自然杂志：权威科学期刊，高引用率与多学科研究

Nature

需积分: 9 66 浏览量更新于2024-08-02 收藏 14.32MB PDF 举报

身份认证购VIP最低享 7 折!

领优惠券(最高得80元）

"Nature杂志是全球最常被引用的每周科学期刊，拥有超过390,000次引用，比上一年增加了近18,000次。Nature杂志在多学科期刊中发表的文章数量居首。2006年，Nature的影响因子为26.681。影响因子是一个期刊的指标，由前两年发表在该期刊上的源项目在当年被引用的次数除以得出。这是由美国费城的Thomson/ISI（科学信息研究所）独立计算的。" 这篇内容提到了几个重要的知识点： 1. **Nature杂志的地位**：Nature作为全球最受引用的科学期刊，其影响力显著。这不仅体现在高引用次数上，还体现在它持续发表的文章数量超过其他任何多学科期刊。 2. **影响因子（Impact Factor）**：影响因子是衡量学术期刊质量的重要标准，由Thomson/ISI计算得出。它是通过计算前两年期刊发表的论文在当前年度被引用的次数来确定的。2006年Nature的影响因子为26.681，这是一个非常高的数值，反映了该期刊发表的论文在科研界的重要性和影响力。 3. **Erosion Theory（侵蚀理论）**：文章提到了地质学家Taylor Perron关于侵蚀理论的研究。他和同事们探讨了侵蚀过程如何创造地表均匀模式，如均匀分布的山脊和山谷。他们通过比较计算机模型与实际地形的精确测量来研究这一现象。 4. **科研合作与方法**：Perron与加州大学伯克利分校的Jim Kirchner和Bill Dietrich合作，采用定量方法（计算机模拟和实地测量）来理解自然地貌的形成机制，这展示了现代科学研究中的跨学科合作和定量分析方法的应用。 5. **科研观察与灵感**：Perron从飞机上观察加利福尼亚海岸山脉的地貌，发现了一种普遍的模式，这表明科学家常常能从日常观察中获取研究灵感，并推动新的科学探索。 6. **科研博客**：描述中提到的FROMTHEBLOGOSPHERE部分，提及了两个博客，Nautilus和Peer-to-Peer，这些是针对Nature作者和同行评审者的新闻资源，表明了网络平台在科研信息传播和同行交流中的作用。这些知识点反映了Nature杂志作为顶尖科学期刊对科研的贡献，以及科研工作者如何利用现代工具和方法进行创新研究。同时，也揭示了科研合作、数据驱动的科学方法以及科研信息的在线共享趋势。

资源详情

资源推荐

job of providing ‘ecosystem services’, those

things that nature does that benefit humanity,

such as filtering water in wetlands, controlling

erosion on hillsides, sequestering carbon from

the atmosphere and building soil. Provision of

ecosystem services is a popular argument for

preserving intact ecosystems, but many of its

advocates blanch a little when it comes to mak-

ing the same case for these ‘weedy’ areas.

Mascaro actually prefers novel ecosystems

to some native ones that are so vulnerable to

damage by humans that they require intense

management to maintain in their ‘pristine’

state. He sees the latter as museum-piece parks.

“Do we value the fact that nature contains a list

of things that were there 1,000 years ago, or do

we value it because it has its own processes that

are not under human control?” Mascaro asks.

For him, the value is in the processes.

Watching such processes unfold has scien-

tific merit to many researchers. Novel ecosys-

tems are often ideal natural experiments for

studying things such as community assembly

— how species find their way to a place and

which species become permanent residents

— and evolution of species in response to one

another. In essence, it takes a dynamic ecosys-

tem to study ecosystem dynamics, and these

novel ecosystems are the planet’s fastest mov-

ers. Mascaro bets that all the rules of thumb and

general relationships developed over the years

by ecologists working in ‘intact’ or ‘historical’

ecosystems will probably also apply in these

new assemblages, but no one knows for sure,

because no one has studied them much.

There are some questions about the ways in

which things might be different in novel eco-

systems. Will landscape types remain the same,

with forests replacing forests and grasslands

replacing grasslands? Will novel ecosystems

evolve faster? Will they be dominated by one

species, as many who study invasive species

fear? Will species composition oscillate wildly

for decades or even longer? “We can’t know

except to observe it,” says Mascaro.

Havens of biodiversity?

One of the first researchers to see the impor-

tance of the scrubby parts of Earth was Ariel

Lugo, a forest-service ecologist in Puerto

Rico. In 1979, Lugo was managing research-

ers who were measuring the ground covered

by trees within pine plantations that were not

being actively managed. His technicians came

back to headquarters sweaty and discouraged.

“They said that they couldn’t measure the trees

without clearing all the new undergrowth,”

says Lugo. “They said it was impenetrable. I

thought they were wimps.”

The idea that ecosystems dominated by

pine, an invasive species, were so thick that his

workers couldn’t even walk through them went

against a central assumption of ecology: that

native forests will be the lushest. Millennia of

co-evolution should have created an ecosystem

in which almost every niche is filled, converting

the available energy into trees and other spe-

cies in the most efficient way. Conservationists

also generally assume that native ecosystems

contribute best to ecosystem services.

Lugo went to see for himself. Sure enough,

the pine plantations were bursting with vigour,

far more so than nearby native-only forests

of the same age. Lugo did a systematic study

of the pine plantations and some mahogany

ones, and found that the plantation understo-

reys were nearly as species rich, had greater

above-ground biomass (the sheer weight of all

the living things) and used nutrients more effi-

ciently than the native forest understoreys. He

submitted his results to the journal Ecological

Monographs

. Reviewers were horrified. In the

end, it took almost a decade to get the paper

past peer review.

Since then, Lugo has found many novel eco-

systems in Puerto Rico and elsewhere that are

much more diverse than native forests, but that

are largely ignored by ecologists. “That diver-

sity doesn’t count because they are the wrong

species,” says Lugo, shaking his head. He’s

found alien trees that, by creating a shaded can-

opy on parched, degraded pastureland, make

possible the establishment of native trees that

could never cope with such an environment on

their own. As a result he now finds it difficult

to despise invasive trees as he thinks his col-

leagues do, and even embraces the change. “My

parents and their parents saw one Puerto Rico,”

he says, “and I am going to see another Puerto

Rico, and my children will see another.”

Lugo wasn’t the only researcher thinking

along these lines, but it was not until 2006 that

the new approach gained a manifesto — and a

name. Lugo and 17 other researchers published

a paper called “Novel ecosystems: theoretical

and management aspects of the new ecological

world order”

suggesting that such systems were

ILLUSTRATIONS BY JANUSZ KAPUSTA

E. MARRIS

Joe Mascaro investigates

biodiversity on Hawaii’s Big Island.

451

Vol 460|16 July 2009

451

NATURE|Vol 460|23 July 2009

NEWS FEATURE

450-453 News Feat Ragamuffin Earth MH AY.indd 451450-453 News Feat Ragamuffin Earth MH AY.indd 451 21/7/09 13:50:4321/7/09 13:50:43

100%

> 0%

GLOBAL COVERAGE

The amount of land taken up by novel ecosystems, deﬁned as unused lands

embedded within agricultural and urban landscapes.

worth scientific attention. To demonstrate the

depth of resistance to the idea, the published

paper quoted referees’ comments on the sub-

mitted manuscript: “One reviewer commented

that the examples are ecological disasters, where

biodiversity has been decimated and ecosystem

functions are in tatters, and that ‘it is hard to

make lemonade out of these lemons’.” But Lugo

and his colleagues saw it in a different light: “We

are heading towards a situation where there are

more lemons than lemonade,” they wrote, “and

we need to recognize this and determine what

to do with the lemons.”

Lemons can have their own value, says resto-

ration ecologist Richard Hobbs, lead author of

the paper and now at the University of Western

Australia in Crawley. Some novel ecosystems,

he says, are “alternative stable states”, relatively

entrenched ecosystems that would be very dif-

ficult to drag back to historical conditions.

Around the time the paper came out, Mas-

caro became interested in Lugo’s work and set

out to see if his results could be replicated on

the windward side of Hawaii’s Big Island. Were

the many novel ecosystems on the islands nur-

turing any native species? Were they provid-

ing ecosystem services? He studied 46 forests

growing on lava flows of varying ages at various

altitudes and dominated by a variety of spe-

cies, including albizia (Falcataria moluccana),

a fast-growing tree from southeast Asia, and

Australian ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia).

He found that, on average, the forests had as

many species as native forests. But by and large

they weren’t incubating natives as they seemed

to in Puerto Rico

Part of the reason for the difference may lie in

the uniqueness of Hawaiian flora, which evolved

in isolation for up to 30 million years

. Not many

plants got to Hawaii in the first place, so com-

petition and predation pressures weren’t very

fierce. Without having to worry about being

eaten by anything larger than an insect, rasp-

berries and roses lost their thorns and mints lost

their minty defence chemicals. When people

introduced plants from other parts of the world ,

along with their attendant herbivores, Hawaiian

plants couldn’t compete.

Futuristic perspective

But Mascaro’s results didn’t put

him off the novel-ecosystem

concept. For one, he found

that in many measures of forest

productivity, such as nutrient

cycling and biomass, novel for-

ests matched or out-produced

the native forests. They might

not be ‘natural’ in the eyes of

purists, but they are behaving

exactly as they should . “These

ecosystems, like it or not, are

going to be driving most of

the natural processes on Earth,” he said at the

2008 Ecological Society of America meeting

in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It’s a message that

Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at the Nature Con-

servancy in Seattle, Washington, wants to see

move from the academic world to the world

of conservation management. “You hear con-

servationists talk about what they want to save,

what they want to stop,” he says. “They should

talk about what they want the world to look like

in 50 years.” Studies of novel ecosystems could

help conservationists to “face the facts and be

strategic”, Kareiva says, rather than trying to

beat back the unceasing tide of change.

Kareiva is a great fan of the ecosystem-serv-

ices argument for preserving nature. But he

admits that the problem of what to do when

novel ecosystems provide better services than

the native ones is “a question we don’t talk

about that much”. Nevertheless, he is willing to

imagine a world in which, for example, exotic

strains of the reed Phragmites are allowed to

thrive in US wetlands because they provide a

great habitat for birds, rather

than be torn out in an expensive

and potentially fruitless attempt

to return native vegetation to

dominance.

Ecosystem-service argu-

ments are powerful enough to

get some ecologists to abandon,

or at least put to one side, their

deep distrust of novel ecosys-

tems. Like many of his peers,

Shahid Naeem, an ecologist at

Columbia University in New

York, says he “would love to get rid of every

invasive species on the planet and put all the

native species back in their place”. Yet he’s will-

ing to see what can be made of novel ecosystems

as he feels an imperative to improve conditions

for the billions of humans on Earth.

The idea that novel ecosystems provide

welcome diversity has also gained traction.

Thinking on ‘invasive species’ has mellowed

“If we want to

debate whether

to conserve novel

ecosystems, we will

have to deal with

the risk they pose to

other systems.”

— Joe Mascaro

E. ELLIS

452

Vol 460|16 July 2009

452

NATURE|Vol 460|23 July 2009

NEWS FEATURE

450-453 News Feat Ragamuffin Earth MH AY.indd 452450-453 News Feat Ragamuffin Earth MH AY.indd 452 21/7/09 13:50:4721/7/09 13:50:47

significantly since the field was first established

in the 1950s. Newer work by the likes of Mark

Davis at Macalester College in Saint Paul,

Minnesota, and Dov Sax at Brown University

in Providence, Rhode Island, has shown that

the vast majority of species that humans move

around can slot into new ecosystems without

driving anything else extinct, and that the com-

mon vision of invasive plants forming dense

monocultural stands that take over everything

else in their path is actually the exception. Yet

the newcomers in novel systems can still be a

genuine worry.

Peter Vitousek, an expert on Hawaiian

biodiversity at Stanford University in Califor-

nia, would put albizia forests in the category

of dangerous invaders, because they wipe out

stands of the native ‘ōhi‘a tree (Metrosideros

polymorpha). He acknowledges the services

that novel ecosystems provide and that “they

may even support native biological diversity in

some important circumstances”. But, he adds,

“as with many good ideas, [tolerance of novel

ecosystems] can be taken to an extreme at which

it is no longer useful. I think most of the albi-

zia-dominated stands of Hawaii represent that

extreme.” His point is well illustrated where one

of Mascaro’s albizia forests abuts a native ‘ōhi‘a

forest. The albizia trees on the boundary actually

lean out towards the ‘ōhi‘a — growing sideways

to escape the shade of the next row in, encroach-

ing on the natives’ sunlight and looking poised

to usurp them. It is a menacing spectacle, and an

apt symbol for their tireless expansion.

Mascaro grants the point. “I can under-

stand where a manager wants to bulldoze an

albizia forest if they are worried that it is going

to exterminate an ecosystem type that is the

last on Earth,” he says. “If we want to debate

whether to use or conserve novel ecosystems,

we will always have to deal with the risk they

pose to other systems. But at the moment, we’re

scarcely debating it at all.”

Novel ecosystems are likely to cause at least

some extinctions. For example, species that

have evolved dependent relationships with

other species are less likely to do well in a world

in which the pot is stirred and everything is

redistributed. Hawaiian honeycreepers, beau-

tiful birds that often feed only on one type of

flower, are not doing well; several are already

extinct. So for those who care about slowing

or stopping the rate of such extinctions, novel

ecosystems are a net negative .

James Gibbs, an ecologist at the State

University of New York in Syracuse, subscribes

to this view. “I think celebrating [novel ecosys-

tems] as equivalent or improved is not appro-

priate.” As an example, he points to Clear Lake

in Northern California, where the number of

fish species has risen from 12 to 25 since 1800.

Sounds like a success story. But, says Gibbs,

species that were found only in that lake were

replaced with fish that are common elsewhere

— so there was a net loss in biodiversity. A sim-

ilar caveat may hold for the genetic diversity

hidden within a species. Forests dominated by

the offspring of a handful of exotic colonizers

could be less genetically diverse than forests

that have sat there for thousands of years.

A question of values

In the end, the question of novel ecosystems,

like so many questions in ecology and con-

servation, boils down to what

should be valued most in

nature. For people who value

processes, such as Mascaro,

novel ecosystems are great

hubs of active evolution. For

those who value ecosystem

services, any novel ecosystem

could be better or worse than

what came before depending on

how it operates. For those who

care about global extinctions or about preserv-

ing historical ecosystems, they are bad news.

Gibbs says he values the exquisite complexity

of ecosystems that have evolved together over

thousands or millions of years. “Why are we

worried about the extinction of languages, the

roots of music, all these weird cuisines?” he

asks. “There is something about diversity and

our need to steward it. It is the subtlety and the

nuance and complexity that makes life interest-

ing.” Novel ecosystems seem, to him, to lack

this value, to be samey and artificial, “sort of

like eating at McDonalds” .

To Kareiva, though, that attitude is “one of

the reasons the conservation movement is fail-

ing. To think there is some kind of garden of

Eden pristine ecosystem. There is none! That

view is just going to get us nowhere.”

Indeed, the Garden of Eden view, in which

ecosystems are static, is no longer widely held.

 is means that novel ecosystems, far from

being a new phenomenon, simply represent

the latest changes on a dynamic Earth. Gradual

climatic changes and sheer randomness mean

that some species wander around continents

over vast timescales, fleeing glaciers, splitting

up and reforming . This is why Davis and some

others do not like the ‘novel’ label. “Ecosystems

are always new, from one year to the next,” says

Davis. “Ecosystems are always encountering

new species — it might be not

from another country but from

100 metres upstream. Much

more accurate would be to refer

to these as ‘rapidly changing’

ecosystems — but I guess that

is not catchy enough.”

Standing in his Hawaiian

forest, Mascaro is all too aware

of change — and it is something

he values, even if humans did

have a hand in the process. He never swore alle-

giance to preserving ecosystems as they were

before humans arrived, as many conservation-

ists of an older generation did. “People come

up to me and say ‘it sounds like you’ve given

up,’” says Mascaro. “I want to say ‘I never took

up arms, my man’. This isn’t about conceding

defeat; it is about a new approach.” ■

Emma Marris writes for Nature from

Columbia, Missouri.

1. Lugo, A. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 2–41 (1992).

2. Hobbs, R. J. et al. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15, 1–7 (2006).

3. Mascaro, J., Becklund, K. K., Hughes, R. F. & Schnitzer, S. A.

Forest Ecol. Manage/ 256, 593–606 (2008).

4. Ziegler, A. Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology and Evolution

157 (University of Hawaii Press, 2002).

See Editorial, page 435.

“There is no garden

of Eden pristine

ecosystem. That

view is just going to

get us nowhere.”

— Peter Kareiva

453

Vol 460|16 July 2009

453

NATURE|Vol 460|23 July 2009

NEWS FEATURE

450-453 News Feat Ragamuffin Earth MH AY.indd 453450-453 News Feat Ragamuffin Earth MH AY.indd 453 21/7/09 13:50:5021/7/09 13:50:50

n 1971, Maurice Strong did some-

thing most people would find

unthinkable: he showed up at the

office of India’s Prime Minister

Indira Gandhi to tell her that she

was wrong. The formidable Gandhi,

like the leaders of other developing

nations, wanted to boycott the United

Nations’ first major international envi-

ronmental conference, planned for the follow-

ing year in Stockholm. The developing nations

feared that environmental agreements would

undermine their ability to prosper — a concern

that still resonates today.

As the leader of the upcoming conference,

Strong regarded the devel-

oping nations as essential

players. So, against the

advice of Indian diplo-

mats, he flew to New Delhi

and urged Gandhi to drop

the boycott and attend the

conference as an advocate

for the developing world.

“She had a habit of falling silent during con-

versations and said absolutely nothing for 10

or 12 minutes,” Strong recalls. “Now, I’ve lived

among the Inuit, and they, too, fall silent dur-

ing conversations, although for much longer

periods, so this didn’t bother me at all.

I waited for her reply and when she

finally spoke, she said ‘yes’.”

Strong has spent much of his life try-

ing to make the world see matters his

way, sometimes by remaining silent

but more often through a mixture of

negotiation and persuasion. He helped

to found the United Nations Environ-

ment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. He chaired

the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,

that produced the first climate treaty. And he

mentored a generation of environmental, politi-

cal and business leaders around the world.

Many of them gathered in Gland, Switzer-

land, this month at the

headquarters of the Inter-

national Union for the

Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) to celebrate

Strong’s 80th birthday. It

was also an occasion to

take stock of the planet

and discuss the round

of climate negotiations that will conclude in

December in Copenhagen. The chances for

success in Denmark depend to a large degree on

what Strong has accomplished over the past 40

years, and on what he was unable to achieve.

From the beginning, Strong had outsized

ambition. Born into poverty in the Canadian

town of Oak Lake, Manitoba, at the start of

the Great Depression, he writes in his autobi-

ography Where on Earth are We Going? that

his childhood dream was to devote his life to

the protection of nature and to work for world

peace, having lived through the Second World

War and seen its effects on humans and on the

environment. When the war ended and coun-

tries were discussing the establishment of the

UN, Strong says, “I wrote in my diary: ‘this is

where I want to be’.”

Ascent of nations

Strong started at the bottom, working in the

office that issues security passes at the UN

building in New York. Later he would rise, via

posts in the Canadian government and in busi-

ness, to chair the Stockholm and Rio confer-

ences on the environment. He helped to set up

Canada’s national oil company Petro Canada

as well as its International Development

Research Centre, and he led the team that

proposed a plan to reform the UN. Strong’s

childhood instilled a determination never again

to be poor, and he grew rich leading various

companies and through property investment.

In many ways, Strong’s greatest legacy is

Maurice Strong has shaped how nations respond to planetary crises. Ehsan Masood meets the

man whose successes — and failures — laid the groundwork for the current climate talks.

“Maurice had this ability to

reach out and grab world

leaders by the arm, whether

they liked it or not.”

— Jonathan Lash

The globe’s green avenger

P. DISLEY

454

Vol 460|23 July 2009

454

NATURE|Vol 460|23 July 2009

NEWS FEATURE

454-455 News Feat Maurice Strong MH IF.indd 454454-455 News Feat Maurice Strong MH IF.indd 454 20/7/09 14:26:0120/7/09 14:26:01

the creation of UNEP, which emerged out of

the 1972 Stockholm conference and has since

played a catalytic part in international envi-

ronmental issues. The organization oversaw

the process that created the Montreal Protocol

of 1987, a treaty to phase-out ozone-deplet-

ing compounds. In 1988, UNEP joined with

the World Meteorological Organization to

create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Four years later in Rio, UNEP and the

environmental movement shaped new inter-

national agreements on climate change and

biodiversity, and laid the groundwork for a

treaty to combat desertification. The climate

convention provided the road map for the

Kyoto Protocol — in which nations pledged

to cut greenhouse-gas emissions — and

established the process for the climate talks.

Bridge-building

For the Stockholm and Rio conferences to

succeed, Strong knew he needed to earn the

trust of developing countries. But he also built

bridges with the scientific and business commu-

nities and he opened up both events to partici-

pation from non-governmental organizations

— often against the wishes of governments.

“Maurice really pushed the door for public

engagement,” says James Gustave Speth, a

former administrator of the UN Development

Programme and founder of the World Resources

Institute, an environmental think-tank in

Washington DC. “You have to remember that

this had never happened before and it had

ramifications across all other UN processes.”

Yet despite Strong’s successes in bring-

ing people and nations together, the policy

architecture he created has done little so far

to make the world safer. Aside from the suc-

cessful global effort to protect the ozone layer,

international environmental agree-

ments have faltered. In particular, they

lacked mechanisms to verify whether

countries met their commitments or to

penalize those that fell short. This led

to the anticipated failure of the Kyoto

treaty, and will also doom the parallel

commitment to slow down the rate of

loss of biodiversity by 2010. The con-

sensus at the meeting in Switzerland

was that the fault lies with the current

environmental policy structure.

Strong acknowledges that the trea-

ties have suffered because they allowed

“governments to say one thing, but do

the opposite”. The fault may lie with

the expectations that Strong and others

had. The entire environmental move-

ment had a misplaced confidence in the

ability of governments to deliver on their

promises, says Speth.

That realization has tempered hopes for

the climate negotiations this year, and Strong

doubts whether December’s Copenhagen

climate summit will succeed. “Radical thinking

is needed,” he says, “but there is no evidence

that governments are ready for that.” There

is no point to an agreement, he says, unless

it has “binding real penalties, fines and trade

bans that are designed to make agreements

enforceable”, rather like what happens in the

World Trade Organization or the International

Atomic Energy Agency.

Another problem with past environmen-

tal agreements is the relationship between

the richer and poorer countries. Developing

nations have long insisted that if they were

going to be forced to grow sus-

tainably — unlike the richer

nations — then substantial

financial support should be

made available. But the wealthy

nations baulked at that request,

in part because they didn’t want

to be seen as accepting respon-

sibility for global environmental problems.

It has taken nearly four decades for a poten-

tial solution to emerge. UK Prime Minister

Gordon Brown proposed last month to start a

climate fund that would give US$100-billion to

developing countries each year, paid for by the

world’s wealthiest nations.

A third issue that has dogged Strong is his

poor relations with US administrations — and

his belief that global agreements can work

without the United States. “I did spend a lot of

time in America,” he says. “But America already

had many people who could speak on its behalf.

Yes, I could have put more time in, but even

the Americans were telling me ‘you’ve got to

get the developing countries on side’. I used to

tell the Americans that if I am seen to be in your

pocket, then I am of no use to anyone.”

To this day, Strong gets bad press in the

United States, where reporters often focus

on potential conflicts of interest that affected

him while he was working in the upper tiers

of the UN.

Little black book

Yet Strong has no shortage of supporters,

especially among the world leaders he helped

to groom. He has a legendary record in spot-

ting promising individuals, which is evident

in the roll-call of people whom he hired early

in their careers. Canada’s former prime min-

ister Paul Martin, James Wolfensohn, who

led the World Bank, Yolanda

Kakabadse, former environ-

ment minister of Ecuador

and now president of the

environmental group WWF,

and many serving heads

of UN agencies are Strong

protégés and cite him as a

major influence in their lives.

When the IUCN was having financial prob-

lems in the 1980s, “Maurice stepped in and

came to our rescue”, says Julia Marton-Lefèvre,

IUCN director-general. “He would make the

phone calls or get us a seat at the right table,”

she says. “Maurice had this ability to reach out

and grab world leaders by the arm, whether

they liked it or not,” says Jonathan Lash, presi-

dent of the World Resources Institute. “He used

his access and networks shamelessly for all of

us. Long before iPhones, the net and Twitter,

we had Maurice.”

At the start of the Rio conference, Strong had

insisted (and as usual got his way) on a private

meeting between himself, the UN secretary-

general and more than 100 heads of

government, without their minders

and attendants. In his address to them,

Strong said that the planet had only

one real chance, and that they stood

between success and failure.

Strong was wrong about the one

chance. The Rio climate treaty, and its

progeny, did not stop global warming,

and there is debate about whether they

have reduced the problem in any sub-

stantial way. But politics and the climate

have evolved since Strong urged lead-

ers towards action. The world has yet

another chance in Copenhagen and the

outcome depends largely on whether

countries have learned from their past

mistakes. ■

Ehsan Masood teaches international

science policy at Imperial College

London.

“There is no evidence

that governments

are ready for radical

thinking.”

— Maurice Strong

Maurice Strong (left, with former Soviet leader Mikhail

Gorbachev) has been able to bring world leaders together.

J. PEREIRA/AP

455

Vol 460|23 July 2009

455

NATURE|Vol 460|23 July 2009

NEWS FEATURE

454-455 News Feat Maurice Strong MH IF.indd 455454-455 News Feat Maurice Strong MH IF.indd 455 20/7/09 14:26:0420/7/09 14:26:04

剩余114页未读，继续阅读

notoc

粉丝: 0
资源: 1

自然杂志：权威科学期刊，高引用率与多学科研究

Nature.Magazine.July.5.2007

The Function of Dream Sleep - Nature Vol. 304 (14th July, 1983)-计算机科学

nature和nature子刊哪个难发

nature和nature子刊

azure nature

nature[stationDetail.detail.nature]什么意思

nature 子刊robotics

springer nature latex

nature[stationDetail.detail.nature]解析

KEY `auto_shard_key_NATURE_CUST_ID` (`NATURE_CUST_ID`) USING BTREE,

nature review neuroscience发表是否困难

select b.name,b.nature,b.orgName from base_e_route_basesection b 改写SQL如果b.nature等于 还贷性路段 ，则不查询b.name，以b.orgName分组，否则以b.name分组查询

unity dreamscape nature

帮我查询nature期刊上Single-crystal perovskite相关的研究和作者

[unity3d]pure nature 1.1.unitypackage

nature dqn 算法的交通 信号灯控制方法

cartopy.io.shapereader怎么调用nature

springer nature latex模板

近五年在Nature期刊上面发表的关于超级电容器的文献

DQN nature 文献

最新资源

select b.name,b.nature,b.orgName from base_e_route_basesection b 改写SQL如果b.nature等于还贷性路段，则不查询b.name，以b.orgName分组，否则以b.name分组查询

nature dqn 算法的交通信号灯控制方法