Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
Serge Galam

TL;DR
This paper questions the scientific consensus on human culpability for global warming, highlighting the lack of definitive proof, the emotional and irrational nature of the debate, and the social dangers of sacrificing modern lifestyles based on unproven claims.
Contribution
It critically examines the supposed scientific unanimity on global warming, emphasizing the absence of conclusive proof and the emotional, quasi-religious dynamics of the debate.
Findings
No scientific proof of human culpability for global warming
Use of probability is misleading in asserting certainty
The debate has become emotionally charged and quasi-religious
Abstract
The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of human culpability. It is not the number of authors of a paper, which validates its scientific content. The use of probability to assert the degree of certainty with respect the global warming problem is shown to be misleading. The debate about global warming has taken on emotional tones driven by passion and irrationality while it should be a scientific debate. The degree of hostility used to mull any dissonance voice demonstrates that the current debate has acquired a quasi-religious nature. Scientists are behaving as priests in their will "to save the planet". We are facing a dangerous social phenomenon, which must be addressed from the social point of view. The current unanimity of citizens, scientists, journalists, intellectuals…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Complex Network Analysis Techniques
