Klimabedrag.dk

You would have to be made of steel to go walk-about in the 500°C warm sand dunes on planet Venus, you would have to be a vegetable to breath the over 90% CO₂ filled air, you should be build like a submarine to sustain the 93 ATM pressure and you would have to adjust to a circadian of half a year's time.

So why would anyone consider a comparison to Earth?  One thing about Venus' atmosphere is that it consists almost entirely of CO₂, thus giving the thought: "does the CO₂ content act as a powerful greenhouse gas?"

Seen from an Al Gore perspective: "we can see a clear relationship between high CO₂ on Venus and corresponding high temperature, so if there is anything standing out from this graph, it is the relationship between high CO₂ and high temperature - CO₂  causes runaway global warming."

Seen from a non-AGW politician like Boyle point of view: "the temperature increases with rising atmospheric pressure and the probes on Venus has shown that Boyle-Mariotte's law is followed exactly with no sign of deviation and no sign of the composition having any influence - no sign of greenhouse effect."  The reason it is so terrible hot over there on Venus, is likely due to thick atmosphare and heartly any convection:  There is heartly any convection with a radial speed of walking pace, compared to Earth's 1600Km/h.  Without convection, it is difficult for the heat to transfer from surface to the cold space.

If we had an equally thick atmosphere here on Earth as they have on the tropical planet Venus and we also had no convection (rotation slowed down to one a year), then we would also enjoy something like 500°C despite the fact that we only have 0.04% CO₂ in our atmosphere.

Steve Goddard has written a very informative article on wattsupwiththat.com explaining the law of Boyle and the effect it has on Venus or any other planet for that matter.
Jules Kalbfeld has written a small paper with the title "The Venusian Atmosphere And Its Contribution To That Planetʼs 'Runaway' Global Warming" explaining how the signature of CO₂ as a greenhouse gas was missing from the actual measurements by the probes sent down through Venus' atmosphere.

Okay, NASA could have had multiple instrumentation errors or the environment on Venus is so different from Earth environment that there could be a mistake somewhere.  However, we have thousands of measurements (Ferenc Miskolczy) on our own planet showing the same missing signature (hot-spot) of CO₂ acting measurable as a greenhouse gas.  The infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has remained unchanged for the last 61 years, with a value of 1.87 despite increase in CO₂.  Furthermore, Ferenc Miskolczy demonstrates that the feedback of water vapor effect on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness must be strongly negative, thus excluding CO2 from any practical influence on the Earth global surface temperature.

What about a comparison between Mars and Earth:  It rotates almost as fast as Earth (giving convection), it has the same CO2 content as Venus (95%), but the pressure at surface is only 0.007 atmospheres.  This is one reason why Mars is so bloody cold, 300°K (27°C) at daytime and 100°K (-173°C) at nighttime.  Mars is a hand-fest example that CO2 is not a major factor.

A comparison af weather/climate between Venus and Earth is not very helpful due to the fact that Venus hardly rotate and therefore creates nearly no wind causing the atmosphere to act as a super insulator.  On Iceland they discovered the properties of convection as they stuffed the space between the inner and outer house walls with the Icelandic sagas.  Good they did that, they kept warm and the sagas got preserved.

The above consensus of good old physics is suppressed by politicians and those earning their living from the CO₂ scare, tax and trading.  Laws made by for example Boyle or Mariotte are counterproductive to the AGW agenda. Laws issued under the authoritative framework of the United Nations, WWF and Greenpeace has precedence over old proven physical laws.