Amardeo @ Scientific Temper

Fallacies That Undermine Science

Amardeo Sarma — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:50:37 GMT

In philosophy, the naturalistic fallacy appears when people infer what ought to be done directly from what is the case—treating descriptive facts as if they carried their own moral instructions. The moralistic fallacy is the reverse: inferring what is true from what we want, fear, or morally approve of—letting “ought” to decide “is”.

Note: In an earlier version of this essay I called the latter the “idealistic fallacy”; “moralistic fallacy” is the standard term in the literature on metaethical logic and argumentation theory.

Both fallacies show up in current debates, but in different ways.

Moralistic fallacy: “Genetic engineering is unnatural and run by evil companies. It is therefore dangerous and must be rejected.” The undesirability of a scenario is quietly turned into a claim that it is dangerous or fraudulent.
Naturalistic fallacy: “Climate models and impact studies show serious risks. Science commands that we adopt this program.” Here, descriptive findings are treated as if they logically implied a unique policy, closing legitimate moral and political debate.

These are not just conceptual curiosities. They shape how people—from activists to commentators to scientists—talk about vaccination, climate risks, nuclear energy, population, agriculture, and much more. They also provide ammunition to those who want to undermine scientific disciplines.

The moralistic fallacy: wishing cannot make it so

The moralistic fallacy is very tempting in emotionally charged fields. It often appears in two logically opposite, but structurally similar, forms:

“Because we don’t like X, X is dangerous, cannot be true or cannot work.”
“Because we like Y, Y is benign, must be true or must work.”

X has often been nuclear energy or genetic engineering, while Y was renewables, “natural” medicine or organic farming.

Pessimistic environmentalists are so concerned about the risks of unconstrained human development that they treat abundant energy, industrial agriculture, or advanced technologies as inherently suspect, and therefore assume any promise of abundance must be illusory. Optimistic enthusiasts so deeply value economic growth and innovation that they believe climate risks must be modest, easy to engineer away, and that policies and interventions are neither needed nor even harmful.

Examples are easy to find:

Energy abundance: Critics claim that nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or large-scale carbon removal “cannot work” or “will never happen” primarily because they dislike the idea of a world with cheap, dense, widely available energy. Their discomfort with abundance turns into empirical certainty about technical failure.
Food and agriculture: Others insist that genetically modified crops or intensive agriculture cannot help reduce hunger, not because the data say so, but because they associate “industrial” food systems with moral or aesthetic decline.
Free‑market absolutism: Some argue that free markets will automatically solve environmental and social problems and therefore view governmental or international climate policies as harmful intrusions that violate their core values of liberty and autonomy.

In all these cases, the moral or ideological story comes first; the “facts” are adjusted to fit, whether or not they are true. That is precisely what science should not be about.

Climate doomsday and the PIK Nature retraction

The recently retracted Nature paper by a team at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is a revealing case where a dramatic, doomsday-like outcome was presented as far more certain than the data suggest. The study claimed that climate change could reduce global income by around one-fifth by mid-century. This finding was eagerly cited by central banks, the media, and activists as proof of catastrophic economic damage. Later scrutiny uncovered data problems (including flawed country statistics) and methodological issues in the statistical treatment of regional impacts. Due to the scale of the corrections and the increased uncertainty, the authors and the journal agreed on a full retraction and revision rather than a minor erratum.

Important points follow from this episode:

The retraction itself is a sign that self-correction is (still) working.
The existence of serious climate risks is not in question; the mainstream literature is clear that warming will have substantial effects.
But the originally dramatic framing was rapidly turned into a moral symbol—confirmation that “the system” is heading toward collapse—well before the robustness of the numbers had been thoroughly tested.

Once a result is embedded in a narrative of imminent disaster, it becomes difficult to disentangle evidence from expectation. When such a paper is later retracted, it is immediately weaponised by climate‑policy opponents as proof that climate science is driven by alarmism rather than rigour. The risk is not merely local; each high-profile exaggeration that fails gives those who are hostile to climate policy an excuse to doubt all climate research.

This is the cost of the moralistic fallacy when it operates inside science itself: hoping for firm, galvanising conclusions can tempt some researchers and communicators to oversell fragile results. When those claims collapse, trust does too.

Mainstream climate science and cautious voices

Against this background, the tone set by mainstream, methodologically cautious climate scientists is essential to maintain public trust in science.

Klaus Hasselmann, Nobel laureate for foundational work on climate models and detection–attribution, has always combined explicit acknowledgement of human-driven warming with insistence on transparency about uncertainty. He has emphasised that the signal of anthropogenic climate change emerges from natural variability in ways that can be quantified statistically, but has also stressed that long-term projections, and especially socio-economic impact assessments, are inherently uncertain and must be communicated as such.

Hans von Storch has likewise argued for methodological humility. He has been critical of scientists who present themselves as preachers of definitive truth, and of using extreme scenarios as if they were straightforward “business‑as‑usual” forecasts, given changing technological and policy trends. He has pointed out that if models systematically deviate from observations, the community must be ready to revisit key assumptions, rather than defending them as articles of faith.

Both exemplify a scientific attitude:

recognising the robustness of core findings (the reality and anthropogenic nature of warming),
clearly stating where uncertainty is significant, and
refusing to dress scientific results in the costume of moral certainty or political inevitability.

In an age where climate talk oscillates between denial and doom, this mainstream stance is neither tepid nor evasive; it is precisely what protects the long-term credibility of climate science.

The naturalistic fallacy: when science is treated as a moral oracle

If the moralistic fallacy smuggles “ought” into “is”, the naturalistic fallacy does the reverse: it tries to derive an “ought” straight from the “is”. In climate debates, this appears when people claim that science “tells us” which measures to take or even which political or economic system humanity must adopt.

Examples include:

The science of climate change proves we must adopt a degrowth agenda and dismantle capitalism.
Because we know that carbon emissions lead to global warming, science demands that we rely exclusively on renewables or even manage a transition by some date.
Since models show serious risks, any disagreement with this specific policy pathway is anti-science or denial.

Science can tell us that greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation, that doubling CO₂ raises equilibrium temperature by a specific range, that different emissions scenarios lead to different risk profiles, and that some technologies are more effective than others at reducing emissions. It cannot, by itself, tell us whether we ought to prioritise speed over equity, how to weigh short-term costs against long-term benefits, or which mix of values (freedom, security, equality, innovation, stability) society should adopt.

When activists or commentators present a particular ideology—whether radical degrowth, total system transformation, or, on the opposite side, unbounded techno‑optimism—as “what the science says”, they turn science into a moral authority it cannot be. This not only misrepresents the nature of scientific inquiry; it also hands critics a powerful line of attack: “If ‘science’ tells me what to think politically, maybe science itself is just politics.”

The naturalistic fallacy thus damages the same thing that the moralistic fallacy does: public trust in science that is distinct from political and moral advocacy.

Science at large is at risk, not just climate science

Climate science may be the most visible arena where these fallacies play out, because it sits directly at the intersection of physics, economics, ethics, and geopolitics. But it is unlikely to remain the only one. The same patterns are already emerging in other fields.

Two obvious candidates are:

Public health and epidemiology: During the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific findings about transmission, masks, vaccines, and lockdowns were rapidly absorbed into tribal identities. Some actors overstated certainty or downplayed trade-offs, insisting that “the science” dictated a single policy path. Others rejected basic epidemiology because it clashed with their political preferences. The result was a collapse in shared trust: people on all sides began to see epidemiology less as a neutral discipline and more as a weapon in culture wars.
Genetics and sex/gender biology: Research into biological sex, intersex conditions, and gender identity has become highly politicised. Some actors try to derive social or moral norms directly from biological findings. Others confuse sex (biological) and gender (identity/roles) and wrongly claim that ‘sex is a spectrum’ in a way that ignores the fundamental anisogamous nature of sexual reproduction in most animals and plants and all mammals, where two distinct gamete types (eggs and sperm) define the basic male–female categories and intersex variations are exceptions rather than a third type.

If the climate arena normalises a pattern in which every methodological dispute is treated as a political betrayal, and every attempt at nuance is read as denial or alarmism, these habits will spread. Once the public begins to see all of science as a series of tribal narratives, the gains of the Enlightenment—shared standards of evidence, cross-cultural reproducibility, the possibility of correcting errors—are at stake.

In that sense, climate science may be only the first apparent victim. If allowed to metastasise, the same logic could engulf fields from ecology and demography to psychology, nutrition, and AI safety.

Why avoiding both fallacies is essential

If trust in science is to survive, both the moralistic and naturalistic fallacies must be resisted.

Keep facts and values distinct, even when closely related
Facts inform values: knowing the likely impacts of warming, or the comparative risks of different energy sources, should shape our moral and political reasoning. Values guide how we respond: science cannot tell us how to trade off present costs against future harms, or which distribution of burdens is just. Recognising this division does not weaken the case for climate action; it strengthens it by making the reasoning explicit rather than smuggling politics in under the banner of “what science says”.
Guard against wishful thinking in both directions
People on all sides of environmental debates are vulnerable to the cognitive bias of believing what they want to be true, rather than what the evidence supports. Those who advocate for ecological restraint should resist the temptation to assume that technologies they distrust cannot work, regardless of the empirical record. Supporters of free markets should not assume that market forces will always overcome physical or ecological limits. Markets tend to be most efficient at allocating resources over relatively short time horizons and often discount or ignore long‑term environmental externalities. The real world is constrained by biophysical laws, not by ideological narratives, and ignoring these constraints is itself a form of wishful thinking.
Present uncertainty honestly, without paralysis or drama
Many mainstream climate scientists show that it is possible to be both frank about serious risks and rigorous about uncertainty. Their example should be the norm: clear on established results (e.g., the basic greenhouse effect), transparent about where knowledge is limited (e.g., regional impacts, extreme events), and honest about the fact that different value frameworks can lead to different policy choices even when everyone accepts the same evidence.
Protect science as a universal attitude with robust methods, not as a partisan tool
The more science is presented as “on the side” of one political tribe, the easier it is for others to reject it wholesale. Science must remain open to critique, replication, and revision from all directions and must welcome disagreement about policy, provided it does not involve denial of basic empirical facts.

If we fail to do this, climate science will not be the only field to suffer. Once trust in science is replaced by suspicion that every claim is merely a vehicle for someone’s cultural project, the very idea of objective inquiry becomes fragile.

Scientific temper asks for something more demanding but more hopeful: to accept that reality is not obliged to match our wishes, and that our moral commitments, however sincerely held, do not confer automatic authority on our factual claims. That discipline—distinguishing what is from what we want and what we ought to do—is hard. But it is also the only way to preserve science as a genuine common language in a fractured world.

Support Scientific Temper

If you value this work and want to help promote scientific temper, please consider supporting our non‑profit organisation.

Donate to promote Scientific Temper

Population, Prosperity, and Technology

Amardeo Sarma — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 14:29:47 GMT

For decades, much environmental thinking has centred on a deceptively simple idea: the pressure humanity puts on the planet depends on three factors – population size, wealth and technology.

This is intuitive. Impact increases if the population grows, if each person’s consumption increases, or if the technologies we use are dirty and inefficient.

This has often been summarised as the following identity: I = P x A x T, where I is impact, P is population, A is affluence, and T is technology.

Apart from this formula, what matters is that there are two very different interpretations of this basic idea: an outdated, neo-Malthusian interpretation and a modern, humane, evidence-based interpretation. These interpretations lead to opposing conclusions about the kind of future we should strive for and the policies we should advocate.

The Old Story: More People + More Prosperity = Disaster

In the 1960s and 70s, a pessimistic narrative dominated much environmental thought, popularised most famously by Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb.

The logic went like this:

More people inevitably strain the planet’s finite resources.
More prosperity means more consumption and therefore more damage.
Technology mainly amplifies harm, letting us extract and burn more, faster.

If every term in I = P x A x T can only make things worse, then humanity itself becomes the problem.

The implication was clear and disturbing: to avoid ecological collapse, both population and economic growth must be restrained – if necessary, by coercive means.

This worldview led to:

Calls for coercive population control and “optimal population” targets.
Hostility to economic growth.
Deep suspicion toward modern technological development.

Essentially, it was a neo-Malthusian narrative: the future was defined by scarcity and fixed limits, with collapse almost inevitable unless humanity abandoned the idea of universal prosperity and accepted living with far fewer people.

However, recent global development history has proven this view to be profoundly mistaken.

What Actually Happened: The Demographic Transition

If the old narrative were right, development and rising living standards would drive a permanent “population explosion”.

Instead, the exact opposite happened.

Across the world, as societies became wealthier, healthier, more educated, and more stable, people chose to have fewer children. In this demographic transition, societies move from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates as incomes and life expectancy rise.

So how did this happen?

Child mortality collapsed. Families could count on their children surviving.
Women gained access to education and work. They understood contraception.
Urbanisation raised the cost of large families.
Social security systems reduced the need for many children as “old‑age insurance”.

The result is a sharp decline in fertility rates. The global fertility rate has fallen from around five children per woman in the 1960s to below 2.5 today, with many countries now falling well below the replacement level of 2.1–2.2 children per woman. This includes several countries that most people would not expect to have a fertility rate below the replacement level, as the Our World in Data graphics below show.

Source: Our World in Data - The global decline of the fertility rate

This pattern is one of the most robust findings in social science: prosperity, education, and rights – in particular for women – drive fertility down.

China is the perfect case study: fertility was dropping fast even before the one‑child policy, and now China is desperately trying to reverse a dangerously rapid population decline. A different lesson comes from India, where the coercive sterilisation campaigns during the Emergency in the mid‑1970s provoked such a backlash that they helped bring down Indira Gandhi’s government in the 1977 elections.

The broader lesson is powerful: there is no humane, democratic way to “force” population reduction at scale. Population stabilises when people become healthier, wealthier, and better educated – not when states impose draconian controls.

Prosperity and Technology: From Threats to Tools

The traditional interpretation of IPAT saw both prosperity and technology in a largely negative light: increased income led to greater consumption, and new technologies simply magnified the scale of damage.

However, modern evidence tells a different story.

As societies grow richer, they do not simply consume more of everything. They also demand cleaner air, safer water, better infrastructure and protected natural areas.

Prosperity enables governments and citizens to invest in environmental protection and cleaner systems. However, this still requires active policies, regulations and innovations, rather than a laissez-faire belief that growth alone will solve all problems.

In practice, this has meant that:

Many richer countries have sharply reduced local air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and fine particulate matter in recent decades.
Forest cover has stabilised or even expanded in several high‑income regions as agriculture has intensified and marginal farmland has been abandoned.
Environmental regulation and enforcement are generally stronger in high‑income democracies than in very poor states with weak institutions.

In other words, poverty is not green. Poverty forces people to burn wood and charcoal, clear forests, consume bushmeat, and use land inefficiently. Development brings the technologies and incentives needed for environmental stewardship.

The landscape of technology has changed significantly since the 1960s. Thanks to the Green Revolution, synthetic fertilisers, improved crop varieties and precision agriculture, global food production has soared without the need for proportional increases in farmland.

At the same time, modern energy systems and materials science are making it possible to “decouple” economic output from emissions and resource use:

Many high-income countries have increased GDP while reducing territorial CO₂ emissions since around 2005.
Several economies show signs of absolute decoupling – emissions falling even as output continues to rise.
Energy use per unit of GDP has declined in much of the OECD, reflecting improved efficiency.

The following graph shows the decoupling for the European Union.

Source: Our World in Data - Change in per capita CO₂ emissions and GDP, European Union

This is not yet universal or fast enough, but the trend shows that growth and emissions are no longer locked together as they were in the mid-20th century.

In short, prosperity and technology are not inherently enemies of the environment. Used well, they become the main tools for shrinking humanity’s ecological footprint while improving lives.

Modern IPAT: A Humane, Evidence-Based Interpretation

The I = P x A x T identity itself is neutral; it is just a way to structure thinking about impact. What changed is our understanding of how each term behaves in the real world:

Population (P) does not grow without bound; it stabilises and can even shrink as societies develop.
Affluence (A), beyond a certain point, is associated with lower fertility and greater environmental capacity, not just more consumption.
Technology (T) is not a simple multiplier of harm; it is the main lever for decoupling output from emissions and resource use.

A modern, empirically grounded IPAT perspective, therefore, looks like this:

Prosperity is the best contraceptive. As incomes, education, and health improve, fertility falls sharply and voluntarily. Degrowth proposals that would freeze poor countries at low-income levels risk keeping them in the high-fertility, high-pressure phase indefinitely.
Affluence enables environmental stewardship. Affluent societies invest in clean technology, environmental regulation, and restoration. They move away from biomass and other destructive, low-efficiency energy sources towards more compact, cleaner systems.
Technology drives decoupling. High-yield agriculture reduces land requirements per unit of food. Low-carbon power, electrification, and efficiency gains reduce emissions per unit of GDP. Many high-income countries already demonstrate that emissions and GDP can move in opposite directions over multi-decadal periods.

In this modern view, two of the three factors – affluence and technology – can actually reduce environmental harm as they improve, and the third – population – is shaped by them in a benign direction.

The policy implication is not “less prosperity and less technology”, but smarter prosperity and smarter technology.

Two Worldviews, Two Futures

These two interpretations of the same identity lead to very different visions of the future.

The Old Neo‑Malthusian Story

Humans are inherently destructive.
Growth is dangerous and must be restrained.
Technology amplifies damage.
Coercive measures to limit population and consumption are required.

This story still surfaces today in rhetoric about “too many people”, “overshoot”, “ending affluence”, or strict “limits to growth”.

The Modern, Humane, Evidence-Based Story

As people become healthier and wealthier, they choose smaller families.
Prosperity gives societies the means and motivation to clean up and protect ecosystems.
Technology enables large reductions in pollution and resource use for each unit of well-being produced.
Human ingenuity is central to solving environmental challenges.

Humanity is not a plague that must be contained. Rather, humanity is the primary agent in building a sustainable and flourishing future.

This view is supported by demographic data, economic history and mainstream scientific assessments, including IPCC mitigation scenarios and UN population projections.

Why This Matters for the People and the Planet

Even today, some ecological and activist communities continue to be influenced by Ehrlich’s outdated thinking.

Messages that focus on ‘ending affluence’, romanticise poverty as ‘low impact’, or advocate coercive population control not only conflict with evidence, but also collide with core democratic and human rights values.

A modern perspective points in a different direction:

Development stabilises population. Countries move through the demographic transition as incomes, health, and education rise.
Prosperity improves environmental capacity. More affluent societies have more tools and stronger institutions for environmental protection.
Innovation enables decoupling. Clean energy, efficient infrastructure, and advanced materials allow growth with shrinking emissions and resource use.

This approach is more practical because it builds on existing trends. It is also more humane, as it is based on freedom, rights and opportunity rather than coercion.

Finally, it is more consistent with an open society because it avoids treating people, especially the poor, as the problem to be solved.

A Better Path Forward

If we take the modern, evidence-based interpretation of IPAT seriously, a more straightforward strategy emerges:

Support global development. Promote policies that lift people out of poverty, expand education – particularly for girls and women – and strengthen health systems. These are the engines of the demographic transition and the foundation of environmental stewardship.
Accelerate clean technology. Invest in low-carbon energy, efficient buildings and transport, high-yield and low-impact agriculture, and circular material flows. Technology is the main lever for decoupling, not a side issue.
Defend human dignity and liberal democracy. Reject coercive population policies and regressive “degrowth” ideas that would lock billions into poverty. Sustainable societies must be compatible with rights, pluralism, and individual freedom.
Challenge simplistic doom narratives. Acknowledge real risks and uncertainties while also recognising the documented progress in demography, health, and environmental performance. Fear can mobilise attention, but it is a poor guide to long-term, constructive policy.

Humanity is not the problem. Humanity – prosperous, educated, and technologically creative – is the solution.

Scientific Temper and Humane Environmentalism

So, what are the core commitments towards a better, evidence-based approach to elevate humanity and towards a liveable planet?

Place human welfare, dignity and freedom at the heart of environmental thinking.
Defend scientific temper – a mindset of critical inquiry and openness to evidence against denial and dogma, and promote science-based education from primary school level.
Embrace innovation and prosperity as vital tools for creating a sustainable future, rather than viewing them as threats.

The traditional IPAT narrative implied that saving the planet required turning against people, prosperity, and progress.

The modern, humane narrative, which is grounded in data, demography and real technological change, shows that it is precisely people, prosperity, progress and science-based education, beginning in schools, that can save both humanity and the biosphere on which we depend.

Readers wishing to explore these themes further will find a growing ecosystem of science-based, evidence-focused organisations. WePlanet advocates environmentally friendly, innovation-driven solutions, while organisations such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer) and the German Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) promote scientific scepticism and critical thinking in public debate. Finally, Our World in Data and Hans Rosling’s Gapminder Foundation help us identify our misconceptions.

I also recommend reading another closely related piece posted today by Hannah Ritchie entitled ‘Can we break the human development–environment trade-off?’.

A Pragmatic Path for Climate and Human Progress

Amardeo Sarma — Mon, 10 Nov 2025 06:54:44 GMT

In his essay “Three Tough Truths About Climate”, Bill Gates reminded the world that climate policy must prioritise people, not slogans or abstract temperature targets (Gates, 2025a; Newsweek, 2025). His essay quickly polarised the debate, with some critics on the science-denial fringe dismissing climate risks and others accusing Gates of betrayal for challenging climate orthodoxy, with some even finding a link to Donald Trump (McKibben, 2025). However, this badly misreads Gates’s record: his approach is deeply rooted in his long-standing commitment to both climate and anti-poverty progress, especially in Africa, and reflects continuity rather than reversal (NDTV, 2025; Gates, 2025b).

However, Gates’s core argument is often overlooked: while climate change is urgent, immediate threats such as poverty, malnutrition and disease remain far more pressing for billions of people, particularly in the Global South. Building resilient societies by investing in health, innovation and access to modern energy is essential to successfully adapting to a warming world. This view is reflected in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which treat climate action as one of many interconnected priorities (United Nations, 2024).

Crucially, focusing on resilience and development does not mean stopping the reduction of emissions. Rather, policymakers must balance conflicting goals and timeframes. For many developing nations, rapidly cutting fossil fuels is less urgent than escaping poverty — a fact that Western critics often overlook. A balanced approach, as proposed by Gates and organisations such as WePlanet, must respect diverse global realities while advancing both short-term well-being and long-term sustainability.

The African “Just Stop Cooking” Campaign

WePlanet’s “Just Stop Cooking” campaign perfectly illustrates this ethos. Over three million people, mainly women and children, die annually from indoor air pollution caused by open-fire cooking (International Energy Agency, 2025; Euronews, 2025), while millions more spend countless hours gathering firewood, fuelling deforestation and perpetuating cycles of poverty (WePlanet Africa, 2025; Just Stop Cooking, 2025). Rapid progress requires scalable, context-sensitive solutions. Where full electrification isn’t viable, even LPG — a fossil fuel — dramatically cuts pollution, empowers women and protects forests.

Old vs. new: biomass cooking versus clean energy (solar, LPG as a transitional solution, and nuclear) uplifting community health. AI-generated illustration for editorial purposes; no real people depicted.

Equally importantly, energy innovation isn’t about picking sides; rather, it requires a broad, pragmatic mix. Advanced renewables, nuclear power and modern fuels all have a part to play, as does local agency. The same realism is desperately needed in food and agriculture.

However, wealthy nations have repeatedly hindered real progress. For example, under pressure from Germany, the World Bank refused to fund nuclear projects in Africa for many years, thereby denying millions of people access to reliable clean energy (African Business, 2025; Africsis, 2025). Similarly, Western NGOs and government donors have blocked genetic engineering initiatives such as Golden Rice, thereby harming nutrition and health in much of the Global South. In contrast, Bangladesh’s experience with Bt brinjal demonstrates the potential of smart innovation (Golden Rice Project, 2024; Alliance for Science, 2020; PubMed, 2025; ISAAA, 2025).

The German Cautionary Tale

The German experience offers a cautionary tale. Once the “poster child” for activists, Germany has performed poorly in terms of emissions and public health metrics since closing its nuclear power stations. The German Nuclear Phase-Out Report (Anthropocene Institute, 2025) reveals that Germany’s rejection of nuclear power hindered efforts to reduce emissions and resulted in tens of thousands of premature deaths due to air pollution, as the closure of nuclear power stations led to increased reliance on fossil fuels. In numbers, this resulted in over 730 million additional tonnes of CO₂ being emitted, 19,200 premature deaths, and 177,000 cases of serious illness — stark example of how well-intentioned policies can have unintended consequences.

Furthermore, this formerly leading industrial nation now has the highest electricity prices in Europe, which are 37% above the EU average (European Commission, 2024; Clean Energy Wire, 2025; Global Petrol Prices, 2025). As of 2025, the average price of electricity for German households was €0.38–€0.39 per kWh, the highest of any major European nation. These soaring costs exacerbate inequality, battering key industries and threatening job security and competitiveness. In short, there are more emissions, more premature deaths, higher bills for the poorest in society, and a weakened economy, while profits flow to a small group of wind and solar energy producers.

These poor outcomes contrast with the original intentions and make a compelling case for a science-based, pragmatic energy and development policy that focuses on innovation and affordability. Such a policy would offer a far better path for climate and societal progress.

Rational Discourse Instead of Personal Attacks

Critiques of Gates by activists and scientists, which are often marked by personal attacks or ‘soft denial’ claims, miss the substantive point: real gains in resilience, prosperity and adaptation (McKibben, 2025; Mann, 2025). Notably, those who criticise ‘inauthentic’ pragmatism remained silent or were supportive when ample supplies of low-carbon nuclear energy were shut down, thereby undermining the core mission of mitigation.

More revealing than these rhetorical battles are the objective results. Despite high-profile disasters, data from global monitoring agencies show that deaths from climate- and weather-related hazards have plummeted over the last century. Gapminder data show a fall from 181 deaths per million people worldwide in 1900 to only 11 per million people in the 2000s — less than 6% of the historical rate (Rosling, 2018; Pinker, 2018; Gapminder). While financial losses from disasters are increasing, this is mainly due to more property and people in vulnerable areas, not reduced resilience. Human societies have become far better at weathering storms.

Climate Policy and COP30

Fossil fuels pose a major threat to public health—millions die each year from air pollution that is unrelated to climate change itself (International Energy Agency, 2025; Euronews, 2025). Yet, the grave health impacts of fossil fuels are rarely at the heart of climate activism or debate, which tends to focus primarily on temperature targets. Phasing out fossil fuels for reasons beyond climate change alone is vital, but this must be done in a way that also safeguards energy access, prosperity and resilience.

The real lesson is that compassion and evidence, not slogans, must drive climate policy. Clean cooking, pragmatic energy choices and smart food innovation are central to human dignity and planetary stewardship, not peripheral. Evidence compiled by Rosling, Pinker and others shows that progress is possible. Ahead of COP30, Bill Gates’ intervention is a timely reminder to rethink our way forward. We must reinforce balanced decision-making based on science, evidence, and reason, committing ourselves to all of humanity.

Disclaimer

This article does not claim that science itself advocates any particular course of action or set of policies. Rather, society’s priorities and goals must be collectively determined through democratic processes, ethical reflection and open debate. Science plays a vital evaluative role in this process, enabling us to rigorously assess the effectiveness of various measures in achieving societal goals, while also identifying those that may be ineffective or counterproductive (hvonstorch.de, 2022). This distinction is vital for honest and responsible decision-making in any field, including climate and development policy.

References

Alliance for Science. (2020). Anti-GMO activists convene to target Golden Rice. https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2018/04/anti-gmo-activists-convene-target-golden-rice/
African Business. (2025). End of World Bank nuclear ban paves the way for Africa. https://african.business/2025/06/energy-resources/end-of-world-bank-nuclear-ban-paves-the-way-for-africa
Africsis. (2025). World Bank lifts nuclear funding ban: what this means for Africa. https://africsis.org/?p=20339
Anthropocene Institute. (2025). The German Nuclear Phase-out Report 2025. https://anthropoceneinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/The-German-Nuclear-Phase-out-Report-2025.pdf
Clean Energy Wire. (2025). Germany’s household power prices 5th highest in the world – report. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-household-power-prices-5th-highest-world-report
Euronews. (2025). One in three people worldwide exposed to household air pollution. https://www.euronews.com/health/2025/03/19/one-in-three-people-worldwide-exposed-to-household-air-pollution-researchers-warn
European Commission. (2024). Electricity price statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics
Gapminder. Natural Disasters. https://www.gapminder.org/topics/natural-disasters/
Gates, B. (2025a). Three tough truths about climate. Gates Notes. https://www.gatesnotes.com/three-tough-truths-about-climate
Gates, B. (2025b). Bill Gates on climate memo, global health, ‘doomsday’ talk. Heatmap. https://heatmap.news/climate/bill-gates-climate-memo
GlobalPetrolPrices.com. (2025). Germany electricity prices, March 2025. https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Germany/electricity_prices/
Golden Rice Project. (2024). The Golden Rice Project. https://www.goldenrice.org/
International Energy Agency. (2025). One billion Africans being harmed by cooking pollution. Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2025-07-billion-africans-cooking-pollution.html
ISAAA. (2025). Bangladeshi farmers gain higher yields and profits from Bt brinjal. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=21535
Just Stop Cooking. (2025). Just Stop Cooking | Juststopcooking. https://www.juststopcooking.org/
Mann, M. E. (2025). You can’t reboot the planet if you crash it. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/2025/10/you-cant-reboot-the-planet-if-you-crash-it/
McKibben, B. (2025). Climate Gates: Maybe we don’t need billionaire opinions on everything. https://countercurrents.org/2025/11/climate-gates-maybe-we-dont-need-billionaire-opinions-on-everything/
NDTV. (2025). Climate crisis won’t lead to humanity’s demise: Bill Gates. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/tough-truths-bill-gates-says-climate-change-wont-end-civilisation-9533827
Newsweek. (2025). Bill Gates delivers ‘tough truths’ on climate just before U.N. talks. https://www.newsweek.com/bill-gates-delivers-tough-truths-on-climate-before-u-n-talks-10951942
Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Viking. https://stevenpinker.com/publications/enlightenment-now-case-reason-science-humanism-and-progress
PubMed. (2025). Farmers’ intention to continue Bt brinjal adoption in Bangladesh. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40946267/
Rosling, H., Rosling, O., & Rosling Rönnlund, A. (2018). Factfulness: Ten reasons we’re wrong about the world—and why things are better than you think. Sceptre. https://www.gapminder.org/factfulness-book/
United Nations. (2024). THE 17 GOALS: Sustainable Development. http://sdgs.un.org/goals
von Storch, H. (2022). Democratic decision making and the role of (climate) science. https://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/171106.koeln.pdf
WePlanet Africa. (2025). JUSTSTOPCOOKING. https://weplanetafrica.org/project/juststopcooking/

Science Week in Uganda – Education for the Future of Africa

Amardeo Sarma — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:05:06 GMT

As a founder of the nonprofit Scientific Temper, I see promoting science, critical thinking, and humanism as universal tools for empowerment. In his 1946 book The Discovery of India, India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, described scientific temper as:

“The scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind—all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems.”

To bring scientific thinking to everyone, we must harness the transformative power of science-based education, particularly in regions where access to it is limited.

Initiatives such as Science Week at Kasese Humanist School in Uganda, which took place a month ago, deserve our support. The project nurtures curiosity, critical thinking and rational enquiry from an early age, fostering a world in which science and humanism can flourish globally.

Science Week at the Kasese School and Why it Matters

In September 2025, the Kasese Humanist School in Uganda hosted its Science Week – a celebration of curiosity, experimentation, and rational inquiry. This event brought together students, teachers, and community members to explore the power of science in shaping a better future.

Science Week is more than a school event – it is a statement of values. It promotes critical thinking, hands-on learning, and the joy of discovery. In a region where access to scientific education is limited, initiatives like this empower young minds and foster resilience.

The German non-profit organisation Scientific Temper gUG provided financial support and encouragement for the Science Week. We particularly admire the Kasese Humanist School for embodying our values of promoting universal critical thinking and science-based education, as reflected in its motto: ‘With science, we can progress’.

Investing in grassroots education and encouraging rational inquiry from an early age is one of the most valuable contributions to our shared future, and we urge others to join us in this endeavour.

Africa as a Continent of Opportunity

Africa is rich in both resources and potential. Education is the key to unlocking this potential. Investing in science education will empower African students to drive innovation, address local issues and engage in global conversations. It is encouraging to see the engagement and commitment of the school’s director, Robert Bwambale Musubaho, and his team as they lead the way into this future.

Impressions from Kasese

Students exploring basic chemistry during Science Week

Teachers, students, and community members celebrating the Science Week.

Closing Thoughts

Scientific temper begins with education. In Kasese, we see the seeds of a future where reason, science, and humanism can flourish – not just in Uganda, but across the continent.

Visit the school’s website, where you can also make a direct donation, such as sponsoring a child.

We hope to see more such initiatives worldwide.

Coming Next

This is my first post focusing on promoting scientific temper around the world. I will also be posting about the importance of critical thinking, defending science against attacks from all sides, and debunking popular myths that do not align with scientific evidence. Last but not least, I will write about my German book, Scientific Temper, particularly for those who don’t read German.

You can find articles and information in English and German on our website, where you can also support our work.

---

Subscribe to stay informed about our global education initiatives and upcoming reflections on science and society.