>You are right about drifting into too much detail, I will try to be brief and generic. The only reason I entered this discussion was because you included the Ozone layer issue as a false prediction and then went into details explaining that the prediction was about a hole in the ozone layer that would span the whole earth and that CFC is just one factor, extreme cold and vortext winds were the other factors, and of course, because this did not happen you are using it to further your argument about climate change as an example of bad science, and my point is that, on the contrary, it is a glaring example of both good science and success: good science found the problem: man made CFCs and success for thanks to the Montreal protocol the production of CFC stopped and that is what averted the predicted catastrophe, it is not true that it was a bad prediction. In short: it was a bad example that harms your argument against climate change.

Let say that I included the ozon layer madness of the 90-ties as an example which predicted doomsday. It was presented as a tiger but turned out to be a purring pussycat. As for the science presented and the montreal act, you have more faith in it than I do. Politically loaded science does not have a very good track record. Since there is so little historical data available (in terms of years) only the future will tell in how much the hole in the ozon layer was contributed by man made CFCs. We do not know whether the hole in the ozon layer has other significant natural causes and whether it is part of in an n-year cycle. We simply do not know (yet). So to claim success is way too early IMO. What if it grows the next decade despite montreal? Only time will tell.


>To finish I will just quote the final paragraphs from your own link which it is saying pretty much the same in a much better way:
>
>"The ozone hole opened the world’s eyes to the global effects of human activity on the atmosphere. It turned out that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—long-lived chemicals that had been used in refrigerators and aerosols sprays since the 1930s—had a dark side. In the layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth (the troposphere), CFCs circulated for decades without degrading or reacting with other chemicals. When they reached the stratosphere, however, their behavior changed. In the upper stratosphere (beyond the protection of the ozone layer), ultraviolet light caused CFCs to break apart, releasing chlorine, a very reactive atom that repeatedly catalyzes ozone destruction.
>The global recognition of CFCs’ destructive potential led to the 1989 Montreal Protocol banning the production of ozone-depleting chemicals. Scientists estimate that about 80 percent of the chlorine (and bromine, which has a similar ozone-depleting effect) in the stratosphere over Antarctica today is from human, not natural, sources. Models suggest that the concentration of chlorine and other ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere will not return to pre-1980 levels until the middle decades of this century. These same models predict that the Antarctic ozone layer will recover around 2040. On the other hand, because of the impact of greenhouse gas warming, the ozone layer over the tropics and mid-southern latitudes may not recover for more than a century, and perhaps not ever."

The quote above is full of assumptions, see bolding. I'm very skeptical about the credibility of the assumption whenever they refer to computer models. We are not even able to predict the weather 5 days ahead of today and still do now know a lot of lightening strikes which occur every day, despite thousands of scientists working on this every day. What makes you think we understand something complex like climate and cause of the hole of the ozon layer? The best we can do at this moment is to make assumptions. But that is far from fact, what the climate activists wants us to believe.