Sunshine Day

So I'm having my morning coffee, and reading the Drudge Report®, when I stumble across this article from Nature. According to two reports published in Science there has been more sunshine in the past ten years than there was fifty years ago. It would seem that the air has gotten so much cleaner since the fall of Communism, that there is a measurable amount of increased sunlight reaching the earth. Because antiquated manufacturing facilities in the Eastern Bloc have been closed, or brought up to Western standards, there is less pollution in the atmosphere worldwide. Not only does that mean the air we breathe is cleaner, it is more transparent. Sunny days are measurably brighter. The Journal Nature, whose reputation is always seeing the beaker as half empty, concluded that the extra sunshine will exacerbate global warming.
I have two thoughts on the topic. First of all, I am mystified how anybody can find fault in more sunshine. (I've always enjoyed it, and most people plan their vacations around pursuit of it.) Environmentalists continually complain about man's influence on the planet, and how we should strive to leave lighter footprints. This is probably the first time that reverting back to a more natural state is considered a problem. Perhaps the scientists over at Nature think that Communism is the natural state of Eastern Europe.
Secondly, I am mystified by the remark in the article by Andreas Macke, a meteorologist at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, "It is clear that the greenhouse effect has been partly masked in the past by air pollution." In other words, global warming would have been a lot worse by now, had the pollution not been shading us.
Here's the strange part: It wasn't until now that climate science has been aware of the effect, which means it wasn't included in the models that climatologists rely on to predict global warming. Martin Wild, an atmospheric scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich said that "The widespread brightening has remained unnoticed until now simply because there wasn't enough data for a statistically significant analysis." But yet we are told the climate models predicting a warming earth were severely accurate.
Perhaps I'm just not well trained in the ways of science, but it would seem to me, that cannot be true. If the models were incomplete, they should have been spitting out the wrong numbers for the past ten years and the earth should have been getting warmer at a rate higher than the predictions. But scientists have denied this, they've been saying their models are deadly accurate. So If the model predictions directly correspond to observations, and the additional sunlight was never taken into account, it means the models have been wrong. Either way, the result is the same; climatology is a very hypothetical science, still in its adolescence. Also note, this proves another speculation I've always held, that atmospheric scientists have a tendency to look on the darker side of things, and always err on the side of apocalypse. Remember that the next time you hear somebody suggest Americans were foolish to ignore the Kyoto Accord.