/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7298185
2. Banning the Lead in gasoline. Also there is a some uncertainty on the health effects of lead. Clair Patterson stood up against the entire automobile industry and the positive effect of banning lead in gasoline and children's toys are undeniable nowadays.

3. Banning the use of CFC in air conditioner. As a trained atmospheric chemist, this is very interesting to me. Back in the 70s, climate scientists literally wrote the catalytic ozone destruction very theoretically on a piece of paper. There is no lab experiment whatsoever. All they have is fundamental chemistry and atmospheric chemistry model that fits the observation of the ozone hole. They lobby really hard, based on their conviction that the ozone hole is in grave danger and fortunately the chemical companies managed to synthesize a replacement compound, HCFC and HFC so there is also an incentive for the chemical companies to ban CFC so more people will buy the newer air conditioning units.

Catalytic ozone destruction has never been observed experimetally in real life atmosphere nor even in laboratory test tube when they passed the Montreal protocol. But now we see and observe the obvious result that the ozone hole is recovering nicely following chemical model prediction.

The situation now is the same. We don't have complete understanding of the entire earth climate system and its response, but the fundamental hypothesis is more robust than any of the 3 examples I mentioned above. You should think of climate change intervention policy as similar to decision making in war. You won't have 100% absolute certainty, but there is a time when "we know enough" and it is time for real action