NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually publi...

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of d...

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

....Please notice how automatic the refusal to believe is on the part of the alarmists. They are obviously quite motivated by the wheel grease.

That is assuming you buy the notion there is a consensus. There is not. Also, history is full of instances where the prevailing wisdom of the science was proven wrong.
One thing you could do is research individual scientists who are willing to put their reputations on the line and state unequivocally that global warming is a fact. The scientists that speak individually and not for some group that oppose agw will far out number the number of scientists you find supporting it.
Besides, I am not asking you "to buy" anything. I do not care if you agree with me or not. I only ask that those who believe global warming present a reason for their belief. They only present alarmism, fear-mongering,...

That is assuming you buy the notion there is a consensus. There is not. Also, history is full of instances where the prevailing wisdom of the science was proven wrong.
One thing you could do is research individual scientists who are willing to put their reputations on the line and state unequivocally that global warming is a fact. The scientists that speak individually and not for some group that oppose agw will far out number the number of scientists you find supporting it.
Besides, I am not asking you "to buy" anything. I do not care if you agree with me or not. I only ask that those who believe global warming present a reason for their belief. They only present alarmism, fear-mongering, and intellectual bullying against those that have a different opinion.
Also, if AGW is such a problem why do they propose solutions based in socialism that are failing everywhere and the nation making the largest progress cutting emissions , without Kyoto, is the U.S.
You would think the Socialists would be happy about that. They are not. AGW is about 1 thing only - a global socialist foothold empowered by International corporatism.