[Fyron]

Rextorres provided a link with specific information and explanation about why volcano eruptions do not interact with the ozon layer in a significant way.

Which was an article lacking any form of reference, just making lots of unsupported bold assertions. Like most sources on the internet... What I linked to had information on how volocanos damage the ozone layer (other than that one link that just discussed what the Mt. Pinatabo volcano was). Unless you want to assert that NASA's data is flawed, of course.

Fyron's links contained "informations" like "it is a well known fact that volcanic eruptions interact with the ozone layer..:" - I stopped reading there.

As did that EPA article.

A myth repeated by a lot of people does not become a "well known fact".

No. And the myth that we are solely responsible for destroying the ozone is not a well known fact just because it is a repeated statement either.

Scientific essays on a similar level have begun with "it is a well known fact that the earth is flat and the center of the universe..."

Nothing I linked to started off in such a manner. But either way, most (all?) scientific essays begin with some well known facts. It is pretty hard to discuss complicated issues if you do not accept less complicated issues as fact. Unless you want to prove every single item used in your essay every time you write one, of course.

But, as I said, someone clinging to his myth or believe will take this sentence as 100% scientific proof and will ignore anything else. This happens very often: people first make up their minds about what they want to believe, and then search for facts (or "facts") supporting it and ignore anything else. Unfortunately, some of them even publish a book (or an internet article) and claim knowing it all because they have done "extensive research"...

This goes both ways, of course. I did not first make up my mind and then go searching for evidence, I read various forms of evidence and then made up my mind. You seem to be doing just what you are accusing me of.

The scientific approach is to first collect as much facts as possible, check for possible faults and errors, and then make a theory. And if some facts do not fit into the theory, it is probably the theory and not the facts that are wrong.

Don't presume to lecture me on the scientific method. Such in no way helps your arguement.

Therefore, I'm not saying "this and that causes the ozone hole and it will develop like this" - I'm just sure that a few volcanic eruptions within the Last years didn't cause anything like that.

And you know this how? Because you have made up your mind and are unwilling to look at other facts that contradict your belief?

Volcanoes have erupted since the formation of the earth, more and heavier when earth was younger, and I'm too missing an explanation why they should cause significant ozone holes only in our century.

Please tell me where I ever said that? Volcanos have been damaging the ozone for countless millennia. The ozone layer has only been around for ~600 million years anyways. When the earth was much younger and had much more violent volcanos, there was no ozone layer. Free-floating oxygen in relatively large quantities is a by-product of the development of anaerobic bacteria which produced it in photosynthetic processes. The ozone layer is constantly replenished due to UV ray interactions with free floating O2 molecules. reference