The people on TP who don't "believe" in MMGW often discuss (incorrectly) how "it's all based on computer models and so therefore it can say anything it wants to" (also incorrect, btw).
And yet this one research, which is entirely model based, is lauded.
So the message is that models are good when they show what you believe?
Also, they need to do quite a bit more to demonstrate that this is causal and not correlative. The mechanism is plausible, but that doesn't mean it's correct. It'll be tough to do, of course -- as climate change deniers like to point out when it comes to MMGW.
Not sure why you quoted my post.
All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or intellectually without effort, and effort means work. — Calvin Coolidge
"Under Barack Obama, the only 'change' is that 'hope' is hard to find" - Marco Rubio