[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

BTW what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? It's gone. Wasn't that going to kill us all?

Your argument is great up to this point. Have you ever heard of the Montreal protocol? It is the international treaty (not so different from the Kyoto Protocol) that led the the gradual reduction and phasing out of ODP (Ozone depleting substances).

The whole inthe ozone layer is still there. Its growth has slowed and projections indicate the growth will stop and then reverse by 2040 when the problem will have been solved.

Unfortunately your mentioning of this totally contradicts your point. It was a manmade problem requiring global consensus and action. That happened, alternative technolgies made the costs negligible and the problem has been solved.

Of course Bush's corporate buddies still want to use bromine to as a peticide for strawberries. The Republican disdain or disregard for environmental issues is going to hurt the party real bad in the near future.

[monday]

"Have you ever heard of the Montreal protocol? It is the international treaty (not so different from the Kyoto Protocol) that led the the gradual reduction and phasing out of ODP (Ozone depleting substances). "

Only, you have no proof that the treaty is the reason the hole is gone. More likely is that it went away on it's own since developed countries are the only ones who adhered to the treaty and they only marginally.

"Your argument is great up to this point."

Thank you. I will assume you agree with my other points since you don't rebut them. BTW, did you read the article?

[palmer]

It is the international treaty (not so different from the Kyoto Protocol) that led the the gradual reduction and phasing out of ODP (Ozone depleting substances).

There's no comparison between the two at all. The CO2-caused warmth is relatively slight versus the CFC's that were clearly linked to ozone depletion by rather precise measurements. If you are confident in the predictions of warming beyond the 1 degree C from increased CO2, then why don't we use those same models to determine the most cost effective solution to the warming? There are many possibilities such as aerosols which are much cheaper and much more precise cooling strategies if they are ultimately needed.