Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation

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 and politicians is intrinsically worrying. The calls to sacrifice our way of life to calm down the upset nature is an emotional ancestral reminiscence of archaic fears, which should be analyzed as such.