I've been assuming that the CO2 greenhouse effect is about preventing energy from escaping into space. But, as I find myself repeating, no radiation in CO2's absorption band is escaping to space already. It is saturated. (Backup link.) Please note this is from Wikipedia. If there's any bias, it is in the other direction. (The bias is pretty funny, check out the picture's caption on the greenhouse gas page.)
I thought, surely they've performed this simple verification of the physics. I must be missing something. Nope.
"The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2."Right, but we're not talking escaping to space, though, yeah? It's just taking energy that was absorbed higher up and absorbing it lower down?
"The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale)."Haha, nope.
Now. To make sure I don't perform the same mistake: I've never seen a climate article talking about how climate change is cooling regions of the upper atmosphere. Have you? Please pass it along, if so.
"A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth's surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation."Outgoing radiation cannot change due to increasing CO2. Especially not in the infrared band. It literally took me less than ten minutes of research to discover this. On La Wik, I emphasize. Apparently, nobody else has thought to check.
You cannot expect me to believe these guys are taking climate research seriously when they fail these basic, basic checks. (What other simple tests have they failed to carry out, that I haven't thought of because I don't have a thorough survey?)
Conclusion: I don't believe in climate scientists, let alone specific climate science papers.