[andyjohnson0]

> Another reason the Reagan took it seriously was that Margret Thatcher vouched for the science and that it was serious. > Before becoming a politician Thatcher was a research chemist (she studied X-ray crystolography under Dorothy Hodgkin) and so understood the science behind it all.

It's worth clarifying that Thatcher's study of crystallography was for her final-year undergraduate dissertation at Oxford. She got a second-class degree in Chemistry, and this was her only earned academic qualification. She did nothing that would be regarded as academic research. As for her work after graduation, she worked for just four years as an industrial chemist at a company that made plastics, before starting a legal career.

There is no evidence that she had any particular knowledge of atmospheric science. Perhaps her degree gave her an understanding of chemistry at an undergraduate level, but I'm always a little irritated by her being described as a "scientist" or that she did "research". I don't think that either claim is true.

[JoeAltmaier]

Was her knowledge and familiarity with the subject better than Reagans? Maybe that's why he believed her. She knew some of the societal costs (being a world leader) and some of the science too.

Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with.

[andyjohnson0]

> Was her knowledge and familiarity with the subject better than Reagans?

Based on my memory of Regan and a quick review of his educational achievements, I'd say you're probably right.

> Maybe that's why he believed her.

World leaders don't usually take scientific advice from people with just a bachelor's degree. Especially when said world leader is the head of a government that has multiple world-class national laboratories, a space agency, and employs tens of thousands of highly qualified scientists. If Thatcher influenced Regan's thinking on the ozone hole then I suspect it's because he recognised her as a fellow social conservative, not because of anything she might have been able to say about the catalysis of O3 to O2.

> She knew some of the societal costs (being a world leader) and some of the science too.

As a prime minister who famously stated in public that "there is no such thing as society", and who presided over the miner's strikes, I find it hard to believe that she knew much about "societal costs".

> Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with.

That's not what ad hominem means. I wasn't taking issue with her character (I never knew her), I was taking issue with her (as a public figure with political policies) being factually described as a "scientist" who did "research".

[noneeeed]

By that point Reagan and Thatcher were close political allies and friends. From everything I’ve read about this that is the biggest part of it. She convinced him that this was a serious issue and that the scientists were not being hyperbolic scaremongers, a common attack thrown at any experts bring predictions of bad things to come.

[noneeeed]

Yes, that’s the point I was making. I believe he was sceptical initially. They were friends and she had enough scientific knowledge to understand the data being presented and the mechanisms behind it. Therefore she was able to convince him that it was a serious issue.

[andyjohnson0]

Independently of the above, and as someone who grew up working class in the north of England during her time as prime minister, she was one of the most obstinately dogmatic and malign people ever to have gained serious political power in the UK in the twentieth century. We would do well not to valorise her.

[noneeeed]

I’m not valorising her. Even her green period was short lived and ultimately ended due to her political convictions being stronger than her critical thinking skills. It makes it worse, that she had the knowledge to understand the impacts, but chose politics over doing the right thing.

[andyjohnson0]

My apologies. My remark about not valorising her was a general one that I wanted to keep separate from my response to @JoeAltmaier. I'm happy to clarify that it wasn't addressed at you.

[noneeeed]

Oops, sorry, I think I got a bit lost in the comments.

[noneeeed]

This is all true, but I don’t see why that means she couldn’t get her head around the chemistry of how CFCs destroy ozone, or the mechanisms behind climate change, or indeed that she lacked the skills to understand the data and models she was being presented with.