On 13/05/2011 13:35, Martin Bonner wrote:
On 13 May, 09:18, wrote:

the new gas that they use these day to replace the CFCs that
were supposed to degrade the ozone layer.

You write that as if there is some doubt as to whether CFCs degraded
the ozone layer. Has /anyone/ ever suggested that CFCs are not
responsible for the Antarctic ozone hole?

(Note that the hole seems to be getting better since the passing of
the Montreal treaty, but it's going to take another couple of decades
to get back to normal.)

Pass.
Don

Donwill wrote:

the new gas that they use these day to replace the CFCs that
were supposed to degrade the ozone layer.

You write that as if there is some doubt as to whether CFCs degraded
the ozone layer. Has /anyone/ ever suggested that CFCs are not
responsible for the Antarctic ozone hole?

(Note that the hole seems to be getting better since the passing of
the Montreal treaty, but it's going to take another couple of decades
to get back to normal.)

Pass.
Don

Then why did you say "supposed" in the first place? I noticed it too but
managed to restrain myself from rising to the bait.




--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.