Just a bit of info so you can understand the paper.
Radiation from Hot sources like the Sun are at a longer wavelength i.e. they are more powerful.
Radiation radiated from the Earth is at shorter wavelengths as the Earth's temperature is lower i.e. they are less powerful, less enery.

So if you re-read the article with that in mind you will understand what is going on.

In a nutshell the Nett amount of energy going out into space is far higher than the sacred models show, i.e. the idiots that wrote the models don't know what is going on.


>>NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
>
>Did you read the paper? I saw nowhere where it made any such statement. Their conclusion is simply that "atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations" - i.e. there is no way to determine which, if either, interpretation is correct.
>
>
>>...
>>When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
>>http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
>>
>>I know, I know, the models are garbage, nothing new, yawn! ;)