【2023-12-24】 #探井印象#1：考公考编火热，KFC店员平均年龄上升，平均颜值下降，地铁安检规模庞大，平均年龄小，安检小妹平均颜值高 ​​​ #探井印象#2：去招行办事，柜员让安装一app ，我解释我的手机在井内无法安装任何app ，因为google 在井内被封了，play store 打不开，柜员表情一片茫然，重复了几遍无效对话之后，我判断她压根不知道google 是什么以及为何它会跟手机app 有关系，目测20出头 ​​​ 在play store 里装井产app 我都是如履薄冰的，能去掉的授权一律去掉，直接装apk这种事情，我是绝不可能做的，一时小方便，未来大麻烦 #探井印象#3：打车价格明显下降，体验改善，网购食品衣服日用品价格无明显变化，牛奶极贵，忘了是否以前就这么贵，早点价格大幅上涨，烧卖从一笼十个改成八个，馄饨和锅贴改成论个（而非论份）计价，我想这是因为点心制作和蒸煮需要大量劳动投入，另外两种食品的情况印证了这一判断，熏肠和卤大肠，都是需要大量劳动的熟食，相对其他熟食的价格大幅提升，注：我说的熏肠是一种吴地特有熟食，由多股猪小肠紧套在猪大肠内文火熏制而成 #探井印象#4：大卖场好像正处于灭绝过程中？沃尔玛没了，连他家旗下那个好又多也没了，害我白费了几十块打车钱，无奈去了个大润发，东西贵而差，人气不旺，中老年居多，去了趟本地家具市场，近乎鬼城，这是我第三次去，一次比一次萧条 ​​​ #探井印象#5：公交车上一群放学的初中生在嘈嘈，没人说吴语，说的全是浙式普通话，而且是带东北口音的浙式普通话，东北口音的浙式普通话！震惊了，东北腔所向披靡，必将征服世界~ ​​​ 感觉吴语会在两三代之后灭绝，不过也无须哀叹，机会出现时复活也不难，希伯来语都复活了，吴语毕竟留下了那么多语音材料，复活条件远优于希伯来语 【2023-12-25】 #探井印象#6：说起早点，这回发现了一个创新案例，一家新出现的本地早点连锁，点心是完全本地传统的，雇员也是本地的，肉馅和皮子集中预制，但点心本身不是，估计是预制效果还不理想，单店规模极小，三张半四人桌，所以乍一看和传统小店几乎一样，肉眼可见的区别主要在厨房设备，配的相当专业且充足，效果是缩短了蒸煮时间，且时间控制更精确，每种点心都是用定时器按规定时间加工的，所以他家烧卖是一客一蒸的，靠的是新设备提供的大火力，不像传统店，一次蒸七八屉，没赶上新出笼时机的客人只能忍受稍差的产品，单店只有两位雇员，但单位时间产能明显高于传统店， 说起出笼时机，这个因素对面条馄饨没影响，可是对烧卖/锅贴/生煎却很重要，据我观察，这是头部神店脱颖而出与其他店拉开距离的关键所在，因为充足而确定的客流保证了所有客人都能获得最佳出笼时机，我以前常去那家本城顶端烧卖店，每天只经营早午各一两个小时，定额几百屉烧卖，全程满座，卖完打烊，产品只有两种口味的烧卖和两种口味的粉丝 【2023-12-25】 #探井印象#7：之前探井都在春秋，这回是冬季，终于感受到东亚季风气候和地中海气候的显著差别了，第一次去澳洲时，还带了几支我惯用的蛇油润手霜，可是完全没用上，维州的地中海气候，冬季湿润，即便夏天也从未干燥到需要润手的程度（也可能只有干加冷才会让皮肤出现需要滋润的状况？），这次过来没几天，就必须润手了，寒潮过后更厉害，内衣脱下来都带着大量皮屑，好多年没见过的情况了，而且比当年更严重，可能身体已经不适应这种程度的干燥了 【2023-12-26】 #探井印象#8：让我略感意外的是，载客三轮车仍然存在，至少在我们县城，虽然规模已大幅缩减，但稀稀落落仍可看到，价格上，只有极短途才仍具优势，只要路程超过一公里，或经过一座桥，就比汽车贵了，所以其存续必定依靠某些服务上的残余优势，比如最后一百米便利，三轮车能把客人送到楼梯口，而汽车往往不能，许多只能到小区门口，有些三轮车伕还提供搬运服务，我妈常叫的一位，会帮她把十公斤的大米从店里搬上车，再搬上三楼，或许还有其他一些只有他们能满足的需求，我不知道 #探井印象#9：井内驾照过期了，本来还在考虑要不要补一个，可是这念头很快便打消了，如此的红绿灯密度，在我已成了完全无法忍受的事情，这种感觉五年前还没有，当时虽已感知到鲜明对比，但还没觉得不可忍受， 压制我在井内开车欲望的另外两个因素是行车礼仪和限速，前者就不细说了，限速差距也极大，澳洲建成区默认限速50，但大一点的路都放宽到60，非建成区默认100，少数路段收紧到80，乡下大量未完全硬化的小路，都可以放心大胆开100，所以我在乡下开车从来没觉得需要高速，根本看不出高速公路会带来任何改进， 不过，礼仪和限速这两条也就让人不爽，并非不可忍受，真正受不了的是高密度红绿灯， 澳洲在都市区之外红绿灯很少，绝大多数交叉以转盘实现，或（在偏僻乡下）啥也没有的朴素交叉，在多数情况下，我过大转盘也就是从80km减速到60，小转盘从60减到40，极少需要刹停等待 【2024-01-11】 #探井印象#10：过去几十年社会流动和文化变迁的后果之一是，称谓用词一个个被挤占和抛弃，新词被挖掘或借用，最早的案例可能是小姐，取而代之的是美女，大姐、小妹？（我至今仍把握不准到底是哪个，反正都不好听）， 前几天去招行，发现他们都称客户老师，不过好像只有上海是这样，深圳和嘉兴的都不是， 另一个发现是，嘉兴有些银行管中年以上女顾客叫阿伯，显然是因为阿姨这个称谓已经遭污染了，正在被抛弃， 阿伯在嘉兴话里是姑妈的意思，也可用于称呼父母辈的非亲属女性，比叫阿姨更亲， 阿伯这个称谓的应用地理范围可能很狭窄，离开嘉兴，很可能被误解为男性称谓，也正因此，运用时又多了一层本土亲切感，是取代阿姨的上佳选择，特别当顾客是本地人时， 另外，嘉兴话里，与伯有关的称谓还有好几个，大伯的意思是夫兄（夫弟是小叔），伯伯才是真正的伯父，老伯伯则是非亲属父辈（比父亲年长），注意，这几个词中的伯字声调有所不同， 声调也可以区别两种阿姨，若以入声重读*阿*，短音轻读*姨*，那么阿姨的意思是妻妹，若以平声长音轻读*阿*，重读*姨*，则是母妹的常规意思，

【2021-12-29】 法国 Cosquer 洞穴里 27000年前格拉维特人留下的手印，这种手印在更新世南欧洞穴中很常见，是用含在嘴里的颜料喷出来的，特别的是，其中不少手印缺了几个指节，以前有人认为这是某种符号象征，后来有人分析了缺节的分布情况（图3），发现缺节频率从小指、无名指、中指、食指依次递减，前两种占了绝大多数，而拇指频率为0，这一频率分布与现实中因冻伤而导致手指缺节的情况基本吻合，（见 Ian Gilligan (2018) Climate, Clothing, and Agriculture in Prehistory，ch.6）     @睡不着的红猴子:是因为一般情况下小手指在身体最外侧吗？还是因为血管分布什么的？ @whigzhou: 嗯，外侧和离主要动脉的距离可能都有关系，还有粗细，越细越容易冻伤 @whigzhou: 据说高纬度男人的阴茎比热带略短，也是同理，阴茎很容易冻伤，所以遇冷会缩成小瓶盖 @whigzhou: 友情提示：冬天户外跑步的男人要特别小心这个问题，要加一层保暖，鸡鸡冻掉就麻烦了（或者说免了很多麻烦了） @whigzhou: 这里说的纬度，当然不是指你当前生活的纬度，得往回推小几万年，比如Mongoloids，祖上是寒带的，所以继承了大量寒带特征：扁平脸，眯缝眼，短小腿，干耳屎，较不发达的大汗腺……都是对严寒的适应  

【2021-08-30】 身价上百万美元的小提琴，总共也就小几十把，全都制作于1690-1740年代，往前推半个世纪，就是小冰期最寒冷的年代（也是第二次黑死病的年代），就是说，用来制作这些名琴的树木，都生长于小冰期最低谷，气温低，生长慢，木纹致密，比如名琴中最多的 Stradivarius 琴，用的是阿尔卑斯云杉，通常选择北坡的树，树龄几十年，加上十几年的木料陈化期，差不多就是半个世纪，  

Kerry: Doubters of Global-warming Apocalypse Must Be Silenced 克里：必须让怀疑全球变暖末日灾难的人闭嘴 作者：William F. Jasper @ 2015-11-20 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：慕白（@李凤阳他说） 来源：New American，http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21999-kerry-doubters-of-global-warming- In a speech delivered November 10 at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to be intentionally amping up the already incendiary rhetoric aimed at those scientists and citizens who express doubt or skepticism about — or opposition to — the wild, apocalyptic claims of the climate-change choir. 针对气候变化合唱团做出的鲁莽轻率的末日灾难预言，部分科学家及某些公民表达了自己的犹豫或怀疑，或反对。他们本就已经处在煽动人心的批评言论包围之下，而国务卿克里11月10日在弗吉尼亚州的欧道明大学诺福克分校发表的演讲则似乎是故意要加大力度煽风点火。 “The science tells us unequivocally, those who continue to make climate change a political fight put us all at risk,” Kerry said. “And we cannot sit idly by and allow them to do that.” “科学无可置辩地告诉我们，如果有人还要继续把气候变化问题转变为政治斗争，他们就会将我们所有人都推向悬崖”，克里说。“我们绝不能袖手旁观，任由他们这么干。” This was not the first time Secretary Kerry has made comments that lightly veil an implicit threat aimed at climate realists. Kerry, who has been beating the anthropogenic (manmade) global  warming (AGW) drum loudly all year long, in preparation for the imminent UN Climate Summit in Paris, made a similar comment before the Atlantic Council in March. 国务卿克里已经不是第一次发表这种隐隐透着对气候现实主义者的含蓄威胁的言论。整整一年来，克里一直在大声敲响人类活动（人为的）造成全球变暖（AGW）这面大鼓，以此为即将在巴黎召开的联合国气候峰会作准备。三月份，他在大西洋理事会上就已经发表过类似评论。 “When an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. Science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that,” Kerry said, in statement of supposedly unassailable logic that should end all debate. “Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that,” he continued. “苹果从树上下落，它就会掉到地上。基于物理学的基本规律，我们确知这一点。科学告诉我们存在重力，没人会对此提出质疑”，克里如是说，其口气似乎是要用铁一般的逻辑终结一切争议。他接着说，“科学还告诉我们，如果水温降到华氏32度以下，就会变成冰。也没有谁对此提出质疑。” Then came the “logical” clincher: “So when science tells us that our climate is changing and human beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, ‘well, I dispute that, or I deny that elementary truth?’” 然后“逻辑”铁证就来了：“因此我们就要问，当科学告诉我们气候正在发生变化并且这种变化主要是由人类导致的时候，人们有什么权利直接站出来说‘我不同意，或我拒绝接受这个基本真理’？” Yes, by what right? After all, they are “putting us all at risk,” right? “And we cannot sit idly by and allow them to do that,” can we? 对，有什么权利？毕竟他们“正把我们推向悬崖”，不是吗？“我们绝不能袖手旁观，任由他们这么干”，对吧？ Kerry doesn’t say what “we” can do to stop these doubters who put us all at risk, but he is playing to a powerful global choir that has already been salting public opinion with invective, the purpose of which is to demonize and criminalize those who challenge the “elementary truth” or the “settled science” of the AGW alarmists. 克里没有说的是，为要阻止这些把我们所有人都推向悬崖的怀疑者，“我们”能够做些什么。但他的言论是在迎合一个势力强大的全球大合唱，后者一直在用攻击谩骂来挑拨公众意见，目的在于妖魔化那些挑战“人为全球暖化说”警世派的“基本真理”或“牢固科学”的人，让公众相信这些人的所作所为是在犯罪。 Recently, as we have reported, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called on the Obama administration earlier this year to use the anti-mafia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to persecute heretics who cast doubt on the AGW dogma. 不久前我们曾报道过，美国参议员Sheldon Whitehouse（罗得岛州民主党人士）今年初呼吁奥巴马政府利用《反不正当敛财及腐败组织法》（RICO）这一反黑法案来追究那些对“人为全球暖化说”教义表示怀疑的异端分子的责任。 That tyrannical proposal, which should have earned Senator Whitehouse an immediate recall effort, was echoed shortly afterward when a group of 20 so-called climate scientists sent a letter to President Obama urging him to use the federal RICO statute to prosecute their fellow scientists who disagree with them and publicly expose the fallacies and fraud underpinning the “settled science” of cataclysmic climate change. 这是一个暴虐的提议， Whitehouse参议员本应立即手忙脚乱地收回，但相反地，他却很快就听到了回声。一个由20位所谓气候科学家组成的团体致信奥巴马总统，要求他启用联邦RICO法案起诉其他科学家，只因他们持有不同意见，并且公开揭露灾难性气候变化的“牢固科学”所倚为支撑的谬误和欺诈。 Talking Points Memo (TPM) infamously published an article (which has since been removed from its website) entiled, “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” “谈话要点备忘录”（TPM）曾刊登过一篇题为“我们什么时候会把全球变暖抵赖派们送进监狱或处决了事”的文章（现已从其网站上撤下），舆论为之哗然。 Posted under the pseudonym “The Insolent Braggart,” the profane incitement to violence and intolerance of diverse opinion stated: 文章以“狂野吹牛人”为笔名发表，无耻地煽动对不同意见采取暴力和不宽容态度。文中写道： What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don’t want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it’s a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth. 这些笨蛋最让人不爽的地方就是，他们都是些政客，都是些贪得无厌的混蛋，凡是自己的利益一点都不愿放弃。他们依靠的都是些伪科学，或者都是些基因最低贱的科学家，这些人为了一点点钱就可以篡改数据。世界上绝大多数科学才俊都同意并且深知，我们面对的是一个非常严肃的麻烦，有可能会对地球生命造成无法形容的巨大损害。 So when the right wing f***tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events — how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now? 所以，如果让这些右翼傻x把事情搞到无可挽回，毁灭性的后果就在眼前，并且我们能够看到世界末日之类的事情就要发生，如果到了这种时候，我们要如何惩罚那些应当为此负责的人。那时候必定为时已晚。所以，难道我们不应该现在就开始惩罚他们吗？ Very prominent voices in the climate-alarmism choir have been priming the lynch mob. 在气候变化危言警世者煽动暴民动用私刑的大合唱中，这是非常突出的声音。 James Hansen, the discredited NASA climateer and “grandfather” of the AGW lobby, called for prosecution of climate-catastrophe skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.” James Hansen是NASA里一位声名扫地的气候学家，也是“人为全球暖化说”游说活动的“老祖宗”。他也曾呼吁以“反人类重罪”的名义起诉那些怀疑气候灾变的人。 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is notorious for his environmental extremism, has said of climate realists who doubt the UN IPCC dogma: “This is treason, and we need to start treating them as traitors.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 向来因其环保极端主义立场而臭名远扬。针对怀疑联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会教条的气候现实主义者，他曾经如此说：“这就是叛国罪，我们应该现在就开始将他们视同叛徒来处理。” Joe Romm, a former Clinton administration official who now runs the influential alarmist ClimateProgress website, published a commenter who ominously threatened climate skeptics: “It is not my wrath you need fear when there’s an entire generation that will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds.” Joe Roman曾在克林顿政府担任官员，现在运营着危言警世派一个非常有影响力的网站，叫做“气候进步”。他之前曾发表过一位评论员的文章，该文阴狠地威胁气候变化怀疑论者：“在整整一代人都随时准备要趁你睡着把你和你的同类们统统勒死之际，你要害怕的并不是我的愤怒。” This may not be an idle threat, as millions of school kids are being brainwashed with emotional AGW propaganda in classrooms across the nation, and around the world. Romm later took the comment down, but defended it by claiming it “was clearly not a threat but a prediction,” and those who detected a threat had “misread it.” 这种威胁恐怕并不是空口说白话，此时此刻，全国各地及全世界的课堂里，数以百万计的在校学生正在被洗脑，接受“人为全球暖化说”的情绪化宣传。Romm 后来把这一评论撤下了网站，但又为之辩护，称其“明显不是威胁，只是预测”，所有从中察觉到威胁的人都“误解了文意”。 Bill Nye, of TV fame as “The Science Guy,” recently appeared on the Huffington Post’s TV program, where he called on the host to stop using the term “skeptic” and use the more hateful term “denier” when referring to climate realists. “We just don’t like to use that word [skepticism],” Nye told host Josh Zepps. “These people are deniers.” Bill Nye在电视上的“科学哥”身份广为人知。他最近在参加《赫芬顿邮报》的一个电视节目时，要求主持人不要使用“怀疑论者”这一词汇来称呼气候现实主义者，而是用一个更具仇视性的词汇：“抵赖派”。“我们就是不喜欢用这个词（怀疑主义）”，Nye对主持人Josh Zepps说。“这些人就是抵赖派。” In a November 6, 2015 interview with Salon, Nye again hit the theme of tarring opponents with the “denier” label, censoring them, and denying them a place at the “debate” table. “Part of the solution to this problem or this set of problems associated with climate change is getting the deniers out of our discourse,” said Nye. “You know, we can’t have these people — they’re absolutely toxic.” 在2015年11月6日接受“沙龙”采访时，Nye又一次找到了节奏，用“抵赖派”的标签污蔑对手、封他们的口，并拒绝让他们在“辩论”桌上拥有一席之地。“要解决与气候变化有关的这一问题或这一套问题，要求我们先将抵赖派赶出对话席”，Nye如是说。“你知道吧，这些人不能出现，他们绝对有毒。” Nye was one of the signers of a letter sent to media organizations last December calling on journalists to stigmatize AGW skeptics as “deniers.” Among the dozens of academics who signed the letter (which was larded heavily with psychologists and social “science” professors) were, notably, the two academics most responsible for concocting the fraudulent claim that “97 percent” of scientists endorse the “overwhelming consensus” that AGW is a serious danger: John Cook and Naomi Oreskes. 去年12月，曾有人写信呼吁新闻记者使用“抵赖派”这一蔑称来称呼“人为全球暖化说”的怀疑者，Nye正是联署人之一。参与联署的学者一共有几十位（为信件增色的主要是心理学家和社会“科学”教授）。其中最出名的是这两位，John Cook和Naomi Oreskes，正是他们俩一起炮制出了一个欺骗性的说法：“97%”的科学家赞同人为制造的气候变化确属严重危害这一“压倒性共识”。 （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——

【2016-04-13】 @海德沙龙 《被踢出局的气候学家》 Judith Curry的故事清晰的展示了，气候学术圈不容异己的氛围已恶化到了何种程度，尽管Curry远算不上暖化怀疑派，而且在同行评审期刊上发表过大量论文，但仅仅因为对未来暖化速度的主流估算值有所怀疑，就被戴上了“伪科学”的帽子 @whigzhou: 暖球党之所以如此疯狂，盖因暖球问题是他们迄今找到的唯一一个（在他们看来）无法通过基于分立产权的市场化方案解决的外部性问题（或曰公地悲剧），用他们的话说，地球只有一个，无法为它创建分立产权，唯一可能的救星是政府，而且必须是个普世主义的父爱政府，这么好的题材怎能轻易放弃？ @whigzhou: 其他像土壤空气的化学污染这种外部性问题，由于外部性都是作用于局部的，或至少是有梯度分布的，因而总能通过恰当的产权安排来解决，甚至野生动物也可以将种群产权赋予部落来内化激励，但二氧化碳排放均匀分散于整个大气层，激励确实很难由产权来内化  

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed 被踢出局的气候学家，采访Judith Curry 作者：David Rose @ 2015-11-28 译者：龟海海（@龟海海） 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：The Spectator，http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/ For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic 由于在全球变暖问题上和怀疑论者打交道，还坦率地谈论预测的不确定性，这位来自美国佐治亚理工学院的教授被指斥为异端。 It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quoted is Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. 可以明确的说，下周在巴黎举行的第21届联合国气候变化大会上，两万参会者将包括各国领导人、官员、环保主义者和各种跟班，但是你恐怕不太可能听到Judith Curry教授的声音。这很让人遗憾。她在气候学顶尖期刊上发表的经同行评审的论文数量首屈一指，而且她在美国还是一位公共知识分子。 But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis. 然而，她在大洋彼岸却不受待见，很明显，她太诘问不休咄咄逼人了。但她的这种受排斥地位颇为棘手，因为她对据称的全球变暖共识的尖刻批判并非基于意识形态扭曲，更不是由石化企业赞助的，而是基于真切的数据和分析。 Some consider her a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’. Curry isn’t fazed by the slur. 有人把她看成是个异端。宾夕法尼亚州立大学的Michael Mann 教授一直呼吁运用极端手段防止气候“末日决战”灾难发生，就曾称Curry为“反科学”份子。Curry并未被这一诽谤吓慌。 ‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it. But the debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ 她告诉我：“怪我咯，他把所有和他意见不同的人都叫做‘抵赖派’。在气候研究群体中，有很多人讨厌我所做的事。但是，的确有那么一大群沉默份子喜欢我的观点。但讨论已经变得困难重重——尤其是在美国，已经严重两极化了。” Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do. 全球变暖的危言警世者总喜欢宣称，97%的科学家都已同意人类活动导致了世界变暖的观点。他们喜欢忽略气候科学和气候预测的不确定性，像摩尼教徒那样以善恶二元对立论简化问题。关于我们要做什么，本来需要细致讨论，但经过他们努力，现在一切疑虑都被忽略了。 Professor Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear. 这位来自亚特兰大市佐治亚理工学院的Curry教授，从没有说过要质疑人类排放二氧化碳使地球变暖这个事实。但她提到，证据表明，变暖速度可能比那些危言警世者所担忧的要慢得多。 In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their ‘intentional nationally determined contributions’, to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the ‘dangerous’ threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Curry提到，迄今已有超过150个国家提出了减排目标承诺——行话叫做“国家自主贡献”，巴黎峰会预热阶段，大部分媒体都在讨论这些目标是否能够确保地球不会超过预警阈值——比工业化时代之前变暖2℃。 Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise. 会议的一个主要内容就是要让这些目标在法律上生效。进行这种讨论需要一个前提：我们已经掌握了大气二氧化碳浓度与世界平均气温提升程度之间的数学关系。 Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn’t. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. 遗憾的是，Curry已经表明，我们没有掌握。任何此类预测都是没有意义的，除非我们在预测中把气候的自然变异考虑进去，并能够为“气候敏感度”定一个值——即当二氧化碳浓度翻倍时，地球会升温多少度。 Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C. 截止2007年，联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）给出的“最佳预测”是3℃。但是，在2013年最新的报告中该部门放弃了这一数字，因为不确定因素太多。现在，“可能值”的变动范围很大，在1.5℃—4.5℃之间。 This isn’t all. According to Curry, the claims being made by policymakers suggest they are still making new policy from the old, now discarded assumptions. Recent research suggests the climate sensitivity is significantly less than 3˚C. ‘There’s growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet this has been totally ignored in the policy debate,’ Curry told me. 这还没完。Curry接着说到，决策者们提出的种种主张，表明他们还是在用旧的、已被弃用的假设来制定新政策。而最近的研究表明，气候敏感度显著小于3℃。“有越来越多的证据表明，气候敏感度是在变化范围的低值端，但是这在政策辩论中已经被完全忽略了，”她告诉我。 ‘Even if the sensitivity is 2.5˚C, not 3˚C, that makes a substantial difference as to how fast we might get to a world that’s 2˚C warmer. A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.’ “即使敏感度是2.5℃，而不是3℃，这也是实质性的区别，会直接影响到世界究竟会以多快的速度变暖2℃。如果敏感度是2.5℃，那么我们在21世纪遭遇全球变暖2℃的可能性就会大大降低。有这么多的不确定性，但制定政策的人却说目标已经定了。如果你怀疑这一点，你会被贬成一文不值的‘抵赖派’。” Curry added that her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainties of climate projection mean that values of 4˚C cannot be ruled out — but if that turns out to be the case, then the measures discussed at Paris and all the previous 20 UN climate conferences would be futile. In any event, ‘the economists and policymakers seem unaware of the large uncertainties in climate sensitivity’, despite its enormous implications. Curry补充道，她自己和英国独立科学家Nic Lewis一起完成的研究，甚至认为敏感度的数值可能更低。若是这样，全球升温2℃的日期甚至还在将来的将来。另一方面，气候预测固有的不确定性，意味着敏感度为4℃的可能性也不能排除。但是，若是如此，此次巴黎大会和之前20届联合国气候大会讨论的措施都是白搭了。无论如何，“经济学家和决策者似乎都没有意识到气候敏感度的巨大不确定性”，尽管这种不确定性影响极大。 Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’ 于此同时，执意认为二氧化碳是气候变化的祸首，也使得其他关于气候自然变异的研究被忽视了。例如，太阳研究专家认为我们可能正在进入一个“太阳活动极小期”——即太阳能量输出减少（因此意味着一个全球变冷期）。类似情况过去发生时，泰晤士河上都曾出现冰雕展览（泰晤士河封冻）。“确定太阳活动与气候变化之间的关系这项工作还很滞后。” Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. Curry的卓尔不群让她损失惨重。自2009年“气候门”丑闻后，她就开始遭到辱骂。当时，有泄密邮件显示，一些科学家正组织起来强力压制怀疑论观点。 ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’ “那时我就说科学家应该更有公信力一点，并开始和一些持怀疑论的博客作家交流。我以为那可以缓和一下气氛。结果却是，我被踢出局了。如果我不是一名终生教授，而且即将退休，我绝不会寻根问底。如果现在我要去美国的学术圈重新找工作，估计没人请我吧。我现在仍然可以在同行评鉴期刊上面发表文章。但我已被封杀，不可能得到政府研究资助来做我想做的课题。自那以后，我停止了用这些东西来衡量我的职业生涯。我现在做的，只是坚持科学，做正确的事。” She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ 她依然乐观的相信，科学会找回它的平衡，现在的这种麦卡锡主义式潮流终会退去。“我认为到2030年，温度还不会升至那么高，也许那个时候，我们会找到研究资金来做我们需要做的气候自然变异研究，也能让气候组织有动力去寻找太阳活动和气候变化之间的关联。” She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’ 她甚至期待联合国内部能允许气候问题上的理性争论，“让科学家、经济学家和决策者们有更好的互动。这也是可能的。那样不是更好？” （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——

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——

My Life as a Climate Lukewarmer 作为一名气候问题温和派的遭遇 作者：Matt Ridley @ 2015-1-20 译者：陈小乖（@lion_kittyyyyy） 校对：Kyo(@Kyo先生和他的胡子)，小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：Matt Ridley Online，http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climate-lukewarmer.aspx The polarisation of the climate debate has gone too far 气候争议的两极化已经太过分了 This article appeared in the Times on January 19, 2015: 该文载于2015年1月19日《泰晤士报》（The Times） （http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/article4325798.ece） I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. 我在气候问题上是个温和派。意思是，我认为当前的全球变暖问题确实存在，并且主要是人为因素造成的，同时，地球会持续变暖。但我不再认为变暖会造成危险，而且，我预期未来的气候变化将和现在一样，变暖的趋势是缓慢且飘忽不定的。 That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking. 虽然一些数据表明去年是最温暖的一年，但气温也仅比2005年高了一点点，这完全符合我对于气候问题的温和看法。 This view annoys some sceptics who think all climate change is natural or imaginary, but it is even more infuriating to most publicly funded scientists and politicians, who insist climate change is a big risk. 这一观点惹恼了一些怀疑论者，他们认为所有气候变化都是自然变化或是人们想象出来的；而大多数政府资助的科学家和政客则对此观点更为恼火，他们坚称气候变化是一个巨大的风险。 My middle-of-the-road position is considered not just wrong, but disgraceful, shameful, verging on scandalous. I am subjected to torrents of online abuse for holding it, very little of it from sceptics. 我的中间道路立场不仅被认为是错误的，还是可耻的、罪恶的、将被钉在历史耻辱柱上的。为此，我遭受了大量的网络攻击，其中仅有很小一部分攻击来自怀疑论者。 I was even kept off the shortlist for a part-time, unpaid public-sector appointment in a field unrelated to climate because of having this view, or so the headhunter thought. 因为持有这一观点——或者猎头认为我持有这样的观点，我甚至在一份无薪的公共部门兼职工作候选人名单中遭到封杀，该职位所在领域与气候问题毫不相干。 In the climate debate, paying obeisance to climate scaremongering is about as mandatory for a public appointment, or public funding, as being a Protestant was in 18th-century England. 为了获得公职任命或者公共基金资助，就必须在气候争议中遵从耸人听闻的气候变化言论，这就像在18世纪的英格兰必须当一名新教徒一样。【译注：1672年的考验法案（Test Act）要求出任国会议员和担任公职者向国王宣誓效忠，并履行相应宗教仪式，1678年版的考验法案则将天主教徒排除在这一宣誓程序之外，从而剥夺了他们担任公职的机会，法案同时还对天主教徒的民事权利施加了限制，该法案直到1828年才被废除。】 Kind friends send me news almost weekly of whole blog posts devoted to nothing but analysing my intellectual and personal inadequacies, always in relation to my views on climate. 善意的朋友们几乎每周都要给我发送批评我的博客帖子的消息，这些批评文章通篇都在分析我的知识和个人品行的不足之处，通常都和我对气候变化的看法有关。 Writing about climate change is a small part of my life but, to judge by some of the stuff that gets written about me, writing about me is a large part of the life of some of the more obsessive climate commentators. It’s all a bit strange. Why is this debate so fractious? 写文章谈论气候变化是我生活的一小部分，但从一些写我的文章来看，对我品头评足，倒成了一些更关注气候问题的评论家们的生活的一大部分。奇怪了，为什么这一辩论让人如此气急败坏？ Rather than attack my arguments, my critics like to attack my motives. I stand accused of “wanting” climate change to be mild because I support free markets or because I receive income indirectly from the mining of coal in Northumberland. 批评我的人更喜欢攻击我的动机而不是论点。我被指责为“希望”气候变化是温和的，而那是因为我支持自由市场，或是因为我从诺森伯兰郡的煤炭开采中间接获取了收入。 Two surface coal mines (which I do not own), operating without subsidies, do indeed dig coal partly from land that I own. They pay me a fee, as I have repeatedly declared in speeches, books and articles. 那两个地表煤矿（并非我所拥有）没有收过补贴，他们的部分煤矿确实是从我所拥有的土地上开采出来的。我在演讲、书籍和文章中已经不断声明，他们有向我支付费用。 I do think that coal, oil and gas have been a good thing so far, by giving us an alternative to cutting down forests and killing whales, by supplying fertiliser to feed the world, by giving the global poor affordable energy, and so on. 我确实认为，迄今为止煤炭、石油和天然气一直是个宝。它们让我们不用再砍伐森林、捕杀鲸鱼，它们提供肥料养活这个世界，它们为全球的贫困地区提供廉价能源，等等。 But instead of defending the modern coal industry I write and speak extensively in favour of gas, the biggest competitive threat to coal’s share of the electricity market. If we can phase out coal without causing too much suffering, then I would not object. 但我在文章与演讲中大力支持天然气——煤炭在发电能源市场上最大的威胁，而不是为现代煤炭业辩护。我并不反对淘汰煤炭，如果那么做不会让我们吃太多苦头的话。 Besides, I could probably earn even more from renewable energy. As a landowner, I am astonished by the generosity of the offers I keep receiving for green-energy subsidies. 此外，我甚至可能从可再生能源中赚得更多。作为一个地主，我不断收到背后有绿色能源补贴的报价，其慷慨程度让我震惊。 Wind farm developers in smart suits dangle the prospect of tens of thousands of pounds per turbine on my land — and tens of turbines. 风力发电厂的开发商们穿着笔挺的西装，想用安装风力发电机的前景收买我——每个风力发电机能带来数万英镑的收益，而我的土地上能装几十个。 A solar developer wrote to me recently saying he could offer more than a million pounds of income over 25 years if I were to cover some particular fields with solar panels. 一个太阳能开发商最近给我写信说，如果我在一些指定区域内安装太阳能板，他能在25年内给我超过一百万英镑的收入。 Many big country houses have installed subsidised wood-fired heating to the point where you can hear their Canalettos cracking. I argue against such subsidies, so I don’t take them. 许多乡村大宅装上了有补贴的烧木头暖气，你能从中听到他们收藏的名画的断裂声【译注：Canaletto为意大利画家，画作为英国皇家所收藏，此处作者讽刺政府补贴的是一种并不可持续的能源，并且补贴对象是有钱人】。我反对这类补贴，所以我不接受这些报价。 I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor of The Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat. 我并非一直是个气候变暖温和派。当我在26年多前作为《经济学人》科学栏目编辑，刚开始写关于全球变暖威胁的文章时，我认为它是个真正危险的威胁。 Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps more, and that this would have devastating consequences. 比如，像撒切尔夫人一样，我认同当时的预测——未来每10年气温就会升高1/3到1/2摄氏度甚至更多，这将会带来灾难性后果。 Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. 然而，我逐渐改变了我的想法。一大原因是，气候完全没有像预测的那样快速变暖：在40年中气温升高了不到半度，而且气温升高的趋势有所减慢，而非加快。 Increases in malaria, refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century. 疟疾、难民、热浪、风暴、干旱和洪水就算有所增多，其幅度也完全没有达到所预测的程度。海平面有所上升，但上升速率非常缓慢——大约每世纪1英尺。 Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain. 我还很快意识到：所有预测气候快速变暖的数学模型都假设了大气有巨大的反馈放大效应，主要来自于水蒸气；二氧化碳仅仅起到诱导作用，大约三分之一的气温升高由二氧化碳引起。当这点确定后，我对预测未来气候危机的信心也发生了动摇：大气的反馈放大效应是非常不确定的。 Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. 另一个让我（对之前的看法）感到迟疑的原因是，我回顾了从我年轻时到现在，人们对生态灾难的预测——人口爆炸、石油枯竭、大象灭绝、雨林减少、酸雨、臭氧层、荒漠化、核冬天、资源耗尽、流行病、精子数量减少、致癌农药污染等等。 There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism. 它们表现出一种固有模式：先是夸大后果严重性，随后发现不过是一场虚惊：问题从来都没有像著名科学家们所广泛预测的那么严重，一次都没有。当然，这并不是说每个对灾难的新预测都必然是错的，但理应鼓励我们对类似预测持怀疑态度。 What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. 让我彻底改变对气候危机论的看法的，是那副著名的“曲棍球棒”曲线图的奇特历史，该曲线旨在表明，如今的气温不仅高于过去一千年中的任何时刻，而且变化速度也更快。 That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp. 当我在21世纪初初次看到该曲线时，曾被它深深震撼，并一度让放弃了对气候变化危险论的日益加深的怀疑，把我带回了“惊耸”阵营。 Then I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns. 然后我开始阅读Steve McIntyre和Ross McKitrick这两名加拿大学者的论文。他们以及其他一些学者的研究得到了美国国家科学院（National Academy of Sciences）的肯定，这些研究表明，曲棍球棒曲线以及其他类似的曲线都严重依赖于不可靠的年轮数据，并使用了不恰当的统计筛选方法，从而夸大了20世纪气温上升的趋势。 What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed. 更让我震惊的是科研机构对此的反应：他们试图假装这没什么问题。后来，大量邮件于2009年遭外泄，这些邮件显示，一些气候学家显然在费尽心机隐瞒数据、阻止论文发表、让期刊编辑被解雇，还逃避信息自由获取的请求，就像怀疑论者所指控的一样。这时，我开始重新审视所有我了解到的关于气候变化的信息。我看得越多，就越觉得气候快速变暖的预测有蹊跷。 I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. 有些人宣称，“气候变暖迅速，并且十分危险”这一预测就像进化论和万有引力一样确凿，是“公认的科学”， 我对这一论调尤其不以为然。 How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. 这怎么可能？它是一个预测！没有一个预测应该被看做是真理，更不用说是在一个像全球气候这样多成因、无序的、人们对其缺乏了解的系统里。 With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible? 除了日食，基本上科学家不能对未来的预测有任何保证。认为一个人不能否定预测是荒谬的。英格兰银行对通胀的预测不会出错吗？ Incidentally, my current view is still consistent with the “consensus” among scientists, as represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. 顺便说一句，目前我对气候变化的看法仍与政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）报告中所提到的科学界“共识”保持一致。这一共识是气候变化正在发生，而不是气候变化将带来危险。 The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes. IPCC的最新报告给出了对未来气温升高的范围估计，这一范围低至无伤大雅，高至骨寒毛竖。我认为最有可能发生的情况是，在本世纪内气温将升高一度，这完全在IPCC给出的范围内。 Yet most politicians go straight to the top of the IPCC’s range and call climate change things like “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction” (John Kerry), requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars. 然而，大多数政客只关注IPCC所给出范围的上限，把气候变化说成类似“可能是世界上最可怕的大规模杀伤性武器”（John Kerry语），要求政府支出数万亿美元来解决这一问题。 I think that is verging on grotesque in a world full of war, hunger, disease and poverty. It also means that environmental efforts get diverted from more urgent priorities, like habitat loss and invasive species. 我认为，在一个充满了战争、饥饿、疾病和贫困的世界里，这一要求近乎怪诞。这也意味着放在更至关重要的环保问题上的精力，比如栖息地减少和物种入侵，将被转移到气候变化上。 The policies being proposed to combat climate change, far from being a modest insurance policy, are proving ineffective, expensive, harmful to poor people and actually bad for the environment: we are tearing down rainforests to grow biofuels and ripping up peat bogs to install windmills that still need fossil-fuel back-up. 那些应对气候变化的政策提议，并不是一份防患于未然的适度保险，这些提议被证明是无效的、昂贵的、损害穷人利益的，并且事实上有害环境：我们通过破坏雨林来开发生物能源，我们毁坏泥炭沼来安装仍然需要化石能源做后备支持的风车。 These policies are failing to buy any comfort for our wealthy grandchildren and are doing so on the backs of today’s poor. Some insurance policy. 这些政策不仅无法为我们富足的子孙后代带来帮助，而且还让今天的穷人们为此付出代价。还是来点能带来保障的政策吧。 To begin with, after I came out as a lukewarmer, I would get genuine critiques from scientists who disagreed with me and wanted to exchange views. I had long and time-consuming email exchanges or conversations with several such scientists. 首先，在我成为一名气候温和派之后，我愿意接受不同意我的观点以及想和我交换想法的科学家们的诚恳建议。我同数名这样的科学家进行了长篇电邮交流或者长时间交谈。 Yet I grew steadily more sceptical as, one by one, they failed to answer my doubts. They often resorted to meta-arguments, especially the argument from authority: if the Royal Society says it is alarmed, then you should be alarmed. 然而，随着他们一个个都未能回答我的疑问，我对他们的说法越来越充满怀疑。他们总是采取后设论证，尤其是来自于权威的论证：如果皇家学会（Royal Society）说气候变化问题是令人恐慌的，那你就应该感到恐慌。 If I want argument from authority, I replied, I will join the Catholic Church. “These are just standard denialist talking points” scoffed another prominent scientist, unpersuasively, when I raised objections — as if that answered them. 我回答道，如果我想要得到基于权威的论证，那我就加入天主教了。当我提出反对意见时，另一位杰出的科学家嘲笑道“这是典型的拒绝主义者的观点，什么都不接受”，如同这就是问题的答案——但这毫无说服力。 My experience with sceptical scientists, many of them distinguished climatologists at leading universities, was different. The more I probed, the better their data seemed. They did not resort to the argument from authority. 我与对气候问题持怀疑态度的科学家们的交流经历就大不相同了，他们中的许多人都是一流大学的杰出气候学家。我与他们探讨得越多，就越觉得他们的数据可靠。他们没有诉诸权威的论证。 Sometimes I disagreed with them or thought they went too far. I have yet to be convinced, for example, that changes in the output of the sun caused the warming of the 1980s and 1990s — an idea that some espouse. 有时我不同意他们的意见，或者认为他们太极端。比如，有些人相信太阳热量释放的变化导致了1980年代和1990年代的气候变暖，但他们还没能说服我。 So for the most part, I found myself persuaded by the middle-of-the-road, “lukewarm” argument – that CO2-induced warming is likely but it won’t be large, fast or damaging. 所以在大多数情况下，我认同中间道路、“温和派”的观点，这观点就是，二氧化碳很可能导致了气候变暖，但气候变暖的幅度不大，速度不快，产生的破坏也不严重。 Then a funny thing happened a few years ago. Those who disagreed with me stopped pointing out politely where or why they disagreed and started calling me names. 于是在几年前，一件有趣的事情发生了。那些与我持不同观点的人不再礼貌地指出哪里不同意或者为什么不同意，他们开始辱骂我了。 One by one, many of the most prominent people in the climate debate began to throw vitriolic playground abuse at me. I was “paranoid”, “specious”, “risible”, “self-defaming”, “daft”, “lying”, “irrational”, an “idiot”. 许多在气候辩论中最为著名的人物开始一个接一个地刻薄而幼稚地骂我，说我是“偏执的”、“假内行”、“荒唐可笑的”、“自取其辱的”、“愚蠢的”、“不诚实的”、“不理性的”，总之“白痴”一个。 Their letters to the editor or their blog responses asserted that I was “error-riddled” or had seriously misrepresented something, but then they not only failed to substantiate the charge but often roughly confirmed what I had written. 他们给编辑的邮件或者博客回帖声称我“错得千疮百孔”，或者严重歪曲了什么，但随后他们不仅没能证实这些指控，反而常常大致肯定了我的观点。 I have seen bad-tempered polarisation of scientific debates before, for example during the nature-nurture debates of the 1970s and 1980s between those who thought genes affected behaviour and those who thought upbringing was overwhelmingly important. That debate grew vicious. 在以前的科学辩论中，我也看见过脾气暴躁走极端的人。例如20世纪70和80年代关于先天-后天的辩论，一些科学家认为基因影响行为，另一些认为后天的训练至关重要。那场辩论最后变得相当粗暴。 What caused the polarisation, I realised then, was not just that people on one side read the articles they agreed with, reinforcing their prejudices, but something more. They relied on extreme distortions of their enemies’ arguments, written by self-appointed guardians of the flame on their own side, so they were constantly attacking straw men. 那时我意识到，引起两极分化的，不仅仅是一方的人读了他们认同的文章，加深了他们的偏见，还有其他原因。他们依赖于同自己站在一边、自命为星火护卫者【译注：guardians of the flame是一部著名英国漫画，讲述了一群大学生保卫地球的故事，此处作者暗讽那些气候危机论者自命为地球拯救者。】的人所写的文章来极度扭曲对手的见解，所以他们只是在不断攻击稻草人。 It’s the same here. Most of the people who attack me seem to think I am a “denier” of climate change because that’s what a few hyperventilating bloggers keep saying about me. It’s not, of course, true. It’s these flame guardians who polarise such debates. 在气候问题上也是如此。大多数攻击我的人似乎认为我是一个气候变化的“否认者”，因为这是许多上气不接下气拼命攻击我的博客作者一直以来对我的描述。当然，这不是真的。就是这些星火护卫者致使这种辩论两极分化。 The most prolific of them is a man named Bob Ward. Although employed at the London School of Economics, he is not a researcher or lecturer, but policy and communications director, somebody whose day job is to defend the climate orthodoxy in the media. Some might call him a spin doctor. 他们中最多产的是一个叫Bob Ward的人。虽然他供职于伦敦政治经济学院，但他既不是研究员也不是讲师，而是政策与传播总监，他每天的工作就是在媒体上捍卫气候问题的正统观点。一些人可能会把他叫做政治化妆师【译注：政治化妆师（spin doctor）是指政治公关顾问，其典型工作是，在危机公关中，通过以投合公众喜好的方式表述事实，而影响媒体报道和公众舆论】。 It appears to me that he feels compelled to write something rude about me every time I publish on this topic and although his letters to editors are often published, he throws an online tantrum if they are not. 在我看来，每次我一发表有关此话题的文章，他就一定要写一些针对我的无礼文章。尽管他写给编辑的信通常都会被发表，但如果它们没被发表的话他就会在网上大发雷霆。 He is hilariously obsessed with my peerage, lovingly reciting my title every time he attacks me, like a Bertie Woosterish snob. 他欢乐地痴迷于我的贵族地位【译注：作者是第七代Ridley子爵，并据此身份当选为上院议员】，每次攻击我时他都要满怀深情地提及我的头衔，好像我是个Bertie Wooster式的势利小人【译注：Bertie Wooster是在英国作家P.G.Wodehouse的小说Jeeves中反复出现的一个虚构人物，是位懒散无聊的富裕绅士】。 As an example of playing the man and not the ball, Ward and Lord Deben, chairman of the government’s official committee on climate change, are both wont to mock the fact that my Oxford DPhil thesis in 1983 was on the behaviour of birds. 作为一个对人不对事的例子，Bob Ward和气候变化官方委员会主席Deben上议员都常常嘲笑我于1983在牛津大学完成的博士论文是关于鸟类行为的。 Good luck to them but I notice they don’t mock the fact that the DPhil thesis of Lord Krebs was also on birds, earned in the very same research group as me: the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology. 祝他们好运吧！我发现他们并不嘲笑John Krebs议员的博士论文，那同样是关于鸟类的，而且和我的论文在同一研究机构完成：爱德华·格雷野生鸟类研究所（Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology）。 Lord Krebs is the chairman of the adaptation subcommittee of the committee on climate change.John Krebs, a fine scientist and superb lecturer, was the internal examiner of my thesis, which he praised at the time, after telling me to correct a couple of silly mistakes he had spotted in the calculation of a probability result. I did so. Krebs是气候变化委员会适应性分委会主席，是位优秀科学家，还是位杰出的讲师。他是我那篇论文的内部审阅者，他当时称赞了我的论文，只是要我修正他所发现的我计算概率时犯的一些低级错误。我照做了。 Imagine my surprise when he recently told several separate people (who reported it to me) that I should not be listened to on climate change because my DPhil thesis, all those years ago, contained mathematical errors. 最近他分别告诉一些人（他们转告了我）别听信我在气候变化上的见解，因为我多年前的博士论文中存在数学错误，你可以想象一下我对此有多惊讶。 Lord May even used this argument against me in a debate in the House of Lords: that because I got a number wrong in a calculation 31 years ago, I cannot ever be right again. This is the kind of hilarious thing that happens to you if you come out as a lukewarmer. May议员甚至在上院辩论中拿这点来攻击我：因为我在31年前犯了一个计算错误，我就永远没有正确的时候了。这就是当你以温和派的姿态出现时会发生在你身上的搞笑事。 Talking of the committee on climate change, last year Lord Deben commissioned an entire reportto criticise something I had said. Among other howlers, it included a quotation from the IPCC but the quote had a large chunk cut from the middle. When this cut was restored the line supported me, not Lord Deben. 说到气候变化委员会，去年Deben议员写了一整份报告来批评我所说过的一些话。在各种愚蠢的错误中包括了一个对IPCC的引用，但这段引文中间被截去了一大部分。当被截去部分补上后，其立场是支持我而非Deben议员的。 When I pointed this out politely to Lord Deben, he refused to restore the excision and left the document unchanged on the committee’s website. Presenting quotations so they appear to mean something different from what they do is quite a sin in journalism. Apparently not in Whitehall committees. 当我礼貌地向Deben议员指出这点后，他拒绝补上被截去的部分，在委员会的网站上保留了删节后的文件。以展示与作者原意不符的方式进行引用在新闻工作中是相当不道德的。显然，在白厅（Whitehall）【译注：泛指英国政府】委员会并不这么认为。 I suppose all this fury means my arguments are hitting home. If they were easily demolished they would demolish them rather than try to demolish me. Many of the things that I was abused for saying have since proved to be right. 我想，所有这些愤怒意味着我的论点正中要害。如果这些论点能够被轻易击破，那么他们就会攻击论点而不是试图攻击我。许多使我遭到辱骂的观点随后被证明是正确的。 I was one of the first to write an article in the mainstream media (in The Wall Street Journal in 2012) arguing that the latest data supported much lower estimates of climate sensitivity (the amount of warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide levels) than those being assumed by the models used by the IPCC. 我是最先在主流媒体上（2012年《华尔街日报》）提出，最新数据所显示的气候敏感性（二氧化碳浓度翻倍导致的升温幅度）比IPCC所用模型的估计值要低得多的人之一。 This produced the usual vituperation online from about a dozen high-profile science commentators with nothing better to do. Since then four papers (the latest being this one) have appeared in the scientific literature, authored by very prominent climate scientists, giving low estimates of climate sensitivity, some even lower than I had said. I am waiting for my critics to acknowledge that my story was sound. 这一如既往地在网上招来了大约十多个无所事事的知名科学评论家的谩骂。此后，四篇论文（最新一篇在此）出现在了科学期刊上，作者都是非常杰出的气候学家。他们都提出了低气候敏感性的估计，有些甚至比我说的还要低。我正在等着批评我的那些人承认我文章所说的是正确的。 I have never met a climate sceptic, let alone a lukewarmer, who wants his opponents silenced. I wish I could say the same of those who think climate change is an alarming prospect. 我从来没有遇到过一个气候问题怀疑论者会希望他的对手闭嘴，温和派更加不会。可惜的是，那些认为气候变化对未来是个危机的人做不到这一点。 Update: 更新： Marlo Lewis has provided a handy list of the range of opinions that come under the "lukewarmer" label. I subscribe to each of these in some form or to some degree: Marlo Lewis提供了一份“温和派”观点的速览表。我或多或少同意这些观点： "In general, I would describe a ‘lukewarmer’ as someone who: “通常而言，我所认为的“温和派”：

• Thinks anthropogenic climate change is real but very far from being a planetary emergency.
• 认为人为因素引起的气候变化真实存在，但远不至于造成全球性危机
• Takes due notice of the increasing divergencebetween climate model predictions and observations and the growing body of scientific literature challenging IPCC climate sensitivity estimates.
• 注意到气候模型的预测与实际观测值之间越来越大的差异以及越来越多的科学论文挑战IPCC关于气候敏感性的估计。
• Regards the usual pastiche of remedies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, CO2 performance standards – as either an expensive exercise in futilityor a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease (depending how aggressively those policies are implemented).
• 把常用的补救措施——碳税、限额和交易、可再生能源配额、二氧化碳排放标准——看做是昂贵的徒劳之举。或是比所谓的疾病更糟糕的“疗法”（糟糕程度取决于这些政策执行得有多激进）。
• Is impressed by — and thankful for — the immense albeit usually unsung benefits of the CO2 fertilization effect on global agricultureand green things
• 谨记并感激二氧化碳对全球农业及所有绿色植物的巨大生长促进作用，虽然这一好处通常得不到称颂。
• Recognizes that poverty remains the world’s leading cause of preventable illnessand premature death.
• 认识到贫困仍然是世界上造成可预防疾病和过早死亡的主要原因。
• Understands that plentiful, affordable, scalable energy (most of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels) is essential to poverty eradication and progress towards a healthier, safer, more prosperous world."
• 理解到丰富的、廉价的、可量产的能源（大多数来自于释放二氧化碳的化石能源）对消除贫困和逐步走向一个更健康、更安全、更繁荣的世界至关重要。

Update 2: 更新2： The main point of my article was to draw attention to how ad-hominem, vicious and personal the attacks on lukewarmers now are from the guardians of the flame of climate alarm. Though I had a huge and overwhelmingly positive response, I could not have wished for a better example of my point than some of the negative reactions to this article. 我的文章的主要目的，是让人们注意到目前气候危机论的星火护卫队对温和派的攻击有多么对人不对事和卑鄙，而且是人身攻击。虽然我得到了大量热情和正面的回应，然而就证明我的观点而言，没有比对本文的一些负面回应更有说服力的了。 An egregious example was the death threats I received from a Guardian contributor and Greenpeace "translator", Gary Evans. 一个极端的例子是我从《卫报》作者兼绿色和平组织翻译Gary Evans那里收到的死亡威胁。 On 21 January The Guardian published an article by Dana Nuccitelli, specifically criticizing me. The article was illustrated with a picture of the severed head of a zombie. Beneath the article appeared the following comment from “Bluecloud”: 1月21日，《卫报》发表了Dana Nuccitelli的文章，特别对我提出批评。文章的配图是被砍下的僵尸头颅。文章下方有来自于网名为Bluecloud的网友的如下评论： “Should that not be Ridley's severed head in the photo?” “照片里难道不是Ridley被砍下的头颅吗？” Bluecloud was challenged by another commenter with: “Do you recommend that for all people that have a different world view than you?” Bluecloud被另一名评论者质问道： “你是建议对所有世界观与你不同的人都这样吗？” Bluecloud replied: Bluecloud回复说： “We would actually solve a great deal of the world's problems by chopping off everyone's heads. Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people. Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley? Need I answer that question?” “事实上，把每个人的头都砍下来能解决世界上的很多问题。你们这些“否认派”怎么那么敏感？只是呼吁一下斩首就让你们这群人有那么大的反应。 问你自己一个简单的问题：没有了Matt Ridley的世界会变得更好吗？还用我回答这个问题吗？” This showed that Bluecloud had not been misunderstood in his death threat. It occurred a few days before the beheading of a Japanese hostage in Syria. 这表明人们读懂了Bluecloud的死亡威胁。这发生在日本人质在叙利亚被斩首前几天。 At this stage a number of comments below the article had already been censored or deleted, including one from Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, which read as follows: 如今该文章下的不少评论已被屏蔽或删除，包括一条来自萨塞克斯大学教授Richard Tol的评论，内容如下： “Dr Ridley claimed that his writings inspire others to write about what he wrote. To illustrate his point, Ken Rice, Greg Laden and Dana Nuccitelli write about Ridley’s writings. “Ridley博士声称他的作品能激发其他人围绕他的观点继续讨论。为了阐释他的观点，Ken Rice、Greg Laden和Dana Nuccitelli就写了关于Ridley作品的文章。 Dr Ridley claimed that there have been more attempts on his character than on his arguments. To underline this point, Pitchfork Anonymous smears his name. Ridley博士说针对他人品的攻击多过针对他论点的攻击。为了强调这一点，Pitchfork Anonymous隐去了他的姓名。 Anyone who points out the irony of all this receives the same treatment.” 任何指出其中讽刺之处的人会受到同样的待遇。” This was “removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards”, though how it caused offence is hard to imagine. This shows that Bluecloud’s comment could have been removed by moderators had they wished. 该帖“已被版主删除，因为它没有遵守我们的社区准则”，虽然很难想象它是怎么引起冒犯的。这说明如果版主愿意的话，Bluecloud的评论可能已经被删除了。 Another commenter, “Adamke", then pointed out that Bluecloud is Gary Evans, an environmental activist who works with Greenpeace and writes occasionally for the Guardian (where his profile states clearly that he posts as Bluecloud). 另一位评论者“Adamke”随后指出Bluecloud就是Gary Evans，他是一名环保行动主义者，与绿色和平组织有合作关系，偶尔向《卫报》供稿（其简介清楚地表明他用Bluecloud这一网名发文）。 Incredibly, this comment, outing Mr Evans, was then removed by the moderators, because apparently it was more offensive to the Guardian community than the recommendation that I be beheaded. 难以置信的是，这条揭露Evans先生身份的评论随后被版主删除了，显然是因为这条评论对《卫报》集团的打击大于将我斩首的建议。 Astonished by this turn of events, I wrote to Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian, complaining of the extraordinary double standard. He replied that the zombie picture had now been changed and the beheading comments removed. He said that he was “of course” sorry if I had been distressed. 震惊于这一变故，我写信给《卫报》主编Alan Rusbridger，投诉他们严重的双重标准。他回复我说那张僵尸的图片已经改掉了，斩首的评论也已被删除。他说如果我感到被冒犯了的话，他“当然”感到抱歉。 He refused to answer my question as to whether he had contacted Mr Evans with a view to finding out how serious his threat was, and refused to say whether the Guardian would in future use Mr Evans as a contributor. He said I should now appeal to the “readers’ editor” if I was unhappy with his reply. 他拒绝回答我关于他是否已经同Evans先生取得联系，让他知道他的威胁有多么严重的问题，同样，他也拒绝回答未来《卫报》是否仍会使用Evans先生的供稿。他说如果我对他的回复表示不满，现在我应该向“读者编辑”申诉。 I did so. I also drew Greenpeace’s attention to the actions of their associate and they issued a statement that read as follows: “The content and tone of the comments are completely at odds with the principle of non-violence written into our organisation's DNA, and we would never condone that kind of language from someone working for Greenpeace or indeed from anyone else." 我这么做了。我还提请绿色和平组织留意他们合作伙伴的所作所为，他们发表了如下声明：“评论中的内容与语气与写入我们组织DNA的非暴力原则完全相悖，我们绝不会容忍绿色和平组织的工作者或其他人说出此类言语。” No such statement emerged from the Guardian. Chris Elliott, the readers’ editor, took eleven days to reply to my email. He referred to the death threat as a “joke” and defended some of the actions of the Guardian, though said they should not have used that picture or allowed the death threats to go undeleted. 《卫报》没有发出此类声明。读者编辑Chris Elliott用了11天时间来回复我的邮件。他把死亡威胁说成是一个“玩笑”，还为《卫报》所采取的行动辩护，尽管他说他们不应该使用那张图片或者允许死亡威胁留在网页上。 Eventually, he published an article in which the Guardian apologised to me for not deleting the beheading tweet sooner, and quoting Mr Evans as apologising "for any trouble this may have caused to anyone involved". This was approximately three weeks after the original comments had appeared. 最终，他发表了一篇文章，文中《卫报》对没有及时删除斩首言论对我表示歉意，同时引用了Evans先生“为这一评论给任何受到影响的人所引起的任何麻烦”道歉。这大概是在原评论出现后三周。 This episode began with me noting that anybody who refuses to subscribe to the view that climate change is a very dangerous threat is treated as some kind of heretic to be persecuted, rather than a sceptic to be debated. The reaction has confirmed my point precisely. 这整个事件始于我注意到任何拒绝赞同“气候变化是十分危险的威胁”这一说法的人都会被认为是某种异端而受到迫害，而不是被视为质疑者而与之辩论。这些反应完全证实了我的看法。 （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——

Judging Outside Your Expertise 如何在你专业领域之外辨别是非 作者：David Friedman @ 2015-6-9 译者：Who视之      校对：小聂 来源：Ideas，http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2015/06/judging-outside-your-expertise.html I have just been involved in a lengthy exchange on Facebook over my criticism of the claim that warming on the scale projected by the IPCC for 2100 can be expected to have large net negative consequences. The response I got was that the person I was arguing with was not interested in my arguments. He does not know enough to judge for himself whether the conclusion is true, so prefers to believe what the experts say. 政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）宣称，按照他们预测的气候变暖速度，到2100年，会产生大规模的恶性后果。我对此种言论有所指摘，为此我一直在Facebook上和人没完没了地辩论。我得到的反馈是，和我争论的那个人对我的论点并没有兴趣，他懂的东西有限，没法判断结论是否正确，所以宁可相信专家的说法。 Accepting the views of experts on a question you are not competent to answer for yourself, assuming that you can figure out who they are and what they believe, is often a sensible policy, but one can sometimes do better. Sometimes one can look at arguments and evaluate them not on the basis of the science but of internal evidence, what they themselves say. Here are three examples: 假设你能找出谁是专家，理清他们的思路，那么在你不懂的问题上接受专家的看法，通常是个不错的选择。但有时你可以做得比这更好。有时候，可以无须依靠科学知识基础，而只借助内在证据——即他们自己是的说法——，便可对不同论点作出评估。这里有三个例子： The widely cited 97% figure is based mostly on Cook et. al. 2013, which is webbed. It is often reported as the percentage of climate scientists who believe that humans are the main cause of warming and that warming will have very bad effects. 广为引用的那个数字97%，基本是来自库克（Cook）等人2013年发表的研究，可以在网上找到。引用者经常会说，97%的气候科学家认为，人类是引发气候变暖的元凶，而且变暖会带来非常糟糕的后果。 Simply reading the article tells you that the second half is false. The article is about causes of warming and offers no evidence on consequences. Anyone who says it does is either ignorant or dishonest, and other things he says can be evaluated on that basis. 只要去读读那篇文章，就会发现，上面那句话的后半部分是错的。那文章讲的是变暖的原因，并未提供变暖会带来什么后果的证据。如果某人据此认为变暖会有恶果，要么是无知，要么是不够诚实。此人的其他言论，可以据此而加以判断。 If you read the article carefully you discover that the 97% figure, which is a count of article abstracts not scientists, is the percentage of abstracts which say or imply that humans are *a* cause of warming (“contribute to” in the language of one example). 如果你仔细读读那篇文章，就会发现，所谓97%计算的是论文摘要的数量，而不是所涉及科学家的人数。并且统计的是认为或者暗示人类是气候变暖的原因“之一”的摘要比例（有一个摘要里用的说法是“亦有贡献”）。 The corresponding figure for humans as the principal cause, which is not given in the article but can be calculated from its webbed data, is 1.6%. That tells you that anyone who reports the 97% figure as the number of articles holding that humans are the main cause of warming is either ignorant or dishonest. 至于有多少比例的论文把人类认作是气候变暖主要原因，那篇文章里没有直接给出数字，但在其提供的网上数据中可以算出，是1.6%。这就告诉你了，如果有人说，认为人类是暖化元凶的文章占了97%，此人要么无知要么不诚实。 One person who has done so, in print, is John Cook, the lead author of the article. John Cook runs skepticalscience.com, which is a major source for arguments for one side of the global warming dispute, so knowing that he is willing to lie in print about his own work is a reason not to believe things on that site without checking them.[My old blog post giving details] 某人就这么做了，还发表了，他就是上述论文的主要作者约翰·库克。他有个网站，skepticalscience.com，是全球变暖大争论中，一方论据的主要来源。所以，如果知道此人白纸黑字地对他自己的研究扯谎，就有理由不再相信那个网站的其他内容，根本不需要进一步核查。[我的一篇旧博文给出了相关细节] One of the economists who has been active in estimating consequences of warming is William Nordhaus. He is, among other things, the original source for the 2° limit. A few years ago, he published an article in the New York Review of Books attacking a Wall Street Journal piece that argued that climate was not a catastrophic threat that required an immediate response. 有位经济学家，名叫William Nordhaus，一直在忙于估算气候变暖的后果。他是那个“2摄氏度极限”理论的始作俑者。几年前，他在《纽约书评》上写了篇文章，和《华尔街日报》的一篇文章叫板，后者认为，气候不是一个需要马上应对的、会带来灾难的威胁。 In it, he gave his figure for the cost of waiting fifty years instead of taking the optimal steps now—$4.1 trillion dollars—and commented that “Wars have been started over smaller sums.” What he did not mention was that that sum, spread out over the rest of the century and the entire world, came to about one twentieth of one percent of world GNP. He was attacking the WSJ authors for an argument which his own research, as he reported it, supported. William Nordhaus认为，如果等50年而不是立即采取最佳应对办法，成本会达到4.1万亿美元。他说，人类曾为了比这少的钱开战。他没提的是，这笔钱如果在本世纪余下的时间里均摊给全世界，大概也就是全球GNP的0.05%。他批判《华尔街日报》的观点，而他自己发表的研究实际上却是在支持它。 In a recent Facebook exchange on the consequences of AGW for agriculture, someone linked to an EPA piece on the subject. Reading it carefully, I noticed that the positive effects of warming and CO2 fertilization were facts, with numbers: “The yields for some crops, like wheat and soybeans, could increase by 30% or more under a doubling of CO2 concentrations. The yields for other crops, such as corn, exhibit a much smaller response (less than 10% increase).” 最近在Facebook上，还为了人为全球暖化理论（ Anthropogenic Global Warming ）对农业的影响和人吵了一架。有个人发了个环保局（EPA）文章的链接。我把这文章仔细读了读，发现气候暖化和二氧化碳的增肥带来的正面效应是事实，而且有具体数字：“如果二氧化碳浓度翻倍，小麦和大豆这类作物的收成会增加30%以上，对玉米等其他作物，收成增长较小（小于10%）”。 The negative effects were vague and speculative: “some factors may counteract these potential increases in yield. For example, if temperature exceeds a crop's optimal level or if sufficient water and nutrients are not available, yield increases may be reduced or reversed.” The same pattern held through the article. 有关负面影响的陈述则是含混不清且推测性的：“某些因素可能抵消这些可能的收成增长，比如气温高过了作物成长的最佳温度，或者水和营养素供应不足，这样收成增加可能会减少，甚至减产”。这种模式充斥全文。 A careful reader might also notice that the piece referred to the negative effects of extreme weather without any attempt to distinguish between extreme weather that AGW made more likely (hot summers), less likely (cold winters), or would have an uncertain effect on (droughts, floods, hurricanes). It was reasonably clear that the article was designed to make it sound as though the effects of AGW would be negative without offering any good reason to believe it was true. 仔细的读者还会发现，那篇文章说到极端天气的不利影响时，并未试图区分人为全球暖化会令这些极端天气更频繁（如炎热的夏天），更少见（如严冬），或者影响不确定（如干旱、洪水和龙卷风）。很清楚，这文章目的是把人为全球暖化的影响弄得听上去非常糟糕，而并没有提供好的理由来对此理论的真伪进行判断。 One telling sentence: “Overall, climate change could make it more difficult to grow crops, raise animals, and catch fish in the same ways and same places as we have done in the past.” With most of a century to adjust, it is quite unlikely that farmers will continue to do everything in the same ways and the same places as in the past. 有句话将此意图暴露的特别明显：“总而言之，气候变化可能会让我们一直以来在祖祖辈辈劳作的地方，按照同样的方式来种植作物，饲养牲畜，捕捞鱼虾，变得更加困难”。我们还有近一个世纪的时间来应对，农民们怎么可能会按祖祖辈辈的方式，在同样的地方，做同样的事情呢？ These are three examples of arguments for one side of the climate controversy by a source taken seriously by supporters of that side. Each can be evaluated on internal evidence, what it itself says, without requiring any expert knowledge of the subject. In each case, doing so gives you good reasons not to trust either the source or the conclusion. 这三个例子来自气候大辩论中某一方很认真依靠的资料。每个都可以用资料的内在证据来进行评估，不需要对这个题目有什么专业知识。这些例子让你有很好理由不去相信这些资料来源和结论。 Readers may reasonably suspect that I too am biased. But nothing I have said here depends on your trusting me. In each case, you can look at the evidence and evaluate it for yourself. And all of it is evidence provided by the people whose work I am criticizing. 读者有理由认为，我是有偏见的。但我说的一切是否正确，不需要凭借你对我的信任。你只要研究一下证据，自己评估一下。所有这些证据都是我正在批判的对手们自己提供的。 （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——

Climate and Elite Opinion 气候问题与精英观点 作者：David Friedman @ 2014-12-12 译者：小聂 校对：乘风（@你在何地-sxy） 陈小乖（@lion_kittyyyyy) 来源：Ideas，http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/climate-and-elite-opinion.html I have spent a good deal of time observing and participating in arguments about global warming. One striking point that I have not seen discussed is the sharp divergence between elite opinion and mass opinion. 我曾花大量时间关注和参与有关全球变暖的讨论。有一个惊人却从未被讨论过的现象是，在此话题上精英和大众的观点存在着巨大分歧。 Elite opinion, the New York Times, official statements by various scientific organizations and the like, views global warming as a dire threat, one that requires drastic and immediate action to prevent. Mass opinion, not only in the U.S. but, according to at least one poll I saw, world wide, puts it very far down in the list of what people are concerned about, perhaps tenth or twentieth. 《纽约时报》和各类科研机构发布的官方声明，或诸如此类的精英观点，认为全球变暖是个紧迫威胁，需要立刻采取有力措施加以避免。大众的观点，不仅仅在美国，在全球范围内，该问题在人们的关切事项中排位都特别靠后，大概在十几到二十几名，至少我看到过的一份全球调研是这么显示的。 This pattern is reflected in the online discussions, where people concerned about warming mostly base their arguments on some version of "everyone who is anyone agrees with me." Their picture of the situation, pretty clearly, is one in which the truth is perfectly clear and it is only uneducated fundamentalists or people in the pay of the oil companies who can disagree. 这种情况也反映在网络讨论中，在那里，全球变暖担忧者常见的说法，都是类似于“众所周知——‘众’的意思是同意我的任何人”的论证。很显然，他们眼中的图景是：真相一清二楚，且只有无知的原教旨主义者或领酬于石油公司的人才会有不同看法。 My reasons for questioning part of that picture, not the fact of warming due to human actions but the likely consequences, I have discussed in past posts here. 我部分质疑该图景的原因，不是对人类活动造成了变暖这一事实有异议，而是质疑关于变暖可能后果的看法。我曾在过去的博客文章里解释了质疑的原因。 My general skepticism of elite opinion comes from many past disagreements with it, most notably on political and economic issues. My point here, however, is not about whether the elite view is right or wrong but about the relation between the elite view and the mass view in different countries. 我对于精英观点的普遍怀疑来自于过去和他们的数次争论，尤其是在政治和经济议题上的分歧。尽管如此，我在这里想说的并不是精英观点正确与否，而是他们在不同国家里和大众观点之间的关系。 Among western developed countries, Australia appears least supportive of action against warming, Germany most, the U.S. in between. Germany has been involved in a very high profile effort to push down its output of CO2. The current Australian government, so far as I can make out, has mostly rejected calls for anything along similar lines. In the U.S., the President is strongly in favor of climate action, the Congress reluctant to support it, with the result that the administration has been trying to implement its views by regulatory action instead of legislation. 在西方发达国家中，澳大利亚最不支持对抗全球变暖的行动，德国反之，美国处于他们之间。德国一直大张旗鼓的想要降低二氧化碳排放量。而据我所知，现任澳大利亚政府拒绝了大部分对类似活动的倡议。在美国，总统是行动派，国会却不情不愿，结果就是，行政当局一直试图通过管制措施而非立法过程来践行其观点。 After a summer in Australia many years ago, I concluded two things about the country. One was that it had a larger variety of flavored potato chips than anywhere else in the world, including all the British versions and all the U.S. versions. 多年以前，在澳大利亚度过了一个夏天之后，我对这个国家做了两点总结。第一点是，相比世界其他地方，这里的薯片口味最多，包括了所有英国和美国的口味。 The second, possibly related, was that Australia had a full range of social classes built almost entirely out of an originally working class population. One implication, consistent with at least casual observation, is that Australians have less respect for their betters, their social superiors, their elite, than any other population on the globe. 第二且可能相关的一点是，澳大利亚层次丰满的整套社会阶层，几乎全部源自同一个本是工人阶级的群体。一个至少与初步观察相吻合的推断是，对他们中的佼佼者、上层阶级、或是精英们，澳大利亚人相比于世界上的其他人群更少景仰。 Germany, I think, represents the opposite pattern. The U.S. is somewhere in between. Unlike European countries, the U.S. never had a system with well defined social classes, the sort of system where there was a close correlation between how much money someone had, how much education he had, and how he spoke. 在我看来，德国代表了相反的模式。美国处于他们之间。不像欧洲国家，美国从未有过一个界限分明的社会阶层系统，即那种人们的财富水平、受教育程度以及说话方式之间有着紧密相关性的阶级系统。 One result is that Americans are less inclined to see all political issues as my class vs your class than Europeans (I must confess that my view of Europeans is heavily weighted towards Great Britain, as the only European country whose language I am fluent in). Another, I think, is that Americans have less respect for their elite. 这使得美国人比欧洲人更不倾向于把所有政治议题看作是阶级斗争（我必须承认我对欧洲人的看法更多是基于我对英国人的看法，因为这是唯一我能熟练运用其语言的欧洲国家）。此外，在我看来，美国人更少迷信精英。 If I am correct—I am far from expert in the various societies and may be misinterpreting them—there is a pattern. Countries where the elite is more influential are more likely to take costly actions aimed at reducing global warming. 假设我是对的——我远非熟知各类社会的专家，而且很有可能对他们抱有错误的认知——那么，确实存在这样一种固有模式：那些精英更具影响力的国家，更可能采取高成本的举措来阻止全球暖化。 At a final tangent, I recently came across an online post, based in part on another post by a blogger I think very highly of, which nicely stated one of my reservations about arguments for the current elite view of warming. 最后，离一下题，我最近看到了一篇博客文章，其内容部分基于一位我高度认可的作者。这篇文章很好地阐述了我对有关当前全球变暖的精英观点的一个保留意见。 （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——

【2013-01-15】 @科学公园 《中国历代气候变迁》作者：@七是；文章链接：http://t.cn/zjdw1su @trinity31:文章内容似乎源自1973年竺可桢在《人民日报》上发表的精彩文章－－“中国近五千年来气候变迁的初步研究”。有意思的是“诗经”与“唐诗”恰好对应两个持续时间比较长的温暖期，饱暖则思淫欲？竺可桢推断唐代长安的冬季要比竺所处 @whigzhou: 差不多每个暖期之后的气瘟下行段，都是蛮族入侵的高峰期 @whigzhou: 因为暖期草原游牧地带养活了更多人口，当气候恶化时，这些人需要向外寻找生计，这种人口随气候而大幅波动并对周边社会造成周期性压力的机制，我给它取了个名字叫“人口泵”，青藏高原，蒙古草原，阿拉伯半岛，都曾是这样的人口泵 @whigzhou: 农耕社会也可以成为人口泵，只要人口对气候足够敏感，比如挪威，另外，最早的人口泵可能是东非草原 @whigzhou: 原文图表中第一个气瘟下行期发生在商周更替之际，据许倬云说，周实际上是个刚刚向农耕转变的游牧民族，第二第三个下行期也都对应着农业帝国的崩溃，第四个对应蒙古大扫荡，第五个是满清入关 @人造天坣:农业也靠天吃饭，牧民南下往往也是农业社会衰弱期，也有吸的机制。但该模型必须结合社会、技术演进。另：青藏高原只爆发过一次 @whigzhou: 青藏高原可能不止一次，羌人与中原的冲突似乎一度很频繁，氐人在魏晋时也很活跃，乱华五胡中羌氐占了两个 @人造天坣:羌泛指一很大的族群，按商人的方位观，西方似都可称羌。西方的地缘板块，西域通过甘肃走廊向中原移动，远较青藏高原活跃。吐蕃文明起于象雄，在高原西部，受波斯文明影响较大，之后才转移至环境稍优的藏南河谷，与中原沟通 @whigzhou: 是。不过这里只关心其所处地域位置和生态条件，而不管种族和文化渊源 @人造天坣:西域草原和蒙古高原连成一片，而青藏高原是高山寒带草原，差异巨大。青藏高原内又分三部分，冈底斯山以北是羌塘草原。以南是谷地，可开展高寒农业。而青海北部、昌都以东，即安多和康区，多山间谷地，是羌人主要来源 @whigzhou: 嗯  

【2012-11-05】 @whigzhou: 又见看暖球党表演 //Sandy and Global Warming来源：Ideas 作者：David Friedman Quite a lot of people have been offering the destruction due to Sandy as evidence of the evil consequences of global warming. As best I can tell, this claim is supported by three arguments, two of... http://ww1.sinaimg.cn/bmiddle/537956cajw1dyk5sqf6u8j.jpg @whigzhou: 虽说北京下了暴雪，我已换上冬衣，我还是不觉得这说明了什么，不过暖球党的沉默似乎说明了什么 //@whigzhou 现在上海气温0度，1970-2000年上海3月份平均日最低气温5.6度，我不认为这说明了什么，但假如这对数字倒过来，我敢打赌，我们一定会看到铺天盖地的文章，断定这说明了些什么。2012-3-12 03:55 @公园狮 变暖是假的，这是多大的阴谋啊？这得要多少人多少机构共同参与的骗局啊，连美国科学院都为他们背书。那些论文是怎么通过同行评议的？ @whigzhou: 说暖球党不靠谱，怀疑AGW，不等于认为“变暖是假的”，暖球党的结论可比“变暖”强得多 @whigzhou: AGW的结论包括：1）过去一个多世纪存在持续暖化趋势；2）该趋势由瘟室效应造成；3）瘟室效应主要由人类活动特别是碳排放造成；4）该趋势将在百年内延续，并导致平均气瘟上升2度；5）这一结果是灾难性的；6）这种灾难性后果已经在近年来的气候异常中表现出来；7）对此科学界存在高度共识。 @whigzhou: 以我获得的信息，这7条中只有第1条可以确信，第2、3条部分可信，但在总效果中所占份额可疑，天文因素很可能更重要，因而第4条不可信，第5条我认为恰恰相反，2度升温利大于弊，第6条纯属瞎扯，第7条只对第1条成立  

中国人民已经为减排作出了最大牺牲 辉格 2011年12月5日 继哥本哈根的不欢而散和坎昆的避重就轻之后，德班气候大会看来也不会有多少实质性进展了；会程已过大半，各大国之间仍继续互踢皮球，原本最积极的欧洲也因债务危机缠身而缺乏冲劲，甚至连环保组织似乎也正在丧失前些年所表现出的巨大热情和舆论号召力，所以，尽管议程仍在僵局中挣扎，失望的人们却不再那么激愤了。 对于中国民众，这样的僵局倒未尝不是好事，相对于成功的气候谈判所可能加诸于我们的巨大负担而言，每年花费的那点会务开支就显得不值一提了；毕竟，无论暖化派拿出什么理由，中国人民早已为减排作出了最大牺牲，在承受了30年强制性计划生育所带来的巨大痛苦之后，世界因此而少了4、5亿人口，而我们则无可挽回的失去了无数原本可以享受到的天伦之乐和兄弟亲情。 对于气候与环境，更重要的是，由于城市所吸纳的人口规模不会与人口基数成比例，因而这原本会出生的4、5亿人口中的大多数，将以对生态最具破坏性的方式生活于农村；这个数字，加上我们的人均排放量不到美国的1/4，再要将强制性的减排负担加到这不久前刚刚吃上肉、谋得温饱的十几亿人头上，而不给予足额补偿，当然是不公正的。 议程的延宕，也给了我们一个机会，可以更为从容的审视一下，从暖化理论的浮现、到减排运动的兴起、再到政府间谈判的推动，这整个发展过程的每个环节，是否具备充足的理由；任何严重到需要全球范围的政府间谈判来谋求向全人类施加某种强制性措施的事情，自然应该接受最严格的审视，以让人们确信这不是一场庸人大扰。 在大众舆论中我们常看到的是，从暖化现实的认知直接跳到对强制减排的赞同，似乎这其中的逻辑是当然无疑的，但仔细检查你会发现，这根逻辑链条其实很长，且每个环节都引入了辅助假定，若其中任何一个假定不成立都会让结论垮掉。 完整链条是：存在一个暖化趋势；它是人类活动造成的；该趋势将导致一个危险的结果；其程度将达到在整体上危及人类文明以现有水平存续所必需的生态条件；不存在与上述暖化趋势并行的其它气候趋势，比如足以压倒暖化的冷化趋势，或使人为暖化显得无足轻重的更大规模自然暖化趋势；人类在技术和资源上有能力逆转上述暖化；人类具备相应的政治和组织能力来建立并实施逆转暖化所需的制度安排；这样的安排和措施不会造成比暖化本身更大的危害。 遗憾的是，上述链条中只有第一个环节有过充分考察且达成了广泛共识，第二环节有很多研究但共识只是部分的，而其他环节则缺乏充分的讨论，多半被直接忽略了，但它们能否成立却是十分可疑的，有些甚至存在明确的反证。 重要的是，人类对气候变迁的认识还非常肤浅，处于经验积累的初级阶段，科学界迄今没有一个模型能够解释过去200万年的历次冰期/间冰期轮替是如何产生的，更遑论能精确拟合历次波动的周期、波幅和曲线细节，没人能可信的预言：下一次冰期何时来临，当前间冰期的气温上限将是多少，达到上限的速度有多快，等等。 所以，即便人为暖化趋势确实存在，也完全有可能，未来将有一个人类无法抗拒的自然暖化趋势，其效果远超过人为暖化，使得减排努力失去意义，如果暖化后果果真是暖化派所预言的文明灭绝，那人类除了等死还能做什么呢？相反，未来也完全可能有一个自然冷化趋势，那减排就更无必要；总之，现有暖化理论只论证了人类活动对气候有所影响，但并未论证这种影响足以在自然波动面前显得举足轻重，而能够支持强制减排的充分理由，是后一种。 从暖化到减排的链条中，最脆弱一环是暖化对文明的整体影响，因为减排所需的协议谈判、制度创建和强制行动是全球性和跨政府的，这样一种前所未有的超级利维坦的创建当然需要一个充足的整体性理由，即，暖化会在整体上危机人类文明的存续，或至少大幅恶化其生存处境，暖化派似乎确是这么暗示的，但他们罗列的明确前景，却都是局部性的，比如海平面上升导致少数岛屿和近岸城市淹没、具备地区干旱化等等。 然而，从历史经验看，除了数亿年前的极端暖期之外，温暖总是比寒冷更适合生命和文明的生存发展，特别是在人类存续的两个关键时期——晚更新世和全新世——中，温暖期总是比寒冷期更适合生存，也更繁荣；人类过去45万年中经历了四次间冰期，气温上限都远高于现在，也高于暖化派所担心的未来百年气温上限，而这段时间正是智人物种得以进化和发达的关键期；在定居农业和文明社会出现的近一万多年中，人类同样经历了多次温度高于现在的暖期，而这些暖期中，文明都比相邻的冷期更繁荣。 假如暖化只是会危及部分近岸地区和遇暖干旱地区，而同时却有望将面积数倍于此的沙漠、荒原、冻土和冰川地区变成绿洲的话，那它就不足以成为全球联合强制减排的充分理由；毕竟，海面只会在百年跨度上以极慢的速度上升，那里的居民、社区和城市有充裕的时间和充足的信息对之作出反应，或者移民，或者抬高堤坝，而这些个体和分散的反应不需要一个全球性的超级利维坦来组织实施。

【2011-12-01】 @whigzhou: Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer @whigzhou: 需要奇怪一下的是，为啥暖球派很少在全新世这个跨度上谈论气温走势，这段时间才是判断气温对文明影响的最佳区间，新仙女木结束之后的历次暖期，似乎都从他们的视野中消失了，而假如考虑这些暖期，还真看不出上升一两度有啥不好 @whigzhou: 维基上有另一张图，情况类似。 @whigzhou: 如果怀疑前面两张图不是主流意见，可以再看这张，拍自C.Barry Cox的教科书《生物地理学：生态和进化的途径》第七版，第10章，第249页，原文出版于2005年。左侧较平坦的一段是近一万年的情况，书太厚没能压的很平，但还是可以看出，左端（代表当今）在近一万年中明显处于低点。 @茶博未:“前面两张图”见http://weibo.com/1400461002/xzMtw7D64 下图曲线位置越高，表示温度越低（见图下文字说明）。左侧较平坦曲线代表的近一万年温度，比这段时间以前的（它的右侧）明显低 @whigzhou: 啊呀，博士理解错了，位置越高温度越高，我的“明显低”是指最左端（代表present）比平坦段平均水平低 @whigzhou: 注意时间轴是左近右古，平坦段右边最后一个低谷就是新仙女木，当时气温正在从末次冰期中回升，半路突然摔了一跤 @whigzhou: 为何我会感觉暖球派在回避全新世诸暖期的问题？搜索这三个关键字（Minoan warming/Roman warming/Medival warming），返回的大部分是怀疑派文章，说明暖球派拒绝面对这个问题，尽管有许多证据显示全新世多数年份气温高于今天，而在若干暖期中很可能高出一度以上 @whigzhou: 假如我们把时间尺度再拉大到整个第四纪（=更新世+全新世=过去200多万年），可以发现，过去45万年中的四个间冰期，温度都远高于现在（目前地球正处于最新一个间冰期中），这里是另一张图： @sw小橘子:暖球派中一个有煽动力的论点是海平面上升。过去45万年中的间冰期温度比现在高，并不能证明海平面不会上升。 @whigzhou: 海面上升所淹没的土地，远远少于因温度上升而从沙漠/冰川/冻原中获得的新土地，重要的是，海岸线上升是在百年跨度上完成的，人类有时间作出反应 @sw小橘子: 第二个论点是农业将遭到破坏，这其实也不能从45万年的跨度上反驳。 @whigzhou: 所以我先说了全新世跨度啊；45万年跨度的意义在于：智人是在这段时间内发展起来的，即，我们这个物种已经经历过至少四次温度比现在高出好几度的间冰期 @sw小橘子: 45万年似乎只支持地球不会毁灭，但不能支持人类不会付出难以承受的代价。 @whigzhou: 呵呵，假如要论证“地球不会毁灭”，那合适的跨度就是45亿年，这其中的气温波动幅度那就太离谱了，从整个冻成冰球的零下几十度到比现在高出几十度，都很平常 @Ent_evo: 是有时间做出反应，但是麻烦啊……人类环保总是以维持现状为最高标准的。 @whigzhou: 我说的反应是指个体反应，应对海面上升只需要有效的个体反应即可，不需要正确有效的集体决策/行动机制，这就看不出有多麻烦了 @Ent_evo：呃，个体反应够吗？觉得还是不太行啊……各大主要城市可以修建沿海大坝，但是小城市和农村地区呢？港口也要废掉一大批，最后估计还得是国家政府一级的来处理吧……？ @whigzhou：关键前提是：其价值受海面上升所影响的资源的产权是分散的，随着受淹预期的形成和水患频率的提高，价值变动会在市场上表现出来，个体会随之而行动，比如移民，改变航线，改变设施选址等等 @Ent_evo：土地面积问题也是一样。被淹没的是优质土地，而新产生的则原来是劣质土地、现在也需要人工建设基建。这会涉及到批量的、集中的个体利益损失，他们一定会设法推动国家力量来补偿的。更何况受损者和受益者不在同一个国家……这是理论上可以由个体反应解决、实际上不太可能停留在个体层面的事情吧。 @whigzhou：当然，问题和反应不会都停留在个体层面，但相对于大气层，近岸资源是高度分立的，大量分散决策可以引向有效的重新配置，这一条件大气层是不具备的 @Ent_evo：我一直觉得人类整体是厌恶风险的，害怕改变。现在其实也是气候变化的可能后果vs.低碳生活的变化后果，哪个小我们选哪个。至于气候变化的好处和低碳的好处，大部分人其实是不考虑的。