UPDATE: A cartoon from Josh drawn about a year ago has been added. See below.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The United Kingdom Independence Party, the only climate-skeptical party in Britain, has scored a crushing victory in Sunday’s elections to the Duma of the European Union.
Britain’s most true-believing party, the Greens, won one or two new seats, but the second most true-believing party and junior partner in the Children’s Coalition that currently governs at Westminster, the “Liberal” “Democrats” (who are neither), were all but wiped off the map.
The European Duma, like that of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, has no real power. It cannot even bring forward a Bill, for that vital probouleutic function is the sole right of the unelected Kommissars – the official German name for the tiny, secretive clique of cuisses-de-cuir who wield all real power in the EU behind closed doors.
The Kommissars also – bizarrely – have the power to set aside votes of the elected Duma, which doesn’t even get to vote in the first place without their permission. Democratic it isn’t.
The outgoing Hauptkommissar, Manuel Barroso, is a Maoist – and, like nearly all of the Kommissars, a naïve true-believer in the hard-Left climate-extremist Party Line that is turning Europe into a bankrupt, unconsidered economic backwater.
In the Duma recently (where the Kommissars, though unelected, may sit and speak but not vote), Barroso said there was a “99% consensus” among scientists about the climate. Actually 0.5%, Manuel, baby: read Legates et al., 2013.
Because the Duma is a parliament of eunuchs, UKIP’s couple of dozen members of the European Parliament won’t be able to make very much difference to anything except their bank balances – they all become instant multi-millionaires.
However, after opposition to the EU’s militantly anti-democratic structure and to the mass immigration that has been forced upon Britain as a direct result, UKIP’s third most popular policy with the voters is its opposition to the official EU global-warming story-line.
It was I, as deputy leader of the party in 2009/10, who had the honor of introducing UKIP’s climate policy to the Press. Their reports, as usual, were sneeringly contemptuous. Now the sneers are beginning to falter.
The leadership thought long and hard before adopting the policy. I said we could not lose by adopting a policy that had the twin merits of being true and being otherwise unrepresented in British politics. Private polling confirmed this, so the policy was adopted.
For interest, here – in full – is UKIP’s climate policy as I promulgated it in 2010:
“Global warming: is it just a scam?
“The IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report made wildly-exaggerated projections of how global temperature would rise. Yet for the past 15 years [now nigh on 18 years] there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all, as a leading IPCC scientist has now admitted. For nine years there has been a rapid cooling trend. None of the IPCC’s computer models predicted that.
“The 1995 Second Assessment Report, in the scientists’ final draft, said five times there was no discernible human influence on climate. Yet one man rewrote the report, replacing all five statements with a single statement saying precisely the opposite. He later said IPCC processes permitted this single-handed rewrite, which has been the official policy ever since.
“The 2001 Third Assessment Report contained a graph contradicting the First Report by falsely abolishing the medieval warm period, which, like the Roman, Minoan, and Holocene optima, and 7500 of the past 11,400 years, and each of the four previous interglacial warm periods, and most of the past 600 million years, was warmer than today. Some 800 scientists from more than 460 institutions in 42 countries over 25 years have written peer-reviewed, learned papers providing evidence that the Middle Ages were warmer than today.
“The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report’s key conclusion that, with 90% confidence, most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is disproven by measurements. A natural decline in global cloud cover from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005) caused most of that warming.
“The IPCC’s false “90% confidence” estimate was not reached by scientists: it was decided by a show of hands among political representatives who had few scientific qualifications.
“A lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report admits that, “to influence governments”, he knowingly inserted a falsehood to the effect that the Himalayas will be ice-free in 25 years.
“Many other false conclusions of the IPCC were authored not by scientists but by campaigning journalists, members of environmental propaganda groups or IPCC bureaucrats.
“The first table of figures in the IPCC’s 2007 Report did not add up. Bureaucrats had inserted it, overstating tenfold 40 years’ contributions of Greenland and Antarctic ice to sea-level rise.
“The IPCC’s conclusion that CO2 has a major warming effect is false. In the pre-Cambrian era 750 million years ago the Earth was an ice-planet, with glaciers at sea level at the Equator: yet atmospheric CO2 concentration was 300,000 ppmv – 700 times today’s 388 ppmv. If CO2 had the large warming effect the IPCC imagines, the glaciers could not have been there.
“In the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, CO2 concentration was 7000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001): yet that was when the first calcite corals achieved algal symbiosis. In the Jurassic era 175 million years ago, CO2 concentration was 6000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001): yet that was when the first aragonite corals came into existence. While the oceans continue to run over rocks, they must remain pronouncedly alkaline. Ocean “acidification” is a chemical impossibility.
“Many peer-reviewed papers (e.g. Douglass et al., 2004, 2008, 2009; Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Lindzen & Choi, 2009) show that the IPCC has exaggerated the warming effect of greenhouse gases up to 7-fold. Without that exaggeration, there is no climate crisis.
“The economics of global warming
“Millions have died of starvation, or are menaced by it, because the world’s governments have unwisely trusted the UN’s climate panel (the IPCC) and the self-serving national scientific institutions that have profiteered by parroting its now-discredited findings.
“The World Bank has reported that three-quarters of the doubling of world food prices that occurred two years ago is directly attributable to the global dash for biofuels.
“Herr Ziegler, the UN’s Right-to-Food Rapporteur, has said that while millions are starving the diversion of farmland from food to biofuels is “a crime against humanity”.
“Lord Stern’s discredited report on climate economics unrealistically adopted a near-zero discount rate for appraisal of “investment” in carbon-dioxide mitigation and doubled the IPCC’s already-exaggerated high-end estimate of the warming to be expected from CO2. Without these grave economic and scientific errors, no case for spending any taxpayers’ money on mitigation of CO2 emissions can be made.
“A carbon-trading scheme that sets a low price for the right to emit a ton of carbon dioxide is merely a tax and does not affect the climate, while a high price drives our jobs and industries overseas to countries which emit more CO2 than us, raising mankind’s global CO2 footprint. The chief profiteers from carbon trading are banks.
“A steelworks at Redcar is closing with the loss of 1700 jobs, because the European carbon-trading scheme has made it uneconomic. Precisely the same steelworks will be re-erected in India. Net effect on the climate: nil. Net effect on British workers’ jobs: catastrophic.
“If we were to shut down the entire global carbon economy altogether, and go back to the Stone Age but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in our caves, it would take 41 years to forestall just 1 C° of “global warming”. The cost is disproportionate.
“Even if the IPCC were right in imagining that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause as much as 3.26 ± 0.69 C° of “global warming”, adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than attempting to limit CO2 emissions.
“Global warming gurus humbled
“Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs IPCC’s climate science panel, is a railroad engineer. The Charity Commission is investigating TERI-Europe, a charity of which Pachauri and his predecessor as IPCC science chairman were trustees. The charity filed false accounts three years running, under-declaring its income by many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
“Dr. “Phil” Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, on which the IPCC has relied for its global temperature record, has stepped down after a whistleblower published emails between him and other leading IPCC scientists revealing manipulation, concealment and intended destruction of scientific results.
“Dr. Jones has admitted that his Unit has lost much of the data on which the IPCC relies. The “Climategate” files show his Unit received millions in increased taxpayer funding so that it could investigate “global warming”.
“Al Gore has made hundreds of millions from “global warming”, and may become the first climate-change billionaire. In 2007 a High Court judge found nine errors in his film serious enough to require 77 pages of corrective guidance to be sent to every school in England.
“On Gore’s notion that sea level would imminently rise by 20 feet (6.1 m), the judge ruled: “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.” IPCC (2007) projects sea-level rise of 1-2 ft by 2100: Mörner (2004, 2010) projects just 4 ± 4 in.
“Gore said a scientific study had found polar bears dying as they swam to find ice. In fact, Monnett & Gleason (2006) had reported just four bears killed in a bad storm. For 30 years there has been no decline in sea-ice in the Beaufort Sea, where the bears died. There are many times more polar bears today than in 1940.
“Gore said Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier had lost much of its ice because of “global warming”. In fact, the cause was desiccation of the atmosphere caused by regional cooling (Molg et al., 2003). Mean summit temperature has averaged –7 °C for 30 years and, in that time, summit temperature has never risen above –1.6 °C. The Fürtwängler glacier at the summit began receding in the 1880s, long before mankind could have had any influence over the climate. Half the glacier had gone before Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936.
“What is to be done
“Royal Commission on global warming science and economics
“UKIP would appoint a Royal Commission on global warming science and economics, under a High Court Judge, with advocates on either side of the case, to examine and cross-examine the science and economics of global warming with all the evidential rigour of a court of law.
“The remit of the Royal Commission would be to decide –
Ø “Whether and to what degree the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 or other greenhouse gases;
Ø “Whether and under what conditions, if any, the IPCC’s imagined consequences of the present rate of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will be beneficial or harmful;
Ø “Whether and under what conditions, if any, mitigation of global warming by reducing carbon emissions will be cheaper and more cost-effective than adaptation as, and if, necessary;
Ø “Whether and under what conditions any emissions-trading scheme can make any appreciable difference to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and whether and to what degree, if any, any such difference would affect global surface temperature.
“Other climate-change measures
“Pending the report of the Royal Commission, UKIP would immediately –
Ø “Repeal the Climate Change Act, and close the Climate Change Department;
Ø “Halt all UK contributions to the IPCC and to the UN Framework Convention;
Ø “Halt all UK contributions to any EU climate-change policy, including carbon trading;
Ø “Freeze all grant aid for scientific research into “global warming”.
“In any event, UKIP would immediately –
Ø “Commission enough fossil-fuelled and nuclear power stations to meet demand;
Ø “Cease to subsidize wind-farms, on environmental and economic grounds;
Ø “Cease to subsidize any environmental or “global-warming” pressure-groups;
Ø “Forbid public authorities to make any “global-warming”-related expenditure;
Ø “Relate Met Office funding to the accuracy of its forecasts;
Ø “Ban global warming propaganda, such as Gore’s movie, in schools;
Ø “Divert a proportion of the billions now wasted on the non-problem of global warming towards solving the world’s real environmental problems.
“UKIP has been calling for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate since 2008, when extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear. There must be an immediate halt to needless expenditure on the basis of a now-disproven hypothesis.
“Given our unprecedented national debt crisis, not a penny must be wasted, not a single job lost to satisfy vociferous but misguided campaigners, often led by ill-informed media celebrities, profiteering big businesses, insurance interests and banks. The correct policy approach to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.”
If you know of any political party, anywhere, that has a climate policy more vigorously and healthily skeptical than UKIP, let me know in comments.
===============================================================
In answer to Mr Rawls, who asks whether the IPCC in 2007 really said that most of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic, here is the text of the panel from the Summary for Policymakers:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.”
“Very likely”, in IPCC (2007), means “more than 90% confidence”.
The draft text had originally advocated 95% confidence: however, the matter was decided not by any scientific process but by a show of hands among government representatives. China objected to any confidence interval for what is inherently not a statistical process. Other nations wanted 95%. The show of hands among non-scientists settled the meaningless figure at 90%.
In the 2013 IPCC report, the confidence level was boosted to 95%. However, as Legates et al. (2013) demonstrated, only 0.5% of abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers published on the climate question since 1991 stated that most of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic, and many of these abstracts were merely quoting the IPCC itself. There is, therefore, no more basis in the literature than there is in statistics for the IPCC’s “95%” confidence interval. It is a sham and a fiction.
Interesting article by John Vinocur, in the Wall Street Journal, headed:
“Vladimir Putin’s Woman in Paris
Marine Le Pen wants to neuter the EU as a political force. The Kremlin couldn’t ask for a better ally.”
In response to the discussion about the meaning of “cuisses-de-cuir”, it literally means “leather-thighs”. It describes bureaucrats, whose thighs are pachydermatous enough to survive the constant sitting-around that they do.
Mr Stokes, who can be guaranteed to come to the aid of totalitarianism in all its dismal forms, cites with approval an article in the Wall Street Journal in which it is said that no better ally for Mr Putin can be found than Ms le Pen, who wants to neuter the EU as a political force. On the contrary: if the EU can be neutered – and more and more people in its satrapies wish that it could be – then Europe will become stronger as the EU becomes weaker. Mr Putin is no doubt well aware that the EU has weakened Europe morally, militarily, politically and financially.
Monckton of Brenchley says: May 26, 2014 at 3:31 pm
“Mr Stokes, who can be guaranteed to come to the aid of totalitarianism in all its dismal forms…”
Can’t blame me. It’s WSJ. Rupert Murdoch speaking.
Seems that everyone who has a different view here either has a character defect or is some alternate life form. Need we shred the author along with the argument?
Nick Stokes says:
May 26, 2014 at 3:36 pm
Murdoch doesn’t approve or disapprove every guest editorial in media outlets his company owns.
John Vinocur, the former New York Times editor & author of the article you cite, was decorated by Sarkozy, with whom he remains cozy.
Le Pen might reverse France’s disarmament under the Socialist regime that replaced Sarkozy’s government, which development her putative pal Putin might not welcome.
Ah, but there is the rub! If 1/4, 1/2, or more than 1/2 of the warming since 1945 is due to human influence, four things must be established either by the IPCC (and the CAGW religion at large), or specifically disproved by the IPCC (and its AGW religion at large):
1. How much of the warming PRIOR to 1945 can be specifically attributed to man’s release of CO2? Ferdinand E. (responding to my question last night) acknowledged that the IPCC rejects man-made warming prior to 1945, but I have not seen that repeated anywhere else, though it is true.
2. What is the IPCC’s specific measured evidence of aerosols being the cause of the global cooling/static/not-big-enough warming seen between 1945 and 1975 in all temperature records? Polution was heavy – but only a few selected cities above very, very small land masses compared to the world at large. (Pittsburgh, London, Los Angeles for example are real examples of particle pollution that are cited, but these three extreme cases are less than 3 counties in three states in the 3% of the world that is the US and England.)
3. By 2100, if no change in man’s release of CO2 (Hansen’s Mode C, or business as usual), what is the probability of the global average temperature
– not increasing at all.
– increasing less than 2 degrees C
– increasing between 2 and 4 degrees C
– increasing between 4 and 6 degrees C
– increasing more than 6 degrees C?
They cannot assign a 100% chance of a 4 or 6 degrees rise, since only half of the models exceed 4 degrees temperature rise!
4. At each of these levels of potential increase, what are benefits of that increase in CO2, warmth, and more humidity and economic growth; and what are the specific changes that the IPCC calls “harms” or “costs” of carbon? That is, what exactly is the economic “costs” of a decreasing Arctic ice field? What body is “officially” authorized or recognized as assigning “costs” and what is their political and economic biases? Or their checks and balances, if any?
Daily Mail: ‘We’re coming for YOU, Red Ed’: Farage boasts there is no limit to UKIP’s ambitions as he reveals plan to go after Miliband’s Doncaster seat in the wake of Euro triumph
Tories, Labour and Lib Dems face fresh turmoil as results are announced
After 11 regions declared, UKIP has 24 MEPs and 29% of the vote up 11.68%
Boris Johnson claims surge in UKIP support is part of ‘peasants’ revolt’ (NICE ONE, BORIS)
The Lib Dems clung on to just one MEP – in the South East – as it faced wipeout elsewhere…
Speaking on Swedish television, Mr (Tony) Blair said: ‘Of course we should be worried when a party like UKIP comes first in the European election, it would be foolish not to be. But on the other hand we also have to stand for what is correct and right for the future of Britain in the 21st century. (HAHAHAHAHA)…
Farage: ‘We have formed the people’s army to fight the establishment. I love Europe, it’s the European Union I have a problem with.’…
Pitching the Lib Dems as the true voice of pro-EU politics in Britain, Mr Clegg saw his MEPs wiped out in almost every region in the country (HAHAHAHAHA)…
But just Catherine Bearder held her seat in the South East, making her the only Lib Dem in Brussels when they previously had 12…
A strong showing in the nationwide Euro elections vote will be seen as vindication after weeks of deeply damaging headlines and accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia aimed at UKIP candidates…
In an embarrassment for Labour leader Ed Miliband, Ukip even topped the poll in Doncaster, where he is an MP…
Mr Cameron faced embarrassment on polling day when new figures showed net migration hit 212,000 in 2013, more than double his target of reducing it to the ‘tens of thousands’…
Meanwhile Mr Cameron has been urged by influential Tory MP David Davis to bring forward his promised EU referendum by a year to 2016 in a bid to persuade defectors to UKIP he is serious…
But in an apparently emotional interview this afternoon, Mr Clegg (LibDem) insisted the ‘gutting’ result had not led him to consider is position, vowing instead to ‘finish the job’.(HAHAHAHA)…
But former MP Sandra Gidley said the Lib Dem brand had become ‘toxic’…
Ed Miliband (Labour) is facing calls from his own party to promise an EU referendum, as senior Labour figures waned a general election victory is not ‘in the bag’…
Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, said promising an in-out referendum was the ‘minimum’ response required to the poll in which Labour narrowly beat the Conservatives into third place…
‘It is a very unattractive policy to say vote for us but we can’t do anything about your major concerns because Europe won’t let us. So I think we have to improve our offer on Europe. We can’t just keep saying this has been a major wake-up call.’…
The weekend papers will have made for grim reading, reporting members of Mr Miliband’s frontbench team calling their leader ‘damaged goods’, ‘weird’, ‘a problem’ and claiming ‘he has got to go’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638960/Will-earth-Ukip-confident-triggering-political-earthquake-winning-European-elections-tonight.html
RACookPE1978 says:
May 26, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Good luck trying to pin IPCC down on a precise estimate of what share of observed global average temperature change (whatever that figure may be, + or -) since (pick a date) AD 1850, 1900 or 1950 is attributable to human activity, other than “adjustments” to actually measured T, that is. Then add on top of this obfuscation, whether their confidence in whatever percentage the human contribution might be is at the 90, 95 or 97% level & you get the intentionally anti-scientific farago of meaningless figures that is the farce of CACA.
I’m 90% sure that less than 50% of whatever warming has really occurred since 1950 (not much) is due to human activity. Unlike IPCC, I can actually show my work to derive these admittedly unscientific (but not anti-scientific) numbers.
Perhaps he was busy building a winning team, and making occasional high-profile forays into the European Parliament, where he couldn’t do much anyway. Probably, his goal is to win power or influence in Britain itself. He doesn’t believe in the European Parliament, after all.
What you call “appalling”, I doubt his supporters see as such.
pat says:
May 26, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Encouraging that the major parties might actually start listening to their constituents for a change.
Does this mean that drainages in the Zomerzet Levels will be allowed to be dredged again?
BTW, who drew the boundaries for EUP constituencies? Was he or she drunk at the time?
… and talking of the Zomerzet Levels, did you hear of the man from Frome who longed to visit Holland because he’d heard they had a Zuider Zee?
Or this limerick, best delivered in a stage Zomerzet accent:
There once was a lady of Ruide,
‘Oo ate zo many apples she duide.
The apples, fermented
Inzuide the lamented
Made zuider inzuide ‘er inzuide.
Gareth Phillips says:
…Nigel Mirage really has an appalling record of attendance at the European Parliament… Nigel Farage and his deputy, Paul Nuttall, had the worst attendance ratings of any UK politician in Brussels but still managed to cost the taxpayer over £600,000 each in salary and allowances.
Q: What is the requirement for attendance?
And:
Over the last parliament Mr Farage… voted just 42 per cent of the time.
That is far more than Senator B. Hussein Obama, who routinely voted “Present” instead of Yea or Nay. That was when Obama was in attendance, which was rare. Obama gave no excuse for his failure to vote, or even to attend. But as you wrote:
Mr.Farage claims this is a deliberate policy which reflects his view of the European Parliament.
So Farage has a good reason. Obama just wants the glory of the position, and to party, golf and travel with a stupendous entourage, all on the taxpayers’ dime.
But still, the U.S. is slightly better off than the UK. This is a quote from 2008:
But we’re getting there.
The election results show that the average UK voter is fed up with Clegg and his ilk. I trust that same disgust will be shown in the U.S. in 2016.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 26, 2014 at 5:07 pm
I hadn’t. Pretty funny. But why go to Holland for zuider when Devon is so near? Admittedly, Devon doesn’t have a whole sea full of cider, but close.
I recall a comment on Youtube re the Poldark series, in which an American viewer said she couldn’t understand a character’s “British” accent. An English commenter replied that it’s a West Country accent, & he couldn’t understand it either. Technically of course West Country is “a” British accent. Obviously, there isn’t just one. A French friend of mine in Queen’s College Middle Common Room said he was proud of his English ability until he visited Glasgow & could ken ney uh wor’. I told him, no worries. Me, either, & my great grandfather spoke Lolland Scots.
But then, until I got used to the local dialect, I had trouble ordering catfish at the best deep fried fish joint on the South Side of Chicago, too.
Cornishman A. L. Rowse thought Standard American English closer to the speech of Shakespeare than Received Pronunciation, & now there is, as you may know, a movement to stage Elizabethan plays in their Original Pronunciation, presumably a dialect of Early Modern English (which sounds like “talk like a pirate”). But we know from spelling in diaries that the London accent already existed then, but was shared by at least the middle classes (if not the court), not just the ancestors of East Enders & Cockneys.
Pretty funny though that Shakespeare’s native speech was probably West Country. “Parting iz zuch zweet zarrow!”
Monckton of Brenchley says: [ … ]
Limericks, eh? OK, here are a few [I have lots more, but most of them are unprintable here].
An oldie but goodie:
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She set out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night
And:
A fencing instructor named Fisk
Fought a duel that was frightfully brisk
So fast was his action
The Fitzgerald Contraction
Foreshortened his foil to a disk
Next:
There once was a lady from Knizes
Whose breasts were of two different sizes
One was so small
It was nothing at all
But the other was large, and won prizes!
And finally, my favorite. Say it in a sing-song voice; it will help you remember the chemical name for DDT:
A mosquito was heard to complain
That a chemist had poisoned his brain
The cause of his sorrow
Was Para-dichloro-
Diphenyl-trichloro-ethane.
Oh, and incidentally? People want results, not “A for effort”.
dbstealey says:
May 26, 2014 at 5:57 pm
I can’t post my limerick that rhymes greenhouse gases with proponents of CACA either.
There once was a limerick that rhymes
greenhouse gases with serious thymes
The poster went nowhere
The replier went elsewhere
and Lord Monckton was left with a ringing hole in his chymes.
Bravo Nigel!
Indeed the European Parliament is a front window for NATO and the backroom frolicking of Baroness Ashton and Victoria Nuland…
RACookPE1978 says:
May 26, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Not bad.
Maybe better than the anti-CACA haiku I was hectored into producing.
Time for a WUWT poetry contest?
How satisfying this is!
milodonharlani says:
May 26, 2014 at 7:08 pm
Producing anti-CACA hectoring haiku’s?
Guestsenheit!
I hope your cold gets better … Try some warm fluids, bed rest, a luke warm thermometer and … 8<)
Here is some ammunition for all of you climate skeptics:
The theory of climate change due to greenhouse gasses has a fatal flaw–all of the 1970 – 2000 warming (about 0.5 deg C) is attributed to greenhouse gasses by the “warmists”.. However, in the same time period, hundreds of Megatons of aerosols were being removed from the atmosphere due to efforts to clean the air. The cleaner air allowed greater insolatioin, and hence, surface warming.
This warming needs to be subtracted from the 0.5 deg C “greenhouse gas warming” and is so large that any warming attributable to CO2 completely disappears. .
All of the above is easily proven.