Never mind that this op-ed flies in the face of the original one you started this thread with, It's still an unfair and gross oversimplification of the case made by the experts.
Here's but one tiny example that jumped off the page of your "pretty good summation of the climate controversy":
Sounds good, right? Except the author, in more than one place insinuates that the models are based on mere "theories" with little or no supporting evidence.
Except of course for this direct evidence of the cooling effects of "dirty pollutants" presented here:
I read yours now you read mine.
This "theory" is not just supported by evidence gathered during the no-fly days following 9/11, but by decades of data gathered in Russia, Australia, Germany and Israel, to name a few:
And a study done in the Maldives,:
All this is just from one miniscule, glossed over assumption by your hero. There are many more holes that could be shot in his analysis, demonstrating that this subject is beyond your scope, and definitely beyond my inclination to waste my time pointing them out, as this or any other information that contradicts your need to trivialize the research will clearly never make a dent in your commitment to the climate-science-conspiracy theory.