Her point, it seems, is to show that in
the cases of acid rain, CFCs, and environmental tobacco smoke, these men used the same argument: the science was uncertain, concerns were exaggerated, technology will solve the problem, no need for government interference.
Not exact matches
Carson's choice to deliberately increase her use
of uncertainty in «Silent Spring» came as a bit
of surprise since in the well documented
cases of tobacco,
acid rain, and global warming, it was the skeptic's strategy to amplify doubt, not the scientist's.
Drawing on
case studies
of past environmental debates such as those over
acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much
of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix
of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.
And on your thread in reply to my comment you called
acid rain damage deniers crackpots, so there is a definitional difference here for sure.Your last two sentences are key, as I think it would be part
of Judy's
case that the community are really pretty terrible at that — to the point
of being dogmatic, perhaps?
Acid rain effects would be greatly spread out not concentrated as in the
case of the use
of high sulfur coal.