Well there is some evidence from NASA in a recent paper showing that thermal
energy is radiated faster than many models predict. Then there is
terrestrial evidence that all glaciers and both polar ice caps are receding.
The broadcast rightly pointed out an increase in CO2, but the meterologist
claimed that this was only 3% caused by humans. Where does that number come
from? What other things are adding CO2 to the atmosphere besides our
burning of fossil fuels, and our agricultural practices? He pooh-poohed the
"small" increase in CO2, but small changes can over time have big effects.
As to the missing "heat", I understand they found it in the oceans.
Now it is possible that we may be going through a slightly stable time in
temperature increses. This might be correlated with the unusual absence of
sunspots, but the energy balance may be different once the sunspot cycle
returns, which is happening now.
As to his invocation of Le Chalier and thermo, while they do apply, global
warming theory is not in violation of them. He misstated Le Chatlier as
saying physical systems tend to return to their original state. Le Chatlier
says that chemical systems tend to resist change, but that does not mean
they return to the original equilibrium. They tend to a new equilibrium,
and global warming will not go on forever, but would result in a different
temperature set point. What that would be is the important question.
But again rather than being objective they are all under network injunction
to disbelieve in global warming, so that puts them in a light that makes one
think they are biased.
Does anyone know the people involved in the study and how reliable and
accurate it may be?