In the discussion threads of one of the answers to this meta question How much can we trust peer reviewed scientific literature? EnergyNumbers alleged that James Lovelock had originally denied that ozone was destroyed by CFCs and was now trying to backtrack:
James Lovelock is a good example here: his work in popularising the ecosystem & symbiosis research of Lynn Margulis in the late 1960s was very good pop science. However, he has frequently gone outside that speciality, and written an awful lot of tosh, which, at various times subsequently, he has admitted he was very wrong on, such as his 1970s refusal to accept the science of how CFCs were damaging the ozone layer, creating a major hazard.
My memory was different and I thought that the supposed denial that CFCs were harmful came before any serious work on their effect on ozone. Lovelock had, after all, invented the key analysis technique that allowed us to track the low levels of CFCs in the atmosphere so he was talking about them a long time before worries about ozone depletion started.
But my memory isn't perfect. So the question is did Lovelock resist the science suggesting that CFCs were bad for the ozone layer?