Main Page Contact Register Log In


I can totally imagine a scenario where there is much more incentive to publish papers supporting the theory, and whoever does not support it gets ostracized by the academic community. We have seen many examples of this kind of thing happen, for example in medicine (when for many years the accepted hypothesis was that it is fat that contributes to obesity, and people who suggested it could be simple carbs where ridiculed and their research was shunned). There are many other examples. Various medical guidances tend to completely change every once in awhile. So this kind of phenomenon definitely exists in some sciences.

That said, common sense tells me that pollution is bad regardless of whether or not it causes global warming, and I'd like to see it taken under control.






That said, common sense tells me that pollution is bad regardless of whether or not it causes global warming, and I'd like to see it taken under control.

This is generally correct but CO2 emission may conceivably be an exception. Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is supposed to stimulate growth of vegetation and assuming there are no other significant effects (such as GW), moderate increases in CO2 levels might be a plus.
71%
melian
stars0
Replies (0)


I too have the same question as melian. Would CO2 be considered pollution if it doesn't cause global warming? Would visible light pollution be in the same category - ('common sense tells me that pollution is bad')? How about radio spectrum pollution?
62%
is4junk
stars0
Replies (1)