[gondramB]

I don't have an opinion on whether or not the greenhouse effect is contributing to global warming - the evidence is not clear enough for me as a physicist who does not specialize in the area.

But I am convinced that greenhouse is not the whole story because it doesn't explain global warming stopping between 1945 and 1976 nor does it explain global cooling in the 1800's.

That said, this headline is terribly misleading. The introduction of a new theory does not smash the old one.

[PatrickHenry]

... this headline is terribly misleading. The introduction of a new theory does not smash the old one.

I agree, the headline is silly. But we're not supposed to change headlines. The part in brackets is my own attempt to make it comprehensible.

[Poincare]

The CO_2 greenhouse effect is good established science--it is reproducible in a laboratory. It's connection to "global warming" is speculative at best and not good science. The word "global" is so misused. (They mean "planetary", "global" warming would mean that the warming was distributed over each and every point of the domain.) Also the connection between the burning of carbon fuels and the atmospheric level of CO_2 is fanciful in view of the magnitude of other sources.

The article is correct though that there are other potent factors that act like greenhouse or anti-greenhouse.

[Smokin' Joe]

1945-1976: Above ground nuclear testing

1800's: Significant volcanic eruptions/explosions

Both would place particulates high in the atmosphere, which would cause a reduction in sunlight reaching the surface.

Just my $0.02