评论
打印
In part, it was a generational clash.
在某种程度上，这是一种代际间的冲突。
Schneider belonged to a younger, more rebellious cohort, happy to take science to the streets.
施耐德属于一个更年轻、更叛逆的群体，乐于把科学普及给大众。
In contrast, Landsberg had spent a career working carefully with government and the military, generally behind closed doors, and was scared that public involvement might disrupt the delicate balance of this relationship.
相比之下，兰茨伯格在职业生涯中一直小心翼翼地与政府和军队合作，通常是闭门造车，他害怕公众的参与会破坏这种关系的微妙平衡。
What’s more, the cultural norms of scientific behaviour that expect a “good” scientist to be guarded and avoid anything that smells remotely of drama were deeply embedded – even when, like any deeply embedded cultural norm, they can skew the science.
更重要的是，科学行为的文化规范期望一个 "好 "的科学家保持警惕，避免任何带有戏剧性的东西，这种文化规范是根深蒂固的--即使像任何根深蒂固的文化规范一样，它们甚至可以歪曲科学。
Landsberg was far from the only established meteorologist bristling at all this new attention given to climate change.
兰茨伯格远不是唯一对所有这些给予气候变化的新关注感到不安的知名气象学家。
Some felt uneasy about the drama, while others didn’t trust the new technologies, disciplines and approaches being used.
一些人对这场戏剧感到不安，而其他人则不相信正在使用的新技术、学科和方法。
In the UK, the head of the Met Office, John Mason, called concern about climate change a “bandwagon” and set about trying to “debunk alarmist US views”.
在英国，气象局局长约翰-梅森（John Mason）称对气候变化的关注是一个 "波段"，并开始尝试 "驳斥美国的危言耸听。
In 1977 he gave a public talk at the Royal Society of Arts, stressing that there were always fluctuations in climate, and that the recent droughts were not unprecedented.
1977年，他在皇家艺术协会做了一次公开演讲，强调气候总是有波动的，最近的干旱并不是前所未有的。
He agreed that if we were to continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we were, we might have 1C warming, which he thought was “significant”, in the next 50-100 years; but on the whole, he thought, the atmosphere was a system that would take whatever we threw at it.
他同意，如果我们继续以现在的速度燃烧化石燃料，地球可能会在未来50-100年内变暖1摄氏度，他认为这是 "重要的"；但总的来说，他认为，大气层是一个系统，可以承受我们扔给它的一切。
Plus, like many of his contemporaries, he figured we would all move over to nuclear power, anyway.
此外，像同时代的许多人一样，他认为无论如何，我们终会转向使用核能。
Writing up the talk for Nature, John Gribbin described the overall message as “don’t panic”.
约翰-格里宾在为《自然》杂志撰写演讲稿时，将总体信息描述为 “不要惊慌”。
He reassured readers there was no need to listen to “the prophets of doom”.
他向读者保证，没有必要听信 "末日的预言家"。
Change was coming, though, and it would be a combination of an establishment scientist and an activist that would kick it off.
不过，变革即将到来，而启动变革的将是一个建制派科学家和一个活动家的结合。
As Nathaniel Rich describes in his book Losing Earth, an obscure 1978 US Environmental Protection Agency report on coal ended up on the desk of Rafe Pomerance, a lobbyist at the DC offices of Friends of the Earth.
正如纳撒尼尔-里奇在他的《失去地球》一书中所描述的那样，一份不起眼的1978年美国环境保护局关于煤炭的报告最终出现在地球之友华盛顿办事处的说客雷夫-波梅兰斯的桌上。
It mentioned the “greenhouse effect”, noting that fossil fuels could have significant and damaging impacts on the atmosphere in the next few decades.
它提到了“温室效应”，指出化石燃料在未来几十年内可能会对大气层产生重大的破坏性影响。
He asked around the office and someone handed him a recent newspaper article by a geophysicist called Gordon MacDonald.
他在办公室里问了一圈，有人递给他一篇最近的报纸文章，作者是一位叫戈登-麦克唐纳的地球物理学家。
MacDonald was a high-ranking American scientist who had worked on weather modification in the 1960s as an advisor to Johnson.
麦克唐纳是一位高级别的美国科学家，他曾在20世纪60年代作为约翰逊的顾问研究天气变化。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
