What climatology is not, is an excuse for planet-wide manipulations; neither is it a scare story, a source of sensational copy for journalists short of lines, or provider of disaster movie scenarios. The protection of Nature and the fight against pollution need no false climatic premisses to underpin them: their necessity is self-evident.
Let those who claim to knowledge of the ‘climate’ make sure that they know what they are talking about, and take time to learn the facts - and this includes some scientists, it must be said. The destiny of climatology is not to be a recreation, a supplier of news items and catastrophes: its destiny, as a science of Nature, is to resolve, objectively, disinterestedly, and responsibly, some of humanity’s fundamental problems.

In poche parole, la mia previsione a lungo termine è questa: le condizioni materiali di vita continueranno a migliorare - indefinitivamente - per la maggior parte delle persone, nella maggior parte dei paesi, per la maggior parte del tempo. Nel giro di un secolo o due, tutti i paesi e gran parte dell’umanità conosceranno un tenore di vita pari o superiore a quello di cui godono oggi i paesi occidentali. Qualcosa mi dice, tuttavia, che anche allora molti continueranno a pensare e a dichiarare che le condizioni di vita stanno peggiorando.

Julian Simon, 1997
Citato in Meadows, Donella Hager. I nuovi limiti dello sviluppo: la salute del pianeta nel terzo millennio. Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2006.

If you can’t prove what you want to prove, demonstrate something else and pretend that they are the same thing. In the daze that follows the collision of statistics with the human mind, hardly anybody will notice the difference. The semiattached figure is a device guaranteed to stand you in good stead. It always has.
You can’t prove that your nostrum cures colds, but you can publish (in large type) a sworn laboratory report that half an ounce of the stuff killed 31,108 germs in a test tube in eleven seconds. While you are about it, make sure that the laboratory is reputable or has an impressive name. Reproduce the report in full. Photograph a doctor-type model in white clothes and put his picture alongside. But don’t mention the several gimmicks in your story.
It is not up to you—is it?—to point out that an antiseptic that works well in a test tube may not perform in the human throat, especially after it has been diluted according to instructions to keep it from burning throat tissue. Don’t confuse the issue by telling what kind of germ you killed. Who knows what germ causes colds, particularly since it probably isn’t a germ at all?
In fact, there is no known connection between assorted germs in a test tube and the whatever-it-is that produces colds, but people aren’t going to reason that sharply, especially while sniffling.
Maybe that one is too obvious, and people are beginning to catch on, although it would not appear so from the advertising pages.