3 ms·
When counteracting what I said, you conveniently left aside: 1: The part where we, at the time, were told that the hole would take hundreds of years to close:
by wtdata 7y ago
When counteracting what I said, you conveniently left aside:
1: The part where we, at the time, were told that the hole would take hundreds of years to close: It didn't. (Pear Reviewed article from 1996: https://www.nap.edu/read/9042/chapter/1#6 https://www.nap.edu/read/9042/chapter/1#6)
2: China is still producing those CFCs: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952
- samcday 7y agoSo what you're saying is, the fact we were wrong about how long it would take to recover proves that the whole thing was a farce? Your data says nothing to counter whether the ozone hole was actually a major problem (spoiler: it was). The fact that China is flaunting the rules the international community agreed on means what, exactly? The undeniable fact is the ozone hole did NOT continue to grow, because the majority of the world halted their use of CFCs. And wouldn't you know it, when we stopped using CFCs we stopped fucking up our ozone!
- wtdata 7y ago> So what you're saying is, the fact we were wrong about how long it would take to recover proves that the whole thing was a farce? It proves the all thing was an exaggeration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf