Anyone who reads the weekly magazine of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change will be well aware that there are scientific articles published in the peer-reviewed journals on a regular basis that raise serious questions about the alarmist view on global warming.

Now, however, three significant articles in the peer-reviewed press knock the legs out from under greenhouse theory itself. As three of the authors, Michaels, Singer and Douglass, explain in their non-technical summary on TCS, Settling Global Warming Science, this is a "triple whammy":

This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the UN's climate models have failed, as well as indicating that its surface record is simply too hot.

If the models are wrong as one goes up in the atmosphere, then any correspondence between them and surface temperatures is either pretty lucky or the product of some unspecified "adjustment." Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong means that everything dependent upon that -- precipitation and cloudiness, as examples -- must be wrong. Obviously, the amount of cloud in the air determines the day's high temperature as well as whether or not it rains.

As bad as things have gone for the IPCC and its ideologues, it gets worse, much, much worse.

I would not go as far as the authors to declare, "The "skeptics" - the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end - have won," as no science is ever that settled (did Newtonian physics "win"?), but these papers demonstrate clearly that there are significant scientific problems with global climate models, never mind the already well-established economic ones.