Anti-disaster scientists challenge the promoters of the Climate Appeal: “Public confrontation”

A “public scientific confrontation” between ‘catastrophic’ and ‘anti-catastrophic’ scientists. To launch the proposal are the promoters of the Italian Petition on Climate who challenge the promoters of the Appeal for Climate, contained in the open letter that on has collected almost 200 thousand subscribers, to a public debate in “an institutional, academic or politics”.

The request is signed by eight professors: Alberto Crescenti, Professor of Applied Geology, former Rector and President of the Italian Petition on Climate, Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Mario Giaccio, Professor of Economics of Energy Sources, Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Geology, Giuliano Panza, Professor of Geophysics, Academician of the Lincei, Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Geology, Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics.

The position of the eight professors who signed the Italian Petition on Climate – an ‘anti-catastrophist’ document sent in 2019 to the highest political authorities to which the Nobel Prize for Physics Ivar Giaever and 1200 scholars in various scientific disciplines, including Earth Sciences, adhered. Physics and Chemistry – starts from the assumption that “the current climate is no different from hot periods that have already occurred in the historical and geological past and that extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods, landslides, landslides, have always existed and must be fought with prevention and adaptation, that is, with the care and planning of the territory and with water management “. For the supporters of the Italian Climate Petition, therefore, “it is harmful to undertake, with the illusory claim to govern the climate, actions to ban fossil fuels”, which “provide the resources for 85% of energy needs. of humanity: it was thanks to the availability of abundant and cheap energy that humanity enjoys the material well-being achieved today – they underline -, and less availability of energy means, in fact, reducing that well-being, that is, becoming impoverished “.

Moreover, they argue, “today there is no technology capable of making up for the energy offered to us by fossil fuels, if not in a marginal and insignificant way. Electronuclear technology has great potential, consolidated for over half a century of use in everyone. advanced countries (in the EU it is the first source of electricity generation, and in the US it is the second after coal). However, our country – unique in the world – has made the mistake of having abandoned it. sooner or later, it will have to be remedied. ”

For the ‘anti-catastrophist’ scientists “precisely because of this mistake, it is increasingly unthinkable that policies to reduce the use of fossil fuels should be undertaken in Italy. If we insist otherwise, we will pay dearly for the choice, including having resources that can be more usefully used for the prevention of natural disasters, for example strong earthquakes that we know with certainty could hit us at any time. On the contrary, as we made clear in our Italian Petition on Climate, the impact is not certain or even quantified on the climate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions “.

“On the occasion of the recent war, Italy’s wrong energy choices – the renunciation of nuclear power and the extraction of gas in the Adriatic, and the economic commitment to expensive and inefficient alleged alternative technologies – are emerging in all their drama – they underline – In any case, there is no justification for a policy of, so to speak, unilateral reduction of CO2 emissions: even if the European Union were to zero its emissions today, this could not have any of the expected consequences on the climate, given that EU emits less than 10% of global emissions “.

For all these reasons, the promoters of the Italian Climate Petition therefore challenge “to public scientific confrontation the Professors Carlo Barbante, Carlo Carraro, Antonio Navarra, Antonello Pasini and Riccardo Valentini, promoters of a recent Open Letter – they write – of which we do not share the science or the political proposal. The subject of the proposed debate will be the content of our Petition, on the one hand, and of their Letter, on the other. The place is an institutional, academic or political seat “.

“If the colleagues called to discuss intend to accept the challenge, please contact Professor Alberto Prestininzi, Italian Ambassador of the World Climate Declaration: ‘There is No Climate Emergency’ by the end of August. After this deadline, we will reluctantly consider our challenge has not been grasped “, conclude the teachers.