Question

When Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland first presented their findings about the threat of CFCs, the industrial chemists who developed CFCs scoffed at their warnings. They argued that CFCs were known to be very nonreactive. Would you categorize the reaction of these scientists as science or pseudoscience? Explain.

Answer 1

The initial skepticism by industrial chemists was based on known nonreactivity of CFCs, but further evidence, such as the ozone hole, verified the threat of CFCs, leading to the global acceptance of the science and the adoption of the Montreal Protocol.

Step-by-step explanation:

The reaction of the industrial chemists who developed chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to the findings of Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland can be categorized as an initial scientific skepticism rather than outright pseudoscience. The chemists relied on the then-known property of CFCs being very nonreactive as a basis for questioning the new findings on ozone depletion. However, upon further observation and evidence, including the measurable 'hole' in the ozone layer over Antarctica and the subsequent international response that led to the Montreal Protocol, the scientific community recognized the validity of Molina and Rowland's work. The protocol helped phase out the production of chemicals linked to ozone destruction, demonstrating a successful case of global cooperation to tackle environmental issues.

Answer 2

The reaction of the industrial chemists was not scientific. It would be categorized more accurately as pseudoscience.

The industrial chemists showed bias when they scoffed at evidence concerning the CFCs.

The industrial chemists allowed their beliefs about the characteristics of CFCs to take precedence over data concerning CFCs

Step-by-step explanation: