主题：【原创】翻译讨论 -- 人间树

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

第三段，举三种例子说明何为“well-established theories”，用以佐证climate change theory的可靠性，但出于严谨，同时指明即便说是“well-established”，也存在谬误的可能（即scientific conclusion始终伴有某种不确定性）。我们可以看出使得一个theory成为“well-established”的关键在于“compelling （comprehensive, consistent， objective） scientific evidence”，而不仅仅是该理论是否tested, questioned, and examined。

---------------------------

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

...................

第四段，前三段立论，这一段反驳，并例举一些关于气候变化的 fundamental conclusions，用以表明目前的挑战并未能改变这些结论“well-established”的地位。其反驳的逻辑紧扣其关于scientific conclusions总是具有不确定性的论述，承认可能有的谬误，非常严谨。

这里，我必须纠正我之前关于evidence的意见，之前我认为“an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence”中的“evidence”应解为“迹象”，现结合第三段的论述来读，还是必须解释为“证据”，即科学家通过实验、观察、模拟所获得的用以证明气候变化的各种证据。

-----------------------------

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

最后两段，呼吁行动，没有直接说的是呼吁对科学家和科学的信任。

现在回到这封信的标题，Climate Change and the Integrity of Science，这封信不仅仅是科学界就气候变暖问题的一次表态，其更是科学界面对居心叵测的一些攻击时，通过解释scientific conclusions，well-established theories和basic laws三者之间的关系，来澄清大众对科学的一些误解，从而为科学和科学家正名，以维护其信誉。

这封信正如善人兄所说，试图说明，科学家提出conclusion或theory，并努力通过实验、观察、模拟去为其寻找证据支持，但即便如此也只是“试图去理解，逼近basic laws”,conclusion或theory本身永远都伴有不确定性，永远不能获得basic laws那种绝对性的地位，所以公众必须容忍科学存在一定的误差，同时对科学抱有信心，因为scientific process为不断纠正科学中的误差，为人类的认识不断趋近basic laws提供了可能。

----因此，虽然我对“supported.......”的理解从语法角度可能一无是处，但是从语义的角度来说，我还是比较倾向于其用以修饰scientific conclusions。