My Opera要理解暖化，就不能听土摩托的
Saturday, December 6, 2008 9:15:19 AM
补充：
看了土摩托的《什么是“科学界的主流意见”？》颇为失望——通篇是报机构名字、报杂志名字，还不如climateaudit的退休商人——人家仔细看过IPCC的报告、参与评论IPCC的报告、对IPCC报告的内容和流程提出过批评，牛博网上的“专家”则到引用big name为止，关于IPCC，一篇旧文值得一看：
EMOTIONALIZING CLIMATE CHANGE: Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science?
关于在哪里发表你的研究，Roy Spencer采访有一段（注：我不反对任何科学杂志）：
Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and Nature?
Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won't permit stuff like this. If they don't find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say "This is garbage," and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they don't have to deal with it. So I don't deal with them any more.
With the current attitudes toward skeptics, then, can such viewpoints still get published in major climate and science journals?
We're finding, the only place I'm submitting right now is Geophysical Research Letters. The American Geophysical Union is still kind of open minded. They've come out with a policy statement that goes along with the IPCC, but it seems like their editorial policy for their journals is still pretty flexible. But again I don't think there's that much good skeptic science going on right now. There's a lot of good ideas, but nobody's funded to do anything.
Is it simply a funding issue, then?
I think that's a huge part of it. Congress gives money to study problems. If manmade global warming is a problem, that's what the money goes to. If manmade global warming isn't a problem there's a risk of losing a lot of funding.
----------------------------------
土摩托最近又对怀疑暖化的人发飙，要求别人“听从科学界的主流意见”。
如果你不懂科学、不会数学，觉得自己的最高智力层次是被“科普”，那么听他的没错；如果你是政策决策人，认为自己的一举一动会影响多人未来的命运，听这个说法也没错。但是如果你真想知道暖化理论究竟对不对、解释能力多强，那么请把土摩托说的当风筝放掉。
因为暖化理论和已经“搞掂”的理论不同，至今这还是一个基于模型的、充满争议的领域。按照土摩托的逻辑，70年代时候我们就应该动员起来，防止全球冷化（当时的说法）、第一次海湾战争以后我们就应该听卡尔萨根的去防止火烧油田可能导致的生态环境危机。我在想，如果当年真这么做了，我们可能现在会对暖化理论更加小心一点。
我记得（不太确切）土摩托以前驳斥过气象预报不准不能说明关心长期趋势的气候变迁模型不准，好像他还要具体解释，不知道现在解释了没有。研究了一辈子飓风预报的Joanne Simpson倒是告诉我们：“However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts.”
现在这一领域盛行的批评通常是政治正确式的：如果你质疑AGW理论，那么马上就会被指为和big oil有关系，著名的反派科学家Roy Spencer甚至不得不在amazon.com卖自己的书的地方参与评论（url，第一条评论），为自己研究的清白辩护：“The very first review of my book to appear here claims I (the author) am funded by Exxon-Mobil, which is totally false. Apparently, people can say whatever they want on the internet, spreading rumors, and this is the eventual result. My research has always been 100% U.S. Government-funded. No oil company has ever even ASKED me to do anything for them, let alone paid me. I have written on this issue for 15 years, and am supportive of the oil and coal industries simply because of the huge benefit to mankind that has resulted from access to abundant, affordable energy. ”
那么“主流”是啥样呢？主流的代表、AGW理论的最重量“泰斗”、超级明星——NASA GISS的汉森，去英国为几位绿色和平人士破坏燃煤电厂的恐怖主义行为辩护，挑唆陪审员同志们作为“普通人”和“开奔驰的律师”的关系，最终6位破坏电站的人被无罪释放（[1][2]）。
但是在“主流媒体”上，我们总是看见对非主流意见有猫腻的暗示，主流代表的这种超人救世情节则是不会影响研究的。
正因为暖化的研究基于模型和统计，所以http://www.climateaudit.org/这样的学数学的退休商人主持的网站也可以成名，请在上面检索“Mann 2008”，看看“主流”的另外一位明星的最新研究是怎么“选择数据”的，Mann也是Gore小电影中hockey stick的作者。
至于土摩托自己说的“作为科技记者，我的原则是：如果是我熟悉的领域，那么我一定会有自己的判断，不会轻信任何采访对象。如果是我不熟悉的领域，那么我只相信科学界的主流意见。如果有时我觉得有必要写一写非主流意见，一定在文章里明确地写出来，让读者自己判断”，我来随便问一下：
常常看土摩托博客的读者，你们看过土摩托在“觉得有必要”时“明确地写出来”这个老研究新闻和这个新研究新闻么？上述对Mann et al 2008的纯技术性批评他报道过么？或者，他报道过另外一位要人Gavin Schmidt的评论为什么常常失真么？（在牛博另外一位“科普作者”笔下，Gavin Schmidt说什么就类似科学说什么）
也许这些都是你们不“必要”知道的，所以他未必会“写一写”。
p.s.: 顺便说一个有趣的现象，也许正是由于对自己常接触的气象预报模型不信任，所以媒体气象员团体中有很多对AGW持怀疑态度，最著名的如Anthony Watts——值得一提的是他主持的一个项目http://www.surfacestations.org/。不知道这是什么“势力”支持的？
p.s.2: 即使要通过减少温室气体的方式拯救地球，也是工业上的事情，请诸位注意“从我做起”、“从小事做起”在减少温室气体问题上作用有限，您完全不必有那个负罪感。
看了土摩托的《什么是“科学界的主流意见”？》颇为失望——通篇是报机构名字、报杂志名字，还不如climateaudit的退休商人——人家仔细看过IPCC的报告、参与评论IPCC的报告、对IPCC报告的内容和流程提出过批评，牛博网上的“专家”则到引用big name为止，关于IPCC，一篇旧文值得一看：
EMOTIONALIZING CLIMATE CHANGE: Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science?
关于在哪里发表你的研究，Roy Spencer采访有一段（注：我不反对任何科学杂志）：
Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and Nature?
Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won't permit stuff like this. If they don't find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say "This is garbage," and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they don't have to deal with it. So I don't deal with them any more.
With the current attitudes toward skeptics, then, can such viewpoints still get published in major climate and science journals?
We're finding, the only place I'm submitting right now is Geophysical Research Letters. The American Geophysical Union is still kind of open minded. They've come out with a policy statement that goes along with the IPCC, but it seems like their editorial policy for their journals is still pretty flexible. But again I don't think there's that much good skeptic science going on right now. There's a lot of good ideas, but nobody's funded to do anything.
Is it simply a funding issue, then?
I think that's a huge part of it. Congress gives money to study problems. If manmade global warming is a problem, that's what the money goes to. If manmade global warming isn't a problem there's a risk of losing a lot of funding.
----------------------------------
土摩托最近又对怀疑暖化的人发飙，要求别人“听从科学界的主流意见”。
如果你不懂科学、不会数学，觉得自己的最高智力层次是被“科普”，那么听他的没错；如果你是政策决策人，认为自己的一举一动会影响多人未来的命运，听这个说法也没错。但是如果你真想知道暖化理论究竟对不对、解释能力多强，那么请把土摩托说的当风筝放掉。
因为暖化理论和已经“搞掂”的理论不同，至今这还是一个基于模型的、充满争议的领域。按照土摩托的逻辑，70年代时候我们就应该动员起来，防止全球冷化（当时的说法）、第一次海湾战争以后我们就应该听卡尔萨根的去防止火烧油田可能导致的生态环境危机。我在想，如果当年真这么做了，我们可能现在会对暖化理论更加小心一点。
我记得（不太确切）土摩托以前驳斥过气象预报不准不能说明关心长期趋势的气候变迁模型不准，好像他还要具体解释，不知道现在解释了没有。研究了一辈子飓风预报的Joanne Simpson倒是告诉我们：“However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts.”
现在这一领域盛行的批评通常是政治正确式的：如果你质疑AGW理论，那么马上就会被指为和big oil有关系，著名的反派科学家Roy Spencer甚至不得不在amazon.com卖自己的书的地方参与评论（url，第一条评论），为自己研究的清白辩护：“The very first review of my book to appear here claims I (the author) am funded by Exxon-Mobil, which is totally false. Apparently, people can say whatever they want on the internet, spreading rumors, and this is the eventual result. My research has always been 100% U.S. Government-funded. No oil company has ever even ASKED me to do anything for them, let alone paid me. I have written on this issue for 15 years, and am supportive of the oil and coal industries simply because of the huge benefit to mankind that has resulted from access to abundant, affordable energy. ”
那么“主流”是啥样呢？主流的代表、AGW理论的最重量“泰斗”、超级明星——NASA GISS的汉森，去英国为几位绿色和平人士破坏燃煤电厂的恐怖主义行为辩护，挑唆陪审员同志们作为“普通人”和“开奔驰的律师”的关系，最终6位破坏电站的人被无罪释放（[1][2]）。
但是在“主流媒体”上，我们总是看见对非主流意见有猫腻的暗示，主流代表的这种超人救世情节则是不会影响研究的。
正因为暖化的研究基于模型和统计，所以http://www.climateaudit.org/这样的学数学的退休商人主持的网站也可以成名，请在上面检索“Mann 2008”，看看“主流”的另外一位明星的最新研究是怎么“选择数据”的，Mann也是Gore小电影中hockey stick的作者。
至于土摩托自己说的“作为科技记者，我的原则是：如果是我熟悉的领域，那么我一定会有自己的判断，不会轻信任何采访对象。如果是我不熟悉的领域，那么我只相信科学界的主流意见。如果有时我觉得有必要写一写非主流意见，一定在文章里明确地写出来，让读者自己判断”，我来随便问一下：
常常看土摩托博客的读者，你们看过土摩托在“觉得有必要”时“明确地写出来”这个老研究新闻和这个新研究新闻么？上述对Mann et al 2008的纯技术性批评他报道过么？或者，他报道过另外一位要人Gavin Schmidt的评论为什么常常失真么？（在牛博另外一位“科普作者”笔下，Gavin Schmidt说什么就类似科学说什么）
也许这些都是你们不“必要”知道的，所以他未必会“写一写”。
p.s.: 顺便说一个有趣的现象，也许正是由于对自己常接触的气象预报模型不信任，所以媒体气象员团体中有很多对AGW持怀疑态度，最著名的如Anthony Watts——值得一提的是他主持的一个项目http://www.surfacestations.org/。不知道这是什么“势力”支持的？
p.s.2: 即使要通过减少温室气体的方式拯救地球，也是工业上的事情，请诸位注意“从我做起”、“从小事做起”在减少温室气体问题上作用有限，您完全不必有那个负罪感。
