Misc update - climate change

A new study Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change by a researcher at The University of Waterloo,Canada apparently demonstrates an "... almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere..."; the study concludes that recent global warming has been caused by CFCs and not CO2; and apparently its model "... has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models"

From the paper:

"For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth's climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R = -0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO₂ concentration during 1850–1970. In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96–0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970–2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C in 1970–2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1~2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O₃ hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently. All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing conclusion that both the CRE mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O₃ hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models..."

So what is a layperson to make of this study? Believe it, which means believing that  global warming is/was anthropogenic but that perhaps we are not in as bad a shape as the CO2-centric approach would posit (i.e. this study indicates global temperatures will now go down rather than up as per the CO2-centric predictions...) and risk being castigated as a "denier"? Discard it?  Believe it, but argue that it represents just one factor, but still go with the "AGW is correct, is caused by carbon dioxide and global temperatures will continue to rise" outlook? Previous blog entries (links below) have wrestled with the issue of understanding the issue, this is another data point that would seem to go against the "consensus."

Previous blog entries related to climate:
Random charts - deforestation - Jan 8th, 2012
Misc update (climate) - Jan 29th, 2011
Climate denial - Jun 5th, 2010
More on climate - Jan 31st, 2010
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010
Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009