Below is link to a NASA website where leading "skeptic" Roy Spencer is proven very wrong on this issue - NASA space scientists explain in detail that space has no temperature.
It is staggering that a PhD accredited scientist like Spencer disputes such obvious and irrefutable science. What motivates Spencer to ignore these compelling facts and why do he and other leading lights obstinately defend the "greenhouse gas theory"? I challenge Roy Spencer to either publicly refute this NASA document or admit he is wrong on the GHE.
That defenders of the greenhouse gas "theory" choose not to address such facts shows them to be part of the problem, not part of the solution in getting rid of misguided policy and junk science.
Article continues below this advert:
All such "experts" as Roy, Jo Nova, Dick Lindzen, Monckton etc. back the fatuous claim that space is "cold" and Earth's atmosphere "acts like a blanket" to keep our planet "warmer that it would otherwise be."
They are utterly wrong. As such this is yet another leg of their beloved tottering GHE that is kicked away from under them. My growing band of colleagues (now 120+ many with science PhD's) and I have repeatedly asked the aforementioned to open their eyes and address such facts. Instead they act like gatekeepers. For example, Anthony Watts with his blog WUWT, calls my colleagues and me "toxic." Watts won't even allow any debate about the greenhouse effect on his "science" blog.
Why? Surely, if we are the "cranks" Spencer, Watts, Lindzen et al say we are then they ought to be able to make very short work of us. Why are they scared of open public debate? Such is the current appalling intellectual morass of so called "skeptics" of man made global warming.
This sent to you and also dozens of prominent figures in the climate debate. For those of you who actually are open to genuine, ground breaking new science on this issue check here: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Principia Scientific International