So we have a greenhouse hypothesis, we have the math and then the good old scientific method testing the hypothesis. That was done here: http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IASI/Publications/LBL_EX.pdf But there was a problem: More problems were found here by Douglass et al http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf Models did not match reality in the tropical troposphere. It may be well known that this paper was subject to a sickening blog war and I'm really looking forward to exposing the mud throwing, should anybody challenge it. So yet another paper emerged, telling the same story for Antarctica: http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/2007GL032630.pdf What's wrong with the greenhouse? That's what Ferenc Miskolsczi must have thought after publisihing that first study and he came up with this: http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf Some quotes: Anyway a lot of people have sunk their teeth in the tough stuff of Miskolsczi, for instance, David Stockwell: http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/ So the global warming frenzy has to go on with completely refuted science, but no doubt that it will survive that too after the bogus explanation of the cold spell since December last year.