Reply #5: Here's a try.

[TomNickell]

1. Ozone is a separate issue. And much simpler. Certain chemicals, like the old refrigerant Freon, travel to the upper atmosphere where the destroy ozone by a well-understood chemical reaction. There is no remaining debate on this question and the ban on fluorocarbon use may be reversing the problem of ozone depletion.

2. Green houses are a much more complex problem. We produce excess CO2 by digging up the remains of dead plants (coal and oil) and burning them. CO2 (and other gases we produce) allow visible light from the Sun to pass, but stop infrared radiating back into space. Like a greenhouse. Trouble is, the world's climate system is extremely complex and figuring out the magnitude of the effect reqires complex computer models that can only be understood by a specialist. There now seems to be agreement among these specialists that the climate is, indeed, getting warmer. The large majority agrees that human activity is largely to blame. However, there is still a respectable group of dissenters.

The Limbaugh Right simply takes a No-Nothing approach and treats both issues as nonsense without even tryng to understand the arguments. -That- is nonsense. A rational debate would try to balance the cost of reducing emissions against the potential risks of doing nothing.