What is the most reputable AGW skeptic (non-Exxon funded) organization?

Question

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.

----

And if you say the Great Global Warming Swindle, please keep in mind the film's contributors have admitted many assertions they make in the movie are complete lies; many "contributors" were not really skeptics, they were taken out of context (one even sued); plus they use manipulated graphs.

If you don't have a source just say "intuition." If I don't see a source and you don't say intuition, I'll assume that's what you mean.

Answer 1

Hypocrisy to the max--  It is ridiculous for a believer like yourself to entertain the idea that skeptics are more bias than believers. 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? Oh Please!

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

Obviously NJdevil doesn't know much about this topic.  The IPCC are appointed officials to create policies.  Scientists present their ideas/petitions to these policy makers.

http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshire...

Read this site and read all about these "skeptics".  They have plenty of credentials and peer-reviewed papers.

"sourcewatch", aka another wiki.  Not a credible site.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

www.climateaudit.org

co-winner of the 2007 Science Blog of the Year award

Answer 7

I'd guess the Libertarian Party.  

I don't see much need in an organization created to state the Sun warms the Earth....just as there's no organization created to state the Earth is round (it's kind of self-evident for those who look at the data).

Answer 8

I don't usually take time out of my practice to address idiotic questions, or rants,  however I will make an exception for you, as you appear to be somewhat serious, albeit ignorant..  As far as 'reputable organizations' I am afraid the ultra leftist liberal greenie weenies, of which you appear to be affiliated with, if not one of them, have the time to put all of the cutsie acronyms together to describe some real or imagined group of 'freedom fighters for the earth', (hey that might be a good 'reputable' name for a group, it could be used for either side!)  This is what is important, here are some peer reviewed scientific papers, most of which have been published within the last few years, some before the prejudice towards common sense about climate issues became rampant.  I have about 20, however I will condense it to the papers that I find most interesting:

1.  "A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate", Science, vol 294, by Kerr, Richard

2.  "A 150,000 year Climactic record from Antarctic Ice" Nature, vol 316, August, 1985  Lorius, Ritz, et al

3.  "Timing of Abrupt Climate Change: An Abrupt Clock", Geophysical Research Letters, vol 30,  2003

If you are really interested in finding what the best science is, I suggest you dispense with the "team" approach, like trying to debunk 'AGW skeptic organizations' and start looking at the real data-here are three to start with, when you are finished with them, ask another question, I will give you some others.  Oh year, do not forget to research the UK court case on Al Gores idiotic movie, I am sure you know the results of that, right?!  Oh yeah, I forgot, "the debate is over"-what a clown.

Answer 9

You should use a site such as http://www.sourcewatch.org/ to find out who's paying for a certain opinion.

I think that the best thing that the deniers can do is to be skeptical. We should all be asking these questions: What do you think motivates ExxonMobil (and the oil/gas/coal lobbies) to fund organizations skeptical of climate change? Does Exxon fund any climatologist who supports the consensus that human behavior is causing the current warming trend, or is their support one-sided? Does Exxon fund any other issues related to science? For example, is Exxon involved in the stem cell debate? Should I be skeptical of the tobacco lobby's claim that nicotine is not addictive? What would motivate the scientific community to invent a phony climate crisis? How does this motive compare with the motives that ExxonMobil or Peabody Coal might have to deny that burning fossil fuels indiscriminately could harm the our way of life?

Answer 10

I dont have an organization but a scientist who is very intelligent, Richard Lindzen who is a meteorology professor at MIT. He beleives most of GW is due to natural climate change.

Answer 11

SEPP, but they do accept donations from different sources. Whether strictly public or private I haven't a clue nor do I care.

ed: I don't put much effort into opinion based questions.