No it's not the Ozone depletion, this was fixed when we banned CFC's and hasn't been a problem since the early 1980's. This was unrelated to global warming because decreased ozone caused a cooling of temperature. Remember the snowball Earth panic in the 1970's before the hysterical bedwetters changed to global warming? Ozone depletion was still a problem because it would cause skin cancer in humans.

Ozone hole shrinks to lowest size since 1982, unrelated to climate change: NASA - https://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro...ated-to-climate

You won't find any studies newer than 2019. All studies on every topic was suspended in March 2020, only studies on COVID are allowed. The debunking is just correlation is not causation, yadda yadda. So why are we accepting as fact the correlation between CO2 and temperature? The correlation between solar output and global warming has been made in studies published since at least 1987 as far as I know. Global warming has always been fake and gay.

There is no study, just a scientific review of the data. It's here: http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/download/4920/6080

As for begging the question, the UN scientists are begging the question. The reason their data is faulty is two reasons. First, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. Which is a pretty bad assumption and demonstrably false, concrete does absorb and radiate heat so throws off the temperatures and they are ignoring this effect. So the alternate dataset uses rural weather stations only to avoid this distortion.

The second is that the UN's data uses a solar output model using the low variability dataset, which presupposes that the sun's output only varies slightly so are ignoring this effect. They can't be testing for a variable they ignore, so the UN is literally begging the question. They base their data on a limited series of weather ballon measurements in 1960 then use a simple model, to reconstruct data back until 1660. So in other word's it's mostly made up. The alternate dataset uses only actual data from NASA’s ACRIMSAT sun monitoring satellites from it's launch in 1999 to the satellite's failure in 2014 that shows a higher variability.

I'm no climatologist but anyone who thinks global warming has been proven or is even plausible is a shill, dumber than a box of rocks or both.