"Global warming" the biggest science scandal ever...

[Coach is Back!]

I stand corrected....















It was -6 hahahaha

http://www.seahawks.com/news/2016/01/10/seattle-seahawks-minnesota-vikings-ranks-third-coldest-playoff-game-nfl-history

[Conker]

There are so many issues with the article, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's nit-pick a bit: if you refer to the "Nobel Prize" as a "Noble prize" then you're basically proving  you post drivel. But I digress...

The article makes some interesting claims, and pretends there's a huge mystery but does not describe how (a) well-understood mechanisms cause concentrations of chlorine compounds in the Antarctic region of the troposphere to increase, which interact with ozone causing localized depletion and (b) well-understood chemistry explains how the unusually long and cold Antarctic winters factor into this equation.

But, worse that this, the article doesn't even attempt to present a theory that would explain what we're seeing that makes testable predictions that we could look at and evaluate. So, what good is the article, exactly?

Look, the facts are simple: there's no doubt that CFCs were causing massive damage to the ozone layer, and eliminating their use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed.

forget about whether you like the article or not, the article is not attempting to present any theories or make any BS predictions.

it simply presents NASA's own data which shows:

1. CFC emissions have been negligible for the last decade
2. after a decade of negligible CFC emissions the hole in the ozone layer grew considerably between 2014-2015
3. in 2015 the hole was recorded at it's 4th largest size since records began in 1979

go check the NASA website yourself for verification of the above.

whatever BS spin you or anyone else tries to puts on it, the official data shows that the hole is not getting any smaller. why do you think no one is taking credit for saving the world from CFC emissions. 'scientists' and politicians never ever mention the ozone layer any more. it has just been conveniently forgotten.

climate change will be no different.

p.s please feel free to point us to the relevant credible data that shows that the damage to the ozone layer is being reversed as you claim.

[avxo]

Nobody disputes the presence of large Antarctic ozone "hole" that has grown. The question is do we understand why it has formed?

If we do, it's disingenuous to present it as evidence that eliminating (or dramatically reducing) CFCs did not help, especially if we know that eliminating CFCs did help. That's what this article did.

To paraphrase it, it argues that scientists told us to ban CFCs to fix the ozone layer and we did but now the ozone layer hole over the Antarctic has grown and so he scientists were wrong. And now they're telling you that there's global warming and why are they right now when they were wrong before.

If you see nothing wrong with this "logic" then there's no point in discussing this poorly-written piece of scientific smut.

Seattle vs. Minnesota (-5)

Third coldest in playoff history. I think the first was 1967. You're right, it's getting warmer. "Global warming" is real. lol

Right... a single temporally and spatially localized temperature measurement that's unusually low disproves a theory that predicts a rise in the global average temperature over years.

By the same logic, you must be (a) impotent since I'm sure you dumped a few loads in your wife that didn't grow into mini-Joes and (b) a bad trainer since I'm sure your trainees haven't always gotten the gold. Isn't that right you impotent trainer?

[Conker]

Nobody disputes the presence of large Antarctic ozone "hole" that has grown. The question is do we understand why it has formed?

If we do, it's disingenuous to present it as evidence that eliminating (or dramatically reducing) CFCs did not help, especially if we know that eliminating CFCs did help. That's what this article did.

To paraphrase it, it argues that scientists told us to ban CFCs to fix the ozone layer and we did but now the ozone layer hole over the Antarctic has grown and so he scientists were wrong. And now they're telling you that there's global warming and why are they right now when they were wrong before.

If you see nothing wrong with this "logic" then there's no point in discussing this poorly-written piece of scientific smut.

more spin and BS. I linked you to data that shows that the ozone layer is not getting any smaller after years of negligible CFC emissions. you claimed that we had managed to start "slowly repairing damage to the ozone layer"

link us to the data that shows this

i believe they only found the hole in 1979....who's to say how long the hole was there before that? who's to say how it had changed in size pre 1979?

after reducing CFCs to near zero for some years the hole is not showing any sign of getting smaller in fact it is now at it's 4th biggest size since we first it 1979....

with that in mind who is to say CFC emissions actually played any significant role in the hole in the 1st place....pretty straight forward logic really...

you think it is down to humility that no one is claiming any credit for the great work done in reducing CFC emissions and fixing the ozone layer?

[mr.turbo]

conker turning atmospheric science on its head with these startling revelations.

[avxo]

more spin and BS.

In other words: "someone is saying something I don't agree with! ZOMG, ZOMG, ZOMG!"

I linked you to data that shows that the ozone layer is not getting any smaller after years of negligible CFC emissions. you claimed that we had managed to start "slowly repairing damage to the ozone layer"

No you didn't - you linked us to a poorly written article on the leading climate change denialism site, by someone who isn't a climate scientist, which suggests that the mean area of the ozone hole was at its fourth largest recorded size ever recorded, despite the fact that use of CFCs has been reduced to nothing.

In response to this copy-pasted article, I explained why the article is inaccurate and what the flaws are: it isolates one metric, and pretends that it's the only relevant one and then focuses on a single measurement of that metric to somehow suggest that our efforts have failed. It then extrapolates, from that, about global warming.

Listen, if you consider that article serious and accurate, then good for you.

link us to the data that shows this

We have started to slowly repair damage to the ozone layer, and the data bears this out. Hell, the chart in the article you linked to bears this out: as the consumption of ozone-depleting substances fell, the slope of the line depicting the size of the ozone hole area changes dramatically. Applying a smoothing filter to smear out yearly variations makes this observation even more clear.

Also, according to NASA: "Records in depth and size haven’t occurred during the same years (the largest ozone hole occurred in 2006), but the long-term trend in both characteristics is consistent: from 1980 through the early 1990s, the hole rapidly grew in size and depth. Since the mid-1990s, area and depth have roughly stabilized (see the Ozone Hole Watch website for annual averages). Year-to-year variations in area and depth are caused by variations in stratospheric temperature and circulation. Colder conditions result in a larger area and lower ozone values in the center of the hole." (emphasis added)

i believe they only found the hole in 1979....who's to say how long the hole was there before that? who's to say how it had changed in size pre 1979?

Well, that's a great argument: you can't prove the ozone hole wasn't there forever or that its size is affected by CFCs and not by ninjas, therefore ninjas!

I simply look at the data and the best theories we have available to us. Science is simple: formulate a theory, then use it to make predictions and see how well those predictions hold up; if they do, great... repeat. If they don't, then either adjust the theory to account for the discepancy or come up with a new theory; start again.

after reducing CFCs to near zero for some years the hole is not showing any sign of getting smaller in fact it is now at it's 4th biggest size since we first it 1979....

See above snippet from NASA.

with that in mind who is to say CFC emissions actually played any significant role in the hole in the 1st place....pretty straight forward logic really...

You're right... despite the evidence and the well-understood chemistry and the experiments which confirm the harmful effects of CFCs on ozone, it's not CFCs. It's ninjas instead.

you think it is down to humility that no one is claiming any credit for the great work done in reducing CFC emissions and fixing the ozone layer?

Well, ninjas work in the shadows...

[Conker]

OK so when asked to provide some data to back up your claim that we have "started to reverse the damage we did to the ozone layer" the best you can come up with is this

Also, according to NASA: "Records in depth and size haven’t occurred during the same years (the largest ozone hole occurred in 2006), but the long-term trend in both characteristics is consistent: from 1980 through the early 1990s, the hole rapidly grew in size and depth. Since the mid-1990s, area and depth have roughly stabilized


When was that even written? Since the hole grew by nearly 20% in 2015 ?

OK let me help you. Below is the annually recorded size of the hole since records began in 1979 from the NASA website.
Please explain how these figures tell you that we are "reversing damage done to the ozone layer"
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html

Ozone Hole Area
Minimum Ozone
(million km2)   

Maximum Daily   
Year         Date           Value   
1979   17 September   1.1   
1980   21 September   3.3   
1981   10 October   3.1   
1982   02 October   10.8   
1983   17 October   12.2   
1984   24 September   14.7   
1985   03 October   18.8   
1986   06 October   14.4   
1987   29 September   22.4   
1988   20 September   13.8   
1989   03 October   21.7   
1990   19 September   21.1   
1991   04 October   22.6   
1992   27 September   24.9   
1993   19 September   25.8   
1994   30 September   25.2   
1996   07 September   26.9   
1997   27 September   25.1   
1998   19 September   27.9   
1999   15 September   25.8   
2000   09 September   29.9   
2001   17 September   26.5   
2002   19 September   21.9   
2003   24 September   28.4   
2004   22 September   22.8   
2005   11 September   27.3   
2006   24 September   29.6   
2007   13 September   25.2   
2008   12 September   27.0   
2009   17 September   24.4   
2010   25 September   22.6   
2011   12 September   26.1   
2012   22 September   21.1   
2013   16 September   24.0   
2014   11 September   24.1   
2015   02 October   28.2

there you go , compelling evidence that eliminating CFC emissions is fixing the hole in the ozone layer 

no doubt in 40-50 yrs time when the figures show that what we have done to control climate change has had zero effect, there will be another queue of useful idiots disregarding the figures and telling us that we are "slowly reversing climate change".

[Conker]

conker turning atmospheric science on its head with these startling revelations.

no revelations needed. i know diddly squat about "atmospheric science" . but i am capable of deciphering simple data.
what's your view on CFC emission elimination and the effect it is having on the hole in the ozone layer?


and tbh this fixing the hole in the ozone layer sounds like a much simpler task than controlling the climate does. no doubt if the powers that be would consult me for the common sense view on climate change, i could save them the billions that they are going to waste following the advice of their fancy dan scientists  

i very much doubt we will have any greater success trying to control the climate than the native tribes had trying to make it rain with their rain dances.

[mr.turbo]

no revelations needed. i know diddly squat about "atmospheric science" . but i am capable of deciphering simple data.
what's your view on CFC emission elimination and the effect it is having on the hole in the ozone layer?


and tbh this fixing the hole in the ozone layer sounds like a much simpler task than controlling the climate does. no doubt if the powers that be would consult me for the common sense view on climate change, i could save them the billions that they are going to waste following the advice of their fancy dan scientists  

i very much doubt we will have any greater success trying to control the climate than the native tribes had trying to make it rain with their rain dances.

I don't have an opinion because to me it seems like an extremely complicated  subject. I'd prefer to leave it to specialists. If they want to present a simplified explanation then I'll check that out but interpreting the raw data is something for folks with a background in the stuff. It's not necessary to have a technically detailed opinion on everything in fact it's pretty much impossible.

That said, I look up the ozone treaties and notice 197 countries have signed up and renewed it many, many times over many years. How does one explain that if the measures don't work? Have all 197 countries simultaneously been hoodwinked by the scientists again? How does that occur? Common sense should be applied to these questions too!

In the end, you need to have a better proposal for action since just complaining that what's being done is not working achieves nothing. So let us know what your proposal is for fixing this situation. Looking forward to seeing this!

[disco_stu]

global warming is based on thousands of data points over many years.

the "its cold at my house" perspective shows just how little the average Joe knows about information.

This year has seen the hottest October, November and December on record.

But on its own, that doesnt mean anything as elsewhere it couldve been below average.

The problem with science nay sayers is that they cant grasp the simple concept that they dont have the same data and dont have the skills and background to be able to interpret it. Complex algorithms have been derived to analyse the information and compare it to similar loads of data.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of trained, educated, informed scientists- who are adept at interpreting data and not prone to being swayed, all arrive to the same conclusion should be enough for joe public to take it as fact.

Joe Public doesnt stop at a bridge cos he cant do the math to work out how it got designed and built- he drives straight over it.
Joe Public doesnt need someone to explain how his phone touch screen works or how its design evolved, he just uses it.
Joe Public doesnt insist on being explained how daily weather forecasts are done- he just accepts that it works.


The problem with the media is that it caters to the largest demographic so it can sell copies. Its a good ongoing sale if there can be controversy. The very same scientists and engineers that achieve things joe public cant comprehend every day, are the ones who are concluding that global warming is real.

sometimes you gotta just accept that there are people out there that know more than you do. in order to do that, you need to accept that you dont have all the info and/or the knowledge/skills/education to even try to form an independent opinion based on facts.

[TuHolmes]

global warming is based on thousands of data points over many years.

the "its cold at my house" perspective shows just how little the average Joe knows about information.

This year has seen the hottest October, November and December on record.

But on its own, that doesnt mean anything as elsewhere it couldve been below average.

The problem with science nay sayers is that they cant grasp the simple concept that they dont have the same data and dont have the skills and background to be able to interpret it. Complex algorithms have been derived to analyse the information and compare it to similar loads of data.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of trained, educated, informed scientists- who are adept at interpreting data and not prone to being swayed, all arrive to the same conclusion should be enough for joe public to take it as fact.

Joe Public doesnt stop at a bridge cos he cant do the math to work out how it got designed and built- he drives straight over it.
Joe Public doesnt need someone to explain how his phone touch screen works or how its design evolved, he just uses it.
Joe Public doesnt insist on being explained how daily weather forecasts are done- he just accepts that it works.


The problem with the media is that it caters to the largest demographic so it can sell copies. Its a good ongoing sale if there can be controversy. The very same scientists and engineers that achieve things joe public cant comprehend every day, are the ones who are concluding that global warming is real.

sometimes you gotta just accept that there are people out there that know more than you do. in order to do that, you need to accept that you dont have all the info and/or the knowledge/skills/education to even try to form an independent opinion based on facts.

Good post.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[Kazan]

Good post.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Actually it does, I am always hearing about the coldest or warmest on record. How long have the records been kept? 20 years, 200 years? If you say that the earth 4.5 billions years old, the 200 years is the blink of an eye in the grand scheme.

[TuHolmes]

Actually it does, I am always hearing about the coldest or warmest on record. How long have the records been kept? 20 years, 200 years? If you say that the earth 4.5 billions years old, the 200 years is the blink of an eye in the grand scheme.

100 years.

And yes, it's a blink in regards to the time of the earth, but it's the information we have to work with.

Those who just simply dismiss it are using the information of the day. "Oh look, it's cool and it's August... Pfft... Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit."

Which one is more data?

[Kazan]

100 years.

And yes, it's a blink in regards to the time of the earth, but it's the information we have to work with.

Those who just simply dismiss it are using the information of the day. "Oh look, it's cool and it's August... Pfft... Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit."

Which one is more data?

Data is data, it can be manipulated to say what you want. The climate has been changing on the earth since the earth was formed. Long before there were enough humans to make a difference or the use of fossil fuels. They find whale and fish fossils in the middle of a desert, how did they get there? Used to be covered by water at some point in earths history.

[TuHolmes]

Data is data, it can be manipulated to say what you want. The climate has been changing on the earth since the earth was formed. Long before there were enough humans to make a difference or the use of fossil fuels. They find whale and fish fossils in the middle of a desert, how did they get there? Used to be covered by water at some point in earths history.

Not necessarily, but that's neither here nor there.

Currently, the data is overwhelmingly towards some sort of man made climate change. You talk about manipulated, but only 1% is manipulated to say climate change doesn't exist?

You would think they would manipulate to that direction a lot more than 1%.

[Necrosis]

100 years.

And yes, it's a blink in regards to the time of the earth, but it's the information we have to work with.

Those who just simply dismiss it are using the information of the day. "Oh look, it's cool and it's August... Pfft... Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit."

Which one is more data?

No we have thousands of years of accurate data. This is incorrect.

[avxo]

OK so when asked to provide some data to back up your claim that we have "started to reverse the damage we did to the ozone layer" the best you can come up with is this

Also, according to NASA: "Records in depth and size haven’t occurred during the same years (the largest ozone hole occurred in 2006), but the long-term trend in both characteristics is consistent: from 1980 through the early 1990s, the hole rapidly grew in size and depth. Since the mid-1990s, area and depth have roughly stabilized


When was that even written? Since the hole grew by nearly 20% in 2015 ?

It's naive to claim that the size of the ozone hole is controlled only by CFCs. In fact, nobody ever argued that. More specifically, I wrote that "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." Are you suggesting this statement is inaccurate? If so, which parts, specifically, are inaccurate?

Re: the size of the ozone hole. There a number of known factors that are involved and an excellent theory which provides a credible explanation and  why an increase was observed. Are you suggesting the explanations are inadequate or deficient in some way?

OK let me help you. Below is the annually recorded size of the hole since records began in 1979 from the NASA website.
Please explain how these figures tell you that we are "reversing damage done to the ozone layer"
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html

(data snipped)

Thanks for trying to help me. Now, since I'm a mathematician, let me try and help you: you're looking at sub-sampled raw data: using the daily maximum of a dynamic process to describe an entire year means that your "data" will fluctuate wildly. It would be much more helpful if we could crunch the entire data set, instead of sub-sampling the local maxima.

Luckily, in the same page, NASA also gives us the mean ozone hole size for the period 09/07 through 10/13 of each year since 1979. It's still sub-sampling, but the fact that we use the mean of a larger perior of time is better since it can can help us get a "broader" look at the data. Let's do that shall we? Our data points will be in red, and a nice cubic fit with an adjusted R² of 0.82554 will be the blue curve:



Huh... suddenly this "the hole grew by 20%" doesn't look quite as bad does it? And you learned an important lesson: you can't fuck with mathematicians.

there you go , compelling evidence that eliminating CFC emissions is fixing the hole in the ozone layer 

Except that's a statement I never made. I said: "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." The NASA evidence you link to bears that out.

no doubt in 40-50 yrs time when the figures show that what we have done to control climate change has had zero effect, there will be another queue of useful idiots disregarding the figures and telling us that we are "slowly reversing climate change".

I'm not surprised that you misunderstand my position on climate change.

[Kazan]

Not necessarily, but that's neither here nor there.

Currently, the data is overwhelmingly towards some sort of man made climate change. You talk about manipulated, but only 1% is manipulated to say climate change doesn't exist?

You would think they would manipulate to that direction a lot more than 1%.

Science is not always correct, and until what it presents is proven, it is a theory.

[TuHolmes]

No we have thousands of years of accurate data. This is incorrect.

We have perceived data from polar caps melting along with some other things we can core out of the arctic, but as far as actual recorded data, we only have about 100 years + or -.

Science is not always correct, and until what it presents is proven, it is a theory.

Accurate, but that theory is certainly more probable and has more information than the "It's cold today, ergo climate change doesn't exist crowd."

[avxo]

Science is not always correct, and until what it presents is proven, it is a theory.

Another card-carrying member of the "NOT A SCIENTIST, BUT ONCE SAW A LAB COAT FROM A DISTANCE" club...

[Kazan]

Another card-carrying member of the "NOT A SCIENTIST, BUT ONCE SAW A LAB COAT FROM A DISTANCE" club...

Yes because as soon as science says something it is always right, shit the earth is flat, and the sun rotates around the earth right? You are most likely a coprophagiac.

[avxo]

Yes because [...]

No: because science is neither right nor wrong. Science is a process: a process whereby we observe something we can't explain, then we collect data, formulate a theory and then test its predictions. If the predictions pan out, we gain confidence; if they don't we either adjust the theory, or if that's not possible, we come up with a new theory.

Only non-scientists talk about science being 'right or wrong'. Only non-scientists speak of 'proven' things and say things like "non-proven things are theories."

as soon as science says something it is always right, shit the earth is flat, and the sun rotates around the earth right?

Again, highlighting your ignorance of the scientific process and what science is or what scientists do.

[Conker]

I don't have an opinion because to me it seems like an extremely complicated  subject. I'd prefer to leave it to specialists. If they want to present a simplified explanation then I'll check that out but interpreting the raw data is something for folks with a background in the stuff. It's not necessary to have a technically detailed opinion on everything in fact it's pretty much impossible.

That said, I look up the ozone treaties and notice 197 countries have signed up and renewed it many, many times over many years. How does one explain that if the measures don't work? Have all 197 countries simultaneously been hoodwinked by the scientists again? How does that occur? Common sense should be applied to these questions too!

In the end, you need to have a better proposal for action since just complaining that what's being done is not working achieves nothing. So let us know what your proposal is for fixing this situation. Looking forward to seeing this!

yes it is a very complicated subject and i would not attempt to argue the the intricacies of it, but saying you can't interpret the simple raw data that is available because you're not an expert, is like saying you can't tell which team is winning a football match when the score is 10-2 because you don't know anything about football.

it's simple data produced by NASA for laymen to see what is happening with the hole

the data shows that CFC emissions were slashed year on year and near eliminated around a decade ago and the data shows there is no trend in the size of the hole reversing...the size of the hole is recorded annually at roughly the same time each year, when the hole is at it's largest. it doesn't matter if every country in the world signed up for CFC reduction.... the data still says the same thing, the hole is not getting smaller. perhaps someone forgot to tell the hole how many people were supporting the CFC emission theory.

the entire educated world once believed the world was flat...how did that theory pan out?

i don't know why we put so much faith in these theories that scientists come up with about mind bogglingly complex issues. there are so many questions that science has no answers to. we can't even find a cure or vaccine for cancer, a disease that was identified hundreds of years ago and kills millions of us each year. but yet we have great confidence that scientists know how to fix a hole in the ozone layer and how to control the world's climate.

i don't have any proposals for "fixing this situation". i just instinctively don't believe we have any chance of significantly controlling the earth's climate regardless of what measures we take. and i think the vast amount of resources we are wasting on this issue could be directed into much more worthwhile and obtainable goals.

[Conker]

It's naive to claim that the size of the ozone hole is controlled only by CFCs. In fact, nobody ever argued that. More specifically, I wrote that "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." Are you suggesting this statement is inaccurate? If so, which parts, specifically, are inaccurate?

Re: the size of the ozone hole. There a number of known factors that are involved and an excellent theory which provides a credible explanation and  why an increase was observed. Are you suggesting the explanations are inadequate or deficient in some way?


Thanks for trying to help me. Now, since I'm a mathematician, let me try and help you: you're looking at sub-sampled raw data: using the daily maximum of a dynamic process to describe an entire year means that your "data" will fluctuate wildly. It would be much more helpful if we could crunch the entire data set, instead of sub-sampling the local maxima.

Luckily, in the same page, NASA also gives us the mean ozone hole size for the period 09/07 through 10/13 of each year since 1979. It's still sub-sampling, but the fact that we use the mean of a larger perior of time is better since it can can help us get a "broader" look at the data. Let's do that shall we? Our data points will be in red, and a nice cubic fit with an adjusted R² of 0.82554 will be the blue curve:



Huh... suddenly this "the hole grew by 20%" doesn't look quite as bad does it? And you learned an important lesson: you can't fuck with mathematicians.


Except that's a statement I never made. I said: "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." The NASA evidence you link to bears that out.


I'm not surprised that you misunderstand my position on climate change.

the post above is a pile of junk with no substance. i will highlight this bit you posted.


"More specifically, I wrote that "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." Are you suggesting this statement is inaccurate? If so, which parts, specifically, are inaccurate?"


yes i am saying that is inaccurate, specifically this part

 "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed."

please link us to the data that shows CFC elimination has helped halt damage to the ozone layer and shows it is slowly being reversed, something that was compiled post 2015 measurements.

please no more of your BS rantings, just a link to the data.

[avxo]

yes it is a very complicated subject and i would not attempt to argue the the intricacies of it, but saying you can't interpret the simple raw data that is available because you're not an expert, is like saying you can't tell which team is winning a football match when the score is 10-2 because you don't know anything about football.

it's simple data produced by NASA for laymen to see what is happening with the hole

the data shows that CFC emissions were slashed year on year and near eliminated around a decade ago and the data shows there is no trend in the size of the hole reversing...the size of the hole is recorded annually at roughly the same time each year, when the hole is at it's largest. it doesn't matter if every country in the world signed up for CFC reduction.... the data still says the same thing, the hole is not getting smaller. perhaps someone forgot to tell the hole how many people were supporting the CFC emission theory.

[...]

i don't have any proposals for "fixing this situation". i just instinctively don't believe we have any chance of significantly controlling the earth's climate regardless of what measures we take. and i think the vast amount of resources we are wasting on this issue could be directed into much more worthwhile and obtainable goals.

Stop spewing crap: the data clearly and unambigiously shows that the size of the hole stabilized as CFC usage was reduced. The stabilization was highly correlated with the reduction of CFC usage. The 2015 increase - which you wave around this thread - isn't evidence that CFCs aren't responsible for this.

You make ridiculous claims that "we have great confidence  that scientists know how to fix a hole in the ozone layer and how to control the world's climate." I don't know who "we" refers to - but it's not scientists. Why? Because that isn't what the scientists are saying.

Those are the facts. But hey, you haven't allowed facts to get in the way of your "argument" so far - why start now?

the entire educated world once believed the world was flat...how did that theory pan out?

So, your argument is what... that just because have been wrong in the past, they're necessarily wrong now? You're aware that this is a logical fallacy, right?

i don't know why we put so much faith in these theories that scientists come up with about mind bogglingly complex issues. there are so many questions that science has no answers to. we can't even find a cure or vaccine for cancer, a disease that was identified hundreds of years ago and kills millions of us each year. but yet we have great confidence that scientists know how to fix a hole in the ozone layer and how to control the world's climate.

Yeah... fuck science and fuck scientists... they can't cure cancer, so why listen to them!