problem je teda asi ten, ze si uz zabudol, co si tu sam postoval a tudiz sa tazko v celej debate vyznas. tvoja povodna noda bola odkazom na zvasty z PSI, ktore vytrhavaju NASA z kontextu.
napr.:
"A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere."
nic takeho sa samozrejme v NASA nedeje, to si vycucali z prstu na zaklade uplne zcestnej interpretacie zaverov NASA. a podobne dalej a dalej a dalej:
"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."

EDIT: btw. tie "moje dohady" nie su dohadmi, co ma vplyv a co nema pise samotna NASA:
“Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”