" noo z b" ) writes:
CLIMATEGATE ANALYSIS:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf

149 pages

Excert (pages 145-146)

The most fundamental law of physics is that energy cannot be created
or destroyed; it can only be transformed or transferred. If their
climate models do not even satisfy this elementary law, then it is

Whoa, time out.

Mann's hockey stick graph, based on temperature measurements and proxy
data, survived the "climate gate" inspired review. There is no problem
with the data or the "hockey stick" chart.

Models try and explain the observed fact of global warming.

This isn't a case of looking data to fit a model, it is a case of
trying to find a model to fit the observed warming. So far warming,
particularly in the far north and south, is running well ahead of
all the models. There is a lot about the warming we aren't close to
understanding yet, except that it is happening much faster than
anyone thought possible a few decades ago.

If you seriously believe that co2 and other green house gases have
no effect on the termperature of the surface, oceans and atmosphere
how do you explain the surface temperature of Venus? I assume that
you know black blody thermal equilibrium theory, it was a high school
physics topic at least as far back as the 1970s.

Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (follow the
money) gave up on global warming denial, 3 years ago. They were
the last hold out among Scientific or Technical groups of National
or International Standing. Check their 2007 position statement at
their website, stating clearly that the globe has warmed in recent
decades.
--
And still the denial goes on. Junk Science:= A term used by paid industry
PR Spin Doctors and front men. Translation: We want to hear junk that
sounds like science (but isn't) and which says our bosses can carry on
making gigabucks the same old way.