>In nature, the ozone hole comes and goes, and I'm willing to bet that it has done so for a million years.

Do you have ANY evidence to back that up, Tom? Can you name ANY reputable atmospheric scientists who argue that? (and note that Glenn Reynolds and the guys are Powerline don't count as atmospheric scientsts)

I'll fully grant that global warming is controversial -- while a majority of scientists say human caused warming is happening, there's a significant minority who disagree, and everyone should agree the evidence is not a slam dunk.

That's not the case with the ozone hole. It has rather conclusively been tied to stratospheric chlorine, which has been conclusively tied to man-made products like CFCs and not volcanic injections of chlorine. Even skeptics like Fred Singer admit that the Antarctic ozone hole is human induced, though he disagrees that we needed to do anything about it, arguing that it can't spread beyond Antarctica and that the UV increase isn't that consequential anyway.

From my work on the issue I sure don't recall there having been much disagreement left over the CFC-depletion connection by the mid-1990s, and some quick googling didn't turn up any, either.

Cherry picking and parroting from the Right blogosphere is fine, I guess, but in this claim you're just making shit up.