The logical flaw in that argument is that you had no empirical evidence that there were elephants in your neighborhood, whereas there was ample evidence that CFCs were, in fact, harming the ozone layer.
This is why science is more reliable than making crap up.
Not so fast. I have studied geology while in under-grad courses. We have had elephant remains unearthed in our area. That evidence was from another natural climate change cycle from years past.
I live in an area of glacier made lakes and sink holes. The sink holes often make delving into past climate studies much easier, and provide concrete evidence for understanding any perceived weather/climate change today, rather than politically motivated theory and hype.
CSA
I canāt believe weāre still talking about this made up scenario, but fossilized elephants are not evidence that elephants exist in your neighborhood now. Again, there was plenty of hard evidence that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. That evidence pointed toward the need to reduce CFC emissions.
There was just as much evidence that you needed elephant repellent as there was that you needed dragon repellent. We reduced CFC emissions because the evidence pointed toward a need to do so. You (in this made up story) bought elephant repellent because you were dumb enough to fall for a huckster who claimed, absent any evidence, that you needed it. Comparing the two scenarios demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how evidence-based policymaking works.
To make another point, evidence that climate change happened in the past, which no one denies, is not evidence that human activity isnāt causing the current episode of climate change.
In other words, one of our positions makes rational sense. The other one is yours. 
Politically motivated? Really? Whatās the politics of Japan, Brazil, Chile, China, India, England, France that would cause them to believe in man-made climate change? Perceived??? climate change? Really? Fox News parroting again?
The big question is why are there climate deniers. The answer is easy - MONEY. The fossil industry denied climate change for years. But now even Exxon-Mobil is on board with it and that itās man made. There was way too much money to be made in Fossil fuel to admit thereās man made climate change. Money has always been the big motivating factor in this debate - although itās not really a debate since one side is so ill-prepared.
Big oil and coal has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to disprove climate change. Theyāve funded numerous junk science projects from any 2-bit hack whoāll take their money. And then when they finally (Koch Brothers) decided to find legitimate scientists to really look at the scienceā¦and after several years they came to the conclusion that there is climate change and man is the leading causeā¦they have call that junk science.
Itās amazing how the ignorant can be so manipulated.
Washingtonās view of the ethanol predicament gave them such a clear choice. There are millions paying the increased costs due to producing and using ethanol fuel vs a few billionaire farmers paying millions to lobbyists in support of of politicians. Was there ever any significant overall environmental benefit in pouring moon shine into fuel tanks.
E-15 was the result of the oil states recognizing how they could gain the political support of the corn belt states when there was a struggle to build a pipeline for shale oil. At that time the market price of WTI was double what it is now.
In my mind, it is important to protect the environment. My community pressured our city council to deny building a plant to recycle steel dust due to the pollution that would be released into the atmosphere. My community could have used the jobs as we have high unemployment. The pollutants that would have been released included mercury.
I remember well the coal fired steam railroad locomotives. We lived near a railroad track and we had soot all over the house. The houses we lived in were heated with coal. My parents were ecstatic when they were able to get a gas heating permit. This was back in 1950 when I was in 4th grade. I forgot how polluting coal could be until I moved to Southern Illinois twelve years later in 1962. This was coal mining country and most residents of the town where I lived heated with coal.
Four years later, I was teaching at a mid sized state university that heated the campus with coal. The sulphur pollution from the smokestacks mixed with water and the resulting sulphuric acid damaged the paint on cars. To add insult to injury, I lived in an apartment building that was practically on the railroad tracks. Even though the coal fired locomotives had long since been replaced with diesel locomotives, there was a siding back of our apartment building. In the middle of the night, a coal car would be switched off the train. The contents would be dumped in an underground bin. About an hour later, dump trucks from the institution would then come behind the building. A hopper would load the coal from the underground bin into the dump trucks. When the hopper was running, the whole apartment building would shake. Today, the smokestacks are gone and the institution is heated with geothermal energy and cooled the same way.
Almost all houses and commercial buildings are heated with gas or electricity. My own house is heated with a heat pump until the temperature drops.below 40 degrees and then a gas furnace takes over.
In my 77 years, we have reduced much of the pollution from coal. I drove compact carsāRamblers and a Ford Maverick to save gasoline. If I didnāt need a minivan, I would drive a Prius. I am considering solar panels when I need to have a new roof. I had a battery powered mower that I bought second hand. Unfortunately, the control board went out and the mower was old enough that parts are no longer available. I rolled out my old gasoline mower.
I have seen progress in protecting the environment over my lifetime, but we have a long way to go.