Your reply did not in any way refute the science in the study, I see. Instead you attack the source, which may indeed publish alternative research, not from deniers but from scientists who are not published by the major journals because those journals don't wish to suffer shaming and shunning from warmers. As for your other questions, yes they are ones that need answered if CO2 is not the culprit. You do of course admit that warming and cooling has been a natural process known to occur throughout earth's history? 100% of scientists agree to that. Should we set policy that will cost $100 Trillion by 2100 based on faulty science to reduce CO2, then get no positive results? That would be a big oops, considering the many more useful things we could do with it, such as providing clean water and sanitation to billions.