Is "climate change" this generation's version of the ozone crisis from 25 years ago? [Word "just" removed.]

Yes, as with the acid rain crisis of about the same time, however, anthropogenic global warming, and its consequence, anthropogenic climate change, are much more serious.

Ozone at ground level, bad, ozone in the stratosphere (high up), good. Ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, which causes damage to human skin and to plant leaves. Emissions of most halogenated hydrocarbons reduce stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone depletion was observed in the south polar region. Scientists requested severe reduction in production of the implicated chemicals.There was opposition, without scientific basis, similar to the opposition to reducing smoking due to smoking causative link to lung cancer. ("Not proved yet." "We need more research." et cetera.) Here is a link to the techniques used to obfuscate the science on ozone depletion. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/cl...

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, whose ratification was an arduous process, is one of the best success stories in the history of the global environment. http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Ke...

Emmisons of halogenated hydrocarbons have been drastically reduced, their atmospheric levels have leveled off. And ozone levels have made a slight recovery, all consistent with the models.

President G.W. Bush’s signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 instituted a cap-and-trade system to cut power plant pollution and reduce acid rain. "Acid Rain Study Show Substantial Decreases, But More Progress Is Needed" http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp... As with smoking's relationship to lung cancer, and the effects of CFC on ozone, there were similar attempts to mislead the public about the science.

So now we have another scientific question whose effects are in the future, whose explanations appear to be complex, with, apparently, short-term policy costs for long-term benefits, and whose consequences may not affect everyone in the short, or even, medium term. Once again, there are those, with economic, philosophical or political objections to the policies to which the science points, who use their concerns about possible policies to deny the science.

Policy should not define the science, the science should inform the policy.

Trying to understand, or discuss, anthropogenic climate change before understanding anthropogenic global warming is futile. The latter causes the former. (The term climate change was first used in the 1975 paper "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" in the journal Science.)

So, as with the ozone crisis, AGW and ACC are well-shown, well-accepted scientific theories where those who have reasons to disbelieve are using FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to muddy the waters and delay inevitable policy fixes. However, this crisis has far more sever consequences than the others. The more we do, and the sooner we do it, the less the costs of the policies and the less the costs of the effects on us.

Here is the start of a three-part series that is surprisingly understandable, given how technical it is. If you really want to understand global warming, this is excellent. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/...

Here is NCAR's FAQ. http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2505n1...

So in answer to your question, climate change is similar to the ozone crisis in that the science is unequivocal, there are policies to help deal with the problem, the effects will be seen mostly in the long term, and there is a misinformation campaign from those who do not want to understand. The difference is that the consequences of the present problem will be far more severe, mitigation and remediation costs far greater, the effects of delay far more costly and the political will to do what is needed too little.

The thing about the “ozone crisis” was that we acted on the advice of the scientists, replaced the damaging ozone depleting substances with other chemicals and now the damage is repairing itself.

The same happened in the 1970’s when we were facing a possible period of global cooling. Sulphate and particulate emissions were reducing the amount of energy being received from the Sun. We took action and cleaned up our mess and the problem was resolved.

Now we have another problem. Again, if we take action we can minimise the effects. The scientists got it right before and they’ve got it right this time. The problem now is that big businesses with vested interests have waged a propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting the science, some people with little or no knowledge of the climates have fallen for these lies. Almost without exception, every argument opposing the global warming theory can be traced directly back to the propaganda campaign.

Maybe. Luckily, our action in reducing the particularly damaging pollutant enabled the damage to the ozone layer to partly repair itself. A feature of global warming is that the climate becomes less stable and less predictable. Some places (like the UK) will actually get colder. The weather phenomena we are seeing are consistent with modest atmospheric warming. There is some debate about how extreme the effects will be and how much we can influence it. That doesn't mean it isn't true .... just like the damage to the ozone layer.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up and they are/were both scams. You note that none of the dreaded predictions of the ozone scare ever came true. Oh, and don't forget the Global Cooling scare of the 1970's, none of that came true either. Many of the same people that then were hyping Global Cooling back then are today on board with the man-made Global Warming scam.

It's been cooling for at least 12 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

You should watch these, they will open your eyes. Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle