Talking of fingers in ears...
Quote,
" The amount of ozone overhead should follow a regular seasonal pattern. This is what occurred during the first 20 years of BAS measurements, but by the late 1970s clear deviations were observed. In every successive spring the ozone layer was weaker than before, and by 1984 it was clear that the Antarctic stratosphere was progressively changing."
This is presumably the referred to data.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/index.html - bottom of page.
The "Hole"
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/history.html
From first link,
" The September 27th edition of Nature has a news item that calls into question existing theories that explain the formation of the ozone hole. The note details research which shows that the rate of photolysis of the chlorine monoxide dimer may be an order of magnitude lower than previously thought. Whilst this needs further investigation and verification by other groups, it does not invalidate previous work which shows an unequivocal link between the abundance of chlorine monoxide and ozone depletion. The news note does not mention bromine monoxide, which also plays a significant part in ozone depletion. "
It does seem that the whole situation is a lot more complicated than it at first appears, and is not as well understood as portrayed.
As with AGW and CO2 is driving climate, that is a massive oversimplification that simply can not be true for something as complicated as climate, or probably Ozone.
Natural processes have to be included to account for the observed variation. Root cause is what we need, not arbitrarily assumed homosapien guilt.
Much of AGW "theory" relies on magnification of known processes, by hypothetical processes that are simply guessed at. In some instances, particularly with modeling, even the signs are probably wrong.
Here, is a link that makes the point rather well about feedbacks that can appear positive, when really they could be negative. It could effect far more than climate models.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/...ncer-12302007/
To not include whatever caused past variation in climate models and AGW theory is a complete misnomer. But, simply this is what has happened with AGW, ignoreing or dismissal of natural processes and variation.
Is it any wonder there are, and should be skeptics..