Global warming alarmists have long been embarrassed by the fact that the Earth isn’t heating up to the extent that their models predict (assuming that it is heating up at all). In the world of science, when empirical observation contradicts a theory, the theory is deemed to be refuted. But global warming alarmism exists in the world of religion, so when empirical observation contradicts the theory, its proponents merely tinker with the theory so as to make it harder to falsify. A case in point is this AP story, which suggests that the “missing” heat may be hiding–their word, not mine–where we can’t find it:

The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday. Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly. … The world temperature should have risen more than it did, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reckoned. They knew greenhouse gas emissions were rising during the decade and satellites showed there was a growing gap between how much sunlight was coming in and how much radiation was going out. Some heat was coming to Earth but not leaving, and yet temperatures were not going up as much as projected. So where did the missing heat go? Computer simulations suggest most of it was trapped in layers of oceans deeper than 1,000 feet during periods like the last decade when air temperatures failed to warm as much as they might have.

Note that there is zero evidence that the “missing” heat is hiding deep in the oceans; this is simply a hypothesis that has been developed by tweaking those trusty computer programs, which will say whatever the alarmists who create them want them to say.

The most significant point in the AP story is this one, which it reports as fact:

…satellites showed there was a growing gap between how much sunlight was coming in and how much radiation was going out.

Actually, this statement is deeply controversial, as we noted here:

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 new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

So, on one hand we have empirical data showing that the alarmists’ computer models are wrong. On the other hand, we have a hypothesis generated by those same models for which there is zero observational support and which is conveniently difficult, if not impossible, to verify. Which side does the press call “science?” We all know the answer to that one.