The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.
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.
Interpretation
What this quote means
Climate change denial is compared to historical denial of scientific truths.
In this quote, Nicholas Stern highlights the intense disbelief surrounding climate change by comparing its deniers to individuals who historically rejected clear scientific evidence, such as flat-earthers, and those who discounted the connections between smoking and cancer or HIV and AIDS. This analogy emphasizes the irrationality and potential dangers of denying scientifically validated phenomena, showcasing how such denialism can hinder progress and understanding in critical areas affecting humanity.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
In a political debate about environmental policies, this quote can underline the need for scientific acknowledgment.
More from Nicholas Stern
All quotes →There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now.
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.
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
Similar quotes
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
If you just have a single problem to solve, then fine, go ahead and use a neural network. But if you want to do science and understand how to choose architectures, or how to go to a new problem, you have to understand what different architectures can and cannot do.
Evolution is a process of constant branching and expansion.
The impression sometimes created among the public is that scientists are working away in their labs, and maybe they're not always thinking about the implications of their work. But we are.
Dissent is the native activity of the scientist, and it has got him into a good deal of trouble in the last years. But if that is cut off, what is left will not be a scientist. And I doubt whether it will be a man.
Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands.