Food & Drink2 mins ago
Today Thousands Of School Children Across The World Go On A One Days Climate Change Strike.
229 Answers
https:/
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What Awards- //in 1941, the American Chemical Society gave Midgley its highest award, the Priestley Medal.[16] This was followed by the Willard Gibbs Award in 1942. He also held two honorary degrees and was elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 1944, he was elected president and chairman of the American Chemical Society.//
No doubt, none of those awards meet with your approval. Save you telling me.
No doubt, none of those awards meet with your approval. Save you telling me.
Just to re-emphasise that CFCs and leaded petrol were bad, if you like, for two different reasons. Leaded petrol in particular was a travesty: it was well-known that lead was poisonous, and it took no time at all for workers at the factory to die as a result of fatal lead exposure. But the industry simply hushed that up and started one of the most dishonest and destructive campaigns in history to try and portray lead as somehow beneficial in the face of all the evidence. But that was a matter of money talking, rather than science. It's simply a complete fabrication, then, to suggest that there was any "consensus" that leaded petrol was safe. The problem was ignored, until somebody noticed it by pure accident when they were investigating a completely different project.
CFCs, on the other hand, were bad because they were new and their effects were not properly understood. I am not sure of the full timing but I suspect that the ability to observe and closely monitor the ozone layer is comparatively recent, even if the existence layer itself was already known. No-one could have plausibly foreseen that CFCs would be so destructive to ozone, and Midgley and others can be forgiven then for developing and producing it. The "consensus" in this case, such as it existed, was therefore built of ignorance rather than evidence: there was clearly no basis for the conclusion that CFCs were safe, but nor had there been sufficient research to establish its possible risks.
Then that research happened, in what I can only describe as a surprise or a shock to the original discoverers of the ozone hole; and once it was tracked down, of course the industry again resisted -- and indeed still resists, to a limited extent -- any attempts to take the obvious step of removing CFCs from use.
Both of the stories, then, do not demonstrate even remotely a failure of the scientific consensus. I'm sure you can find examples where the consensus genuinely *has* failed, mind -- but when it comes to environmental impacts, the story is almost invariably that the scientists, more or less quickly, discover the problem, and then the politicians refuse to take the necessary action because it would be "too expensive", which means that their main source of campaign funds wouldn't wear it.
CFCs, on the other hand, were bad because they were new and their effects were not properly understood. I am not sure of the full timing but I suspect that the ability to observe and closely monitor the ozone layer is comparatively recent, even if the existence layer itself was already known. No-one could have plausibly foreseen that CFCs would be so destructive to ozone, and Midgley and others can be forgiven then for developing and producing it. The "consensus" in this case, such as it existed, was therefore built of ignorance rather than evidence: there was clearly no basis for the conclusion that CFCs were safe, but nor had there been sufficient research to establish its possible risks.
Then that research happened, in what I can only describe as a surprise or a shock to the original discoverers of the ozone hole; and once it was tracked down, of course the industry again resisted -- and indeed still resists, to a limited extent -- any attempts to take the obvious step of removing CFCs from use.
Both of the stories, then, do not demonstrate even remotely a failure of the scientific consensus. I'm sure you can find examples where the consensus genuinely *has* failed, mind -- but when it comes to environmental impacts, the story is almost invariably that the scientists, more or less quickly, discover the problem, and then the politicians refuse to take the necessary action because it would be "too expensive", which means that their main source of campaign funds wouldn't wear it.
A little info on Funbag the saint
https:/
https:/
Interesting that you focus implicitly on the first part of that article, rather than the concluding thought that "In the end, we suspect that the four flights generated by her trip to the US have been more than offset by shamed people who have since forgone flying."
Not to mention, of course, the fact that she's merely asking us all to pay attention to the scientists' warnings, and to reality as it is around us. None of which is undermined by a boat trip.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that she's merely asking us all to pay attention to the scientists' warnings, and to reality as it is around us. None of which is undermined by a boat trip.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.