No, for solving the problems of environment and the social problems only the science is not enough. The science can be utilized to find the reason for the natural and social problems. But for solving the problem completely the need the cooperation from the humans. Because it is scientifically proved that the main cause of the environmental and the social is the humans. If the humans are continuing the bad activities such as use of motor vehicles, the use of the AC, use of the plastics etc.no one can protect the earth.
Almost eradicating Malaria. We would have it completely eradicated if the environmentalists would have kept their noses out of the business and not banned DDT based on the misconceptions of the book 'Silent Spring'.
What you call a 'misconception' is actually facing reality. those on your side of the fence admit this.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Justice and equality are undisputedly political and economic issues, not scientific. So the 'misconception' is definitely on the other foot. Now will you apologize to all the true scientists on this site?
Kano: When you research the subject thoroughly you will see that your assumption is wrong. The thought that CFC's caused a hole in the Ozone Layer was the prevailing thought by the scientists of the seventies and early eighties. Thus refrigerants, especially R12, were banned and are even now banned in this country. During this time, of the seventies and eighties, a large hole in the Ozone layer developed over Australia. Many of us scientists claimed that this was due to sunspot activity, but we were shouted down by the 'intellectual crowd'. So CFCs were banned and the hole in the Ozone went away. There was much crowing and back slapping by the environmentalists. However, now an even bigger and deeper hole has opened in a different location and the scientists are want to come up with a reasonable answer. Look it up.
Science has solved a few problems and have made some 'problems' worse.....for example, Ethanol.
Science assured us that corn-based ethanol added to gasoline would result in cleaner/safer emissions. BUT....a couple of years later, it was determined that the stuff is even more toxic than regular gasoline.
I have yet to read/hear any apologies from the scientists who sold us that bill of goods.....yet we taxpayers continue to be forced to subsidize that crap....in all reality, involuntarily paying our own money to poison ourselves!
I guess we can consider the "Law of Evolution" and the "Law of AGW"! But they aren't laws. When science can define 'climate change' and 'global warming' in a text that all can understand (instead of implying them), only then will science be understood and acknowledged. There are too many fallacies involved when it comes to people like Mann, Hansen, and Gore to actually matter to climate science.
Sage: DDT was nasty. It has been linked to preterm births, early pregnancy loss, developmental problems with motor control and cognitive skills, problems of the thyroid, diabetes, etc. The question you'd have to answer is whether the problems caused by the use of DDT outweigh the benefits. And that would be highly speculative.
But, well, has *any* major problem ever been solved *purely* by science?
- Small pox, polio, spanish flu, infections, thousands of other items.
Denialists have trouble differentiating politics from science, partly because they often don't have a very good knowledge or understanding of either. Many of the low-level wannabes here can't even write English at a high school level (though some may still be in high school!).
Yes the clean air acts, and the Montreal accord on ozone CFC's were examples of science and political policy's working well.
However this is a fiasco over CO2, science knows that the warming carried out by CO2 was almost all done at levels prior to industrialization, and further CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels has little effect on warming our climate but a huge effect on plants and greening our planet.
Eradication of smallpox.
There's this common misconception among a lot of denialists that, because political solutions (laws, treaties, taxes) are being proposed for AGW, that means it's a purely or largely political issue, rather than a mostly scientific issue.
But, well, has *any* major problem ever been solved *purely* by science? Has any major problem been solved without some kind of laws, public funding, international agreements, or the like? Or is the usual pattern that science identifies a solution to a problem, then policy-makers implement it, or something like that?
And, given that, isn't it a lot more fruitful to debate *what* political solution is best, rather than simply whether there should even *be* a political solution?
