The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.
Nicholas SternRead
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?
Interpretation
We must take urgent action against climate change to avoid dire consequences.
Nicholas Stern's quote emphasizes the extreme danger posed by climate change, likening our inaction to playing a deadly game of Russian roulette. This metaphor illustrates the high stakes involved and stresses the importance of decisive action to mitigate potential disasters that could arise from climate change.
In practice
This quote could be used in a speech on environmental policy at a conference.
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.
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.
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.
Do politicians understand just how difficult it could be, just how devastating rises of 4C, 5C or 6C could be? I think, not yet
Those who study the stars have God for a teacher.
Given the opportunity, under the right conditions, two cells from wildly different sources, a yeast cell, say, and a chicken erythrocyte, will touch, fuse, and the two nuclei will then fuse as well, and the new hybrid cell will now divide into monstrous progeny. Naked cells, lacking self-respect, do not seem to have any sense of self.
The problem with data is that it says a lot, but it also says nothing. 'Big data' is terrific, but it's usually thin. To understand why something is happening, we have to engage in both forensics and guess work.
Most scientific or engineering discoveries would never become successful products without contributions from other scientists or engineers. Every major invention is the child of far-flung parents who may never meet.
Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination.
Without deductive logic science would be entirely useless. It is merely a barren game to ascend from the particular to the general, unless afterwards we can reverse the process and descend from the general to the particular, ascending and descending like angels on Jacob's ladder.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.