数学，科学，实验科学．谁是可信的？

数学：　基于公理，是可以严格推导论证的，　　

科学，基本上是可以说实验科学是证伪的不错．　物理相对容易证伪，　气候这类的科学，有点难，因为无法重复实验．　　但是有大量证据，　而且可以用实验验证的成分．　特别是对二氧化碳存热的机理的验证，是实验可以证明的．　

至于该信谁．　你相信量子力学与相对论的结论吗？　你没有亲自做过实验，怎么确信呢？　根据广义相对论调整的GPS, 你敢用吗？　这里我要说，如果研究气候算是你的业余爱好，　那就别去跟人家科学家吃饭的本事较劲．　如果连业余爱好都算不上的话，就更不要较劲，　你可以质疑，但态度不是否定科学结论，而是解自己的惑．　如果还不服的话，就请把自己变成专家，把这个当饭碗．　看是不是可以拿出轰动科学界的研究成果．　　

对于全球变暖这件事，　可以说科学界＂公认＂是有这回事，相信IPCC的结论．　见发表在科学杂志（Science) 的文章：　The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

再见维基百科．

Scientific consensus[edit]

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.^[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.^[2][3] It is "extremely likely"^[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases ..."^[4] in the atmosphere.^[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.^[6][7][8][9]

金主

有人问到底谁出钱做研究得出的结论？　隐含着科学家为了得到资助，做出金主要的结论．　可以说绝大部分（美国）科学家是联邦资助．　当然会有个别科学家为了钱，牺牲良知，　但说整个科学界被金主控制，我不相信．要是光为了钱，大部分科学家都不去做科学了．　如果你还不同意，那情具体指出，哪些科学家从哪要的钱因此撒谎了．　　倒是以前否认全球暖化的研究是石油公司资助的．见出处．　就如烟草公司曾经否认抽烟有害一样，只是随着时间的推移，不得不向事实低头．　

From 1998 to 2005, Exxon proceeded to do just that, contributing almost $16 million to organizations designed to muddy the scientific waters. Exxon came clean, in its way, in 2007, when it publicly acknowledged that the earth’s warming was caused, in large part, by CO₂ from the very stuff that made billions for Exxon. It promised to no longer fund climate change deniers.