[Skybird]

Ozon levels are not as directly linked to the use of fossil fuels as they are linked to FCKWs, for example (and many of the replacement substances like HCKW as well! Many of these substitutes have a better reputation than they deserve). Burning fossil fuelsthe leads to a concntrattion of CO2, methane, and other gassesm that somewhat reflect warmth from the earth back to earth, thus the tmeeprature is rising. Is anyone seriously trying to tell me that the global temperature is not rising? The scieitifc data oin that is overwhelming, and my subjective experience in my usual life is as well. I will leave any discussion where such nonsens still would be claimed.

I do not search and put it together, you can google yourself, but the reports - not just by medias - pointing at the increasing pollution levels of industrial and traffic exhaust-gasses I cannot ignore. Such data is not only coming from "left think tanks", but conservative universities from various countries, NASA and ESA as well (search their homepages, I just found several such things two hours ago when researching for the reply to your fist posting, I am too lazy to do it again). It is beyond doubt, I claim, that man is tremendously adding to speading up the cycle of shifts in global temperature. There are probably supercycles which led to winters and summers in Earth'C climate - but usally over centuries if not millenias. The speed at which Earth currently is heating up is without precedent in Earth's history as far as we can record it back, and that is several thousand years at least.

On the Ozon level, I again point at the latets data by Nasa, as given above, and I want to point at the many links on the pages where I linked to. While global ozon levels and polar ozon holes are not the same thing, it is worth to note that nnevertheless the absence of ozon at the poles hits all time record heigths this year. Many of the substances that cause the killing of ozon over the last decades have half-life values measured in decades, 50 years often is mentioned. that means they remain active for dman long time and keep on killing ozon even when further emission of these substance would be broght to nil. While you link to a staudy saying there is a trend in ozon recovering, I think that it takes a bit longer time of constant improvements before you can talk of a trend. Note that latest data and assessement by NASA from this month just led them to say that recovering of the ozon löayer will take roughly 20 years longer than previously estimated.

Much of all this may be academical hairsplitting, but I find it dangerous and comfortable to say general statements like "It's all okay, ozon is no ral problem and will be solved soon, and man has no responsebility in global warming anyway. No need to change, guys, so let's have business as usual!" That the climate becomes more intense in it's symptoms, and that extreme weather phenomenons increase both in frequencyand intensity, should already have been noted by even the last man on earth. The dramatical chanes in the atmosphere cannot be explained by natural meta-cycles alone. Opposiong "arguments" that I have heared of, red or saw oin TV seem to have come from guys with links to the industry and free economy. You do not violate the interests of the hand that feeds you and pays your bills. Occasionally, such data is given by scientist in German economical papers, trying to raise doubts that things like emission control are needed, and oinustrial procedures need to be adjusted. Usually, these opinions get busted sooner or later by some more competent people. that'S why I refereed to the untrustworthiness of exmaoinations financed and published by the economy. You referred to the Wall Street Journal, that's why.

Some people simply do not see a need (or want to see it) to adopt or change (even as a precautionary measure) until some smart guy has showed them a calculation that is precise two the 7th number behind the decimale, has been unopposed by anybody for decades and generations and is accompanied by visible symptoms and ophenomenons that are so harsh and intense that even the most lethargixc person can no longer afford to ignore them. but then it might be too late. If you are coming under fire, you do not ask wehre it is coming from, and by whom, and why, and what typ of ammo, and weapon: you take cover and adress the immediate and urgent needs of the siutation, and act accordingly. It would be stupid to say that one does not plan to move and take cover as long as these questions have not been thoroughly answered.

Kyoto is overestimated, imo, taken for itself it's goals are too small and too watered and too unimportant as that they can really be of help and calming effect. Also, it is not followed consequently by too many - may it be that it is intentional, or due to lacking ability.