Yahoo News is dumber, anyhow.

article presents all the talking points, as if it were straight news and as if it were established fact that the whole thing was a hoax.

Perry’s argument that there is less than meets the eye for global warming was buttressed by a couple of news items that seemed to [the author would like his readers to think] blow a hole in the theory. A recent NASA study revealed that far more heat was being released into space than had been predicted by global warming computer models, which suggested that heat was being trapped by carbon dioxide. Also, a scientist who once claimed that polar bears were drowning as a result of the melting of arctic ice had been put on leave, pending an investigation of “integrity issues.”

Observation: scientists are mortals with mortal failings. Science, notwithstanding, manages to be an engine of truth. Frauds get unmasked. That’s not a sign of weakness!

So much for the polar bear fraud.

Now, this business about a NASA study blah blah. No matter HOW BAD global warming gets, or how well it’s mitigated, we will always have an near perfect energy balance: the solar energy that reaches the earth is going to go right back, one way or the other. What isn’t reflected will be re-radiated as heat. (As infrared spectrum electromagnetic energy, that is.) If the CO2 layer is thick enough to “trap” more heat, the earth will simply warm up enough that, at the new temperature, it can emit however much it takes to stay in balance.

There was never any issue as to how much heat will be re-radiated. The same as always. Enough. As much as comes in.

The issue is, AT WHAT TEMPERATURE? At what frequency? Where is the emission curve’s peak?