[amirmc]

You seem to be trying to refute models of complicated atmospheric processes based on (necessarily) over-simplified high school physics.

I’m sure there much more reading material out there than just the two Wikipedia pages you linked. Try the following for some more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

[mhneu]

As you provide links remember that a prominent argument used by climate-change-deniers is this heavier than air fake argument. https://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm

Some history here https://books.google.com/books?id=Va-BAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=P...

But this form of the denial disinformation is pretty old and perhaps surprising it’s being discussed today.

Ed: but aha, it looks like the Christian Coalition site has been sowing CFC doubt much more recently: http://www.cc.org/blog/suspected_ozone_loss_may_never_have_i...

[RobertRoberts]

As I mentioned before, I've haven't read any of their stuff. All of my questions are 30 years old, and only thought to ask this here because I didn't even know there was any controversy on this subject.

But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon if someone else disagrees with the establishment and if you even ask the same questions is automatically guilt by association.

[mdpopescu]

> But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon if someone else disagrees with the establishment

Yes. Challenging accepted knowledge on HN is a quick way of getting downvoted to oblivion and, in some cases, shadowbanned. (I've seen a couple of examples of the latter.)

[amirmc]

> But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon...

I did not consider the questions to be particularly ‘logical’ at all. Naive, perhaps, but not logical.

There’s presumably 30 years of knowledge you could look up to formulate better questions.