I would think it is beneficial to be more informed before asking questions and subsequently disputing all of the replies you get with more questions. The proble

I would think it is beneficial to be more informed before asking questions and subsequently disputing all of the replies you get with more questions. The problem is that if you don't know enough, you often can't really ask the right questions, so by asking uninformed questions (and giving the logic behind those questions far more credit than it deserves), it's an exercise in frustration for anyone else. Comparing one's lack of understanding to Feynman's informed questioning doesn't really help either. You seem extremely interested in questioning or learning further about this issue (great!) but I'm surprised that curiosity hasn't led you to read any of the science for yourself? Trying to dispute established scientific conclusions without knowing or learning at least a baseline of the science involved in reaching those conclusions seems quite futile, IMHO I also don't understand where you get the idea that there's an existing controversy (maybe I misunderstand, if so, sorry)? The very few that dispute the fact that CFCs deplete ozone are typically very conspiracy-theorist-based and unscientific- the fact that these few disagree with established science does not in any sense create a "controversy"- are you imagining one?