數學，科學，實驗科學．誰是可信的？

數學：　基於公理，是可以嚴格推導論證的，　　

科學，基本上是可以說實驗科學是證偽的不錯．　物理相對容易證偽，　氣候這類的科學，有點難，因為無法重複實驗．　　但是有大量證據，　而且可以用實驗驗證的成分．　特別是對二氧化碳存熱的機理的驗證，是實驗可以證明的．　

至於該信誰．　你相信量子力學與相對論的結論嗎？　你沒有親自做過實驗，怎麽確信呢？　根據廣義相對論調整的GPS, 你敢用嗎？　這裏我要說，如果研究氣候算是你的業餘愛好，　那就別去跟人家科學家吃飯的本事較勁．　如果連業餘愛好都算不上的話，就更不要較勁，　你可以質疑，但態度不是否定科學結論，而是解自己的惑．　如果還不服的話，就請把自己變成專家，把這個當飯碗．　看是不是可以拿出轟動科學界的研究成果．　　

對於全球變暖這件事，　可以說科學界＂公認＂是有這回事，相信IPCC的結論．　見發表在科學雜誌（Science) 的文章：　The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

再見維基百科．

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

有人問到底誰出錢做研究得出的結論？　隱含著科學家為了得到資助，做出金主要的結論．　可以說絕大部分（美國）科學家是聯邦資助．　當然會有個別科學家為了錢，犧牲良知，　但說整個科學界被金主控製，我不相信．要是光為了錢，大部分科學家都不去做科學了．　如果你還不同意，那情具體指出，哪些科學家從哪要的錢因此撒謊了．　　倒是以前否認全球暖化的研究是石油公司資助的．見出處．　就如煙草公司曾經否認抽煙有害一樣，隻是隨著時間的推移，不得不向事實低頭．　

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.