Why do some people think that the Heartland Institute and the OISM are reliable sources?

Question

Why do some people think that the Heartland Institute and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are reliable sources when it comes to global warming?

Answer 1

Because they share their political beliefs (basically extreme right wing).

That's enough to make them chose those over the National Academy of Sciences, which is really ridiculous.

These conservatives are upset about that kind of behavior, which makes Conservatives as a group look stupid.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Answer 2

Why do people think commondreams.org is a reliable source?

Answer 3

Because they reinforce the things some people want to believe.  And because some people are unwilling to do even the most basic research to see if these groups should be considered a reliable source of scientific (or polling) information.

Answer 4

For the same reason you don't like fox news, or these institutions.  Human bias, the one thing everyone on this forum has in common, yourself included.

Answer 5

Why would you automatically discount the opinions of tens of thousands of people trained in science? Isn't there a certain amount of bias in your question? Do you believe everything the IPCC publishes, despite the fact it is controlled by the UN and foreign governments and it's charter is to find links between human activities and global warming? Despite the fact that the summaries only bare a slight resemblance to the reports they are summarizing?

Explain to me why CO2 was 20 times higher than it is today with temp only 7C warmer than today 500 million years ago. And why did it cool from 1945 to 1975 despite the current numbers tweaking underway. And why the IPCC and AGW proponents found it necessary to pretend the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age were localized events, despite massive evidence to the contrary. And that temp and CO2 levels are higher than in the last million years or so. Don't just refer me to your pet blogsite Realclimate or give me a list of converts to your parade. I'm not interested in obfuscations or tirades, just the facts which don't favor AGW theory.

Answer 6

Because they don't know any better, and right-wing think tanks like these make scientific-sounding arguments that deny AGW.

They just do some internet search for 'global warming is a scam' and some denier website comes up with these right-wing think tanks listed as sources.  And to their credit (and the detriment of those who don't know any better), the think tanks do a good job of seeming like a valid scientific source.