I’m reminded of an episode from the ozone hole saga: the original researchers who came up with the ozone depletion theory, Rowland and Molinda, discovered a caveat to their theory that would imply the effects of CFCs would be much less than they initially expected. they felt compelled by professional honor to publish these results, even though they cut against their original theory. as expected, the publication of these results (and from the original authors, no less) gave the CFC industry plenty of ammunition to say “look, see, they were wrong all along, haha”. however, their commitment to publishing their best understanding also earned them a lot of respect and many people who thought Rowland and Molina had already made up their minds to be anti-CFCs came to think more highly of them. ultimately, further evidence swayed the consensus back in the direction that CFCs were in fact bad for ozone. if Rowland and Molina had tried to cover up their tentative negative results, the ensuing distrust probably would have poisoned their results a lot (though it’s hard to evaluate this counterfactual)
(I’m working on a full length piece about the whole ozone hole saga, but this was so relevant that i felt a need to mention it.)
In the opposite direction, I think the Nuclear winter fears were inflated by Sagan and others, for political purpose, but those fears have endured to this day.
I’m reminded of an episode from the ozone hole saga: the original researchers who came up with the ozone depletion theory, Rowland and Molinda, discovered a caveat to their theory that would imply the effects of CFCs would be much less than they initially expected. they felt compelled by professional honor to publish these results, even though they cut against their original theory. as expected, the publication of these results (and from the original authors, no less) gave the CFC industry plenty of ammunition to say “look, see, they were wrong all along, haha”. however, their commitment to publishing their best understanding also earned them a lot of respect and many people who thought Rowland and Molina had already made up their minds to be anti-CFCs came to think more highly of them. ultimately, further evidence swayed the consensus back in the direction that CFCs were in fact bad for ozone. if Rowland and Molina had tried to cover up their tentative negative results, the ensuing distrust probably would have poisoned their results a lot (though it’s hard to evaluate this counterfactual)
(I’m working on a full length piece about the whole ozone hole saga, but this was so relevant that i felt a need to mention it.)
In the opposite direction, I think the Nuclear winter fears were inflated by Sagan and others, for political purpose, but those fears have endured to this day.
Excited about your upcoming ozone hole piece!