任何事情，如果明明有争议，有人告诉你结论无可辩驳（Indisputable），那你一定要小心，要么他大脑太简单，要么他就是个骗子，Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming（CAGW）(灾难性人为气候变暖)就是这样一个典型的例子，这里要讨论的重点不是地球是否在变暖，而是如果变暖是否主要是人类造成的, 而且变暖的程度是否会对人类的生存环境造成灾难性的破坏。
本人不是气象学家，以前也偏向于相信人类工业化是全球气候变暖的主要原因，只是因为没有花时间了解，所以并不确信。后来看到这个问题越来越政治化，一方面反对者被打压被妖魔化(e.g. How can Will Happer be so dumb?)，另一方面反对的声音却越来越强，我决定花一些时间多了解一下，下面是我找到的一些信息，和大家分享。
回复 'nightrider' 的评论 : Very well written comments. Thank you!
nightrider 发表评论于
回复 '越吃越蒙山人' 的评论 :
In addition to my previous post, if I assume the papers that hold no express stance as implicitly rejecting AGW, by symmetry, there will also be consistency. In fact any assumption on the stance would maintained consistency. So there is no conclusion one can draw on the stance.
Again, even there is true consensus, it does not necessarily mean the conclusion is true or that consensus is indisputable or immutable. I do not have to remind everyone how much resistance and ridicule Einstein's theory or Darwin's theory sustained when it was first put forth.
nightrider 发表评论于
回复 '越吃越蒙山人' 的评论 :
I appreciate your graciousness in this discussion.
The quoted "spiral trajectory" rationale, contrary to supporting the argument, renders the whole argument completely vacuous, as it makes the subsequent deduction circular. This is a textbook example of how not to draw logical conclusion. Those authors try to show the consensus of support for AGW. They start by presuming "everyone agrees" with AGW and "fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community". The aforementioned presumption is crucial in their interpretation of the data to conclude "everyone agrees" with AGW and "fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community". Sure, it is self-consistent as every circular argument is. It is simply vacuous, useless and meaningless.
Regarding "selective attention" and "selective acceptance", as individual's propensity for these cognitive bias differs from each other, is it not all the more reason to open the discussion to more individuals with a deviating and especially, especially, an opposing view? That is not what AGW advocates are doing. The very act of emphasizing consensus, even if there is a clear one, not to mention there is not, runs counter to the spirit of science. As a matter of fact, the very fact that the AGW advocates are cherry picking data to demonstrate consensus, with nothing less than the kitchen sink of circular argument thrown in, betrays their fear of reality. Do you see (real) physicists beating their chests, hear them shouting from the rooftop, the consensus for Einstein's theories of relativity both special and general, for quantum mechanics --- in fact there is a lively though small scale discussion on the very foundation of quantum mechanics ---- or the Newtonian mechanics? 酒香不怕巷子深。The louder the yelling the more rotten the fruits are.
More importantly, true progression of science is not by consensus but the confirmation or falsification of a theory with accurate data and rigorous deduction. Intimidation using so called consensus to suppress dissenting opinions, is purely and simply the abhorrible antithesis of scientific enquiry.
To Nightrider: As a matter of fact, I did not know what the questionnaire is that the survey facilitator used for the study , but I agree with you that different questions generate different outcomes, more or less.
The reason I did not touch that 66.4% no-opinion part was because the Blog writer ，Mr. 不合群 ， has already presented that in his article . And Justin Fox also said this number drove everybody crazy! Then Justin Fox's coming explanation removed my puzzle as well:
"This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics."
So, that is why Justin Fox gave his final point on the situation, which was like a plummet drop of rejection paper published in 2013-2014 compare with those in the previous decade in terms of amount number, which means there is no much controversy on this matter.
However, everybody makes mistake. Time to time , I am quite often frustrated by my own mistake , just can not find a way out of the selective-attention loop. So thanks for the reminding.
To Mr. 不合群， I apologize to you that I did not make myself clear enough on that 30000 opinion survey matter.
nightrider 发表评论于
@越吃越蒙山人:
You said "selective attention和selective acception真是我们每个人都难以克服的心理弱点。" What you said subsequently indeed give support to that:
"自1991年到2011年间，在11944篇有关气候变化的专业论文里，只有78篇反对认为变暖的观点，40篇不确定。统共不到总数的1%。
自2013年到2014年间，发表的24210篇论文，只有5篇反对，占总数的0.021%". You selectively ignored the percentage of papers that do not express any position. In fact, the percentage of papers expressing no position is 66.4%. So the consensus of 97% for man made global warming is pure manipulative boloney.
Also, survey results usually depend largely on how the question is framed. Did the survey ask the authors whether they think the human activity influence climate, or whether they think the earth is warming (note warming not only that the climate is changing) significantly and human activity is the determining factor for the warming?
nightrider 发表评论于
@彩烟游士:
You said "NASA的卫星测量的大气温度，要比地面气象站测量的温度准的多。" That is an erroneous claim.
The satellite can only measure the net spectral energy flux in a direction. The energy of the light at a particular frequency integrates over all possible emission, scattering, and absorption along all possible paths of the light. Bear in mind the temperature of the ground and the atmosphere at different heights are vastly different. We can attribute the temperature to either the ground or the atmosphere at different heights even, only when we have a very accurate model and calibration of the spectral profile of the different substance involved. Or when it is a clear day where the optical opacity of the atmosphere is low, we can assume most of the radiation energy flux comes from the ground in a straight line. When there is thick or wide cloud coverage, without many other instruments on the ground and in air at different height, there is no way one can measure the temperature of the ground or the atmosphere.
