Speech: Climate Change Between Social Pressure and Unpredictability

Today, I address you with a fundamental concern: the way we approach climate change. It is not only an environmental issue but also how the narrative around it has evolved into a dogma, difficult to question without receiving criticism or censorship. We must ask ourselves: Is climate change strictly a human phenomenon? Or is it a natural and chaotic process where human activity is just one variable within a complex system?

In the 1950s, Solomon Asch conducted an experiment revealing a fundamental psychological principle: social pressure can make individuals accept a falsehood if the majority upholds it as the truth. Today, in the climate debate, we observe a similar phenomenon. A dominant discourse tells us, Climate change is 100 percent caused by human activity. But what happens if someone questions this statement? The answer is clear: they are labeled as denialists or conspiracy theorists.

This is not the path of critical thinking or science. Science advances by questioning, reviewing data, and allowing the plurality of ideas. If consensus becomes an imposition, we stop doing science and fall into ideology.

The climate is a chaotic system, as demonstrated by the physics of the triple pendulum. A small change in initial conditions can lead to completely different and unpredictable outcomes. How can we state with absolute certainty that human activity is the primary cause of climate change if climate models themselves cannot accurately predict the system’s future?

Let us mention some natural factors that challenge the dominant narrative. Solar variability, where changes in radiation affect global temperatures. Ocean circulations, where phenomena like El Niño and La Niña drastically alter climate patterns. Volcanic activity, where eruptions can modify the climate for decades without human intervention.

If climate responds to chaotic and nonlinear dynamics, why do we claim that global warming has a single, predictable cause?

The true scientific method does not censor or impose unanimity. Science is not a matter of votes or pre-established consensus. The climate change debate must be open to fundamental questions. What is the real impact of human activity on climate change compared to natural factors? Why do certain climate models eliminate essential variables? Why is dissent penalized instead of promoted?

Climate change exists, but its study must be based on critical analysis, not fear or the repetition of an unquestionable narrative. It is time to open the debate, recover scientific skepticism, and remember that the truth is not imposed by consensus but demonstrated by facts.

If we want an informed and free society, we must allow ourselves to question, investigate, and debate without fear of censorship. Climate change should be studied with the rigor it deserves and not turned into a political dogma.

Thank you very much.