From: camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Subject: RE: 1992 ANTARCTIC OZONE DEPLETION
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:20:38 GMT

In a previous article, len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) wrote:
>The way science works, if I understand correctly, is by researchers
>submitting their ideas and results to journals (or equivalent
>outlets) where they are refereed by knowledgeable people in the field,
>and then if accepted published.   Others then have a chance to comment
>on these ideas, and eventually a consensus develops on what is correct.
>Of course, this consensus does change over time, sometimes in radical
>ways, but almost always what was accepted as fact (as opposed to
>theory) before remains part of the core of the new consensus.
>This is hardly a perfect system, but it is hard to imagine how else
>to proceed.   Unfortunately, to understand these matters you have to
>have studied them in great depth, so to a large extent we must rely
>on experts.   I remember that
>when I was young there were still people who didn't want to accept
>the theory of relativity.   They raised points in objection, some
>of which seemed very reasonable if you didn't know much about the
>subject, they wrote books, etc.   However, they didn't get their
>ideas published in the Physical Review.
> 
>Not being an atmospheric chemist myself, while I have some thoughts of
>my own, I don't feel qualified to draw significant conclusions from
>such thoughts.  I would hope that anyone with serious scientific
>questions about the current consensus on ozone depletion would
>submit such thoughts for review by the appropriate peer reviewed
>journals.  In this news group, it would seem more appropriate for
>us to try to understand that scientific consensus (more as students
>than as participants in the research) and then perhaps to discuss
>how world governments and our government in particular should respond.
> 
>Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
>Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208


Yes, I agree, lets have more truly informed scientific debate and discussion.
However, from my perspective, the rationality of the peer review process
and scientific consensus can be lost when complex scientific issues
get transferred to the realm of public policy setting.

Even when there is consensus in the scientific community, there are 
usually residual uncertainties on any complex scientific issue, and there 
are always those who try to exploit the residual uncertainties to suit
their own agenda.

For example, we will never know with absolute certainty the magnitude 
of the effects of very low levels of radiation.  The scientific 
consensus is that they are small in relation to other hazards of
everyday life.  However, irrespective of the scientific consensus, fear
radiation is frequently exploitd in the public domain, with the residual
scientific uncertainty often being used to dignify scaremongering.

I welcome your call for us to "try to understand the scientific consensus
here".  I have enjoyed the recent postings on ozone depletion, that have been
informative, educational and even contain scientific data.

Where I part company with you is the suggestion that "we then perhaps...
discuss how world governments and our government in particular should
respond".  It is at this stage that the distortions, half truths and 
inuendo arise in the debate, and result in the generation of more heat
than light, here and in public policy setting.

So, let's emphasize real scientific debate and education.  I would then
be happy to be an observer until matters within my spere of scientific 
competancy were being discussed.


Don Cameron

                                ------

  "The crowd has never thirsted for the truth.  It turns aside from
   evidence that is not to its taste, preferring to glorify and
   follow error, if the way of error appears attractive enough and
   seduces them"

                   - Gustave le Bon -