Ed Poor wrote:

Lindzen and Baliunas have repeatedly expressed their disagreement with environmentalists over the GW theory. I cannot recall Baliunas expressing ANY opinion on ozone depletion.

Baliunas was an ozone depletion skeptic, although (like Singer) she's keeping quiet about it now. Here's the URL to a page that comments on her ozone hole denial, and also provides a link to an essay that she wrote about it back when denial was still fashionable:

http://mentalspace.ranters.net/quiggin/archives/001242.html

For those who don't want to bother reading the full thing and Baliunas's paper, here's the gist of it:

Reader Robert Parson, from the University of Colorado at Boulder, has kindly supplied a scanned PDF file of the hard-to-obtain Baliunas paper "Ozone and Global Warming: Are the Problems Real?", which I've posted here (2.6MB download) . It's a fascinating illustration of the contrarian technique at work. In particular, it's noteworthy that Baliunas uses almost exactly the same kinds of arguments on the two issues and, if anything, her case on CFC and ozone seems stronger. Of course, CFC regulation was a live political issue at the time, whereas action on global warming, such as Kyoto, was a relatively distant prospect.

A highlight is Baliunas' confident assertion that "the ozone hole cannot occur in the Arctic" - a claim that stood up for about three years .

Only a few weeks after Baliunas testified before Congress that the science on all this was unsettled, the Chemistry Nobel was awarded to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina for their work on stratospheric ozone. Rowland and Molina were explicitly cited for proposing the CFC-ozone depletion theory. This killed Republican attempts (by the aptly named Reps DeLay and Doolittle) to stop the phaseout of CFCs, and Baliunas has been very quiet on the ozone issue ever since.