[The Raven]

Is it me or are all the rock solid man-made global warming indicators simply invented? They've fallen one by one and now there are no more dominos.

[Haiku Guy]

Is it me or are all the rock solid man-made global warming indicators simply invented? They've fallen one by one and now there are no more dominos.

All that's left is faith.
Bitter people cling to faith
And their guns, of course...

[cricket]

Biggest scientific fraud perped ever - and continues to be - by it's lack of honest reporting - if and when reported by lamestream media. This story - the size of a cosmic donut hole - is given as much focus as that 'missing piece' of a Krispy Kreme.

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

It’s time for someone to put the NOBEL Prize committee on the hotseat for giving the Peace Prize to the IPCC!

[Waco]

P.T. Barnum; You’re on.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[neverdem]

The AGW Smoking Gun

A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals.

--snip--

The science behind the AGW hypothesis is that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere (that humans produce by burning fossil fuels) will block more outgoing long-wave IR radiation (OLR) from exiting the atmosphere and thereby warm the surface.

--snip--

So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven.

It should be noted that another paper written by Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (both work at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences -- Lindzen is a professor and Choi is a postdoctoral fellow) reveals the differences between the measured OLR and its impact on temperatures vs. climate models. In the paper, the data showed that OLR increased when sea surface temperatures increased, so this is in direct contradiction to the AGW hypothesis that less OLR should be emitted since more CO2 is absorbing it and warming the planet. Furthermore, in contradiction to the climate models, these results show that OLR is acting like a negative feedback (cooling the surface) instead of a positive feedback (radiative forcing). The Lindzen and Choi paper dealt in general with all OLR wavelengths and didn't show granularity with respect to specific wavelengths that were related to various GHG absorption, but the fact that the entire OLR emission spectrum didn't behave like the eleven climate models' predictions means that "the science isn't settled."

IMHO, the title should have been, "The Four Anti-AGW Smoking Guns."