HOW MUCH SUBWAY SURFER COINS DO U HAVE

DON POLLO | Quizalize

Environmental Protection — Vocabulary Quiz (B1+) 🧠 1. What does “renewable energy” mean? a) Energy that never runs out and comes from nature 🌞 b) Energy that comes only from coal and oil c) Energy that can’t be used again d) Energy made from plastic ✅ Correct answer: a) Energy that never runs out and comes from nature 🌞 🧃 2. What are “single-use plastics”? a) Plastics that can be recycled many times b) Plastics used once and then thrown away 🚯 c) Plastics that last forever d) Plastics used only for energy production ✅ Correct answer: b) Plastics used once and then thrown away 🚯 🗑️ 3. What is “waste”? a) Things we eat b) Things we throw away because we don’t need them ♻️ c) Energy from the sun d) Clean water and air ✅ Correct answer: b) Things we throw away because we don’t need them ♻️ 🌱 4. What does “reduce” mean in the context of environmental protection? a) To use more of something b) To make or use less of something 🔽 c) To destroy nature d) To create pollution ✅ Correct answer: b) To make or use less of something 🔽 ♻️ 5. What does “recycle” mean? a) To use materials again instead of throwing them away b) To burn plastic waste c) To stop using energy d) To clean streets ✅ Correct answer: a) To use materials again instead of throwing them away 💬 6. Choose the correct sentence: a) We should recycle waste to protect the environment. ✅ b) We should throw away all plastic bottles. c) Renewable energy is bad for nature. d) We need more single-use plastics in our cities. ✅ Correct answer: a) We should recycle waste to protect the environment. 🌿 7. Fill in the blank: We can ______ pollution if we use public transport and save electricity. a) recycle b) reduce c) waste d) throw ✅ Correct answer: b) reduce 💡 8. True or False: “Solar and wind power are examples of renewable energy.” ✅ Answer: True ☀️💨 🏆 9. Which of these actions helps protect the environment the most? a) Using renewable energy b) Buying single-use plastics c) Producing more waste d) Throwing rubbish in the street ✅ Correct answer: a) Using renewable energy 🌎 10. Complete the sentence: People should ______ paper, glass, and plastic to keep the planet clean. a) waste b) reduce c) recycle d) ignore ✅ Correct answer: c) recycle

Create MCQs from this text "For as long as we can remember, innovation has been a top priority—and a top frustration—for leaders. In a recent McKinsey poll, 84% of global executives reported that innovation was extremely important to their growth strategies, but a staggering 94% were dissatisfied with their organizations’ innovation performance. Most people would agree that the vast majority of innovations fall far short of ambitions. On paper, this makes no sense. Never have businesses known more about their customers. Thanks to the big data revolution, companies now can collect an enormous variety and volume of customer information, at unprecedented speed, and perform sophisticated analyses of it. Many firms have established structured, disciplined innovation processes and brought in highly skilled talent to run them. Most firms carefully calculate and mitigate innovations’ risks. From the outside, it looks as if companies have mastered a precise, scientific process. But for most of them, innovation is still painfully hit-or-miss. What has gone so wrong? The fundamental problem is, most of the masses of customer data companies create is structured to show correlations: This customer looks like that one, or 68% of customers say they prefer version A to version B. While it’s exciting to find patterns in the numbers, they don’t mean that one thing actually caused another. And though it’s no surprise that correlation isn’t causality, we suspect that most managers have grown comfortable basing decisions on correlations. Why is this misguided? Consider the case of one of this article’s coauthors, Clayton Christensen. He’s 64 years old. He’s six feet eight inches tall. His shoe size is 16. He and his wife have sent all their children off to college. He drives a Honda minivan to work. He has a lot of characteristics, but none of them has caused him to go out and buy the New York Times. His reasons for buying the paper are much more specific. He might buy it because he needs something to read on a plane or because he’s a basketball fan and it’s March Madness time. Marketers who collect demographic or psychographic information about him—and look for correlations with other buyer segments—are not going to capture those reasons. After decades of watching great companies fail, we’ve come to the conclusion that the focus on correlation—and on knowing more and more about customers—is taking firms in the wrong direction. What they really need to home in on is the progress that the customer is trying to make in a given circumstance—what the customer hopes to accomplish. This is what we’ve come to call the job to be done. We all have many jobs to be done in our lives. Some are little (pass the time while waiting in line); some are big (find a more fulfilling career). Some surface unpredictably (dress for an out-of-town business meeting after the airline lost my suitcase); some regularly (pack a healthful lunch for my daughter to take to school). When we buy a product, we essentially “hire” it to help us do a job. If it does the job well, the next time we’re confronted with the same job, we tend to hire that product again. And if it does a crummy job, we “fire” it and look for an alternative. (We’re using the word “product” here as shorthand for any solution that companies can sell; of course, the full set of “candidates” we consider hiring can often go well beyond just offerings from companies.)"

A Choose the correct answer. 1 When his grandma died, he came ….. some of her money and property. A into C across B up D round 2 We should try to ….. the amount of rubbish in our area. A increase C provide B improve D reduce 3 I avoid driving to work because there are always ….. jams in the centre. A transport C power B traffic D station 4 By the end of the year, there will be more ….. farms in our city. A solar C floating B vertical D electric 5 Who is going to ….. our new piano? A deal C deliver B produce D construct 6 She doesn’t like being ….. in the house; she wants people around her. A healthy C lonely B crowded D alone 7 Why don’t you come ….. for dinner tonight? A up C over B into D back 8 Mr Jones has found the cure for a serious ….. . A disease C crime B pollution D poverty 9 Scientists are hopeful ….. the future of energy sources. A for C about B in D with 10 Do you think ….. tube trains will ever be used? A drone C charging B front D vacuum Grammar B Choose the correct answer. 1 I’ll still ….. two hours from now. A have gardened C garden B have gardening D be gardening 2 ….. you ….. your homework by 7 o’clock? A Will ... finish C Will … have finished B Will … be finishing D Won’t … finish 3 By 2100, experts ….. new energy sources. A will have discovered C will be discovering B will be discovered D will discover 4 The film will have started before we ….. there. A will have got C get B will get D will be getting 5 This time tomorrow, Sheila ….. a job interview. A will have C will be having B is having D will have had 6 David ..... back from work by dinner time. A will be coming C will have come B will come D won’t be coming 7 I can’t believe that in a few hours, we ….. our first live concert. A are performing C will have performed B will be performing D will perform 8 ….. next Friday, I will be flying to Glasgow. A This time C By B At D Until 9 Jake ….. by the end of September. A will retire C will have retired B is retiring D will be retiring 10 ….. the time Mum gets home, I will have tidied my room. A Before C Until B At D By Everyday English C Choose the correct answer. 1 A: How did you find that job? B: a I’ll be working in the local library. b I’ll be there from June 15th. c There was an advert online. 2 A: I can’t wait! B: a Sounds like fun. b I’ll work in my uncle’s restaurant. c I’ll stay there for two weeks. 3 A: Do you have any plans for the summer? B: a Really? b What about you? c Haven’t I told you? 4 A: What will your duties be? B: a I’ll be flying to London to see my uncle. b I’ll be helping customers. c I’ll have earned enough money to buy a new smartphone. 5 A: How long will you stay there? B: a Until the end of July. b Well, this time next week, I’ll be relaxing. c And what are your plans?

Changes. Things are always changing, like the clock, the weather, and even me. It seems nothing ever stays the same. My life has been full of changes. Sometimes I don't feel good about them, but then later it gets better. Taffy, my kitty, ran away. We have looked for him all over, but we cannot find him anywhere. I miss Taffy a lot, and I am sad. Dad says that we can get another kitty. That makes me feel better. I don't know what I will name him, but I will always remember Taffy. My best friend, Robin, just moved away. The moving van took away everything, and the house is empty. I wish Robin were here to play with me. Robin now lives in the mountains. I have never seen mountains, but they sound like fun to visit. Mom says we can take an airplane, so I can see Robin and play with her again. The day I started the new school year, I was scared of all the new children in my class. I was afraid that they wouldn't like me, and that I couldn't run as fast as they do. Now I am happy because I have made lots of new friends. I like Sarah and Ana, and Mary Lou, who makes me laugh. I love my class and my teacher. Mom just took a new job at an office downtown. She's not here when I come home from school. My Aunt Barbara is here to give me cookies and milk. Then I wait and wait for Mom to come home. When the hands of the clock point straight up and down, she comes home, and that makes me happy. Things are always changing, even with me. Yesterday I looked in the mirror. My face looked like a Halloween pumpkin because I lost my first tooth. I had a big surprise when I woke up this morning. My tooth was gone from under my pillow. There was a note from the tooth fairy and a whole quarter. I'm going to save it to buy some colored pencils. In school I learned that crawly caterpillars change into butterflies. And tiny acorn nuts grow into great big oak trees. Mom says that long ago, she was little like me. Do you think some day I will change and be a grownup? I think I will be an artist.

Name: Marco Ramirez - “I Am Not Batman” TW: language It’s the middle of the night. And the sky is glowing like mad radioactive red. And if you squint, you could maybe see the moon through a thick layer of cigarette smoke and airplane exhaust that covers the entire city like mosquito net that won’t let the angels in. And if you look up high enough you could see me-standing on the edge of a eighty seven story building. And up there-a place for gargoyles and broken clock towers that have stayed still and dead for maybe like a hundred years-up there is me. And I’m freakin Batman. And I gots Bat-mobiles and Bat-a-rangs and freakin Bat-caves like for real, and all it takes is a broom closet or a back room or a fire escape and Danny’s hand-me-down jeans are gone. And my navy blue polo shirt? – The one that looks kinda good on me but has a hole on it near the butt from when it got snagged on the chain linked fence behind Arturo’s but it isn’t even a big deal cause I tuck that part in and its like all good? –that blue polo shirt? – It’s gone too. And I get like, like transformational. And nobody pulls out a belt and whips Batman for talking back –-Or for not talking back –And nobody calls Batman simple –- Or stupid –- Or skinny –- And nobody fires Batman’s brother from the Eastern Taxi Company ‘cause they was making cutbacks, neither, ‘cause they got nothing but respect, and not like afraid-respect. Just like respect-respect. ‘Cause nobody’s afraid of you. Cause Batman doesn’t mean nobody harm. Ever. Cause all Batman really wants to do is save people and maybe pay Abuela’s bills one day and die happy and maybe get like mad famous. For real.…And kill the Joker. Tonight, like most nights, I’m all alone. And I’m watching…And I’m waiting… Like a eagle. Or like a –no, yea, like a eagle. And my cape is flappin’ in the wind (‘cause it’s freakin’ long), and my pointy ears are on, and that mask that covers like half my face is on too, and I got like bulletproof stuff all in my chest so no one could hurt me and nobody – nobody – is gonna come between Batman, And Justice. From where I am I could hear everything. Somewhere in the city there’s a old lady picking Styrofoam leftovers up outta a trash can and she’s putting a piece of sesame chicken someone spit out into her own mouth. And somewhere there’s a doctor with a whack haircut in a black lab coat trying to find a cure for the diseases that are gonna make us all extinct for real one day. And somewhere there’s a man, a man in a janitor’s uniform, stumbling home drunk and dizzy after spending half his paycheck on forty-ounce bottles of twist-off beer and the other half on a four hour visit to some lady’s house on a street where the lights have all been shot out by people who’d rather do what they do, in this city, in the dark. And half a block away from JanitorMan there’s a group of good-for-nothings who don’t know no better waiting to beat JanitorMan with rusted bicycle chains and imitation Lousiville Sluggers, and if they don’t find a cent on him – which they won’t – they’ll just pound at him till the muscles in their arms start burning, till there’s no more teeth to crack out. But they don’t count on me. They don’t count on no dark night (with a stomach full of grocery store brand macaroni-and-cheese and cut up Vienna sausages), Cause they’d rather believe I don’t exist, And from eighty-seven stories up I could hear one of the good-for-nothings say “Gimmethecash” real fast (like that) just “Gimmethefuckingcash” and I see JAnitorMan mumble something in drunk language and turn pale and from eighty-seven stories up I could hear his stomach trying to hurl its way out of his Dickies. So I swoop down like and fast and I’m like darkness. I’m like SWOOSH –- And I throw a Bat-a-rang at the one naked lightbulb –- And they’re all like “whoa-motherfucker-who-just-turned-out-the-lights?” –“What’s that over there?” –-“What?” –- “Gimme whatchou got old man” –- “Did anybody hear that?!” –- “No, really” –- “There ain’t. No. Bat.” – But then –- One out of three good-for-nothings gets it to the head! And number Two swings blindly into the dark cape before him but before his fist hits anything I grab a trash can lid and –-- Right into the gut, and number One comes back with a jump-kick but I know judo-karate too so I’m like –-- Twice –-- but before I can do any more damage suddenly we all hear a CLIC – CLIC –And suddenly everything gets quiet And the one good-for-nothing left standing grips a handgun and aims straight up, like he’s holding Jesus hostage, like he’s threatening maybe to blow a hole in the moon. And the good-for-nothing who got it to the head who tried to jump-kick me and the other good-for-nothing who got it in the gut is both scrambling back away from the dark figure before him. And the drunk man the JanitorMan is huddled in a corner, praying to Saint Anthony ‘cause that’s the only one he could remember. And there’s me, Eyes glowing white, cape blowing softly in the wind. Bulletporoof chest heaving. My heart beating right through it in a Morse code for “fuck with me, just once, come on, just try.” And the one good-for-nothing left standing, the one with the handgun, he laughs he lowers his arm, and he points it at me and gives the moon a break, and he aims it right between my pointy ears, like goalposts and he’s special teams. And JanitorMan is still calling Saint Anthony but he ain’t pickin’ up, And for a second it seems like…maybe I’m gonna lose. Naw. SHOO – SHOO! FUACATA! --“Don’t kill me man!” –“SNAP! – Wrist CRACK – Neck – SLASH! – Skin – meets – acid – “AHH!!” –And he’s on the floor. And I’m standing over him. And I got the gun in MY hands now. And I hate guns, I hate holding ‘em cause I’m Batman, and –Batman don’t like guns ‘cause his parents got iced by guns a long time ago – but for just a second, my eyes glow white, and I hold this thing, for I could speak to the good-for-nothing in a language he maybe understands…CLIC – CLIC…And the good-for-nothings become good-for-disappearing into whatever toxic-waste-chemical-sludge-shit-hole they crawled out of. And it’s just me and JanitorMan. And I pick him up. And I wipe sweat and cheap perfume off his forehead. And he begs me not to hurt him and I grab him tight by his JanitorMan shirt collar and I pull him to my face, and he’s taller than me, but the cape helps so he listens when I look him straight in the eyes and I say two words to him: “Go home.” And he does, checking behind his shoulder every ten feet. And I SWOOSH from building to building on his way there, ‘cause I know where he lives. And I watch his hands where he lives. And I watch his hands tremble as he pulls out his keychain and opens the door to his building. And I’m back in bed before he even walks in through the front door. And I hear him turn on the faucet and pour himself a glass of warm tap water And he puts the glass back in the sink. And I hear his footsteps, And they get slower as they get to my room. And he creaks my door open like mad slow. And he takes a step in, which he never does. And he’s staring off into nowhere, his face the color of sidewalks in summer, and I act like I’m just waking up, and I say, “What’s up, Pop?” And JanitorMan says nothing to me. But I see, in the dark, I see his arms go limp and his head turns back, like towards me, and he lifts it for I could see his face, For I could see his eyes, And his cheeks is dripping but not with sweat. And he just stands there, breathing, like he remembers my eyes glowing white. Like he remembers my bulletproof chest. Like he remembers he’s my pop. And for a long time I don’t say nothing. And he turns around, hand on the doorknob, and he ain’t looking up my way but I hear him mumble two words to me. “I’m sorry.” And I lean over and open my window just a crack.… If you look up high enough you could see me. And from where I am? I could hear everything.

Animal Rights and Diet Success Criteria I can explain key terms which describe the type of diets people have I can explain the advantages and disadvantages of different types of diet Animal Rights and Diet Match up the terms with the meaning Term Meaning Omnivore - eats fish but no other type of meat Vegetarian - eats most types of meat and vegetables Pescetarian - doesn’t eat any products that come from animals Vegan - doesn’t eat meat but will eat dairy products like milk Place the different diets on a spectrum All meat No animal products at all Vegetarian Vegan Omnivore Pescetarian Omnivore Omnivore Most people in the UK are omnivores Match the countries with the amount of meat eaten per person per year Country Meat per person per year India 9.9 kg USA 4.4 kg Bangladesh 120 kg UK 111.5kg Nepal 84.2 kg Australia 4 kg Numeracy How much meat is consumed in the UK per year? (Amount of meat eaten X the UK population) 2. How much meat is consumed in Bangladesh per year? (Amount of meat eaten X the Bangladesh population) Country Meat per person per year USA 120 kg Australia 111.5kg UK 84.2 kg Nepal 9.9 kg India 4.4 kg Bangladesh 4 kg UK – 64 million Bangladesh – 165 million http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/world-according-to-meat-consumption/ 7 Why do people eat meat? Discuss Tradition (their family has always done it) Culture (celebrations) Taste Convenience Nutrients such as B12, protein and iron Consumption of meat is rising across developing countries because higher incomes generally mean more meat eating. Pescetarian "Yeah, I'm a vegetarian." "But that looks like fish you're eating." "Oh yeah, I eat fish.“ An estimated 5% - 6% of people in the UK are pescetarians. How many people is this? Approx. 3.6 million Calculation – 66,000,000 /100 x 5.5 = 3,630,000 9 Which group is cuter? Animals Fish 10 People often don’t feel as much love for fish as they do for fluffy, cute mammals. The may think fish don’t feel pain. They may be fussy. They think fish isn’t meat. Not farmed as much as mammals; can be wild. To get nutrients they wouldn’t get from just vegetables and grains. (Omega 3 is in plants but in higher concentrations in oily fish) Why are people pescetarians? https://www.vegsoc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=753 http://articles.mercola.com/omega-3.aspx Fish – In a perfect world, fish can provide you all the omega-3s you need. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the fish supply is now heavily tainted with industrial toxins and pollutants, such as heavy metals which include mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium, PCBs, and radioactive poisons. These toxins make eating fish no longer recommended. 11 Vegetarianism Vegetarians will not eat any meat or product that comes from the slaughter of animals e.g. gelatine. About 3% of the UK population are vegetarian. How many people is this? 1.9 million 12 Why are people vegetarian? They don’t like the idea that animals are killed so they can eat Health reasons Don’t like meat Brought up vegetarian Environmental reasons Religious reasons (e.g. some Buddhist, Hindus) Watch the following clip twice. The second time, write down the fact which surprises you the most. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW6wfpHFdaI The World Health Organization has classified processed meats – including ham, salami, sausages and hot dogs – as a Group 1 carcinogen (same as smoking/alcohol) which means that there is strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork has been classified as a 'probable' cause of cancer. 13 Veganism Not just a diet Around 1% of the population of UK are vegans. A vegan is described by the Vegan Society as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals” Why are people vegan? Why are people vegan? James Aspey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a22XxXP3nU8 Warning: some of the content in this video clip may upset some viewers from 7:14 – 8:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqXeym7H8A Why are people vegan? “Don’t want bad karma” Feel healthier Reduce chances of diseases. Example heart disease. Don’t want to exploit animals Believe in animal rights Sustainability Environment Create a Table of Pros & Cons of Veganism Pros √ Cons - Create a Table of Pros & Cons of Veganism Pros Cons No animals have died for you to eat Some people think it is healthier Help the environment Fewer antibiotics/chemicals that are given to some animals Makes you feel good No vitamin B12 so have to supplement Harder to find food at shops or restaurants May be harder to get enough iron May be more expensive to get substitute meats Judged by family and friends Could put farmers out of business Group Work Source 1 Summarise it in your jotter Explain what the source is/what it says What does it suggest? What is your opinion? Feedback to rest of class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYyjel5VuHg Farmer’s Poem

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Don De Lillo

Related quizzes

Related quizzes