1) Politicians during the ’20’s were warming the planet with hot rhetorical air, except for cool Calvin Coolidge, who took a lot of naps, didn’t say or do all that much, but who once said that
“It is even probable that the supremacy of nations may be determined by the possession of available petroleum and its products.”

2) All scientists are nerdy fools who can’t see the forest for the trees, and get easily mislead by their own experiments and observations, so we should listen to leaders of business more than to scientists. (Don’t tell your scientist friends this. And, hey–Tom, you once described yourself as a scientist, having worked in a science capacity for 3M…. this second explanation could not be true if you were/are a scientist…. or at least we don’t want to go there. (0; )

3) Popular news picks up on what seems sensational in science, but may not pick up on the consensus in scientific thought, so it’s dangerous to cherry-pick stories such as this one from the ’20’s, or the other from the ’70’s, and claim it represents “science” as a whole.

4) The globe was warming in the 1920’s due in part to increased levels of CO2 since the start of the industrial age. It would have warmed even more quickly if it were not for Krakatoa in the late 1800’s, Mt. St. Hellen’s, and all the dust kicked up by two world wars and above-ground nuclear testing. If there was a brief period of cooling, it, too, may have been human caused, *by the very same process that you recently suggested as a cure*: adding more reflective dust to the atmosphere.

(This is not to suggest we should resume above-ground nuclear testing as a way of addressing global warming; I think there would be a down-side to this too.)