It's not a sham and it hasn't been debunked. And you are nuts if you think they never published any data. There has been reams and reams of it. That's the scientific method. Other than that group of overly zealous partisans over in England, I do not doubt their seriousness or integrity.

>No doubt there are some, but as I have ALWAYS (well almost) said - question the data. If a group won't post their data and open up their methodology to peer review....
>
>As a hunter, fisherman, hiker and generally an outdoor lover, I am an environmentalist. However, I will not buy into these off the wall theories, without proof. I think volcanoes contribute more to pollution in the world than man. We see these wackos running around crying we are all going to burn up unless we give billions to the UN so they can "study" the problem. I'm sure they would be smokin big cigars and studying an adult beverage while they "study" the problem and contemplate the solution!
>
>I am so glad the latest scientific sham has finally been debunked. Now, all we have to do is convince the Mikes of the world that the sky is doing fine! lol
>
>>John, there are scientists who CAN be trusted.
>>
>>The scientists who point out that humans are responsible for less than 5% of atmospheric carbon dioxide...the scientists who point out the long term periodic oscillation in temperatures......the scientists who (I can go on and on)....
>>
>>And then there is the track record of those proposing recent GWT ideas - regarding their unwillingness to debate GWT opponents.
>>
>>Tracy made a good point - there is no question we should take proper care of the environment. If humans start to contribute a higher % of atmospheric carbon dioxide, that could affect the balance of things (although the actual math impact there hasn't been determined). But the recent GWT theories in the last several years have been largely discredited.