Necratoid, there is no God, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny and no Uncle Mikey. (Probability so low as to be nearly indistinguishable from zero.)
However there is a demonstrated correlation to CFC usage and Ozone depletion. This is not a case as having declared solved and then never checked again. Research has been ongoing on this subject from the seventies onward. This includes numerous studies, past, present and ongoing. Currently NASA is running the Aura mission; for which there is plenty of information available if you would care to look. The peer reviewed papers are all online. You just need to bury your head in them, occasionally surfacing for air, coffee, etc.
I am curious about your line concerning killing astronauts. Please expand, as I am interested in what you have to say on the subject, and would like to evaluate the data before investing in tin-foil futures.
Now solar activity increases in ozone destruction have been observed and several good papers are available. Unfortunately there is a but; a nice bit, juicy, J-Lo sized but. The actual impact is negligible. Solar bombardment can have short term effects on the ozone layer; but the effects are quickly reversed (2-3 years, vrs 40+ for CFC damage).
www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstor...roton.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...359555.stm
So back onto consensus and global warming. It is not about asking weather men. No more than asking only a zoologist about Darwins theory of Natural Selection; you also need the chemists, the geneticists, geologists, etc. When you are dealing with a subject such as Global Climate Change, you are dealing with several scientific fields of study; all of whom have to work in unison (and then in Italian) on not only the experiments; but the interpretation of the data that follows the experiment.
As too several. Sorry, I dropped the third point; Hydrogen powered cars; but in truth, I was far too busy laughing in incredulity to make mention of it.
Shayne
However there is a demonstrated correlation to CFC usage and Ozone depletion. This is not a case as having declared solved and then never checked again. Research has been ongoing on this subject from the seventies onward. This includes numerous studies, past, present and ongoing. Currently NASA is running the Aura mission; for which there is plenty of information available if you would care to look. The peer reviewed papers are all online. You just need to bury your head in them, occasionally surfacing for air, coffee, etc.
I am curious about your line concerning killing astronauts. Please expand, as I am interested in what you have to say on the subject, and would like to evaluate the data before investing in tin-foil futures.
Now solar activity increases in ozone destruction have been observed and several good papers are available. Unfortunately there is a but; a nice bit, juicy, J-Lo sized but. The actual impact is negligible. Solar bombardment can have short term effects on the ozone layer; but the effects are quickly reversed (2-3 years, vrs 40+ for CFC damage).
www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstor...roton.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...359555.stm
So back onto consensus and global warming. It is not about asking weather men. No more than asking only a zoologist about Darwins theory of Natural Selection; you also need the chemists, the geneticists, geologists, etc. When you are dealing with a subject such as Global Climate Change, you are dealing with several scientific fields of study; all of whom have to work in unison (and then in Italian) on not only the experiments; but the interpretation of the data that follows the experiment.
As too several. Sorry, I dropped the third point; Hydrogen powered cars; but in truth, I was far too busy laughing in incredulity to make mention of it.
Shayne