CFC Substitutes Don't Stop Global Warming. Duh!

Well, Fox is reporting that restrictions on CFCs that many countries have been imposing for years at great cost to the world economy did very little to "fix" global warming . Surprise, surprise. I'd like to be the first to say, way to go environmentalists!

As it turns out, short-cited governments failed to realize that many CFC substitutes supposedly have the same effects on the environment as CFCs. The story says:

In theory, the ban should have helped both problems. But the countries that first signed the Montreal Protocol 17 years ago failed to recognize that CFC users would seek out the cheapest available alternative.         

The chemicals that replaced CFCs are better for the ozone layer, but do little to help global warming. These chemicals, too, act as a reflective layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse.

Blah, blah, blah...

"In theory" the ban should have helped? That's the problem with environmentalists; they don't care about sound-science, and therefore all of their moronic "solutions" should work "in theory," or so they say. More often than not, their ideas end up not working. But do environmentalists apologize for the waste of money and life that their bans usually cause for no good reason? Of course not! What are a few million human lives or a few billion dollars to them in comparison to Mother Earth?