Okay, mostly we agree:

When it is late summer in the northern
hemisphere, e.g., August, it is late
winter in the southern hemisphere and
Antarctica with some months of low
sunlight. Indeed, winter in Antarctica
can mean some days of 24 hours with no
sunlight. So, with no sunlight we don't
get the reaction

3O2 --> 2O3

that makes ozone but do continue the
reaction

2O3 --> 3O2

that sees unstable ozone convert back to
oxygen. Similarly for low sunlight.
Soooo, we get an "ozone hole".
We agree -- no surprise.

But in this case, in this Hacker News
thread, the main issue was the effects of
CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons). As I recall,
some laboratory studies showed that CFCs
can speed up the reaction

2O3 --> 3O2

that destroys ozone. Maybe my memory is
correct that there was a Nobel prize for
that result.

Sooo, okay, CFCs contribute to ozone
holes.

Then a question is, how much? How much do
CFCs contribute to ozone holes? I.e., 1
kilogram of some CFC destroys how many
additional kilograms of ozone per day
causing how many additional Watts of UV
(ultraviolet) light hitting the ground?
And what is the increase in percent?

Uh, and maybe what is the stochastic
process of ozone concentration considering
solar flairs, sun spots, the standard 11
year cycle of sun spots with or without
CFCs?

I remember ozone -- it has a distinctive
odor. As a child I had an electric train,
and sparks from its electric motor
generated some ozone, enough to smell.
But the ozone didn't last very long, e.g.,
was gone within a few minutes, certainly
in less than an hour, of stopping the toy
electric train. Uh, I just looked it up:

Google search

"half life of ozone in air"

yielded

"Under normal conditions, the half-life of
ozone indoors is between 7 and 10 min and
is determined primarily by surface removal
and air exchange. ..."

Point: Ozone is unstable and doesn't last
very long. So, I can believe that with 24
hours a day of low or no sunlight over
Antarctica, the ozone doesn't last very
long, with or without CFCs.

Uh, but with low sunlight, there is little
UV to cause skin cancer, whatever the
ozone concentration!

So, to get concerned about CFCs and an
ozone hole in August (late winter after
some months of low or no sunlight) over
Antarctica, I would want a good actual
scientific answer to the question of how
much?

For the media, much of the media I don't
like. I've had decades where I concluded
their content is usually (a) without
credibility and (b) deliberately
deceptive.

While I like entertainment, mostly what I
want from the media is credible, relevant
content. The deliberately deceptive parts
I won't accept or excuse.

Maybe you suspected that I am angry with
much of the media -- that would be
correct.

I know something about writing credible
content: I hold a Ph.D. in applied math
from a world famous research university,
have published peer reviewed papers of
original research in applied math,
statistics, and artificial intelligence,
have taught at Indiana University, Ohio
State University, Georgetown University,
while at IBM's Research division gave
talks at Stanford, Wharton, etc. The
paper in applied math was on the
Kuhn-Tucker conditions but also solved a
problem stated but not solved in a paper
by Arrow, Hurwicz, and Uzawa -- Arrow won
his Nobel prize in economics long before
and Hurwicz won his more recently and
separately.

An analysis is that the media wants to
make money and to do this pursues some old
techniques of journalism that involve
fooling people, grabbing them emotionally
by the heart, the gut, and below the belt.
Such journalism is not nearly new: E.g.,
there is a movie from ~1941 Meet John
Doe about a newspaper getting several
months of twice as much circulation from a
continuing but fake story about a John
Doe committing suicide. Of course the
reason there could be a movie about fake
news is that the movie audience knew
enough about journalism to accept that
fake news was common. There was also
yellow journalism. And tabloids.
Etc.

Of course, the technique of getting
attention, power, and money by scaring
people with threats from evil is much
older even than fake, deceptive
journalism, goes back 2000+ years --
apparently it's part of human nature and
society, but we can try to fight it with
good judgment, science, insisting on
credible content, and rejecting fake
content.

So, people who want to create political
movements and, thus, get money and power
have natural colleagues in fake journalism.

And, indeed and specifically, for CFCs,
there was a movement with the media and
politics: Due to the media touting
threats to ozone, CFCs were actually
outlawed.

So, when I look at claims of threats of
CFCs causing a worse ozone hole I see two
possibilities: (1) As loudly claimed by
some of journalism, CFCs make the ozone
hole significantly worse and, thus,
contribute significantly to skin cancer in
the southern hemisphere. (2) We have no
good scientific evidence that CFCs
contribute significantly to either ozone
holes or skin cancer, and the claims of
threats are fake journalism trying to make
money by grabbing people emotionally by
the gut.

Between (1) and (2), I select (2).