Psst: The climate IS changing---believe it, or not...

This site quickly explains the mechanism of global warming and offers compelling evidence of its existence:http://www.HowGlobalWarmingWorks.org

One caller mentioned that when they hear that climate change involves only several degrees of temperature rise they shrugged it off. In the US this might be more the norm. If we are going to talk about temperature rise in the US we should probably switch from C to F.

为什么不停止称之为气候变化呢?为什么不直接称之为污染呢?为什么要放弃一个完全可以辩解的立场，而用一个站不住脚的偶然事件作为你的理由呢?

You do know what being "set up" is, dont you?

知道吗，忘掉这一切。让我们回到南方民主党的“碳足迹”故事。这是个好主意吗?

I used to be an intransigent for climate change proponents until i saw children were subject to an experiment done in public schools.

The experiment, fill two bottles with different gases. Air, and methane.

Present both bottles to the same radiant light sorce, measure the speed the bottles heat up.

The methane heats in fractions of the time the other one heats.

Conclusion: global warming is real!

Wrong. The experiment proved the opposite. The class it was done for, had many more years before it had the opportunity to take chemistry 101.

是的，甲烷升温更快。它需要更少的热量来提高一度。但你知道那意味着什么，对吧?甲烷储存的热量更少。它冷却的速度也更快。

The experiment never showed actual conditions or the rate the methane cooled. It was as if to say that global warming was taking your bed sheets, replacing them with sheet metal, and saying it keeps you warmer at night.

When i saw how this experiment was conducted and who it was presented to, i knew what the problem was. Authoritarianism.

Anyone that teaches children to be dumber than they were born to be is an ideology driven theist.

你想让孩子们知道污染的危害，很好。但是气候学家是一种有神论者，我甚至比娈童癖的罗马人和其他类型的天主教徒更不喜欢。

作为一种有能力真正影响天气模式和变化的相关力量，人为的二氧化碳变暖或“气候变化”在科学上没有得到证实。在这篇文章和评论中提供的支持材料中的许多链接忽略了非常基本和众所周知的事实。例如:占温室效应气体95%的水蒸气在哪里，而人类二氧化碳只占总量的1% ?太阳和地轴的倾斜度是多少——倾斜度是100倍——是多少年来控制地球气候变化的主要动力?没有。当这些因素被忽略时，那些敢于预测任何事情的统计学家在哪里?

中国科学院和俄罗斯科学院都不同意这种观点，而且我真的不知道有哪位严格意义上的科学人士专门从事这一领域的工作，与西方社会权力诱导的趋势相一致。多年前，印度政府出于对联合国组织的不信任，成立了自己的科学小组来监测他们的气候变化。联合国组织在这些问题上的随风听命，使它们的力量不断增强。
It is true that a large number of political and bureaucratic personalities are making a good living out of it but independent climate experts are not among them.
A small sample of contrarian positions.
Princeton's William Happer rebuts myth of carbon pollution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8iEEO2UIbA
艾伦·萨弗莱谈沙漠化的错误。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore on Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlmFr4FMvI&t=220s
Artic Refuses to melt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwUhJaQVi-M

然而，确实，像这样的问题，以当今西方盛行的民粹主义方式处理，是一个操纵公众舆论的奇妙杠杆，迫使人们服从——在全球范围内——以一种代表着我们文化的哲学和科学传统的方式。
Best rgds and thanks for the opportunity

如果地球平均温度的人为升高能够得到大多数现存人类满意的验证，并得到气候学家的普遍共识，那么问一下什么样的社会组织最有可能以物种生存为目的来充分解决这个问题，难道不合理吗?历史上或现在有这样的例子吗?

Well stated, Tim. My view on the issue takes a pragmatist approach. Those many who choose to doubt the science behind climate change predictions have no long view. Those who doubt, because the consequences of climate remediation would affect their economic interests adversely are in the State of Denial. All of this is less helpful. Of course, pragmatism has consequences. Rorty said so. I never read his views on climate change---if he had any.

I fear that this whole conversation mostly misses the broader point. As Hobbes made clear, science will not change people's minds if it conflicts with their interests. We're slowly descending into the madness that ruled the day before Boyle and his contemporaries invented science. Read Leviathan and the Air-pump for more details.

那么联邦政府的应用气候学办公室呢?它肯定会在政治上受到欢迎，大型石油和煤炭公司将很难收买政治代表来阻止它。这样做的危险之处在于，它当然会破坏其“狐狸看鸡舍”的目的。但它可以帮助更进步的分子接近政治竞争。