continue Religion debate to infinity here

[Cairo]

Jaguar -
Your delusions of grandeur have run amok... or is it run dumbf*k! Your flatulence keeps insisting that man has caused the damage, when even the "real" scientists say the evidence is inconclusive.
The evidence NASA provided says, contrary to you, that for a full year there was repair to the ozone and NO DAMAGE, so if man causes the damage, I suppose the whole world decided to conserve energy, stop buying SUV's, stop our polluting factories, and the world is now buying enviro-safe products...
but just for one year, is THAT your logic??? What organizational skills President Bush has to pull this off!!! Man's usage of energy hasn't changed, the natural weather cycle has!

Since I only know the sum-up of the big picture, time to let the expert get technical on yo azzzz....

I'm Cairo's husband an HVAC tech that is universally certified by the EPA. 7 years experience.

I'm only going to tell your pinko ass this once so listen up.

Chloroflourocarbons are not the end of all ozone on earth by a long shot. The CFC O3 breakdown schematic that you are familiar with is incomplete.

Sunlight creates O3 by photoreaction with UV and O2. While CFC does crack O3 into O2 with a free oxygen ion that will strip another O3 of it's extra oxygen atom, and so on and so on. But that chain does not go on ad finitum. Chlorine is broken down in a matter of hours(if you ever owned an inground pool the chlorine maintenance during the summer should tell you how fast the sun will destroy unprotected chlorine-yes pools can use cyanuric acid to sun shield the chlorine) in direct sunlight, flourine fares no better. The sunlight reassembles the scattered oxygen compounds back into O3 in a very short order.

But that is all academic. My posit to my EPA instructor was how CFC and to a lesser degree HCFC were able to get to the upper atmosphere when it is a known fact that those compounds are heavier than air, and considerably heavier than ground level ozone(which purportedly can't reach the upper atmosphere in any significant quantities-can you differentiate chemically between synthetically generated ozone and stratosphereic? No, O3 is O3.
Needless to say he had no answer, because I had stayed awake during organic chemistry class and was not going to be snowjobbed with superflous verbage that covered up the fact the man couldn't diagram molecules much less molecular equations.

As for Australians and South Africans being seemingly more affected by the sun; it's genetic.
Both bloodlines are derived from predominately nordic and celtic stock. Both tribes are known to be susceptable to strong sunlight because the celts and the nords adapted over thousands of years to a latitude with indirect sunlight for the most part.
If it was truly an O3 related effect, even the native darkies would be affected. Not to mention that even a 1% decrease in UV shielding would start to sterilize the very environment around you. Bacteriums would start to die out, but viruses would start getting real hairy before they petered out.

Grapes haven't grown in england for over a thousand years, the fact that they once did tells you that the weather is always a changin'. Or are you going to blame the vikings for their environmental plight?

As for the ozone hole itself; we had never had the type of equipment that detected it available before. It is very unscientific to assume just because we were finally able see it meant it had just appeared. This is akin to believing that whales didn't communicate with one another until we invented the hydrophone.
There is every reason to believe that the ozone holes are largely natural, and if anything are important to the ecosystem of the poles-their absence seems to enable the already thin air to get even colder.
It's worth noting that the main reason reason the polar regions are so devoid of any vegetation is because of the lack of direct sunlight(lack of direct sunlight also limits the amount of radiated solar heat absorbed).

Direct sunlight is needed to cause oxygen molecules to photoreact into ozone.

So try getting a plain old chemistry book from about 1965-1969, that should insulate you from the political propaganda that developed around the environment in the early 1970's.
I would like to point out that the first earth day was held with the belief that we were going into a new ice age. It was held during the 1970's that aerosols were causing the earth to cool down too fast(yeah it was a cold decade, but nothing out of the historical norm). So one might be led to belive(if one believed everything that they were told) that the natural quick fix to global warming would be to mandate the reintroduction of aerosols into the consumer market.

But of course, aerosols weren't responsible for the cold streak of the 1970's anymore than CFC's were for the heat waves of the 1990's.

It's called weather, it's always changing.

I wouldn't call you stupid, just brainwashed and ignorant...an example of what the public school system has become.

Finally, No, your scientific theory is not a scientific fact today...it is still being studied as theory today. Fact is when it is final knowledge.