I'll just start talking about the 17th century. I hope nobody finds that offensive. I -- you know, when I -- after I had invented PCR, I kind of needed a change. And I moved down to La Jolla and learned how to surf. And I started living down there on the beach for a long time. And when surfers are out waiting for waves, you probably wonder, if you've never been out there, what are they doing? You know, sometimes there's a 10-, 15-minute break out there when you're waiting for a wave to come in. They usually talk about the 17th century. You know, they get a real bad rap in the world. People think they're sort of lowbrows. One day, somebody suggested I read this book. It was called -- it was called "The Air Pump," or something like "The Leviathan and The Air Pump." It was a real weird book about the 17th century. And I realized, the roots of the way I sort of thought was just the only natural way to think about things. That -- you know, I was born thinking about things that way, and I had always been like a little scientist guy. And when I went to find out something, I used scientific methods. I wasn't real surprised, you know, when they first told me how -- how you were supposed to do science, because I'd already been doing it for fun and whatever. But it didn't -- it never occurred to me that it had to be invented and that it had been invented only 350 years ago. You know, it was -- like it happened in England, and Germany, and Italy sort of all at the same time. And the story of that, I thought, was really fascinating. So I'm going to talk a little bit about that, and what exactly is it that scientists are supposed to do. And it's, it's a kind of -- You know, Charles I got beheaded somewhere early in the 17th century. And the English set up Cromwell and a whole bunch of Republicans or whatever, and not the kind of Republicans we had. They changed the government, and it didn't work. And Charles II, the son, was finally put back on the throne of England. He was really nervous, because his dad had been, you know, beheaded for being the King of England And he was nervous about the fact that conversations that got going in, like, bars and stuff would turn to -- this is kind of -- it's hard to believe, but people in the 17th century in England were starting to talk about, you know, philosophy and stuff in bars. They didn't have TV screens, and they didn't have any football games to watch. And they would get really pissy, and all of a sudden people would spill out into the street and fight about issues like whether or not it was okay if Robert Boyle made a device called the vacuum pump. Now, Boyle was a friend of Charles II. He was a Christian guy during the weekends, but during the week he was a scientist. (Laughter) Which was -- back then it was sort of, you know, well, you know -- if you made this thing -- he made this little device, like kind of like a bicycle pump in reverse that could suck all the air out of -- you know what a bell jar is? One of these things, you pick it up, put it down, and it's got a seal, and you can see inside of it, so you can see what's going on inside this thing. But what he was trying to do was to pump all the air out of there, and see what would happen inside there. I mean, the first -- I think one of the first experiments he did was he put a bird in there. And people in the 17th century, they didn't really understand the same way we do about you know, this stuff is a bunch of different kinds of molecules, and we breathe it in for a purpose and all that. I mean, fish don't know much about water, and people didn't know much about air. But both started exploring it. One thing, he put a bird in there, and he pumped all the air out, and the bird died. So he said, hmm... He said -- he called what he'd done as making -- they didn't call it a vacuum pump at the time. Now you call it a vacuum pump; he called it a vacuum. Right? And immediately, he got into trouble with the local clergy who said, you can't make a vacuum. Ah, uh -- (Laughter) Aristotle said that nature abhors one. I think it was a poor translation, probably, but people relied on authorities like that. And you know, Boyle says, well, shit. I make them all the time. I mean, whatever that is that kills the bird -- and I'm calling it a vacuum. And the religious people said that if God wanted you to make -- I mean, God is everywhere, that was one of their rules, is God is everywhere. And a vacuum -- there's nothing in a vacuum, so you've -- God couldn't be in there. So therefore the church said that you can't make a vacuum, you know. And Boyle said, bullshit. I mean, you want to call it Godless, you know, you call it Godless. But that's not my job. I'm not into that. I do that on the weekend. And like -- what I'm trying to do is figure out what happens when you suck everything out of a compartment. And he did all these cute little experiments. Like he did one with -- he had a little wheel, like a fan, that was sort of loosely attached, so it could spin by itself. He had another fan opposed to it that he had like a -- I mean, the way I would have done this would be, like, a rubber band, and, you know, around a tinker toy kind of fan. I know exactly how he did it; I've seen the drawings. It's two fans, one which he could turn from outside after he got the vacuum established, and he discovered that if he pulled all the air out of it, the one fan would no longer turn the other one, right? Something was missing, you know. I mean, these are -- it's kind of weird to think that someone had to do an experiment to show that, but that was what was going on at the time. And like, there was big arguments about it in the -- you know, the gin houses and in the coffee shops and stuff. And Charles started not liking that. Charles II was kind of saying, you know, you should keep that -- let's make a place where you can do this stuff where people don't get so -- you know, we don't want the -- we don't want to get the people mad at me again. And so -- because when they started talking about religion and science and stuff like that, that's when it had sort of gotten his father in trouble. And so, Charles said, I'm going to put up the money give you guys a building, come here and you can meet in the building, but just don't talk about religion in there. And that was fine with Boyle. He said, OK, we're going to start having these meetings. And anybody who wants to do science is -- this is about the time that Isaac Newton was starting to whip out a lot of really interesting things. And there was all kind of people that would come to the Royal Society, they called it. You had to be dressed up pretty well. It wasn't like a TED conference. That was the only criteria, was that you be -- you looked like a gentleman, and they'd let anybody could come. You didn't have to be a member then. And so, they would come in and you would do -- Anybody that was going to show an experiment, which was kind of a new word at the time, demonstrate some principle, they had to do it on stage, where everybody could see it. So they were -- the really important part of this was, you were not supposed to talk about final causes, for instance. And God was out of the picture. The actual nature of reality was not at issue. You're not supposed to talk about the absolute nature of anything. You were not supposed to talk about anything that you couldn't demonstrate. So if somebody could see it, you could say, here's how the machine works, here's what we do, and then here's what happens. And seeing what happens, it was OK to generalize, and say, I'm sure that this will happen anytime we make one of these things. And so you can start making up some rules. You say, anytime you have a vacuum state, you will discover that one wheel will not turn another one, if the only connection between them is whatever was there before the vacuum. That kind of thing. Candles can't burn in a vacuum, therefore, probably sparklers wouldn't either. It's not clear; actually sparklers will, but they didn't know that. They didn't have sparklers. But, they -- (Laughter) -- you can make up rules, but they have to relate only to the things that you've been able to demonstrate. And most the demonstrations had to do with visuals. Like if you do an experiment on stage, and nobody can see it, they can just hear it, they would probably think you were freaky. I mean, reality is what you can see. That wasn't an explicit rule in the meeting, but I'm sure that was part of it, you know. If people hear voices, and they can't see and associate it with somebody, that person's probably not there. But the general idea that you could only -- you could only really talk about things in that place that had some kind of experimental basis. It didn't matter what Thomas Hobbes, who was a local philosopher, said about it, you know, because you weren't going to be talking final causes. What's happening here, in the middle of the 17th century, was that what became my field -- science, experimental science -- was pulling itself away, and it was in a physical way, because we're going to do it in this room over here, but it was also what -- it was an amazing thing that happened. Science had been all interlocked with theology, and philosophy, and -- and -- and mathematics, which is really not science. But experimental science had been tied up with all those things. And the mathematics part and the experimental science part was pulling away from philosophy. And -- things -- we never looked back. It's been so cool since then. I mean, it just -- it just -- untangled a thing that was really impeding technology from being developed. And, I mean, everybody in this room -- now, this is 350 short years ago. Remember, that's a short time. It was 300,000, probably, years ago that most of us, the ancestors of most of us in this room came up out of Africa and turned to the left. You know, the ones that turned to the right, there are some of those in the Japanese translation. But that happened very -- a long time ago compared to 350 short years ago. But in that 350 years, the place has just undergone a lot of changes. In fact, everybody in this room probably, especially if you picked up your bag -- some of you, I know, didn't pick up your bags -- but if you picked up your bag, everybody in this room has got in their pocket, or back in their room, something that 350 years ago, kings would have gone to war to have. I mean, if you can think how important -- If you have a GPS system and there are no satellites, it's not going to be much use. But, like -- but, you know, if somebody had a GPS system in the 17th century some king would have gotten together an army and gone to get it, you know. If that person -- Audience: For the teddy bear? The teddy bear? Kary Mullis: They might have done it for the teddy bear, yeah. But -- all of us own stuff. I mean, individuals own things that kings would have definitely gone to war to get. And this is just 350 years. Not a whole lot of people doing this stuff. You know, the important people -- you can almost read about their lives, about all the really important people that made advances, you know. And, I mean -- this kind of stuff, you know, all this stuff came from that separation of this little sort of thing that we do -- now I, when I was a boy was born sort of with this idea that if you want to know something -- you know, maybe it's because my old man was gone a lot, and my mother didn't really know much science, but I thought if you want to know something about stuff, you do it -- you make an experiment, you know. You get -- you get, like -- I just had a natural feeling for science and setting up experiments. I thought that was the way everybody had always thought. I thought that anybody with any brains will do it that way. It isn't true. I mean, there's a lot of people -- You know, I was one of those scientists that was -- got into trouble the other night at dinner because of the post-modernism thing. And I didn't mean, you know -- where is that lady? Audience: Here. (Laughter) KM: I mean, I didn't really think of that as an argument so much as just a lively discussion. I didn't take it personally, but -- I just -- I had -- I naively had thought, until this surfing experience started me into the 17th century, I'd thought that's just the way people thought, and everybody did, and they recognized reality by what they could see or touch or feel or hear. At any rate, when I was a boy, I, like, for instance, I had this -- I got this little book from Fort Sill, Oklahoma -- This is about the time that George Dyson's dad was starting to blow nuclear -- thinking about blowing up nuclear rockets and stuff. I was thinking about making my own little rockets. And I knew that frogs -- little frogs -- had aspirations of space travel, just like people. And I -- (Laughter) I was looking for a -- a propulsion system that would like, make a rocket, like, maybe about four feet high go up a couple of miles. And, I mean, that was my sort of goal. I wanted it to go out of sight and then I wanted this little parachute to come back with the frog in it. And -- I -- I -- I got this book from Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where there's a missile base. They send it out for amateur rocketeers, and it said in there do not ever heat a mixture of potassium perchlorate and sugar. (Laughter) You know, that's what you call a lead. (Laughter) You sort of -- now you say, well, let's see if I can get hold of some potassium chlorate and sugar, perchlorate and sugar, and heat it; it would be interesting to see what it is they don't want me to do, and what it is going to -- and how is it going to work. And we didn't have -- like, my mother presided over the back yard from an upstairs window, where she would be ironing or something like that. And she was usually just sort of keeping an eye on, and if there was any puffs of smoke out there, she'd lean out and admonish us all not to blow our eyes out. That was her -- You know, that was kind of the worst thing that could happen to us. That's why I thought, as long as I don't blow my eyes out... I may not care about the fact that it's prohibited from heating this solution. I'm going to do it carefully, but I'll do it. It's like anything else that's prohibited: you do it behind the garage. (Laughter) So, I went to the drug store and I tried to buy some potassium perchlorate and it wasn't unreasonable then for a kid to walk into a drug store and buy chemicals. Nowadays, it's no ma'am, check your shoes. And like -- (Laughter) But then it wasn't -- they didn't have any, but the guy had -- I said, what kind of salts of potassium do you have? You know. And he had potassium nitrate. And I said, that might do the same thing, whatever it is. I'm sure it's got to do with rockets or it wouldn't be in that manual. And so I -- I did some experiments. You know, I started off with little tiny amounts of potassium nitrate and sugar, which was readily available, and I mixed it in different proportions, and I tried to light it on fire. Just to see what would happen, if you mixed it together. And it -- they burned. It burned kind of slow, but it made a nice smell, compared to other rocket fuels I had tried, that all had sulfur in them. And, it smelt like burnt candy. And then I tried the melting business, and I melted it. And then it melted into a little sort of syrupy liquid, brown. And then it cooled down to a brick-hard substance, that when you lit that, it went off like a bat. I mean, the little bowl of that stuff that had cooled down -- you'd light it, and it would just start dancing around the yard. And I said, there is a way to get a frog up to where he wants to go. (Laughter) So I started developing -- you know, George's dad had a lot of help. I just had my brother. But I -- it took me about -- it took me about, I'd say, six months to finally figure out all the little things. There's a lot of little things involved in making a rocket that it will actually work, even after you have the fuel. But you do it, by -- what I just-- you know, you do experiments, and you write down things sometimes, you make observations, you know. And then you slowly build up a theory of how this stuff works. And it was -- I was following all the rules. I didn't know what the rules were, I'm a natural born scientist, I guess, or some kind of a throwback to the 17th century, whatever. But at any rate, we finally did have a device that would reproduceably put a frog out of sight and get him back alive. And we had not -- I mean, we weren't frightened by it. We should have been, because it made a lot of smoke and it made a lot of noise, and it was powerful, you know. And once in a while, they would blow up. But I wasn't worried, by the way, about, you know, the explosion causing the destruction of the planet. I hadn't heard about the 10 ways that we should be afraid of the -- By the way, I could have thought, I'd better not do this because they say not to, you know. And I'd better get permission from the government. If I'd have waited around for that, I would have never -- the frog would have died, you know. At any rate, I bring it up because it's a good story, and he said, tell personal things, you know, and that's a personal -- I was going to tell you about the first night that I met my wife, but that would be too personal, wouldn't it. So, so I've got something else that's not personal. But that... process is what I think of as science, see, where you start with some idea, and then instead of, like, looking up, every authority that you've ever heard of I -- sometimes you do that, if you're going to write a paper later, you want to figure out who else has worked on it. But in the actual process, you get an idea -- like, when I got the idea one night that I could amplify DNA with two oligonucleotides, and I could make lots of copies of some little piece of DNA, you know, the thinking for that was about 20 minutes while I was driving my car, and then instead of going -- I went back and I did talk to people about it, but if I'd listened to what I heard from all my friends who were molecular biologists -- I would have abandoned it. You know, if I had gone back looking for an authority figure who could tell me if it would work or not, he would have said, no, it probably won't. Because the results of it were so spectacular that if it worked it was going to change everybody's goddamn way of doing molecular biology. Nobody wants a chemist to come in and poke around in their stuff like that and change things. But if you go to authority, and you always don't -- you don't always get the right answer, see. But I knew, you'd go into the lab and you'd try to make it work yourself. And then you're the authority, and you can say, I know it works, because right there in that tube is where it happened, and here, on this gel, there's a little band there that I know that's DNA, and that's the DNA I wanted to amplify, so there! So it does work. You know, that's how you do science. And then you say, well, what can make it work better? And then you figure out better and better ways to do it. But you always work from, from like, facts that you have made available to you by doing experiments: things that you could do on a stage. And no tricky shit behind the thing. I mean, it's all -- you've got to be very honest with what you're doing if it really is going to work. I mean, you can't make up results, and then do another experiment based on that one. So you have to be honest. And I'm basically honest. I have a fairly bad memory, and dishonesty would always get me in trouble, if I, like -- so I've just sort of been naturally honest and naturally inquisitive, and that sort of leads to that kind of science. Now, let's see... I've got another five minutes, right? OK. All scientists aren't like that. You know -- and there is a lot -- (Laughter) There is a lot -- a lot has been going on since Isaac Newton and all that stuff happened. One of the things that happened right around World War II in that same time period before, and as sure as hell afterwards, government got -- realized that scientists aren't strange dudes that, you know, hide in ivory towers and do ridiculous things with test tube. Scientists, you know, made World War II as we know it quite possible. They made faster things. They made bigger guns to shoot them down with. You know, they made drugs to give the pilots if they were broken up in the process. They made all kinds of -- and then finally one giant bomb to end the whole thing, right? And everybody stepped back a little and said, you know, we ought to invest in this shit, because whoever has got the most of these people working in the places is going to have a dominant position, at least in the military, and probably in all kind of economic ways. And they got involved in it, and the scientific and industrial establishment was born, and out of that came a lot of scientists who were in there for the money, you know, because it was suddenly available. And they weren't the curious little boys that liked to put frogs up in the air. They were the same people that later went in to medical school, you know, because there was money in it, you know. I mean, later, then they all got into business -- I mean, there are waves of -- going into your high school, person saying, you want to be rich, you know, be a scientist. You know, not anymore. You want to be rich, you be a businessman. But a lot of people got in it for the money and the power and the travel. That's back when travel was easy. And those people don't think -- they don't -- they don't always tell you the truth, you know. There is nothing in their contract, in fact, that makes it to their advantage always, to tell you the truth. And the people I'm talking about are people that like -- they say that they're a member of the committee called, say, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. And they -- and they have these big meetings where they try to figure out how we're going to -- how we're going to continually prove that the planet is getting warmer, when that's actually contrary to most people's sensations. I mean, if you actually measure the temperature over a period -- I mean, the temperature has been measured now pretty carefully for about 50, 60 years -- longer than that it's been measured, but in really nice, precise ways, and records have been kept for 50 or 60 years, and in fact, the temperature hadn't really gone up. It's like, the average temperature has gone up a tiny little bit, because the nighttime temperatures at the weather stations have come up just a little bit. But there's a good explanation for that. And it's that the weather stations are all built outside of town, where the airport was, and now the town's moved out there, there's concrete all around and they call it the skyline effect. And most responsible people that measure temperatures realize you have to shield your measuring device from that. And even then, you know, because the buildings get warm in the daytime, and they keep it a little warmer at night. So the temperature has been, sort of, inching up. It should have been. But not a lot. Not like, you know -- the first guy -- the first guy that got the idea that we're going to fry ourselves here, actually, he didn't think of it that way. His name was Sven Arrhenius. He was Swedish, and he said, if you double the CO2 level in the atmosphere, which he thought might -- this is in 1900 -- the temperature ought to go up about 5.5 degrees, he calculated. He was thinking of the earth as, kind of like, you know, like a completely insulated thing with no stuff in it, really, just energy coming down, energy leaving. And so he came up with this theory, and he said, this will be cool, because it'll be a longer growing season in Sweden, you know, and the surfers liked it, the surfers thought, that's a cool idea, because it's pretty cold in the ocean sometimes, and -- but a lot of other people later on started thinking it would be bad, you know. But nobody actually demonstrated it, right? I mean, the temperature as measured -- and you can find this on our wonderful Internet, you just go and look for all NASAs records, and all the Weather Bureau's records, and you'll look at it yourself, and you'll see, the temperature has just -- the nighttime temperature measured on the surface of the planet has gone up a tiny little bit. So if you just average that and the daytime temperature, it looks like it went up about .7 degrees in this century. But in fact, it was just coming up -- it was the nighttime; the daytime temperatures didn't go up. So -- and Arrhenius' theory -- and all the global warmers think -- they would say, yeah, it should go up in the daytime, too, if it's the greenhouse effect. Now, people like things that have, like, names like that, that they can envision it, right? I mean -- but people don't like things like this, so -- most -- I mean, you don't get all excited about things like the actual evidence, you know, which would be evidence for strengthening of the tropical circulation in the 1990s. It's a paper that came out in February, and most of you probably hadn't heard about it. "Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget." Excuse me. Those papers were published by NASA, and some scientists at Columbia, and Viliki and a whole bunch of people, Princeton. And those two papers came out in Science Magazine, February the first, and these -- the conclusion in both of these papers, and in also the Science editor's, like, descriptions of these papers, for, you know, for the quickie, is that our theories about global warming are completely wrong. I mean, what these guys were doing, and this is what -- the NASA people have been saying this for a long time. They say, if you measure the temperature of the atmosphere, it isn't going up -- it's not going up at all. We've doing it very carefully now for 20 years, from satellites, and it isn't going up. And in this paper, they show something much more striking, and that was that they did what they call a radiation -- and I'm not going to go into the details of it, actually it's quite complicated, but it isn't as complicated as they might make you think it is by the words they use in those papers. If you really get down to it, they say, the sun puts out a certain amount of energy -- we know how much that is -- it falls on the earth, the earth gives back a certain amount. When it gets warm it generates -- it makes redder energy -- I mean, like infra-red, like something that's warm gives off infra-red. The whole business of the global warming -- trash, really, is that -- if the -- if there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, the heat that's trying to escape won't be able to get out. But the heat coming from the sun, which is mostly down in the -- it's like 350 nanometers, which is where it's centered -- that goes right through CO2. So you still get heated, but you don't dissipate any. Well, these guys measured all of those things. I mean, you can talk about that stuff, and you can write these large reports, and you can get government money to do it, but these -- they actually measured it, and it turns out that in the last 10 years -- that's why they say "decadal" there -- that the energy -- that the level of what they call "imbalance" has been way the hell over what was expected. Like, the amount of imbalance -- meaning, heat's coming in and it's not going out that you would get from having double the CO2, which we're not anywhere near that, by the way. But if we did, in 2025 or something, have double the CO2 as we had in 1900, they say it would be increase the energy budget by about -- in other words, one watt per square centimeter more would be coming in than going out. So the planet should get warmer. Well, they found out in this study -- these two studies by two different teams -- that five and a half watts per square meter had been coming in from 1998, 1999, and the place didn't get warmer. So the theory's kaput -- it's nothing. These papers should have been called, "The End to the Global Warming Fiasco," you know. They're concerned, and you can tell they have very guarded conclusions in these papers, because they're talking about big laboratories that are funded by lots of money and by scared people. You know, if they said, you know what? There isn't a problem with global warming any longer, so we can -- you know, they're funding. And if you start a grant request with something like that, and say, global warming obviously hadn't happened... if they -- if they -- if they actually -- if they actually said that, I'm getting out. (Laughter) I'll stand up too, and -- (Laughter) (Applause) They have to say that. They had to be very cautious. But what I'm saying is, you can be delighted, because the editor of Science, who is no dummy, and both of these fairly professional -- really professional teams, have really come to the same conclusion and in the bottom lines in their papers they have to say, what this means is, that what we've been thinking, was the global circulation model that we predict that the earth is going to get overheated that it's all wrong. It's wrong by a large factor. It's not by a small one. They just -- they just misinterpreted the fact that the earth -- there's obviously some mechanisms going on that nobody knew about, because the heat's coming in and it isn't getting warmer. So the planet is a pretty amazing thing, you know, it's big and horrible -- and big and wonderful, and it does all kinds of things we don't know anything about. So I mean, the reason I put those things all together, OK, here's the way you're supposed to do science -- some science is done for other reasons, and just curiosity. And there's a lot of things like global warming, and ozone hole and you know, a whole bunch of scientific public issues, that if you're interested in them, then you have to get down the details, and read the papers called, "Large Decadal Variability in the..." You have to figure out what all those words mean. And if you just listen to the guys who are hyping those issues, and making a lot of money out of it, you'll be misinformed, and you'll be worrying about the wrong things. Remember the 10 things that are going to get you. The -- one of them -- (Laughter) And the asteroids is the one I really agree with there. I mean, you've got to watch out for asteroids. OK, thank you for having me here. (Applause)
我就從 17 世紀開始談起, 我希望沒有人覺得被冒犯到。 我 — 你知道,當我 — 當我發明聚合酶鏈索反應後, 我需要一些改變。 我搬到拉荷亞去學如何衝浪, 有很長的一段時間,我就住在那邊的海灘上。 當衝浪者在等待 浪頭時, 如果你從來沒有衝浪過,你可能會好奇,他們在做什麼? 你知道,有時在你等待下一個浪頭打進來時, 這中間的間隔長達十至十五分鐘。 他們通常會談論起 17 世紀, 你知道,在這世界上他們臭名遠播, 人們認為他們知識淺薄。 有一天,有人建議我讀這本書, 這本書的名字是 — 這本書的名字是「The Air Pump」(空氣泵) 或者類似「The Leviathan and The Air Pump」(大鯨魚與空氣泵) 這是一本關於 17 世紀,非常怪異的書 , 然後我意識到, 我思維方式的根基, 我原以為是唯一自然的、思考問題的方法。 你知道,自從我出生,我就是這樣思考問題, 我一向像一個小科學家。 當我想去了解東西, 我利用科學方法,這對我來說並不驚奇, 你知道,當他們第一次跟我說 — 你應該怎樣研究科學, 因為一直以來我都在使用科學方法,不管我是在玩樂還是在做其他的事。 但是,我從來沒有想到, 科學方法需要被發明, 並且科學方法在 350 多年前 才剛剛被發明。 你知道,它是 — 在英國,德國和意大利等地 約略同時發生的。 而這個故事, 在我認為,真是令人著迷。 因此,我會談談這個故事。 到底科學家應該做什麼? 並且它,它是一種 — 你知道, 查爾斯一世在 17 世紀初被斬首。 而英國成立克倫威爾 (Cornwell) 和一大堆的共和黨員等等, 但和我們的共和黨成員大不相同。 他們改變了政府,但是他們的作法行不通。 後來, 查爾斯二世,一世的兒子, 終於被重新擁護回英國的王位上。 他真的很緊張,因為他的父親曾經被, 你知道,因為作為英國國王而被斬首. 他尤其擔心 人們在酒吧或類似的地方, 持續談論的話題 會導致 — 這類的事情 — 雖然很難相信, 但 17 世紀英國的人們 已經開始在酒吧裡談論,你知道, 哲學一類的話題。 他們沒有電視, 而且他們沒有任何美式足球比賽可以看。 然而他們還是會談論到火氣十足, 然後人們會突然跑到街上開始打架, 這些議題包括:諸如是否 這是可行的 — 關於羅伯特•波義耳 做出一台稱為真空泵的儀器這個事件。 波義耳是查爾斯二世的朋友, 他是一個週末才信主的基督徒, 在平日他是一個科學家。 (笑聲) 這是 — 在當時 這有點,你知道,這個,你知道 — 如果你製造了這個東西 — 他做了這個小小的儀器, 有點像將自行車泵 反向使用,可將空氣完全吸出 — 你知道什麼是鐘型罩嗎?類似這種東西, 把它打開,放回去,然後封起來, 你可以看到它的內部, 因此你可以看到這東西裡面所發生的事情。 但他試圖做的是用空氣泵將所有內部的空氣排出, 然後看看裡面會發生什麼事。 我的意思是,首先 — 他所做的第一個實驗是 他放了一隻鳥在裡面。 而在 17 世紀的人們, 他們對事物的看法和我們並不太相同, 關於,你知道,空氣是 一堆不同種類的分子, 我們呼吸空氣是有意義的等等。 我的意思是,魚對水並不了解, 同樣的道理,人們對空氣也並不了解。 但是都開始對其展開探索。 第一件事,他放了一隻鳥在裡面,然後他把所有的空氣抽出, 然後鳥死了。於是他說,嗯 ... 他說 — 他稱呼他所做的事為 — 他們當時並沒有說這是一個真空泵。 現在你稱它為真空泵,他稱之為真空。 是嗎?馬上, 他遇到了當地神職人員所給的麻煩, 他們說,你不能製造真空。 啊,啊 — (笑聲) 亞里士多德說,大自然痛恨真空。 我認為這是一個錯誤的翻譯,可能是, 但人們依賴那樣的權威。 你知道,波義耳說,這個嘛,胡扯。 我經常這樣做。 我的意思是,無論是什麼殺死這鳥 — 我稱它為真空。 但宗教人士說, 如果上帝要你製造 — 我的意思是,上帝無所不在, 這是他們的一個規則,就是上帝無所不在。 而真空 — 真空中沒有任何東西存在, 因此你得出 — 上帝不可能在那邊。 因此教會說,你不能製造一個真空,你知道。 而波義耳說,胡扯。 我的意思是,你想將它命名為「無神」, 你知道,是你稱之為「無神」的。 但是,這不是我的工作。我不感興趣。 我只在週末上教堂。而像 — 我嘗試要做的是,去弄清楚當你將所有東西吸出容器後 發生了什麼事。 然後他做了所有這些可愛的實驗。 像他做了這樣一個實驗 — 他有一個小輪子, 像一個風扇, 他被鬆散地連接著,因此它可以自己旋轉。 他還有另一個反向的風扇 他就像一個 — 我的意思,就像我會做的一樣,一條橡皮筋, 和,你也知道,在一個錫製玩具般風扇的四周。 我完全知道他是怎麼做的,我看過他的圖示說明。 兩個風扇,其中一個在真空建立之後 他可以從外部控制其轉動。 他發現,如果他把所有的空氣抽出來, 轉動的那個風扇將不再能夠驅動另一個風扇,對吧? 有什麼東西不見了,你知道。我的意思是,這是 — 想到連這個都還需要人去做實驗證明真的有點奇怪, 但那就是當時事情的常態。 而像,對於此事 在 — 你知道,杜松子酒吧和咖啡店內常常引起激烈的辯論。 而查爾斯 開始不喜歡這種現象。 查爾斯二世說,你知道,你應該記住這句話 — 讓我們建立一個地方,在哪邊你可以盡情的實驗與辯論, 如果其它地方不能滿足他們的需求的話 — 你知道, 我們不希望 — 我們不想讓這些人再討厭我。於是 — 因為當他們開始談論宗教 和科學這類的東西的時候, 也就是將他父親捲入麻煩的時候。 因此, 查爾斯說,我出資金 為你們準備一棟房子, 你們可以在這棟房子內舉行集會, 但就是不可以在那裡談論宗教。 波義耳認為這是不錯的, 他說,好吧,我們將開始舉行這些會議。 任何願意從事科學這行的人都 — 這也剛好是牛頓開始掃蕩 許多非常有趣的事情的時候。 並有許多不同的人來到英國皇家學會, 他們這樣稱它。你必須打扮得很正式。 它不像 TED 大會。 它有一個,也只有一個標準,就是你 — 你看上去像一個紳士,他們會讓任何人來。 你並不需要成為會員。 因此,他們進來,你會做 — 某個人將會發表一個實驗, 「實驗」在當時是個新字眼, 示範一些原理, 他們需要在舞台上示範,因為在舞台上人人都可以看到。 因此,他們 — 真正重要的部分是, 你不應該談論 例如說:最終的結果。 並且上帝不在討論的範圍內。 現實的本質是不容爭論的。 你不應該談論任何事物的絕對性。 你不應該談論 你無法演示的東西。 因此,如果有人能看到它,你可以說,這是這機器運作的原理, 這是我們操作的步驟,然後這裡是所發生的結果, 並且觀察到這些現象,這是被允許的。 籠統的說, 我敢肯定,這隨時會發生, 我們這麼做, 然後你開始想出一些規則。 你說,任何時候如果有一個真空狀態, 你會發現一個風扇的葉片不能夠使另一個轉動, 如果,如果他們之間唯一的關聯 就是存在這真空狀態前的不論什麼東西,這一類的事情。 蠟燭不能在真空中燃燒, 因此,煙花大概也不能。 目前尚不清楚,事實上煙花可以, 但他們不知道, 他們沒有煙花。不過,他們 — (笑聲) — 你可以訂定規則,但它們必須 只依據你所能示範證明的事物。 而且大部分的示範必須能夠被觀察到。 例如,如果你在舞台上做一個實驗, 沒有人能看到它,他們只能聽到它,他們可能會認為你是個怪胎。 我的意思是,「現實」就是你可以看到的東西。 這不是這會議明定的規則, 但我敢肯定,這是它的一部分,你知道。如果人們聽到聲音, 然而他們看不見或是無法與某人產生關聯, 這個人可能不在那邊。 但一般來說,你只能 — 你在那個地方所能夠真正談論的東西, 必須有實驗依據。 托馬斯霍布斯如何評論並不重要, 他是當地的哲學家, 你知道, 因為你不會討論最終的結論。 在這邊發生的, 在 17 世紀中葉, 是後來變成了我的領域 — 科學,實驗科學 — 在將自身抽離, 是一種實體性上的抽離,因為要在這個特定的房間內進行, 但這也是 — 所發生的一件美妙的事。 一直以來科學與 神學,哲學, 及 — 與 — 和數學一直糾纏不清。 這實在不是科學。 但是,科學實驗一直都與所有這些事情捆綁在一起。 而數學 和實驗科學的部分 從哲學中脫離。 種種這樣的事~ 我們從不眷戀。 從那時開始,一切都是美好的。 我的意思,它只是 — 只是 — 解開一件事實上阻礙 科技發展的事物。 而且,我的意思是,在這房間的每個人 — 現在,這只是短短 350 年以前, 請記得,這是一段很短的時間。 大約 30 萬年前 對我們多數人而言,在這個房間大部分人的祖先 離開非洲,轉向世界的西方前進。 你知道,那些轉向東方的,這邊有一些 日本翻譯。 但是,那是非常 — 很久以前所發生的事。 如果你與 短短 350 年以前相比。 但在這 350 年, 這個地方剛剛經歷了很多變化。 事實上,在這個房間內的每個人都可能, 特別是如果你有去領取你的紀念包 — 有些人,我知道,沒有去領取你的紀念包 — 但如果你有去領取你的紀念包,這房間內的每個人 在他們的口袋內,或者在房間內, 都擁有 在 350 年以前, 國王們會為了擁有它而發動戰爭的東西。 我的意思是,如果你能想像如何重要 — 如果你有一個 GPS (全球衛星定位)系統,但沒有衛星, 它不會是多大用處。但是,像 — 但是,你知道,如果在 17 世紀 有人擁有 GPS 系統, 某些國王將會召集軍隊 去得到它,你知道。如果該人 — 受眾:為了泰迪熊?我們的泰迪熊禮物? 凱穆利斯:他們可能為了泰迪熊這麼做,是啊。 但是 — 我們都擁有某些東西。 我的意思是,我們個人所擁有的東西, 這些東西是會讓 17 世紀的國王們不惜發動戰爭去取得的。 而這僅僅是 350 年前。 現在已經不會有很多人這麼做了。 你知道,重要的人 — 你幾乎可以在書本上讀到他們所有的日常生活, 關於所有這些真正重要,取得進展的人,你知道。 而且,我的意思是 -— 這樣的東西,你知道,所有這些東西 來自所有我們所做的 每一件看起來分離、不相關的小小事物 — 當我還是個孩子的時候, 天生就有這個概念, 如果你想了解某件事物 — 你知道,也許是因為我的父親常常不在家, 而且我的母親對科學懂得不多, 但我想如果你想要了解事物, 你要這樣做 — 做一個實驗,你知道。 你得到 — 你得到,好像 — 我對科學和設立實驗有一種天生自然的感覺, 我一直以為這是每個人一直以來的思考模式。 我認為任何有大腦的人都會這樣做。 這不是真的。我的意思是,還有很多的人 — 你知道,我是那種會在晚餐會上出糗 的科學家中的其中一份子, 因為這些後現代主義的東西。 我並不是說,你知道 — 那女士裡哪? 觀眾:在這裡。 (笑聲) 凱利穆利斯:我的意思是,我真的不認為那是一個爭論, 我認為那只是一個熱烈的討論。 我並沒有參雜個人情緒,但 — 我只是 — 我 — 我天真地以為, 直到我開始衝浪並體驗到了 17 世紀, 我還會一直認為人們都是這麼思考的, 每個人都一樣,他們藉由 所能看到、觸摸、感覺或聽到的東西來認識現實世界。 無論如何,當我還是個孩子 — 我像 — 例如,我有這個 — 我從俄克拉荷馬州的錫爾堡得到這本小書 — 大約是喬治•戴森的父親 開始進行核子試爆的時間 — 想著如何引爆核子火箭等武器。 我還在想製作自己的小火箭。 而且我知道那個青蛙 — 小青蛙 — 有太空旅行的渴望, 和人一樣的。而我 — (笑聲) 我一直在尋找一個 — 推進系統 是像,能使火箭,例如, 四英呎長的火箭能升空數英哩高。 我的意思是,至少那是我的目標。 我希望它消失在視線的遠方,然後我想使用這個小降落傘 帶回青蛙。 和 — 我 — 我 — 我從俄克拉荷馬州的錫爾堡得到這本書, 該地有一個導彈基地。 他們將這本抒發給業餘的火箭製造愛好者, 而且 書裡面說 千萬不要加熱過氯酸鉀和糖的混合物。 (笑聲) 你知道, 這就是你所謂線索。 (笑聲) 你有一點 — 現在你說,好吧,讓我們看看我是否能 持有一些氯酸鉀和糖,過氯酸鹽和糖, 然後加熱,能夠看看他們不希望我做的事情是什麼將會很有意思, 和看看它將會產生什麼後果。 而且,我們也沒有 — 例如說:我的母親 從二樓的窗口 掌控著整個後院, 在那邊,她還可以一邊燙衣服或做類似的家務。 而且通常她只是時不時抽空關心一下, 如果外面噴出一陣煙, 她就會將身體傾出窗外告誡大家 不要把我們的眼珠也炸出來了。這就是她 — 你知道,這大概是能夠發生在我們身上最糟糕的事。 這就是為什麼我會這麼想,只要我不把我的眼睛給炸掉... 我可能不會關心 加熱這個溶液是被禁止的事實。 我只是要小心,但我將會去做。 這就像其他任何被禁止的事物: 你就在車庫裡面做, (笑聲) 所以,我跑去藥局, 並試著買一些過氯酸鉀, 在當時一個孩子走進藥房 購買化學藥品並不會另人感到奇怪。 如今,這是絕對不可能發生的, 檢查你的鞋子。類似這種事 — (笑聲) 但當時並不是這樣 — 他們並沒有那個藥物,但這個傢伙有 — 我問道,你有什麼樣的鹽或鉀?像這樣。 他有硝酸鉀。 我說,這可能是一樣的功用,不管它是什麼。 我敢肯定與火箭有關,否則它不會在該手冊。 所以我 — 我做了一些實驗。 你知道,我一開始使用微量的 硝酸鉀和糖, 糖很容易可以獲得, 我把它們不同的比例混合, 然後我嘗試點火。 只是為了看看,如果你將它們混合在一起會發生什麼事。 然後 — 它們燃燒了起來。 它燒得不算快,但它散發出了很強烈的氣味, 與其它我曾嘗試過的火箭燃料相比, 所有這些燃料都含有硫。 它聞起來像是燒焦的糖果。 然後我嘗試將其融化,我成功了。 它變成有點像是糖漿般的液體,是棕色的。 等到它冷卻之後,硬化成像磚塊一般硬的物質, 當你點燃時它時, 它像個球棒似的彈開來。 我的意思是,一小碗那樣的東西,已經冷卻下來了 — 你點燃它後,它會開始在院子內四處彈跳。 然後我說,總有辦法 讓青蛙到達牠想去的地方。 (笑聲) 所以,我開始研發 — 你知道,喬治的父親有很多幫手,我只有我兄弟。 但是,我 — 我花了約 — 我花了約 6 個月,我會說。 終於解決所有的這些小事情。 要製造出一個真正能夠運作的火箭, 與非常多不起眼的小事情密切相關, 即使在你已經有了燃料以後。 但經由實做,由 — 我只是 — 你知道,你做實驗, 和你有時寫下來的東西, 你觀察,然後你了解。 然後你慢慢地建立出一個理論, 關於這東西是如何運作的。 它是 — 我遵循所有的規則。 我那時並不知道這些規則, 我天生是一個科學家,我猜, 或是倒退到了 17 世紀,無論是什麼。 但無論如何,我們終於做到了 這一個裝置,能一再的 將一隻青蛙運送到視線之外, 然後讓牠活著回來。 同時,我們還沒有 — 我的意思是,我們並不害怕。 我們應該要害怕的,因為它產生很多煙霧, 並發出了很多噪音, 而且威力強大,你知道。 尤有甚者,它們時不時便會爆炸。 但我並不擔心,順便說一句, 對,你知道, 這爆炸會導致星球的毀滅。 我還沒有聽說過的 我們應該害怕的十個理由 — 順便說一下, 我能想到, 我最好不要這樣做,因為 他們說不要,你知道。 我最好先得到許可。 如果我真的浪費時間在等待獲得許可, 我不可能 — 青蛙活不了那麼久,你知道。 無論如何,我提起這件事,因為這是一個很好的故事, 他說,說一些私人的事,你知道,這夠私人了吧 — 我本來打算要告訴你們的是,我遇見我妻子的第一個晚上, 但那樣又太私人了,是不是。 所以,所以我還準備了別的,不是私人的故事。 但是,這 ... 過程是我認為的科學, 看,你開始有一些想法, 然後,而不是像,查詢, 每一個你聽說過的機關 — 我 — 有時你這樣做, 如果你打算未來要寫一篇論文, 你想要找出,還有誰曾經研究過這個題目。 但在實際過程中,你得到一個想法 — 例如,某一晚當我有一個想法, 我可以使用兩個寡核苷酸來放大 DNA 樣品, 我可以做出一小段 DNA 非常非常多份的副本, 你知道,該想法 只花了大約廿分鐘,當我開著我的車, 然後而不是去 — 如果我回去後跟人們談論起這個想法, 如果我聽信我的分子生物學家朋友們的建議 — 我會放棄這個想法。 你知道,如果我回去找一個權威人物 讓他告訴我,這是否可行, 他會說,不,它很可能不會。 因為它的結果是如此美妙, 如果它可行,它會改變每個人從事分子生物學研究的該死方式。 沒有人想要一個化學家進來 在他門的領域內到處亂搞,然後改變現狀。 如果你向專家諮詢,你總是不會 — 你並不總是得到正確的答案,是吧。 但我知道,你會進入實驗室 然後你會自己設法使之變為可行。然後你變成了權威, 你可以說,我知道它是一定可行的, 因為在這個試管裡, 它已經成功過了, 在這裡,在這個膠上,這一條帶狀物, 我知道那是 DNA,而且那就是我想要擴增的 DNA, 所以我成功了! 你知道,這就是做科學研究的方法。 然後你說,好,還有什麼方法可以改進它的效率? 然後你想出更好,更好的方式來做這個實驗。 但你總是從事實開始著手, 這個事實,是經由你的實驗證明, 才成為事實的:那是你可以在舞台上重現的事情。 在這東西背後並沒有所謂的秘訣這種狗屎蛋。我的意思是,它的所有 — 你必須很誠實的面對 你所從事的實驗的結果,不論它證明這方法可行與否。 我的意思是,你不能捏造結果, 然後在這錯誤的結論上去進行下一個實驗。 所以,你必須是誠實的。 而我基本上是誠實的。 我的記性不太好,說謊總是會為我惹來麻煩, 如果我,就好像 — 我天生的老實 天生的好奇心 諸如此類的導致這種科學。 現在,讓我們來看看... 我還有五分鐘,對不對? 確定。不是所有的科學家都是這樣的。 你知道 — 還有很多 — (笑聲) 還有很多 — 很多事情發生, 自從牛頓和所有那些事件發生後。 在第二次世界大戰期間發生的一件事情 在這同一時期之前, 跟天殺的之後, 政府得到 — 意識到科學家並不是一群奇怪的人, 這一點,你知道,隱藏在象牙塔 並用試管做一些荒唐的事情。 科學家們,你知道,使第二次世界大戰 就我們所知,成為可能。 他們做出更快的東西。 他們做出更大的槍來射擊這些東西。 你知道,他們給飛行員毒品 如果他們在這過程中被打散了, 他們製造所有 — 然後最後用一個大炸彈 來結束這整個事件,對不對? 每個人都往後退讓一步,說,你知道, 我們應該投資這狗屎東西, 因為得到了最多科學家為其工作的國家, 將在世界上站有主導的地位, 至少在軍事上,更有可能在各種經濟領域上。 他們涉入這些領域,為科學 與工業奠定了基礎, 從那個時候開始,很多科學家 是為了錢而做研究,你知道, 因為錢突然不再是遙不可及。 而且他們不是那個喜歡把青蛙投入空中的 好奇的小男孩。 他們與後來去唸醫學院的是同一批人,你知道, 因為那邊有錢,你知道。我的意思是,後來,他們都與商業活動扯上關係 — 我的意思是,有一股潮流正在進入你的高中, 這些人說,你想做正確的,你知道,成為一名科學家。你知道,現在不是了。 你想致富,成為一個商人。 雖然很多人為了金錢和權力和旅行從事科學。 這是當旅行很還是悠閒的時候。 而這些人並不認為 — 他們不 — 他們並不總是告訴你真相,你知道。 在他們的合約中沒有任何東西,事實上, 對他們是有利的,一如既往, 如果他們告訴你真相的話。 而這些人,我說的人們是 — 他們說,他們是委員會成員 舉例來說,政府間氣候變化專門委員會。 他們 — 他們召開了這些重大會議,試圖找出 我們如何去 — 我們如何不斷證明 地球正在變暖, 這實際上違背大多數人的感覺。 我的意思是,如果你真的去測量 一段時間的溫度 — 我的意思是,我們已經用很精確的方式 持續測量溫度 5、60 年了 — 更早之前仍然有測量數據, 但是使用真好且精確的方法測量, 這測量記錄已經被保持了 50 或 60 年, 而事實上,溫度並沒有真正的上升。 這就像,平均溫度 上升了一點點, 那是因為氣象站 的夜間氣溫上升了一點點。 但是,這有一個很好理由。 因為這些氣象觀測站都建立在城市四周, 在機場附近,而現在 城鎮擴展到了那邊,到處都是鋼筋水泥, 他們稱之為天際線效應。 然而大部分負責的人 測量溫度後發現, 你必須將你的測量儀器遮蔽以避免鋼筋水泥的干擾。 即使如此,你知道, 因為建築物在白天吸收熱量, 因此它們會讓夜間的氣溫上升一點。 因此,氣溫在某方面來說,看來是在緩慢地上升。 這是應該發生的。但程度有限。不像,你知道 — 第一人 — 第一個有我們會將自己烤焦 這個想法的傢伙, 事實上,他並不是這樣想的。 他的名字叫斯文•阿崙尼烏斯 (Sven Arrhenius)。他是瑞典人,他說, 如果二氧化碳在大氣中的含量變成兩倍 他認為這有可能發生 — 這是1900 年的事 — 根據他的計算,溫度應該會上升約 5.5 度。 他將地球想成,有點像, 你知道,像一個完全絕緣的東西 裡面沒有東西,真的, 只有能源下來,能源離開。 於是他想出了這個理論, 他說,這將是很好的, 因為這表示瑞典的農作生長季將會變長, 你知道,和衝浪者也喜歡這理論, 衝浪者認為,這是很好的理論, 因為海洋有時後相當寒冷,還有 — 但許多其他人稍後 開始認為這是壞的,你知道。 但是沒有人真正證明它,對不對? 我的意思是,測量到的溫度 — 你可以在我們美妙的網際網路上找到, 你只要去搜尋所有航太總署 和氣象局的記錄, 親自看看它,你會看到,氣溫剛剛 — 在夜間所測量到的地表溫度 上升了一點點。 因此,如果你直接和白天的溫度平均,它看起來像是 在這個世紀中上升了大約 0.7 度。 但事實上,這只是上升了 — 只有夜間,白天的氣溫並沒有上升。 所以 — 阿崙尼烏斯的理論 — 和所有全球暖化信徒們認為 — 他們會說,是啊,它應該在白天也上升, 如果是溫室效應的話。 現在,人們喜歡東西有個名稱,像這樣, 所以他們可以想像,對吧?我的意思是 — 但人們不喜歡這樣的事情,所以 — 我的意思是, 你對於真正的證據 不會感到興奮,你知道, 這是強化 90 年代熱帶環流增強 的證據。 這是一個科學論文,在二月刊出, 你們大多數人可能還沒有聽說過。 「熱帶輻射平均能量 在十年間中的大變動」 對不起。這些論文是由航太總署發表, 一些科學家在哥倫比亞和維利基 和一大堆普林斯頓大學的人。 而這兩篇論文是出自科學期刊, 2月,第一篇論文, 和這些 — 這些論文的結論, 同時也是科學期刊編輯們的看法,像是, 這些文件的說明,因為,你知道, 對想要快速知道結論的人, 我們對全球暖化的理論是 完全錯誤的。我的意思是, 這些傢伙在做什麼, 這就是 — 航太總署的人很長的一段時間一直在提的。 他們說,如果你測量大氣的溫度,它並沒有上升 — 它一點都沒有上升。我們已經很仔細地觀察了廿年, 經由衛星觀測,氣溫並沒有上升。 而在此論文中,他們發表了更令人吃驚, 那是他們所謂的輻射 — 我並不打算詳細討論,其實這是相當複雜的, 但它其實並不像他們想要讓你感覺地這樣複雜, 只因為他們故意在論文中使用了艱澀的詞彙。但如果你真的理解它,他們說, 太陽提供了一定數量的能源 — 我們知道有多少是 — 落在地球上的,地球反射了一定數量。 當它變暖,它也同時產生 — 更多紅色的能量 — 我的意思是,像紅外線, 熱的東西會散發出紅外線。 整個全球變暖的理論 — 垃圾,真的, 是 — 如果 — 如果有太多的二氧化碳在大氣中, 試圖脫離的熱量 無法脫身。但是,來自太陽的熱量, 大多數是 — 350 納米的紫外線, 這是它的中心 — 這種能量能通過二氧化碳。 所以,地球仍然持續被加熱,但熱量消散不掉。 那麼,這些傢伙衡量所有這些事情。 我的意思是,你可以談論的東西, 你可以寫這些大報告,你可以得到政府的錢來進行研究, 但這些 — 他們實際上衡量它, 結果證明在過去的10年 — 這就是為什麼他們說「十年間」— 該能源 — 他們所謂 「失衡」的程度, 已遠遠超過預期。 像,失衡程度 — 意味著,熱量持續進來,不會被排出, 原因來自於二氧化碳含量的倍增, 順帶一題,真正二氧化碳含量的增加遠低於那個值。 但是,如果真的倍增了,例如也許在 2025 年 二氧化碳的含量真的拿到 1990 年的兩倍, 他們說,這將增加能源 約 — 換句話說, 每平方公分被吸收的熱量 將會比被散發的熱量多出一瓦。 因此,地球將會暖化。 那麼,他們在這篇論文中發現,在這 — 這兩項研究, 分別由兩個不同的團隊所完成 — 每平方公尺 5.5 瓦的熱量 從 1998、1999 年來一直被吸收著, 但是該地並沒有變暖。 因此,這理論的過時了 — 沒有價值。 這篇論文應該被稱為, 「全球暖化的慘敗下場」你知道。 他們擔心, 你可以看出他們非常小心謹慎的為這些論文總結, 因為他們所談論的是大實驗室 是由大量的資金 和一群膽小的人所資助。 你知道,如果他們說,你知道嗎? 全球暖化不再是一個問題了, 所以我們可以 — 你知道,他們掌握了資金。 如果你再寫一個類似的研究計畫經費申請書, 並說,全球暖化顯然沒有發生 ... 如果 — 如果他們 — 如果他們真的 — 如果他們真的說, 我要離開了。 (笑聲) 我也要站起來了,而且 — (笑聲) (掌聲) 他們要這樣說。 他們必須非常謹慎。 但我要說的是,你可以感到高興, 因為科學期刊的編輯,不是傻子 他們相當專業 — 真正的專業隊伍,擁有同樣的結論 並在他們論文的結論中都說, 他們必須要說,這個意思是說,我們一直在想的, 我們的全球大氣環流模型預測, 地球將會過熱, 是錯誤的。是大大的錯誤。 這不是小事。他們只是 — 他們只是曲解了事實,即地球 — 有一些機制顯然正在進行 沒有人了解, 因為熱量持續的被吸收,但是並沒有變暖。 因此,星球是一個相當神奇的東西,你知道, 它大而可怕 — 同時也大而美妙, 而且關於它的一切所作所為,我們都尚未明白。 所以我的意思是,我之所以把這些事情湊在一起, 這樣說吧,這是你進行科學研究應該使用的方法 — 某些科學研究是為了一些其他理由而進行的,有些僅僅是因為好奇。 而且還有很多的事情就如同全球暖化一般, 還有臭氧層的破洞,你知道, 一大堆的科學的公共事務, 如果你對它們感興趣, 那麼你必須要了解其中的細節,去讀那篇叫做 「十年間大變化的...」的論文。 你必須搞清楚每個字的意含。 如果你只是聽信那些傢伙 在炒作問題,並藉此賺了很多錢, 你將會被誤導,對不必要的事物感到操心。 還記得十件可能發生的大災害。 — 其中之一 — (笑聲) 其中一點我非常同意的是,小行星碰撞地球。 我的意思是,你要小心小行星碰撞。好嗎,謝謝你們讓我在此演說。 (掌聲)