Um, no. We haven’t measured atmospheric moisture (the primary GHG) over historic periods and there’s proper science indicating a link between solar radiation and clouds.
Perhaps it’s the sun after all?
In this instance of Rutherglen, the lesson is not whether the world has warmed or cooled. It’s that the Bureau of Meteorology has turned a cooling trend measured by actual thermometers into a warming trend by fiddling the data.
Sadly, the models don’t predict accurately enough to be able to confidently base massive government expenditure on that basis. The models have not been validated. They uniformly predict much more warming than actual measurements - see the graphs I linked to above. In other words, the science says they’re wrong.
The average global temperature is a concoction. Most are a conglomeration of secret codes unavailable for peer review which somehow magically produce a number of unbelievable accuracy (to a couple of decimal places) when the data fed in is never to that standard, is widely and unevenly distributed and subject to various national bodies’ adjustments and fiddling. The best (only reasonably reliable) is the UAH satellite data. At least its data and methods are openly available for peer review and has been altered after such expert input has refined the method ie continuously and publicly corrected as better measurement or computer algorithms become available.