On 11/24/03 5:54 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
Singer wrote in 1995,
<< For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these
scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a
multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of
CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly,
the steps are postulated as follows (6):
1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the
atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.
2. Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and
thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.
3. A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar
ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.
4. Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.
Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently
substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably
conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science. >>
William Connolley is picking apart #1 above (the well-mixed point).
The context of the discussion is the POLITICAL controversy over the CFC
ban. Singer says it's not justified, because NOT ALL of the 4 points in
the chain of reasoning are correct. If even one is incorrect, he argues,
then the Montreal Protocol was unjustified.
It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
Singer.
Actually, it's "people who believe in science" vs. Singer.
Arguing that active chlorine doesn't destroy ozone catalytically, that ozone
doesn't absorb solar radiation, and that UV radiation doesn't cause skin
cancer is the same as arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry are
wrong. It's arguing that Newton, Einstein, Watson & Crick, Mendeleev, etc.
were wackos.
These are arguments that are BEYOND THE PALE of scientific debate.
It's not "environmentalists" vs. "others".
It is true that there is debate over the total effect of CFCs, what their
actual longevity is, exactly how variation in UV radiation changes cancer
rates, etc., etc. but Singer's claims are bogus.
Ed also wrote:
The big picture is:
* Some people say "the science is settled"
* Other people say "there is still a controversy"
That's a simplification so gross as to be a total misrepresentation of the
truth.
Under Ed's criteria, one could write
The big picture is:
* Some people say "the Holocaust happened"
* Other people say "there is still a controversy"
The big picture is:
* Some people say "Judaism is a valid religion"
* Other people say "Jewish people, you have to repent"
The big picture is:
* Some people say "Islamic countries are nations of human beings"
* Other people say they are "the principalities of darkness" with
"demonic"
people
Yes, I'm falling into the Godwin trap, but we don't present the existence of
the Holocaust as simply a dispute between different factions of historians.
We don't present Rev. Moon's stated opinions about Jews as an equal
counterweight in our entries on Judaism. Nor we we present General Boykin's
claims about Islam as an equal side in our entries on Islam.
Instead, we create a consistent, coherent picture of the world through our
interlocking articles. For example, if on one page we say that active
chlorine doesn't destroy ozone catalytically, that contradicts all the pages
that describe how chemistry works.