  The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability
for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of
human culpability. It is not the number of authors of a paper, which validates
its scientific content. The use of probability to assert the degree of
certainty with respect the global warming problem is shown to be misleading.
The debate about global warming has taken on emotional tones driven by passion
and irrationality while it should be a scientific debate. The degree of
hostility used to mull any dissonance voice demonstrates that the current
debate has acquired a quasi-religious nature. Scientists are behaving as
priests in their will "to save the planet". We are facing a dangerous social
phenomenon, which must be addressed from the social point of view. The current
unanimity of citizens, scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians
is intrinsically worrying. The calls to sacrifice our way of life to calm down
the upset nature is an emotional ancestral reminiscence of archaic fears, which
should be analyzed as such.
