Of course you're completely right. In fact, the biggest threat to humanity is other humans--and not through indirect effects such as pollution, but through dir

Of course you're completely right. In fact, the biggest threat to humanity is other humans--and not through indirect effects such as pollution, but through direct action such as war and terrorism. This is why the biggest problems facing humanity today are not scientific problems, but political. You cannot "fix" with science people who want to kill and destroy and conquer (unless you go the eugenics route, which is immoral--but, then, many people are). Humanity has already "solved" most of the scientific problems that threaten us. Vaccines, agriculture, HVAC, electric power, etc. We are not threatened by unavoidable disease, starvation or freezing, wild animals, etc. (Rare genetic disorders will probably always be with us; they are in their own category, not threatening all of humanity. And age-related diseases are also inevitable, at least to a degree.) Of course, in many parts of the world, people do suffer from these problems--but these are not caused by a lack of science or technology! They are caused by political problems, corruption, war, etc--in other words, people problems. And this gives the lie to the whole thing. A few moments of googling reveals the not-so-well-publicized statements by UN officials, IPCC members, NGO activists, etc, who admit--to their peers, in their private conferences--that the AGW/climate-change narrative is a "vehicle" to effect global policy change. International treaties and the UN are the means to their end, which is largely wealth redistribution (they say this explicitly). And this is why you find scientists who openly advocate misleading the public, because only by exaggerating risks and telling scary disaster stories will the media write about it, people read about it, and convince their government to do things. To them, the ends (their desired policies) justify the means (lying to the public). This is why we see stories saying that the storm of the week is caused by fossil fuels--nevermind that the actual data shows that, e.g. hurricanes are at a low. These people have such faith in their narrative that they think that they should lie to scare people into doing what they think people should do. In principle it's no different than any other authoritarian government scheme in history: a bunch of people who think they know best, and that the ends justify the means. Only, in this case, rather than actually forming an authoritarian government by force, they try to transform the system gradually from within by convincing the public that, if they don't make the government do what they say, disaster will strike us all. Of course, according to them, they're really being compassionate, wanting to end poverty and hunger--except in the process, they would cement themselves as a new class of global elites. They dream of UN councils run by trained philosopher-scientists who issue edicts (I'm not making this up--as much as it sounds preposterous, there are people who want this to happen; I'm not saying that it will). And this necessarily corrupts the process, as power corrupts people. And by centralizing the decision-making processes, it makes everyone vulnerable. This is why it's good to have individual nation-states, subdivided further into provinces, cities, etc: it compartmentalizes this "ship" we're all riding on, so that if one part is flooded by collision with an iceberg of bad ideas, the whole ship doesn't sink. But the hubris of those who would be elite is to think that they will get it right This Time ("right" defined by them, of course). Nevermind that the progress we have made in technology and stable political rule has been by decentralizing, not centralizing. And so the real battle is the battle for truth, and then understanding, and then wisdom. The truth is already out there--the data, the numbers, the history, etc. But there are so many who would hide and distort it, because they think they know best, and only by deceiving the masses can they steer the ship as they wish. In places like North Korea, they do this by owning the media, preventing outside influence, etc. In freer places, they do this by drowning out the truth, feeding the media falsehoods--and the media, motivated by ratings and views, will publish whatever gets eyeballs. And only a few people will go to the trouble to look behind the curtain. It's quite telling that your entirely reasonable comment is already gray. Not big surprise. At least writing is a good exercise. Keep fighting the good fight.