2008/03/10 by Serge Galam, Galam, Serge
Physics and Astronomy · Social Sciences · #Complex Network Analysis Techniques #FOS: Physical sciences #Misinformation and Its Impacts #Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence #Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) #Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph) #physics.pop-ph #physics.soc-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0803.1239
14 pages, no figure
arxiv created 2008/03/10 · openalex publication_date 2008/03/10 · arxiv updated 2009/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
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.