Exxon-Mobil Admits Global Warming Is Real

[Morganite]

---

So, the fact I didn't appreciate that ECSNorway insulted a large percentage of the forums, not to mention slandering the government of a country, and refused to either apologise or admit he was wrong even though it was definitively proven he was, is something that makes it hard to take me seriously.

---

Basically. I have nothing inherently wrong with your not appreciating that. (Not being sure what specific case you're referring to, I can't comment on the exact circumstances.) But it doesn't have anything to do with *this* particular discussion as far as I can tell, so there's no purpose in dragging it into this, and doing so hurts your position.
Anyway, maybe the reason he hasn't admitted and apologized for anything is because he doesn't think he was wrong. It'd be inappropriate for him to do so under those circumstances.

---

However, the fact ECSNorway has stated that the vast majority of the scientific community is involved in a vast conspiracy to mislead the public is not, in your opinion, worthy of comment?

---

Certainly it's worthy of comment, though I'm not certain that's exactly what he was trying to say. In my case, I consider this one of a set of issues that has become so politicized, I don't feel I can trust any of the conclusions being reached by either side.
Now, the Mars thing is interesting. I don't think anyone can deny that there are things which affect Earth that also affect Mars. This doesn't prove anything. But it might point to something worth looking into that hasn't been previously investigated.
-Morgan.
"Hey Lyner. What is this machine that no human could possibly use?"
-Misha

[Ayiekie]

---

Anyway, maybe the reason he hasn't admitted and apologized for anything is because he doesn't think he was wrong. It'd be inappropriate for him to do so under those circumstances.

---

The story which he unhesitatingly believed (an report that the Iranian parliament was forcing Jews and Zoroastrians to sew identifying strips of cloth on their clothes ala Nazi Germany, for the record) and insulted everyone who didn't share his opinion ("...thinking with their assholes, not their brains") was retracted by the news source that ran it (Canada's National Post) the day afterwards. Because it was false.
The story was wrong. He was wrong. Period. He won't admit it or apologise for what he said, the reasons for which you can decide for yourself. I couldn't care less that he insulted me, but that he insulted everyone who doesn't share his views, and that he slandered every member of a government he knows nothing about, is something he ought to come clean on, if he has any decency whatsoever.
Still, that being said, I acknowledge your point that it doesn't serve any purpose for this discussion, so I won't bring it up again. He knows what he did, and the choice of what sort of person he's going to be remains his, as always.

---

In my case, I consider this one of a set of issues that has become so politicized, I don't feel I can trust any of the conclusions being reached by either side.

---

That's your choice, of course. But it seems rather odd to me to refuse to take a side on an issue because people care about it. There's a hell of a lot of important issues in the world that are "politicised", in fact, pretty much every important issue in the world is.

[Jeap]

---

Mars isn't a good model of Earth

---

You're right, the only thing Mars is good for is showing that the .15% increase in solar output (~.6W/m2 for Mars) since the '70s is warming the planet.
Mars is receiving more energy and is therefore getting warmer. Shocking.
The amount Earth is receiving is about 2W/m2.

[M Fnord]

---

You're right, the only thing Mars is good for is showing that the .15% increase in solar output (~.6W/m2 for Mars) since the '70s is warming the planet.

---

Except that this isn't verified. To quote from that liberal bastion National Geographic, in the article that set off this latest circle-jerk:

---

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

---

---
Mr. Fnord
http://fnord.sandwich.net/
http://www.jihad.net/
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Jeap]

Mmm. That works out to 1.67 degrees per 10000 years. Meaning Mars' axial tilt has varied from 21.85 degrees to 28.53 degrees within the last twenty thousand years, depending on which way axial tilt wobbled. Sheer coincidence yes, but it has happened. (ref.)
Regardless, we are talking about a timescale measured in decades, the eccentricities of the past can be ignored for the moment. Mars' axial tilt is 25.1 degrees and Earth's is 23.4 degrees. Solar output has risen and both are warming.

[M Fnord]

You say that with such authority, you must have corroborating evidence, perhaps a peer-reviewed paper, to back up that claim, yes? Something that wasn't part of the IPCC review?---
Mr. Fnord
http://fnord.sandwich.net/
http://www.jihad.net/
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[hmelton]

First off
Ayiekie
Thanks for the sites.
I have some disagreement about your claim that their is only one major group against global warming.
However even if thier is a majority, scientist are as susceptable to following fads, especially political ones as anyone else and there have been enough examples from the past Liberal and Conservative or Republican and Democrat to make me distrustful of advocate groups with a consensus.
I'm willing to say that when a majority believe something they have a slightly higher chance of being right, but in the Global Warming issue I think I see problems at the foundation that make me unwilling to accept what you say the majority of scientist have accepted.
I try to make my own decisions and I think I have very good reasons for doubting the predictions about a Global warming runaway greenhouse effect or the effectiveness of the Kyoto accords.
I'm not against the ideas the Earth is Warming up and man is changing the enviroment, what I'm against is the idea that the Kyoto accords will be a solution to a problem that might not exist in 10 years.
Don't forget about 30 years ago many, probably a near majority were convinced we were headed for an ice age.
What if we had went to doing what was advocated by some then and started putting out the green house gases.
I feel the biosphere scientist are far to confident in what they think they know and in the models they have created of the biosphere.
These biosphere models are built on a very complex and growing stack of assumptions and best guesses and estimates trying to model a very complex system with unknown or unimagined feedback mechanism and external influences.
These models are fed a patchwork starvation diet of initial values and then are asked to predict conditions in 30 to 100 years for the planet.
I don't think I'd trust the results at least not enough to sink billions of dollars into trying to fix what the predictions say are going to happen. Especially when other nations like China, India and Russia are getting loop holes that leaves us and Europe footing the bill.

Both from my farming and my degree in engineering I know what an economic gold mine I'd have if I could produce a weather modeling program that accurately year by year predicted how much heating fuel would be needed by the United States the following year.
Global Warming advocates are trusting and using biosphere models supposedly looking 30 to 100 years into the future and predicting a Global warming and yet none of these models can reliably look even a year into the future and let you safely speculate by buying low and selling high.
Weather is a chaotic system the further you go from the initinial inputs the less the model will match the actual events. If your model is accurate enough at 30 years to make a generic global prediction for the entire planet then at the one year mark it should be very accurate at a state or county level.
Below in Fnord's portion I mention a analog model of a city's water system once used to predict how the system would react to changes. Today a city can buy a computer program and model thier water and sewer systems and predict cost as it ages and grows in the coming years. Barring unpredictable events like Earthquakes, floods or Gold rush the program is accurate enough for a city to set long term budget plans and produce accurate estimate of the long term maintenance/expansion cost.

Second off
MFnord
You seem to not understand what a analog model or computer is.
A analog model does not have to resemble or match what your modeling.
For example water flowing in pipes in some ways can be used as an analog of electricity and electricy can be used to model water yet neither have much resemblance.
I remember a electrical analog computer used to predict the flow of water in a city's water lines and sewer systems.
This collection of wires, resistors, capacitors and batteries could accurately model changes made to the water system and the effects those changes would have on the water system.
Yet that collection of resistors, Capacitors, wires and batteries looked nothing like the system of pipes and flowing water it was modeling.
Again I say that just because mars is very different from Earth isn't an argument against using it as a partial check on our Earth biosphere models especially to look for influences external to both worlds.
MFNORD
I did not say the Ice melted completely off the South Pole, you said that and then argued against that.
The computer models when run backwards show a chaotic system with occasional periods like todays conditions around the South Pole continent when the ice is broken or clearing enough to allow ships to approach and observe that there is a continent present not just a few Islands and ice.
I never mentioned that rather infamous Map, you did and then proceded to argue against it. Which I agree it isn't a Map of the South Pole continent.
What I was thinking of was the fairly consistent world wide legends or sailor folk lore of the South Pole having a ice covered continent 100's or possibly 1000's of years before it was officially discovered.
I also only gave it a "minor" level of validity putting it in roughly the same catagory as the persistant and "minor" legends and tales of European or Asian sailors discovering North and South America hundreds or 1000's of years before columbus.
Ancient sailor folk lore has been fairly consistant in saying that the North Pole didn't have a full land mass blocking it under the Ice and that the South Pole did have a large land mass under the Ice.
This tends, however slightly to support the idea that the Earth has had warm periods.
howard melton
God bless

[Jeap]

---

You say that with such authority, you must have corroborating evidence, perhaps a peer-reviewed paper, to back up that claim, yes? Something that wasn't part of the IPCC review?

---

I'm sorry, I forgot to refrence the increase in solar output.
The cycles that affect Mars, the precession of its axis and the advance of its perihelion, such a short time has passed relative to their total length that, save for there being some sort of landslide point that I have not read about, will have progressed less than .1% of their total cycles.
Solar output affects the atmosphere. Without the 1366Watts/m2 we receive daily we would be an iceball. The two Watt increase since the Seventies has put more energy into the atmosphere. Not a lot I'll grant you, but a number comparable to what human induced greenhouse emissions are supposed to be retaining.
This energy is not sitting around in energon cubes. It is exciting molecules, being absorbed by the oceans, heating the continents, and doing a myriad of other things that generate heat.

[Ayiekie]

Okay. So, then, would you care to come up with a guess as to why nearly every major scientific organisation with authority on the subject (all of whom - let us generously say - have at least as much information on the subject as you do coupled with far more experience, training and broad knowledge than you have, to say nothing of this being their job) don't think an increase in the Sun's output is primarily causing the already observed warming on Earth, much less the projected climate change in the future?

[Morganite]

I don't find it believable that increased energy input would have no effect at all.
But how much effect does it have? Is increased solar output one of the factors included in the current model?
If not, then why not?
Forget deciding what is "primarily" causing anything, are these things being taken into account at all? (Of course, determining what effect this might have on years prior to the availablity of solar output data could prove difficult.)
Oh, and this might be of interest: www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
(They don't seem to do an extraordinary job at being readable on that site, do they?)
-Morgan is saying nothing about their content there. Their site design makes my eyes hurt. >

[Jeap]

---

Okay. So, then, would you care to come up with a guess as to why nearly every major scientific organisation with authority on the subject don't think an increase in the Sun's output is primarily causing the already observed warming on Earth, much less the projected climate change in the future?

---

Because one Watt/m2 is one Watt/m2? A Watt describes a know quantity, one joule per second, and one square meter is a square that measures one meter on its sides. If the supposed 2.64Watts/m2 increase from AGW is different from the 2Watt/m2 increase from solar radiance something is wrong with the universe.
(The NOAA site was offline when I wrote this, but a search on Google for "Earth System Research Laboratory, R/GMD" should bring it up as the second entry. Access through cache. Has some spiffy equations as well, I hadn't realized the IPCC had changed its CO2 forcing. I amend my heat retained due to carbon to 5.35*ln(382/280)=1.66W/m2.)

[Ayiekie]

---

Because one Watt/m2 is one Watt/m2?

---

That isn't what I asked. I asked why professionals with way more education, knowledge and training than you don't think your theory explains observed climate change. Now a possible answer could be "some do - here's some links to reputable peer-reviewed studies that agree with me", and if so, that'd be great to hear about.
The thing is, if I hear Guy From NASA say one thing about how a rocket ship flies, and Guy On The Internet says another thing, I've found the smart money is usually on Guy From NASA.

[Morganite]

Do you believe the article Jeap cited about increased solar output to be inaccurate?
If so, then you're line of argument here seems really strange, since the problem is the initial concept of increased solar output in the first place.
If not... Well, I think you're wrong in saying that Jeap is saying that this "explains observed climate change". What he does seem to be saying is "This is a significant amount of energy, and if it *isn't* having an effect on the climate, where is it going?"
I think simple mathematics and the first law of thermodynamics are at least sufficient to say this is a question that needs answering.
-Morgan.
"I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, or espers here, come sleep with me."
---From "The Ecchi of Haruhi Suzumiya"
-----(Not really)

[Ayiekie]

I'm not sure what's strange in asking "What do actual scientists in the field think about this? Because if they don't think it's primarily causing the observed and projected changes, I'm inclined to believe they know what they're talking about."
The alternative, I suppose, is believing that literally thousands of professional degreed scientists have just never thought of this, but Guy On The Internet has. This is a fairly... unlikely scenario, let us say.

[Morganite]

I guess I'm hoping *you* can answer that question. If your position is that scientists don't consider increased energy input from the sun to be a significant factor, where is your documentation for this point? So far I've not found anything that makes any direct statements about the significance of TSI compared to various other factors, but maybe you know some better forces. Saying it has no effect at all, however, I don't find believable.
-Morgan."I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, or espers here, come sleep with me."
---From "The Ecchi of Haruhi Suzumiya"
-----(Not really)

[Rev Dark]

Okay, here it is. An inconvenient truth
Science is hard. Science requires you to do a lot of reading and bone up on numerous related subjects. It takes a rare writer, such as Dawkins, Gould, Sagan or Hawkins to make science accessible to the layman.
Unfortunately the media does not want depth. They want shallow. Shallow and easily repeatable. Something sensational that can be glommed onto like a baby on a teat and repeated as a sound bite.
www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Shayne

[Jeap]

---

That isn't what I asked. I asked why professionals with way more education, knowledge and training than you don't think your theory explains observed climate change. Now a possible answer could be "some do - here's some links to reputable peer-reviewed studies that agree with me", and if so, that'd be great to hear about.

---

Do I need a peer reviewed paper for that? Let me put it another way, if the photons transferring energy due to to an increase in the retention of infrared light are behaving differently than the photons transferring energy due to an increase solar radiance then something is not right.
Fluctuations in solar output have been shown to effect the climate. We can see fluctuations of up to .2% in solar radiance during these periods of heavy sunspot activity. There has been a measured increase of .15% in solar output since the 1970s. Three gets you four that this has had an effect on the climate.

[Rev Dark]

The article Jeap posted on solar cycle activity concerns sunlight and the effect on weather patterns; specifically cloud formation and other phenomenon.
Baliunas, the researcher in question, 'doubts that the Sun is the sole cause of global climate change. She said current research seeks to figure out the magnitude of the sun's influence so that the human effect can be better assessed.'
In other words - an anomaly requiring further research, not an ash stake driven into the heart of global warming.
The current hypothesis about the effect are playing out towards a temperature variance due to sun cycles, but the magnitude of those variances is still to be determined. However comparing Earth and Mars is dodgy at best, given the number of variables introduced by orbit, atmosphere, etc.
And yes Jeap, you do need peer reviewed papers. Science is not a popularity contest; it cannot be won with a big advertising budget or media hype. There is a reason the Intelligent Design twats do not publish many papers. The first is they get new ones torn by the scientific community when they do; which feeds into the second reason, they don't have game; Intelligent Design is a 'god of the gaps' theory trying to wear the skin of actual science. No wonder the ID movement try and sneak into school boards rather than publish papers for peer review.
Irreducible complexity is a nice way of saying 'Too fucking lazy to try and figure it out.'
Shayne

[Ayiekie]

---

If your position is that scientists don't consider increased energy input from the sun to be a significant factor, where is your documentation for this point?

---

My position, Morganni, is that no reputable scientific body considers this a primary explanation for observed and projected climate change on Earth.
My documentation is the fact I already posted a large number of reports and mission statements from reputable scientific bodies that assert that global warming exists and is caused primarily by human activity. The one dissenting opinion (from scientists whose livelihood depends on the petroleum industry) also did not support "increased sun output" as a primary explanation for anything.
If the sun was the primary factor involved, this would be reflected in the conclusions of professional degreed scientists and peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Since it doesn't, the only reasonable conclusion is that this is not the case.
If you think Jeap knows more about climate change than the IPCC, the Joint National Science Academies, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, and the Geological Society of America, and is better qualified to talk on the subject than the scientists who published the 928 abstracts in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 on the subject of climate change, not a single one of which disputed that global warming is primarily caused by human activity... then we probably have very little to talk about.

[Morganite]

You're not really answering my question though.
It's not about whether TSI is a primary explaination for anything. I'm willing to accept for the purpose of argument that it's not.
My question is, what is the relative magnitude of TSI versus other factors? Even if it's considered insignificant, it should still be calculable if the model being used takes it into account.
-Morgan.
"Please stop adding useless features to our bombs..."
-Lyner

[ECSNorway]

Peer-Reviewed Journal? Okay...

---

Global temperature -- politics or science?
The entire debate about global warming is a mirage. The concept of global temperature is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Bjarne Andresen who has analyzed this hot topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, both Ontario, Canada.
It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called global temperature. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.
Average without meaning
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average global exchange rate.
If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, e.g. it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.
Many averages
A further problem with the extensive use of the global temperature is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.
Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.
Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.
More politics than science
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.
What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth, not tradition.
The currently used method and the consequences drawn from it therefore is more politics than science, they explain.
###
C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007). [= Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics]
For further information contact:
Bjarne Andresen, professor of physics
Phone: +45 3532-0470
e-mail: Andresen@fys.ku.dk

---

--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Necratoid]

---

As for global warming I believe it exists because that is the consensus among researchers

---

I note the word consensus, which the best definition I could find, for that usage, on dictionary.com (yes, I am invoking that sight) was this:

---

the feeling of most people

---

Because, consensus isn't about proof... its about group opinion, good for political movements and political parties... terribly stupid for actual science (though not necessary the scientists involved). Past consensus involved such great bits of 'truth' as 1) the Earth is flat (looks flat looking across my lawn), 2) the Earth is the one and only center of the universe.
For instance... anyone remember the last great self inflicted killer of all mankind. Think about it for a moment... got it in your head. The answer is the dreaded 'Holes in the Ozone Layer'. The ones right above the North and South poles... the ones found about 12 minutes after the developed the first orbital photos of said Ozone layer. The ones caused by CFCs? Remember those?
Yeah... last I checked those strangely went away or something... because no one mentions them anymore. Shortly after someone pointed out that those 'manmade' holes happened to be located exactly where the Earth's magnetic field deflects all those harmful particles that don't bounce off into space. Last time I heard a news story related to the Holes in the Ozone Layer, it was because of the dead astronauts... seems the CFC free foam they used on the shuttle broke up a bit (as usual on take off) and put a hole in the wing.
I can remember that they started running radio adds about two weeks ago stating that even though Temperatures in the US were about average this winter, globally the average is up. We've had two snow storms since that leave a foot or more. So I guess Manmade Global Warming (note that Manmade isn't used in buzz-lines) is causing snowstorms... that seem to always coincide with conferences on Global Warming oddly. Canceled ones specifically.
Also, CO2 (main causes animals and rotting plants... must eliminate those things for consistency) is NOT, NOT, NOT the biggest 'green house' gas... its I think number 2. Its Water Vapor (main cause the Oceans).
So Hydrogen powered cars (main output water vapor) will actually increase (assuming its existence) Manmade Global Warming. And so the environmentalist movement will have a new target, if they ever 'defeat' the evil CO2.

[Rev Dark]

Well Necratoid several egregious errors.
To start with, the crown jewel. Consensus within the scientific community. It might not be easy for you to grasp but certain professions use words in a different fashion than you or dictionary.com. Theory in common vernacular is not the same as theory to a scientist.
Consensus in science is not everyone agreeing. It is based on communication, peer review, observed, reproducible evidence, etc. Consensus in science is often challenged; but most of those challenges are in the media, rather than peer reviewed journals. Why? Because any prat can say 'Intelligent Design is the answer' in a news article, but no prat can prove that intelligent design is the answer in a respectable peer reviewed journal.
Now onto the ozone layer. No one mentions it anymore? Well perhaps no one mentions it to you any more. Understandable. CFCs, the primary culprit in ozone depletion were banned in the late 70s and the ban was strengthened during the Vienna convention of 85. Finally in 1996 even further restrictions were put in place.
Current measurements have shown that stratospheric chlorine levels peaked in 1998 and as of this writing, are no longer increasing.
Put simply, we have done a lot to stop the threat of ozone depletion. Rather eloquent proof that we are capable of meeting and dealing with environmental threats. Provided that we recognize them as threats.
Shayne

[Necratoid]

quote]Consensus in science is not everyone agreeing.[/quote]
Yes... that was literally my point. Consensus in Manmade Global Warming discussions is however the definition I used. 'Proof' of Manmade Global Warming is junk science and trust weather men to tell the temperature decades from now. Ignoring they can't tell next weeks correctly.

---

Put simply, we have done a lot to stop the threat of ozone depletion. Rather eloquent proof that we are capable of meeting and dealing with environmental threats. Provided that we recognize them as threats.

---

That would be nice and makes a good tag line... however it wasn't proven in the first place. I already mentioned the '12 minute' genesis issue... saying it stopped being a problem, without actually proving it was happening in the first place is like me declaring 'My wallpaper was trying to kill me, but it stopped being a problem after I burned it all up'.
Having it declared solved and then never checking it again means 'ignore the man behind the curtain' level cover up. It was solved as soon as it stopped getting research grant money. However I can prove the movement killed astronauts.
Funny thing, the magnetic field explanation (solar particles deflected towards poles, causing the holes) came up at the same time period as solar activity increase helps warming Earth/Mars is suggested... I wonder if that possible connection has been studied. It could be a direct correlation .
Also, dictionary.com first definition of 'several':

---

1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind

---

You forgot a reason or think several is a synonym for a couple. Pet peeve not mocking.

[Rev Dark]

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