并不比那些依赖亚里士多德的地心说的科学家更不容易犯这种错误。根深蒂固的想法很难被改变，甚至那些理应理性的学者也很难改变固有的想法。这或许可以部分解释我在针对白宫《气候评估报告》里那个“生物效应”表格所做的评论中列出的那一系列问题。 4.What a scientist discovers is different from what a scientist says. The first is science, the second is opinion. Have small groups of scientists work on this problem, no more than can easily argue with one another, that is less than 20 and preferably even smaller, representing the primary disciplines. Divide the problem into areas, rather than try to answer all questions in one analysis. I have used this approach in my own work and found it to be successful. 4.科学家发现的不同于科学家所说的。前者是科学，后者是观点。组织一小群科学家研究这一问题，人数不应超过便于他们互相争论的范围，也就是少于20人甚至更少，让他们代表主要的学科。将这一问题划分为不同领域，而不是试图在一个分析中回答所有问题。我自己在研究中就用这个方法，发现这很有效。 5.The desire to do good has ironically overridden the desire to do the best science. 5.讽刺的是，行善的愿望盖过了做最佳科学研究的愿望。 6.Under the weight of this kind of crowd rule and approach, some specific alternative approaches to the science of climate change, have not been allowed to rise to the surface. 6.在这样一种集体规则和路线的重压下，研究气候变化科学的某些特定替代路线就没有机会得见天日。 7.Among the approaches that would improve climate science: 7.可以改进气候科学的做法包括： a.Return to the former reliance on science done by individuals and small groups with a common specific interest and focus. a.回归到之前的状态，信任个人的科学研究，信任对特定领域感兴趣且专注于此的小团体所做的研究。 b.Change the approach from trying to make a complete, definitive model of every aspect of climate to a different level. See kinds of models that explore specific possibilities and phenomena. b.在方法论上，由试图建立一个涵盖气候各个方面的、完备的、精确的模型，转变到另一层面，研究探索具体的可能性和现象的各种模型。 c.Get out of the blame game. None of the above suggestions can work as long as global warming remains a moral, political, ideologically dominated topic, with scientists pushed into, or at least viewed as, being either for or against a single point of view. c.停止互相指责。只要全球变暖还是由道德、政治、意识形态主导的话题，科学家要被迫卷入其中明确站队，或者至少仍被看作在这么做，那么以上所有的建议都不会有用。 9.We need to focus again on major environmental Issues that need our attention now (see the list above). 9.我们需要将目标移回真正需要我们关注的主要环境问题（参见上表）。【编注：编码有误，原文如此。】 10.ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF RESEARCH I BELIEVE WE NEED MORE OF? YES. 10.能否举出一些依我看我们更为需要的此类研究？ 能。 a.NASA Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) b. Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study c. Whooping Crane monitoring, e.g. of an endangered species d. In-place monitoring on carbon flux, being done by the USGS in the Great Cypress Swamp, Florida. e. Many others. a.美国国家航空航天局碳排放监测系统。 b. 哈伯德·布鲁克生态系统研究。 c.对濒临灭绝的物种进行监测，例如，美洲鹤监测。 d. 碳排放波动实地监测，由美国地质调查局（USGS）在佛罗里达州大柏树沼泽实施。 e. 还有很多。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2015-09-03】 @海德沙龙 大卫·弗里德曼代表了市场无政府主义的功利主义一派，此派对哲学的兴趣不大，所以他们有关制度的论证，往往从问题直接跳到经济学（包括法律经济学）层次上，却很少对其暗中预设的前提或原则作出交代，本文罕见的例外，从中可以一窥大卫体系的伦理学基础 @whigzhou: 大卫的论证非常清晰，但依我看，这一论证很容易被击破，其实他对自己的薄弱环节（从均衡事实到伦理规则的过渡）应该也是清楚的，只是不想细究而已，结果最终，他用一个“令人欣慰的双重巧合”，就把自己的功利主义和直觉主义、和规定主义，都给调和了起来。 @whigzhou: 大卫试图用他的“双重巧合”来避开道德哲学上的争议，意思是，尽管功利主义、直觉主义和规定主义在哲学上完全不同，但既然他们要的结果恰好一样（至少在自由意志主义者中间），那就没必要在哲学上争了，在明确一组大家都要的简单原则之后，其他争议都可通过经济学分析解决。 @战拖拉夫卡: 大卫关于维持“三重巧合”的谢林点，其实质还是需要建立在参与者对某种价值标准的公认基础之上。可如果现实中只要有一人，他觉得偶尔的背叛是有助于实现短期利益的或者某个迫切愿望，那么这个谢林点是否就难以维系了？即布坎南所谓的脆弱的均衡 @whigzhou: 嗯，实际上根本没有（系统性的）巧合 @whigzhou: 在一些小的局部（特别是小型文化群体内部），确实可以观察到一些和普遍道德感相符、也和自由原则相符的自发规范，但从大范围看，绝大多数社会要么根本没走出霍布斯状态，要么其秩序远远不是自由的 @whigzhou: 比如大卫所引证的Robert Ellickson在《无需法律的秩序》所描绘的情况，之所以能发生，依我看，完全是因为当事人生活在美国，这个有着基本法律保障的地方，不会出现一伙农场主把另一伙挖坑埋了那种情况，在基本和平秩序有保障的前提下，发展出了一些私人秩序，但那根本算不上“无需法律的”。 @whigzhou: 这也是libertarian各种幼稚错误的根源所在，他们太熟悉美国以至于对这一背景条件完全熟视无睹，以为那是当然的、自动的，一个简单的质疑是：加州牧区的情况在阿富汗存在吗？