One, I'm not an enviro-whacko. Two, philosophy has nothing to do with it; the site explains, in simple terms, the scientific understanding of the processes which cause ozone depletion and the ozone "hole". You've already replied with a minor nitpick about the wording on the site; if that's all you think is wrong with it, then I'll stick with the scientists on this one. I would enjoy discussing what you or your reference indicate is wrong with the theory. But if you don't want to, that's fine.
But I'll point out one thing. The communities that live near the southern end of South America have made a very large investment for their income level in UV monitoring devices to determine if the large increase in UV that they are occasionally exposed to each spring (in the Southern Hemisphere) will be detrimental to their health. If this is a "scam", then why are they measuring their increased exposure to UV radiation every spring?
Here's an article describing what happened last year:
"However, said Canziani, the phenomenon has grown more acute over that populated region, with extreme thinning to just 145 Dobson units, and forces the fueginos to take the same precautions in the middle of winter as they would if they were at a beach on summer vacation."
Maybe if you were in Tierra del Fuego when ozone-depleted regions of the stratosphere circulate overhead on a sunny day, you'd go out without any sunscreen on, since you think this is all a scam. We have a different philosophy; I wouldn't do that.
Because the propaganda has frightened them?
Here is a quote from the Science and Environmental Policy Project page at sepp.org. Note what I have highlighted in bold.
Ozone Depletion: Although environmental pressure groups have made exaggerated claims that the stratospheric ozone layer is being eaten away by chlorofluorocarbons (most notably Freon) wafting into space, scientists have yet to see any increase of solar ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface. Actually, even the worst-case scenario (the one that spawned all those bogus stories about blind sheep, blind rabbits, blind trout, plankton death, dead plants, autoimmune disorders, and melanoma epidemics), would have resulted in only a minor increase in UV--one you could experience by driving just 60 miles closer to the equator, say from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration hastily imposed a ban on CFC production, costing U.S. consumers up to $100 billion. And to make that sound like a good deal, the EPA is claiming a preposterous health benefit of $32 trillion. Meanwhile, a hugely profitable black market has been created because of the high cost of CFC substitutes and retrofitting air conditioning systems. Indeed, news reports say the border traffic in "hot" Freon is running a close second to cocaine. Worse, Third World countries, exempt from the ban, are still using CFCs and building factories to produce more. Combine the two and it's unlikely that the ban has produced any benefit to stratospheric ozone. Now that all the handwringing has led to an international protocol, however, the issue is no longer in the public eye. As in the case of acid rain, another minor problem "fixed" by an expensive non-solution, hype has triumphed over substance.
The above excerpt is from http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ozone-02j.html