This doesn’t say that CO2 isn’t a factor in the temperature rise. It says there may be another factor.
What is sadly lacking is a breakdown as to how much of the rise is from which cause.
It is so bizarely simple I'd have to say "the science is settled" concerning this issue.
So, where can we get more water vapor? We could, I suppose, heat the ocean's surface ~ maybe with a series of atomic explosions in a little used area. Alternatively we might build more large, shallow lakes ~ maybe extend irrigation systems into marginal lands ~ on a huge scale!
We have an 8,000 year old tradition of extending irrigation and building lakes. No doubt that's had an impact sufficient to hold off the presently overdue return to Ice Age conditions. Still, that's not going to last forever, particularly if we buy into the idea that we need to cool the Earth to protect it from some sort of "runaway greenhouse effect". In that case we'd return to the Ice Age much faster ~ maybe within weeks ~ possibly days!
Unfortunately that might not be possible. Look into "Chaos Theory".
It's a branch of mathematics describing "complex systems". You may have heard about the "Butterfly-effect" -- a butterfly flaps its wings in Peking and a month later you have tornadoes in Kansas. What that is saying is that with complex-systems (like the Earth's atmosphere) relatively small incremental inputs can have enormous effects given enough time & space. Similarly rather large inputs can seemingly have no discernable effect at all. Very counter-intuitive.
Anytime anybody -- including a climatologist -- tells you with certainty that CO2 levels are directly linked to Global Warming they are guilty of a gross oversimplification. They are probably also confusing Cause and Effect. The hard part is knowing when a scientist is speaking in simplified terms so that he can get his point across to a layman, or whether he's just blowing smoke to get his next grant application approved.
CO2 as a temperature rising condition was disproven 100 years ago.
Sadly, that science has been ignored, while Darwin has been twisted inside to show that it is accurate. The scientific community is just as political as any other and they will cram any scientific theory to fit their political ideology.
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2009/02/04/greenhouse-theory-disproved-a-century-ago/
He’s saying that CO2 is not significant. Here watch him yourself in this presentation.
April 6th, 2009 — Dr. Soon Presentation
http://www.lakelandgov.net/news/lgn/videos/9055/Utility_Committee_Meeting_2009_04_06.htm
click on the Global Warming link