Which sites do global warming denialists prefer for their "research"?

Question

In the minds of the deniers, do the links listed below constitute what would be considered valid sites for their denial "research"?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.g...

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.htm...

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/abou...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Answer 1

I prefer the US senate because they are the one who never try to reduce the Green house gas emmission and contributing for more than 25% of the World GAS emmission was AMERICA.

Answer 2

http://www.junkscience.com is a good blog of daily misuse of science in general.  The reference peer reviewed journals for science information which runs counter to the alarmists claims, and also discuss the totally inane way the media and politicians use science to advance liberal agendas.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ is a good blog for those wishing to only address the counter-claims in peer reviewed journals (again) to the hogwash that most alarmists scream ad-nauseum about.

Whenever I hear about how the "poles are melting" I check out http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ which shows that, in the few months, Polar Sea Ice is actually pretty average.  The north Polar sheet recovered just fine, thank you very much for all your alarmism.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci... is a good place to see what's going on as well.  The Alarmists hate these guys because they're thorough and pretty well address most of the absurd claims the eco-n***s make before asking for more of your money and freedoms.

My favorite part of CO2 Science, however, is http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci...

At this page, I can see whether the temperature in my area is gong up or down....and gee, it's been dropping over the last 100 years, so I think I'll grab a blankie for tonight!

Answer 3

I don't know what you mean by denialist, perhaps you mean people who are interested in the truth rather than those who want to have their faith reinforced by fellow believers.

Any site that explains the science behind their reasoning is good.  I'm interested in finding out as much as possible about what we know and don't know.

Answer 4

First of all, there are no Global Warming denialists, there are only Global Warming Is Mostly Caused By Humans denialists.

The list of research sources that state that Global Warming is largely a Natural Process is lengthy and comprehensive and peer reviewed.

Common sense prevails also since humans only contribute a very very small amount of total Greenhouse gas emissions (the rest occur naturally).

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossil...

Here are some more sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/

http://junkscience.com/

Science is the search for Truth, not Consensus.

Answer 5

blogs seem to be the order of the day. along with stringing together facts with "logic" as one of your answers has already done. that said, its not just them using blogs ive seen a few people saying the world is going to end because they read it in a newspaper or seen the day after tomorrow. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

mcorr55

the first 2 souses are useless because you are using US (US ≠ world) and not global temps. if you used global temperatures you would see weak correlation until recant times. why would that be?

the third one is not saying that global warming is due to the sun. it is just telling us about how variation in solar output can have a small effect on climate

your fourth source is largely irrelevant, because it is a good 15 years old. (published in 93)

your 5th source is fairly irrelevant. the shape of the earth is changing because of climate and not causing the change.

Answer 6

Negative

Notice all sites are NASA, NOAA or scientific

Unlike the "Believers" who only use self gratification sites that agree with them.  None with scientific fact.

Check out the sunspot and temp graph. Rescale them to correlate the years.  But then facts don't matter, only consciences.