rb1957
Aerospace
- Apr 15, 2005
- 15,637
i found this an interesting read ...
i liked the way he illuminated the alarmist claims and hyperbole on both sides of the issue and stayed with the "facts". What I took from the article was ...
1) there was no ozone hole (but a naturally occurring thinning) and there was no threat of increased skin cancers,
2) CFCs do add atomic Chlorine to the upper stratosphere (which doesn't sound like a good thing), and
3) the economic disaster predicted by the CFC manufacturers didn't happen.
i think there's a similar story playing out with the climate change debate. I think it is irrelevent that the climate hasn't warmed or cooled significantly over the last decade ... the timescale is too short for any change to be relevent.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
i liked the way he illuminated the alarmist claims and hyperbole on both sides of the issue and stayed with the "facts". What I took from the article was ...
1) there was no ozone hole (but a naturally occurring thinning) and there was no threat of increased skin cancers,
2) CFCs do add atomic Chlorine to the upper stratosphere (which doesn't sound like a good thing), and
3) the economic disaster predicted by the CFC manufacturers didn't happen.
i think there's a similar story playing out with the climate change debate. I think it is irrelevent that the climate hasn't warmed or cooled significantly over the last decade ... the timescale is too short for any change to be relevent.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati