this is a little clearer. he found a correlation and speciously attributed it to cfc reduction.
....which makes zero sense.
usually, the argument is presented as follows:
- increases in greenhouse gasses have contributed to warming
- increases in aerosols have counter-acted that warming
- the net effect is that the greenhouse gases have had a stronger effect.
you'll hear skeptics talk about how "they used to think it was cooling". well, yeah. they thought the effect of aerosols was stronger. then they learned otherwise.
now, aerosols are a warming factor? again, no. there's merely a correlation between aerosol reduction and decreased warming, and a lot of people jumping to ridiculous conclusions.
again: why isn't anybody studying the effects of warfare on the climate? wait: government funds almost all research. right. of course.
http://www.nature.com/news/ozone-hole-treaty-slowed-global-warming-1.14134?WT.mc_id=GPL_NatureNews