"Australia has just had its hottest year on record". Yes Noel, 'on record'. That does not include the Roman and medieval warming periods. As a scientist, wouldn't it be a little more professional and, dare I say it, honest, to make this obvious observation? Perhaps to state that the most recent geological time is the warmest in the current interglacial period as the planet continues its recovery from the little ice age?

"However, the "ozone hole" has not decreased much at all, despite the stopping of CFC emissions. Now scientists are finding that meteorological factors play a role. The expected recovery of the ozone layer is not yet happening". Noel, could this suggest that the ozone hole depletion science, a consensus at the time no less, is still just a little 'rubbery'?

"Greenhouse gas emissions bring about a sort of heat trapping"blanket" in the atmosphere, as these emissions increase, more heat is trapped." Yes, that is fine for climate science 101, most 'lay' people accept that 'hypothesis' at this point in time. The attribution of humans to this function is even more 'rubbery' at this time than the ozone hole attribution theory. Climate science 101 also suggests CO2 could play some role in this. How much of a role, in terms of feed backs, is still way off in the realms of computer generated guesswork at this stage, sort of the 'pacman' level of computer sophistication.

Please take the time to read the links provided by Peter Lang above. Your knowledge of skin cancers appears to be of a very high order, commensurate with your experience and qualifications. However, I feel that you are going 'a bridge too far' when drawing your parallels and or connections. Don't want you to make the mistakes of the railway engineer who thought he was a climate scientist, could be a touch embarrassing.

Cont..

"In a slower sort of frolic, Australia under the Abbott government no longer seems to know or care". Noel, just a tip here, this addition is a completely unnecessary and gratuitous insert into your essay, where I presume you are attempting to garner support for your argument. You successfully put 'off side' the majority of your intended audience, as demonstrated in the last election.

I would have thought that someone of your obvious learning would desire the 'de-politicization of the science you are involved in. Instead, you 'blew it' in the third paragraph. Stick to the formal papers in your field of expertise.

Of course nothing happens to me, lets get in the sun, take no notice of safeguards, I will live forever, it happens to every one else, but not me, like Brian of Buderin it is so true what he states, we stripped down, went nude, all for that bronze he man look, everything got burnt in the process, but that glorious tan, lets get it, we won't get skin cancer, how wrong was the thinking of us ego sun freaks, we have had all types of skin cancers removed and bare the scars later in our lives, whether it be climate change or anything else, the writer is trying to put sense into the risks of the exposure to the sun's rays, so all I can say is go for it, get that all over tan, nothing happens to me attitude, but you will be surprised later in life when cuts to your skin are the order of the day, to all those deniers of climate change get out there and enjoy your burning skin, the more exposed the better, nothing will happen to me, I am here for ever.

Noel Wauchope observes that there has been an increase in skin cancers in Australians and attributes this to various aspects of climate change, including enhanced damage from ionising radiation resulting from damage to the ozone layer. Noel may be right, but any proof is conspicuous by its absence. There are many other factors that could explain such an increase. These include, but are not limited to, increased time of exposure to sun by a population with more leisure time and a society that condones significant approximations to nudity; more effective means of diagnosis, particularly early diagnosis, changes in skin due to diet and possibly obesity, as well as an ethnically more variable population relative to that of even one generation ago. Causality is notoriously difficult to identify with certainty.

Add into the mix Nuclear bomb tests, Chernobyl,Fukushima and the fact that all nuke power stations leak.

This is not a scientific or logical article.

Noel. See, ("to all those deniers of climate change get out there and enjoy your burning skin" [Ojnab above]) your perfectly reasonable discussion on the dangers of skin cancer has been immediately conflated into name calling and ranting from the AGW religious nuts. Such a pitty.