The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.
Nicholas SternRead
The basic scientific conclusions on climate change are very robust and for good reason. The greenhouse effect is simple science: greenhouse gases trap heat, and humans are emitting ever more greenhouse gases.
Interpretation
Climate change is driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases, which are scientifically proven to trap heat in our atmosphere.
In this quote, Nicholas Stern emphasizes the scientific consensus on climate change, highlighting that the greenhouse effect is a fundamental principle of science. He points out that human activities are significantly increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to more heat being trapped in the atmosphere, which is a central reason for ongoing climate change.
In practice
In a climate change seminar discussing scientific consensus.
The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.
There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now.
Those who say that climate change doesn't exist are being understood as the flat-earthers that they are, as the people who deny the link between smoking and cancer, as the people who denied the link between HIV and AIDS.
If you look at all the serious scientists in the world, there is no big disagreement on the basics of this... it would be absolute lunacy to act as if climate change is not occurring.
This [climate change] is potentially so dangerous that we have to act strongly. Do we want to play Russian roulette with two bullets or one?
Do politicians understand just how difficult it could be, just how devastating rises of 4C, 5C or 6C could be? I think, not yet
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Everyone in the astronaut program has a degree in a science field. The crew are the ones who do the experiments, help to design some of the experiments that come from other primary researchers. So it becomes very important that you have a science background.
There's branches of science which I don't understand; for example, physics. It could be said, I suppose, that I have faith that physicists understand it better than I do.
It is now widely realized that nearly all the 'classical' problems of molecular biology have either been solved or will be solved in the next decade. The entry of large numbers of American and other biochemists into the field will ensure that all the chemical details of replication and transcription will be elucidated. Because of this, I have long felt that the future of molecular biology lies in the extension of research to other fields of biology, notably development and the nervous system.
If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.
[Bacteria are the] dark matter of the biological world [with 4 million mostly unknown species in a ton of soil].
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.