IYO, and yet, you say you're not " disputing NASA, kiehl - trenberth, the ipcc, or anyone else."
So, you must be supporting the "alarmist" position, too, or at least not disputing it.
Or, a third alternative, is that your opinion doesn't hold water.
Which is what you said about the diagram you seem to be having such a problem with, yet the numbers are quite different.
I've already addressed that one. Why rehash the obvious? The number in the solar constant is bigger than the one on the graph. If we're supposing a flat plane that doesn't experience night, then the energy hitting it would be greater. As you said, it isn't rocket science.
When it's backed up by non government funded science, sure.
I can believe someone who is posting on an internet forum, or the findings of every scientific organization on Earth. You have a huge burden of proof, and what you've come up with thus far is simply not supportable.
Of course, I knew I couldn't change your mind. Debating this issue is a lot like debating the 9/11 truthers, or any other conspiracy theorist: Logic and fact have no effect.
