Just look at all the skeptics seizing on ANOTHER piece of bad information about coal, and twisting it to say "See, we told you global warming was wrong!?" If anything this article gives us ANOTHER reason to stop burning the stuff, and does nothing towards disproving Co2's role in raising global climate temperatures higher than ever! (The last decade was meant to be cooling because of La Nina and yet is STILL one of the hottest on record. You can only say it's cooling if you cherrypick data from 1998 and ignore that 98 was a super-El Nino event. Don't forget "phase changes" in global ice absorbing some that extra energy as well. When more of the ice is gone, temperatures will soar).

Anyway, talk about misinterpreting Peter's article! Peter specifically points out that he is not a climate sceptic.

Peter suggests a tunnel vision I find little evidence for in climate science? Perhaps the author could do with reading more broadly within the climate community? Everything from black carbon on ice, to solar forcings, to albedo changes due to land clearing are considered.

Also, does the author confuse "climate" and weather? A local rainfall trend in one region might be a different subject to global climate temperature averages.

I just don't buy the assumption that climatologists ARE ignoring this new alarming ADDITIONAL reason to BAN COAL and move into cleaner, renewable wind and solar energy. The assumption that particulate effects on rainfall is being actively supressed needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed. Does Peter have any evidence of the IPCC, James Hansen, or other big players rejecting this paper please? And if it did not get through the peer-review process, why not? Is there something use lay-people need to consider before we pounce on the climate community? Skeptics here seem ready to believe more conspiracy theories than Area 51 and the "Fake moon landing" put together. Why don't you guys get together and write a Dan Brown novel?