An excellent development of pro's and con's on Ozone Depletion theory, tied in with the Philosophy of Science and the Ozone Hole controversy. The author "buys" the Ozone Hole crisis as being real and important; the puzzle is why. A glance at the history shows that:
1) Ozone Depletion theory is a work in progress, at best. First developed in the 1970's out of very sparse measurements and several assumptions, it totally failed to predict the Antarctic Ozone Hole. Instead, it looked for a global depletion, especially at tropical latitudes, leading to rising UV levels and an epidemic of skin disease. None of this materialized; instead, by 1985 the newly documented seasonal Antarctic Ozone thinning was touted as proof, being a sort of similar phenomenon. The chemistry was revised and complicated and Voila! ...the CFC ban. Never let a good crisis go to waste!
2) Except for the inconvenient facts that a few1957 measurements suggested that the "Hole" may actually be nearer to baseline, that wind circulation actually drives the thinning, that other sources of atmospheric Chlorine are still poorly measured (cosmic dust and meteors, volcanoes, salt evaporation from the sea...), that the chemistry gets more and more complicated... Well, there is a case for OD, just not a strong one.
3) It's very clear, though, that Ozone Depletion theory in 2015 has become Too Big To Fail. Anyone questioning the fundamentals will recant, sooner or later. The theory still can't make reliable predictions about the size, duration, or growth of the Hole. It isn't clear that the CFC ban has affected its development, or even that a rise in UV would be a serious public health or environmental issue. The "Philosophy of Science" developed in the book is mostly a series of excuses about not seeing any of this coming. The parallels with AGW are too obvious to mention.
