Bugsy but the ozone scam has been exploited and has now gone away! That is the point.
Do not worry as soon as they have milked you and the other idiots all the science will be settled and promptly forgotten.
You Mug. I would not mind if there was a special "Greeny" tax for you numpties.
Bugsy stop taking my money for your silly irrational fears, OK?

JBowyer, the SEASONAL variability of ozone levels is indeed due to sunlight. For nearly half the year the sun doesn't shine at all at the south pole, and so the UV-C needed to produce the ozone doesn't come. However, nor does the UV-B which the ozone absorbs (and which destroys it) so it's insufficient to explain the hole. Nor is the nitrogen oxide (which slowly reacts with ozone) enough to cause the hole; we know it was the chlorine monoxide.

The link you provided has several flaws. One I found particularly amusing was "Even high school science students would be aware that seawater salt is comprised of sodium chloride. Once the sodium chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium". But most high school science students would be aware that sodium chloride is already ionised! And most would know that it attracts water, so would be very unlikely to reach the upper atmosphere.

The emissions from Mount Erebus (in the form of hydrogen chloride IIRC) are acknowledged as a contributor to the ozone hole.

It would be incredibly difficult, and quite pointless, to set up an experiment to observe ultraviolet radiation splitting CFCs in the stratosphere. We know that the CFCs do reach the stratosphere, and we know what the conditions in the stratosphere are. So it's much easier to recreate those conditions in the lab. And when that was done, it was found that the claim "the intensity of ultraviolet light in the lower stratosphere is not sufficient to break up CFCs" is totally untrue.

The claims about the effects of the Montreal protocol are extremely disingenuous, falsely implying that it required an immediate worldwide ban on using CFCs as refrigerants. In reality this was not the case at all - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol#Chlorofluorocarbons_.28CFCs.29_Phase-out_Management_Plan

Refrigerant 134a (which is just one of the many substitutes for CFCs) is neither toxic nor "extremely corrosive". But like the CFCs it replaced, it does have a very high global warming potential, so its use has now started to be restricted.

Hang on, now I’m confused here JBowyer, your post is amess of mumbled febrile conspiracy ravings.

Let’s break this down:
The ozone ‘scam’: in what way was the concern over the ozone layer a ‘scam’? Who benefited? How did the scam work? How was it exploited exactly? How has it ‘gone away’? The Montreal Protocol is very much still in effect.
..as soon as ‘they’ have milked me? Who is ‘they’ in this sentence? What are ‘they’ ‘milking’ out of me?

How does this equate to the international treaty on the ozone layer?

Now in one sentence you say ‘they’ are ‘milking’ me, and in your final sentence, you say that I am taking your money? How am I doing that? And if I were, doesn’t that make you the mug?

The only silly irrational fears I see around here are the conspiratorial ones about how 'they' are somehow taking everyone’s money and giving it to who-knows-what. The ever present ‘they’.

THEY changed the terms from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’…
THEY used the ‘ozone scam’ to do something (not quite sure what yet)…
THEY are milking everyone of [presumably] their hard earned cash…
THEY are frauds and fraud backers…
THEY are all-powerful con-artists that are using environmental causes to suit their own agenda…
THEY have an agenda that doesn’t include the welfare of common, hard-working, ignorant people…
But you are onto THEM aren’t you?

Just lay it out clearly eh? Drag those fever dreams out into the open so they can be critically examined. Alternatively, just mumble something about 'scam' or 'fraud' and shuffle off to the next thread.

OK bugs you know how clever you are. The IPC whatever has taken BILLIONS of all our dollars, fact.
Insult me all you like but a person like you can never be taken seriously. Oh yes and you will be the first to complain when insults are directed at you as all you left wing self abusers do.
Stay in toytown Bugsy as despite your tough name you know the real world is far too rough for the likes of you lol.

Ok, please back up your FACTS then, JBowyer.

How much did the IPCC (I am assuming this is what you meant) spend of our money? Which countries did they get it from ?('all' in this case I assuming all countries?)

How much did they get from 'us'? (I am assuming that you mean Australians here, since you seem to be complaining so much about your money being scammed from you).

Please provide some evidence and links to sites that provide real numbers if possible.

And also please don't project your fantasies on my being a lefty pussy, it's kind of icky.

I just LOVE the accusation that climate scientists are in it for the money. It's so silly it's cute, like a little boy pouncing around in a Superman costume.

What do climatologists earn in a year? They're lucky to get over $100k.

Oil and Coal CEO's earn that in a day!

Who's the one with the *real* motivation to lie, or sponsor anti-science movements in grassroots movements amongst the politically naive and paranoid for maximum effect?

This video documents how the Koch brothers (coal barons) get maximum anti-science bang for their buck.

It sounds like some here have been taken for the ride, and even drunk the anti-science cool-aid, all in the aid of making a few rich fat white men even richer and fatter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE