5 ms·

Also some of them are older and remember the "2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. Unfortunately the media has done a lot to poison the w

Also some of them are older and remember the "2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. Unfortunately the media has done a lot to poison the well on these topics, coupled with politicians all too happy to never let a crisis go to waste. Republicans yelling "small government" while trying to make a government big enough to police your bedroom. Democrats yell about stopping climate change and pump billions into crony companies that blow up and fail (all the while laundering taxpayer cash as campaign donations, republicans do this with defense groups). So you get leftists going "we shouldn't like, have new fighter jets man" and right ringers thinking global warming is a laundering scheme.

mafribe 10y ago
"2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. It would be an interesting object of study in the history of science to look at old papers in these fields, and at the structure of funding, who was benefitting from funding given to these research subjects, how political pressure was used to silence critics of the scientific merit e.g. forest dieback etc. In retrospect we know that none of the hypotheses held up. Why did they gain such a currency at the time? The "acid rain will destroy our forests" doom/gloom seems to have originated from a single person, Bernhard Ulrich [1] from the University of Göttingen. His dire warning gained immediate currency in a political climate where a new form of left-wing activism (now known as "Green Party" in various countries) was beginning to emerge. Political activists from the "Green" side of the spectrum effectively demonised all criticism of "acid rain will destroy our forests" and lead to generous funding for any research that seemed to corroborate the doom/gloom, triggering a self-reinforcing spiral. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Ulrich_(Forstwissenschaftler) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Ulrich_(Forstwissensc...
makomk 10y ago
Yeah. It's certainly interesting watching conservatives pointing to the fact that acid rail didn't turn into a catastrophe to justify their opposition to the kinds of emission limit that actually put a stop to acid rain in the first place.
- mafribe 10y ago
  This is indeed an important narrative, but it's not a priori clear that you can infer from "the forests are alive and healthy in 2017" to "If we had not instituted limits on sulfur pollution in the 1980s, the forests would be dead now. I grew up next to some of the world's largest coal-fired power plants that regularly featured in "worlds biggest polluters" lists. The forests were fine before flue-gas desulfurisation just as much as after. Some countries enacted flue-gas desulfurisation earlier than others. The forests were fine before flue-gas desulfurisation just as much as after. Anecdotal? Sure. But one wonders ...
dagw 10y ago
Certainly with acid rain, a lot of policies where put in place to try to reduce acid rain in response to those predictions. Any analysis about whether the predictions about acid rain where correct or not cannot be done without also studying the effects of those policies.

mafribe 10y ago

"2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. It would be an interesting object of study in the history of science to look at old papers in these fields, and at the structure of funding, who was benefitting from funding given to these research subjects, how political pressure was used to silence critics of the scientific merit e.g. forest dieback etc. In retrospect we know that none of the hypotheses held up. Why did they gain such a currency at the time? The "acid rain will destroy our forests" doom/gloom seems to have originated from a single person, Bernhard Ulrich [1] from the University of Göttingen. His dire warning gained immediate currency in a political climate where a new form of left-wing activism (now known as "Green Party" in various countries) was beginning to emerge. Political activists from the "Green" side of the spectrum effectively demonised all criticism of "acid rain will destroy our forests" and lead to generous funding for any research that seemed to corroborate the doom/gloom, triggering a self-reinforcing spiral. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Ulrich_(Forstwissenschaftler) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Ulrich_(Forstwissensc...

makomk 10y ago

Yeah. It's certainly interesting watching conservatives pointing to the fact that acid rail didn't turn into a catastrophe to justify their opposition to the kinds of emission limit that actually put a stop to acid rain in the first place.

mafribe 10y ago
This is indeed an important narrative, but it's not a priori clear that you can infer from "the forests are alive and healthy in 2017" to "If we had not instituted limits on sulfur pollution in the 1980s, the forests would be dead now. I grew up next to some of the world's largest coal-fired power plants that regularly featured in "worlds biggest polluters" lists. The forests were fine before flue-gas desulfurisation just as much as after. Some countries enacted flue-gas desulfurisation earlier than others. The forests were fine before flue-gas desulfurisation just as much as after. Anecdotal? Sure. But one wonders ...

dagw 10y ago

Certainly with acid rain, a lot of policies where put in place to try to reduce acid rain in response to those predictions. Any analysis about whether the predictions about acid rain where correct or not cannot be done without also studying the effects of those policies.