Maggie! What were you thinking!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
This is why politics is no real friend to science and vice versa. Her intent - energy security - was perfectly reasonable and advocating nuclear power was a wonderful solution both in terms of security and in terms of ecology. Using a fringe scientific issue to add legitimacy to her solution was a big mistake. This is a textbook example of unintended consequences. :(
Not entirely true. She may have picked up the ball and run with it, but she isn't the one who created it. A team of British scientists went to Antarctica to test a theory with regard to the ozone hole. They predicted a drastic thinning of the ozonosphere over Antarctica during its winter as a result of the greatly reduced UV radiation striking the upper atmosphere. No surprise, they were right and when they got back home they reported their findings and detailed how they intended to visit the Arctic the following winter and expected to observe a smaller "hole" there as a result of the lower levels of UV radiation. The BBC grabbed the story and reported "HOLES IN THE OZONE LAYER WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE" rather than the fact that the thinning of the ozoneosphere over the poles is a perfectly natural phenomenon. "Global warming" arose from that story and when it became clear it wasn't panning out, it became "climate change".
The irresponsible reporting of the BBC kicked off the craze.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|