Ah, once again we see a study typical of most “anthropogenic global warming” studies. Instead of studying whether carbon dioxide even has a significant impact on temperature through the hypothesized mechanism, we get another hypothesis about what might happen *if* global warming occurs. And whenever AGW advocates point at the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming, it is to studies like this that they point. They show nothing.
I’m still waiting on the studies that establish that current weather patterns fall outside of normal climate variability. Or that CO2 is anything but a lagging indicator of natural climate change.
You make very good points. I would only add - notice how many times the word “unknown” is used in the article?