The media fails at reporting on science. This is a wonderful example of how much. Having read the actual article the bbc get the gist right but fails in the presentation.
My objection to this is that a lazy reading of the bbc article gives the impression that pollution is stopping global warming. It isn't. Not even a little. It is slowing the process a bit. It does raise the point that by cleaning our air the added removal of CO2 via this diffuse effect will be removed and that it highlights the incredibly complex nature of climate modeling for that I applaud it. It still utterly fails to point out that the paper doesn't mean driving a hummer is helping the environment.
That being said the bbc has better title than some...
"Climate change fight could raise CO2 levels" - thank you Glascow Herald
I raise this because this is exactly the sort of thing that denialists/the lazy/the unconcerned will point to and say 'see we're helping' without any comprehension of whats actually happening. That being said this is a perfect example of the constant problem in all science reporting - take a technical paper written to be read by experts. Pass to intelligent but non expert journalist. Speed read/research. Associate with something that public will understand. Condense to 10th original size and 1/100th scientific content.
Maybe I should have a go at this scientific wroting that everyone seems to think is such a good idea. Then again given my patience and spelling ability maybe not.