And if you just post “GLOBAL WARMING ISNT REAL DUHH,” the usual drivel, you’ll just look like even more of an idiot and basically prove my point there are no credible AGW skeptic organizations
Skeptics/deniers, please give me the source of your information.
You’re not going to get a good answer because there is no such thing as a REUPUTABLE source. When thousands of scientists (IPCC) all agree that global warming exists its pretty cut and dry at that point.
There’s no one out there that is a reputable global warming skeptic because to be a skeptic of GW automatically means you’re not reputable.
Time for this country to face facts and start to take some action.
—
I’m at work and I don’t have my sources linked to my work computer. But I know I have looked at the main NASA website and found articles about their research of how cloud cover effects the planet. I’ve looked at graphs and papers that show the oceans actually cooling and not warming up. I’ve paid close attention to the jet stream patterns this year. I also read some papers about sun spots and their cycles. None of the papers and articles I’ve read were funded by Exxon-Mobil.
—–
I am sure you couldn’t provide a source for AGW that isn’t government funded. Money is money. Whatever money wants, money gets. If the government looks to fund global warming, and clearly it doesn’t fund things that don’t suggest global warming, then it funnels money to those pushing that agenda. Your contention that Exxon is the only biased source reveals your bias.
——–
Big oil is going to get their money regardless of the restrictions government’s assert. No matter what, oil will soon be depleted or rendered obsolete. It’s companies like GE who are truly bias. They have a huge interest in AGW being real. Don’t ya just love their energy efficient light bulbs. Who’s really bias here? Who has the most reason to be? How much has federal funding increased for climate science in the last 20 years? Skeptics bias?