www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/06/03/3773350.htm
In a paper published in the journal of Modern Physics B , Professor Qin-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at the University of Waterloo challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.
"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming.
"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming," claims Lu.
But believe it or not !!!! Jellyfish are absorbing the excess carbon so when the little fkrs are everywhere rest assured that you can breathe easy.
But on the other hand ( excuse a rather vague pun) Don't you just hate it when you are paddling and your hand goes right inside one.
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..
In a paper published in the journal of Modern Physics B , Professor Qin-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at the University of Waterloo challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.
That is a big part of a set of problems. Firstly, by publishing it in a physics journal, the peer review process only centers on verifing the physics and ignores any verification of the claim in relation to observational meteorologySelect to expand quote
"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming," claims Lu.
A claim that is neither supported by meteorological observations, nor are the discrepancies explained.
He also failed to explain why warming continued after 1990, despite the total concentration of measured CFCs remaining constant.
He also failed to acknowledge why, while the indicators he referred to did suggest that cooling has begun in 2002, why he disregarded more accurate mean-surface temperatures that indicated the opposite.
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..
...challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.
In no way, shape or form does that mean the good doctor is correct. It's good/normal to see people working on other hypothesis..ssisiss ..sii(?).
The trouble is the media and general public follow this like it's a sport; will my team win?
Media, and people, jump on the smallest thing like this as if it's disproved our knowledge of CO2, and they just scored a goal. 
Science is not a sport. It's observation and exploration of nature.
independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-the-australian-carbon-is-causing-global-warming-not-cfcs,5396
Don?t believe The Australian: carbon is causing global warming ? not CFC?s
A paper just published in an obscure physics journal by the University of Waterloo's Qing-Bin Lu (2013) has drawn quite a bit of media attention for blaming global warming not on carbon dioxide, but rather on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, which are also greenhouse gases). However, there are numerous fundamental flaws in the paper, which is based almost entirely on correlation (not causation) and curve fitting exercises.
read on at the link above.
