There is quite a debate raging about the Stefan-Boltzmann equations at present, they are clearly wrong, especially when used in the atmospheric models.

NASA was aware of this back in the early 70's when data obtained from the moon landings found that the surface temps to be up to 60deg C out from the expected.

>>I disagree with your conclusion. It was a hoax from its very inception. ;)
>>
>>Like I said, the few years after 1977 were largely scientific error - but I agree, anything in more recent times is either incompetence or outright dishonesty.
>
>NASA has been ignoring/stalling FOI requests by the Competitive Enterprise Institute since 2007. On May 27th they were taken to court.
>http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/nasa-complaint.pdf
>
>You mentioned previously about a mistake with the equations. I'm assuming you're referring to the incorrect use of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equation. I believe it was purposeful and I base this on the simple fact that that equation is for 2-dimensional objects not a 3-dimensional object and certainly not a spinning 3-dimensional object like a planet. In order for that equation to be used as the basis throughout IPCC and GISS literature on AGW implies a grandiose level of ignorance from the experts in the field or outright fraud. I don't know about you but I'm an Occam's razor kind of guy.
>
>Here's the latest on NASA's fakery.
>http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23800
>
>Meanwhile, have you heard about the disappearing Arctic ice? What if it wasn't disappearing, but ebbing or concentrating?
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/
>
>Kinda reminds me of the cyclical nature of...well...nature. ;)
>
>>But beyond that, I agree 100% with you.
>
>>I found some interesting pieces of information tonight:
>
>>2) After reading online versions of several magazines, it seems it's purely the activists and writers (and NOT scientists) who go around saying, "the debate is over, GWT is fact". Since those who appear to have been duped are the ones taking what activists say as pure gold, it's not surprising to see people who parrot the same talk.
>
>Well the Pacific was warming, El Nino after all. Now it's cooling. ;)
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/sst-update/#more-20078
>
>Again, reminds me of a natural cycle.
>
>>3) Found a lovely quote from Vaclac Klaus, Czech president (or at least he was in 2007)
>>
>>Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
>
>I love this guy and his book.
>http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Green-Shackles-Vaclav-Klaus/dp/B001A3W3BK
>
>>4) More quotes from 700 international scientists who petitioned against global warming (on top of the 31,000 american scientists)
>>
>>“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”
>>
>>“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.”
>>
>>“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,”
>>
>>I remember the huge brainwashing hoax/scheme in the early 1980's following the accident at TMI. It wasn't about actual damage - it was all about PERCEIVED threats (after all, that's where the real political capital is....besides, who ever heard of a public campaign against thousands who have been killed in dam disasters or the use of coal instead of nuclear power????)
>
>All you need to know about the IPCC:
>all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
>5,587 are not peer-reviewed
>IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
>Each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
>21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
>43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
>
>This Citizen Audit focused its attention on the peer-reviewed literature claim. A team of 43 volunteers from 12 countries examined the list of references at the end of each chapter. We sorted these references into two groups - articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals and other references. (Non-peer-reviewed material is often called "grey literature".) Then we calculated the percentage of references that do, indeed, appear to be peer-reviewed.
>http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php