Forty four years ago, on this day, March 17th, 1982
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that since 1977, at the beginning of the Carter Administration, there had been workshops, seminars, conferences etc. By 1982 A LOT was known.
The specific context was that this research was having precisely zero impact on policymakers, who were Reaganaut nutjobs
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty and that we had our chances and we blew them.
What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. And climbing. And so did the concentrations.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was by about 1976-77 especially people within the senior levels of the United States science establishment – I’m thinking specifically of Alvin Weinberg, but it’s not just him – were really thinking hard about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. So perhaps one of the key documents that I need to think about more is the August 1976 report from Oak Ridge.
Anyway, there had been the Miami Beach meeting in 1977 and now more and more conferences and meetings, scientific workshops, all in the hope that the politicians could be persuaded to take it all seriously. And at this point, of course, the idea of synfuels were still in the mix as a response to the second oil shock.
The specific context was that the first world climate conference had happened, and there was money from the Department of Energy for these sorts of workshops.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in 1980 to be taking action (as per the CO2 Newsletter).
What happened next. More meetings. The crucial event was the election of Ronald Reagan that basically put the kibosh on all the effort, or most of the political policy efforts within the US.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
“On March 6, 1996, Michael MacCracken submitted prepared testimony to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. One part of that testimony addressed recurring criticism by the skeptic scientists of IPCC findings that corroborate increased atmospheric warming and attribute that increase to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.
Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 198
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was with the coming of the climate issue in 1988, the denial campaigns had cranked into gear. Initially it was attacks on James Hansen, but by 1989 it had spread thanks to outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, which had been set up to shill for Star Wars, the Space Defence Initiative, and outfits like Western Coal Association and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment.” Things had really cranked into higher gear in 1994-95 because the IPCC second assessment report was being produced, and the denialists needed to attack it and cast doubt on it as much as they could.
The specific context was that the Second Assessment report had come out in November of ‘95 and had included the fateful phrase that humans were already exerting a “discernible” influence on the climate. I think the wording had been suggested by Bert Bolin.
Anyway, here’s one of the good guys, Mike McCracken trying to educate congresspeople about scepticism, science, climate, etc.
What I think we can learn from this is that the denialist campaigns are partly about rich white men wanting to stay rich. They also provide a platform for superannuated scientists like Nirenberg and Seitz and Singer to feel that they are somehow still relevant when frankly they’re not – or certainly not relevant scientifically, but somehow manage to have an enormously pernicious influence for the future of our species.
Though, to be fair, even without the denialist campaigns, we would have probably still fumbled the ball. We’ll never know.
What happened next. The denialist campaigns kept going. Within a year or two, they’d found what they thought was “soft target” in their ongoing “Serengeti Strategy” – Michael Mann, and the caravan went on.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Forty three ago, on this day, March 1st, 1983, the scientists had been sciencing.
March 1 to 8 1983 WMO ICSU meeting of WCRP in venice
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had begun to really think hard about carbon dioxide build up as a problem in the late 60s. There had been a two or three week scientific meeting in the middle of 1971 about man’s impact on climate. By the mid 1970s, the World Meteorological Organisation was saying carbon dioxide was probably the problem. And in 1979 it had held the First World Climate Conference, which could – and should – have said, “carbon dioxide is the problem.” But for opposition from people like John Mason.
The specific context was that by 1983 people were beginning to twig to this. There had been the Charney report and so forth, and various international efforts, a meeting with the ICSU as well. In a place like Venice! It would have been fun to be a fly on the wall.
What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists were beavering away, as scientists do, and by the mid 1980s really, the verdict was in.
What happened next. The big, seminal moment, pivotal moment, according to people who know about these things, was Villach. Maybe Villach wasn’t quite so important scientifically, but it certainly was politically, and you can read about it here. LINK
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Seventy three years ago, on this day, February 27, 1953, Canadian scientist Gilbert Plass gives a presentation at Simon Newcomb Astronomical Society –
Henry, F. 1953. Question of Eras, Tropical or Glacial. Baltimore Sun, March 1, p71
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that in the late 19th century, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius had suggested that carbon dioxide buildup would eventually warm the planet. He didn’t think this was a bad thing, and he thought it would take 1000s of years or hundreds at least.
Arrhenius’ predictions had been challenged.
In 1938 a British steam engineer called Guy Callendar, had moved the dial a little bit, perhaps, and had said that the warming was indeed already happening. This was mostly ignored in the UK, but some Americans were getting interested.
The specific context was that so were Canadians. Gilbert Plass was originally Canadian, and he had been working on this, and was going to be speaking at the American Geophysical Union meeting in May.
And here he is, about two months beforehand, testing out his presentation on a smaller audience, a less scientifically robust one
What I think we can learn from this is that Plass didn’t just turn up on the fourth of May cold. He had tested out his argument and his presentation beforehand, which I think is kind of interesting, but I would because I’m the guy who has discovered this, and as anyone knows, who rustles around a lot in archives, just because you found something, doesn’t mean it’s important or significant. There is not a one to one relationship between the amount of effort you’ve expended and the importance of what you found.
What happened next: Plass gave his speech at the AGU which went around the world. Plass released more scientific studies and also something in American Scientist and Scientific American in 1959. Pllass was there in 1963 at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting in New York, and that was about it for Plass. He went on to other things; he’d said what he had to say. The emissions kept climbing. Concentrations kept climbing. You know, the rest…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, February 20, 1979 the following was published –
“An Assessment of the Possible Future Climatic Impact of Carbon Dioxide Increases Based on a Coupled One-Dimensional Atmospheric-Oceanic Model” Hunt and Wells
A radiative-convective equilibrium model of the atmosphere has been coupled with a mixed layer model of the ocean to investigate the response of this one-dimensional system to increasing carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere. For global mean conditions a surface temperature rise of about 2°K was obtained for a doubling of the carbon dioxide amount, in reasonable agreement with the commonly accepted results of Manabe and Wetherald. This temperature rise was essentially invariant with season and indicates that including a shallow (300 m) ocean slab in this problem does not basically alter previous assessments. While the mixed layer depth of the ocean was only very slightly changed by the temperature increase, which extended throughout the depth of the mixed layer, the impact of this increase on the overall behavior of the ocean warrants further study. A calculation was also made of the temporal variation of the sea surface temperature for three possible carbon dioxide growth rates starting from an initial carbon dioxide content of 300 ppm. This indicated that the thermal inertia of the slab ocean provides a time lag of 8 years in the sea surface temperature response compared to a land situation. This is not considered to be of great significance as regards the likely future climatic impact of carbon dioxide increase.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was the idea that carbon dioxide build-up could warm the planet goes back to Arrhenius in 1895. The idea got nudged forward by Guy Callendar in 1938 onwards, and then pushed to the next level by Gilbert Plass in 1953.
The specific context was that by the late 1970s, it was broadly agreed among the relevant scientific community that there was serious trouble ahead, and this is laid out in painstaking and painful detail in William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter, which I am releasing through the course of 2026.
What I think we can learn from this is that information on its own, the truth on its own, will not set you free.
What happened next: More studies, more emissions, more concentrations, spasms of protest, but no action worthy of the name to actually bend the emissions curve down, and certainly reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 via various so called draw down projects is a complete fucking fantasy.
And I didn’t have kids because the second half of the 21st Century is going to make the first half of the 20th look like a golden age of peace, love and understanding. But I’m standing here narrating this, looking at sparrows and finches and things and I guess it’s my job just to enjoy it for as long as I can. I suppose.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 14th, 1990,
“The command sequence was then compiled and sent to Voyager 1, with the images taken at 04:48 GMT on February 14, 1990.[19] At that time, the distance between the spacecraft and Earth was 40.47 astronomical units (6,055 million kilometers, 3,762 million miles).[20]”
From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it’s different. Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar”, every “supreme leader”, every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Voyager had been launched years earlier, and they turned round and looked at the earth and took the photo. There’s a nice story about how it got found, just like one pixel.
What I think we can learn from this is that beautiful images are sometimes found by accident. See also Earthrise in 1968 as pushed for by Stewart Brand.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Michiel van den Broeke, Professor of Polar Meteorology at Utrecht University (longer bio at end of post) very kindly agreed to read William Barbat’s article “Glacier melt: How soon? How fast?” and explain what Barbat got right (and wrong) and where the science has gone in the almost 50 years since then. It’s a brilliant (imo) piece, and I hope you learn as much as I did. Please do share it, comment on it.
Professor van den Broeke
In the March 1980 edition of the CO2 NEWSLETTER, William Barbat reported about the threat of melting ice sheets and the rapid, multi-metre sea level rise that could ensue. Undoubtedly, Barbat had been triggered by the 1978 scientific publication of British glaciologist John Mercer (1922-1987), then employed at (what would later become) the Byrd Polar Research Centre of Ohio State University (Mercer, 1978). In his Nature article: “West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster“, Mercer pointed out that the increase in CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels would result in strong Antarctic warming, potentially leading to the disintegration of the large Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves. In the absence of their buttressing effect, the West Antarctic ice sheet would collapse, raising global sea levels by several metres.
Today’s cryospheric research relies heavily on three complementary techniques: in situ observations, satellite observations and numerical models. In situ observations are often scattered in space, but to their credit have relatively long time series (typically decades in the Polar Regions), indispensable for trend detection. They moreover provide ground truth for satellites and serve to evaluate/calibrate climate and ice sheet models. Satellites, on the other hand, with their limited mission lifetime of typically 5-10 years, produce short time series, but they have the advantage of near-complete spatial coverage, filling in the spatial gaps left by the in situ observations. Numerical models, once evaluated and/or calibrated with the in situ and remotely sensed observations, can help us isolating the physical processes at work and, when they perform satisfactorily, make credible future projections.
When Mercer published his study almost 50 years ago, he had to make do with very limited observations and crude models. Although the density of in situ observations in the polar regions increased sharply after the 1957/58 International Geophysical Year (IGY, also referred to as the Third International Polar Year), observations remained very scarce notably in the ice sheet interiors. While some satellites for earth observation, notably Landsat, were available at that time, time series were less than a decade long. For Earth’s cryosphere, the satellite era started in earnest more than a decade later, with the launch of European Space Agency‘s radar-equipped ERS-1 in 1991. Finally, in the late 1970’s, climate and ice sheet models were still in their infancy; the model projections of future Antarctic warming used in Mercer’s study were from Syukuro Manabe, who in 2021 was co-awarded the Nobel prize in Physics for his pioneering contributions to climate modelling.
In spite of this, both Mercer’s 1978 Nature paper and William Barbat’s 1980 report in the CO2NEWSLETTER highlight the remarkable body of knowledge on the world’s ice sheets that had been gathered. Their reported total volume expressed in sea level rise equivalent of 66 m only deviates by 1% from today’s numbers1. Estimates of sea level stands of 6 m above present during the last interglacial (~125.000 years ago) fall well within the range of current estimates (6 to 9 m) (Dutton et al., 2015). Other remarkably accurate statements concern the approximately 50/50 partitioning of meltwater runoff and iceberg calving as sink terms in the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet and the importance of ice shelf buttressing for grounded ice flow in Antarctica, which decades later was observationally confirmed after the sudden disintegration of Larsen B ice shelf in 2002 (Scambos et al., 2004). Mercer also correctly identified the apparent temperature threshold for the viability of Antarctic ice shelves, later corroborated by the demise of Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves after several decades of strong warming (Morris & Vaughan, 2013; Scambos et al., 2004). Also recently been confirmed is Mercer’s statement that a 5 K atmospheric warming could destabilize parts of the large Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves (Van Wessem et al., 2023).
Inevitably, these early reports also have flaws and large uncertainties, which the authors frankly admit. Lacking direct observations, and realising that around 1980 mass changes of both ice sheets were significantly smaller than they are today (IMBIE, 2018, 2020), not much could be said about the magnitude of mass loss of the ice sheets, let alone the processes that caused them. It would take the launch in 2002 of the satellite pair of the Gravity Anomaly and Climate Experiment (GRACE) before mass loss from both ice sheets was convincingly demonstrated (Velicogna & Wahr, 2005; Velicogna, 2006). GRACE also showed that the recent mass loss in Antarctica is concentrated in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas sectors, and is associated with ice shelf thinning owing to increased ocean melting at their base, rather than weakened buttressing of the Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves. Making projections based on scanty information proved even harder. Mercer’s assumption that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would double in 50 years was too pessimistic: atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 26%, from 337 to 426 parts per million, between 1979 and 2025. As a result, Antarctic warming remains far from the values reported in his paper.
This begs the question: if we were in Mercer’s shoes today, would we do much better in projecting the future of the Earth’s big ice sheets? Based on the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2021), my take is that the uncertainties are still surprisingly large and not so dissimilar to what they were in 1978. Since then, our knowledge and technical (observational, modelling) capabilities have of course expanded tremendously, but we have also identified numerous new unknowns. The net result is that future ice sheet mass change and associated sea level rise remain highly uncertain, and that we still may be in for unpleasant surprises from nonlinear processes leading to tipping points that are currently not or poorly understood. Given the complex interactions between atmosphere, ocean and ice sheets that straddle several orders of magnitude in temporal and spatial scales, it is clear that this deep uncertainty will not be resolved anytime soon. It thus seems fitting to conclude with the statement made by Mercer in his 1978 paper, which still firmly stands: “…despite the crudities and inadequacies of present techniques for modelling the climatic effects of increasing atmospheric CO2content and the resultant doubts […], we cannot afford to let the atmosphere carry out the experiment before taking action because if the results confirm the prognosis, and we should know one way or the other by the end of the century, it will be too late to remedy the situation…”.
Bibliography
Dutton, A., Carlson, A. E., Long, A. J., Milne, G. A., Clark, P. U., DeConto, R., Horton, B. P., Rahmstorf, S., & Raymo, M. E. (2015). SEA-LEVEL RISE. Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods. Science, 349(6244), aaa4019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4019
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.
Morris, E. M., & Vaughan, D. G. (2013). Spatial and Temporal Variation of Surface Temperature on the Antarctic Peninsula And The Limit of Viability of Ice Shelves. In Antarctic Peninsula Climate Variability: Historical and Paleoenvironmental Perspectives (pp. 61-68). https://doi.org/10.1029/AR079p0061
Scambos, T. A., Bohlander, J. A., Shuman, C. A., & Skvarca, P. (2004). Glacier acceleration and thinning after ice shelf collapse in the Larsen B embayment, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(18). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004gl020670
Van Wessem, J. M., Van den Broeke, M. R., Wouters, B., & Lhermitte, S. (2023). Variable temperature thresholds of melt pond formation on Antarctic ice shelves. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01577-1
Velicogna, I. a. J. W. (2006). Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica. Science, 311(5768), 1754-1756. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
Footnotes
1 Combining radar flight lines of ice thickness with mass conservation provide us with accurate estimates of the sea level equivalent volumes of the ice sheets of Greenland (7.4 m) and Antarctica (57.8 m), (Morlighem et al., 2017; Morlighem et al., 2019).
Michiel van den Broeke (Rotterdam, 1968) has been Professor of Polar Meteorology at Utrecht University since 2008, where he studies the interaction between the climate and the large ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Between 2016 and 2022, Michiel served as Scientific Director of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht (IMAU), where around 90 people work on developing a fundamental understanding of all components of the climate system.
“On February 10, 2006, the Friday of the week that George Deutsch resigned, Jim spoke at a conference on politics and science, sponsored by the New School for Social Research in Manhattan. (He was added at the last minute on account of his recent notoriety.) IN a talk derived from the Keeling talk, which was now about two months old, he decided to add a brief discussion of tropical storms, because the topic was “especially relevant to this conference.”
See these two pages from Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.
2006 Hansen at conference on science and politics at New School for Social Research (Bowen Censoring Science page 143)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Hansen had been abused, ignored, sidelined in 1989 by the George HW Bush administration, and had basically gone back to the lab (that’s no criticism of the man, btw).
The specific context was that by 2006 the climate issue was heating up again – the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified (thanks, Russia) – so the international negotiations were “back on”, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was underway, and Al Gore’s film was about to come out. Last summer (2005) Hurricane Katrina had hit New Orleans, with thousands dead.
What I think we can learn from this is that the Bush regime was full of assholes.
What happened next: Hansen started getting arrested at protests about coal plants and pipelines, and has kept on with the science.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1990.
Another reviewer of the Gribbin book, William Goulding (The Sunday Times, 28 January, 1990), quotes the late climate scientist and climate science communicator Stephen Schneider as saying: “scientific predictions are like ‘trying to gaze into a dirty crystal ball. By taking time to clean the glass you can get a better picture; but at some point it is necessary to decide that the picture is good enough to alert policy makers and the general public to the hazards ahead. That point has certainly been reached with studies of the greenhouse effect and the prospect of rising sea levels in particular.’” Unfortunately, that point seems to be forever receding into the future…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been measuring the impact of human activities, whether it was on air pollution, water pollution, ozone depletion, you name it, and had been trying to figure out how to raise the alarm without being called alarmist, and pondering where, when and how to speak out.
So you have the famous Shelly Rowland quote
“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”
Stephen Schneider was among them. In 1971 famously, he had co-authored a paper that got taken up as a when’s the new ice age happening, kind of thing to the dismay of some of his colleagues. I think it’s fair to say that Schneider leaned in. In 1976 he published the Genesis Strategy, He’d been on Johnny Carson (TV show). See also his efforts around the First World Climate Conference (Science as a contact sport)
The specific context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report was due out. (The IPCC had had its first meeting in November 1988). Meanwhile negotiations were clearly at some point going to begin for an international climate treaty. So here is Schneider, who was a very smart man, very thoughtful, trying to figure out when you pull the big lever.
You can also see him tackling the same issues about 10 years prior, in a 1979 Panorama video. I would love to know when this video was; I haven’t been able to track it down.
The interest was gratifying but more than a little ironic. “They won’t admit it but this means some kind of ban has been lifted,” Rowland said.
For as Rowland and others recount it, ever since 1974, when he and UCI postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina first theorized that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was being damaged by synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Rowland has paid a price for his ideas.
In part, that’s because Rowland didn’t just make his discovery, write up the results and quietly return to his lab.
Instead, shocked by the implications of his research, he took an unusual public stance–doggedly telling reporters, Congress, half a dozen state legislatures, and just about anyone who seemed interested that ozone loss could lead to skin cancer and catastrophic climatic change. And, again and again for more than a decade, he urged that CFCs be banned.
In doing so, Rowland took on a $28-billion-a-year industry whose products, ranging from home insulating materials to solvents for electronic equipment, have become an essential part of modern life.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
