Yes this is just another communist excuse to de-industrialize the west while communist China grows in industrial & military power.

An excellent article.

It describes a major set of assumptions, where cause and effect was not adequately established.

The graph shows that not even a correlation between: Reduction in Ozone Depleting Substances and Ozone Hole Area could be established.

Don Aitkin is also spot on when he writes "to do with global warming, or what became called ‘climate change’, when warming seemed to have stalled."

Another current issues is: Since the end of the major draught in Southeastern Australia (from early 2000s up to 2011) can we now say with any certainty that the assumed cause (El Nino or global warming) is still valid.

Along the same lines - Many scientists every year say that there will be an El Nino (ocean warming) which Will cause a draught that year. Problems are:

1. no major draught in 2011, 2012 and 2014 has been recorded in NSW/ACT OR

2. how in terms of rainfall and area covered do you record a drought?

3. how do you know if El Nino (warming ocean) is the cause?

AND

4. if scientists get their El Nino predictions wrong for 3 years but they are right in the 4th year - does that prove that their El Nino theory is correct?

The Montreal Protocol on CFCs was possible and could be implemented because the costs of putting it into effect were relatively modest. The same cannot be said for the solutions proposed for global warming.

'Consumption' on the graph is actually production (usage). Don makes a comment about 'concentrations, rather than actual emissions, that are important'. Well, derrrr Don. Anyone with a scientific background could tell you that in any reaction, the concentration of the reagents are important.

Whats completely missing in Watts discussion, is the lag time, widely predicted and acknowledged by all the atmospheric scientists and physicists involved. Just removing the inputs is not going to immediately remove the chemicals from the atmosphere.

Compare the graphs on these sites that have concentration data rather than consumption (emission) data with the ozone hole data presented by Watts.

https://www.environment.gov.au/node/22144
http://www3.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/

and a nice summary here:
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/state-of-the-environment/report-2007/contents/atmosphere_stratospheric_ozone_depletion.html

Contemporaneously contrasting the two sets of data that Watts presents which are secondarily linked with a very long (several decades long) lag time but not directly linked (due to ionic concentrations remaining in the atmosphere for long periods) is a smoke-and-mirrors argument which will only fool the ignorant.

Educate yourself, jeesh.

Hi Don

Don't worry about critics who never learned to write:

"Contemporaneously contrasting the two sets of data that Watts presents which are secondarily linked with a very long (several decades long) lag time but not directly linked (due to ionic concentrations remaining in the atmosphere..."

Poo poo to you plantagenet.

If you cant understand what I was saying, then I will use short easy to understand words.

You can't put two sets of data side by side in time (i.e. contemporaneously) when they are linked by a long lag time (i.e. indirectly) and say they aren't correlated. Only the concentration of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the atmosphere is linked directly to the size of the ozone hole.

Now, if you can't understand that, then I will have to try and dumb down some more.