“The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica has expanded to near-record levels this year” That sounds scary, but don’t worry. When you read further it appears that this doesn’t mean anything whatsoever. “Scientists from the UN said the increase was due to colder-than-usual temperatures,” So what is the use of this information? They are saying that the hole in the ozone layer gets bigger and smaller as a result of natural influences. Could it be that the hole itself is also there for a reason and is not caused by human influences?
“But that could still mean extra UV radiation and the risk of more people getting sunburnt in Australia’s southern states this summer.” So if the hole gets smaller the chances for sunburn will go down. Will they tell everyone then to go out into the sun, because it’s so important? Somehow I doubt that, for the sunscreen industry needs to keep going.
“its size fluctuates greatly when it emerges each spring.” And what does that mean? It sounds to me like it is a natural fenomenon, but no so according to the scientists. “Each springtime over the last now nearly 35 years, there’s been a depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica primarily due to two really important factors,” That sounds like it’s something new, but if you read better it appears that they have only been monitoring the situation for 35 years, so they don’t know anything about the millennia before that. Oops. Then an explanation follows that’s full of science speak. That’s not always a red flag, but in an article on a mainstream news website it certainly is. When scientists abandon normal language in favour of science speak they usually have something to hide.
“The CSIRO’s Paul Krummel said it was a big difference compared to last year, when the seasonal ozone hole was one of the smallest on record.” But mr. Krummel, your records only cover the last 35 years, so that’s not very impressive. Show me records of at least the last 500 years and we can talk again. But that’s always the problem with these people: they don’t have long-term records. That’s why they suggest they have them, to disguise the fact that they have no idea what they are really talking about.
I’m completely in favour of removing toxic man made chemicals from this earth, but the correlation with the hole in the ozone layer is weak, to say it friendly. Seven years after scientists started monitoring the hole in the ozone layer toxic gases were banned and now the hole is “recovering”. To say that one caused the other is a stretch. And by the way, why do these toxic gases only affect the ozone layer in Antarctica and not the rest of the world? And why exactly a hole? Wouldn’t you expect that these gases would make the ozone layer thinner everywhere? It doesn’t seem to add up, though I suppose scientists can come up with fancy theories in an attempt to explain this.
So this whole article is just nothing be hot air. It seems to give scienctific information, but there is none. But of course the article ends with the advice to use a lot of toxic sunscreen, as that’s so good for us. Which makes you wonder who sponsors the scientists who come up with this hot air.