We don't survive without plants and animals because we rely on them, we rely on plants to put oxygen into the atmosphere, we rely on ... fish and crops and cows to eat.

What to do about climate change is political, it's social, and it's moral, which is one of the reasons the scientific community reached out to the Pope, to ask for his involvement in this issue.

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

We don't survive without plants and animals because we rely on them, we rely on plants to put oxygen into the atmosphere, we rely on ... fish and crops and cows to eat.

I think it is important for people to understand that there are real serious economic costs and real serious economic damages associated with inaction on climate change.

Why would scientists dedicated to uncovering the truth about the natural world deliberately misrepresent the work of their own colleagues? Why would they spread accusations with no basis? Why would they refuse to correct their arguments once they had been shown to be incorrect? And why did the press continue to quote them, year after year, even as their claims were shown, one after another, to be false?

Scientists are scientists. They're not really in a position to speak clearly on the moral dimensions, and they're not really comfortable doing that.