This seems a stretch... So the information is wrong because its not from a news agency? Are you actually going to debate any points raised or just throw up smoke?
Debate what? "A lot of us feel global warming is a hoax" is not an argument. You made an appeal to authority and the authority in question was incredibly unreliable.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Interview with the main person quoted from the Heartland Institute
I agree that there are opponents to global warming. Do you have a statistic on the size of the opposition or simply anticdotes?
This above link is his testimony before the senate committee on commerce, science, and transportation on climate change...
I agree with the assertion that Fred Singer doesn't believe in Global warming. What of it?
Actually this site was only used for the letter listed on the site from the president of the American Association of State Climatologists... Seeing as it was in response to a comment about climatologists I think it still works.
My bad, I thought I had removed the "claims to be a climatological site" when I found that was merely the title on the one page. Please ignore that statement.
Actually it makes the source very obviously biased. If you were to find errors in what they report, then it would not be reliable.
Extreme bias destroies credability. Why you won't let rape victims sit on the jury at a rape trial.
But the didn't really make any points, and more importantly, you've not made any points. I'm not here to argue with them (unless they would like to come on RF). You may assert any position and support you like and I will happily discuss it with you. I don't generally argue with websites.
How again isn't the first a reliable source? Or is this the make people forget about the first site while you bash the second then label both sites as not credible while you hope people will forget about the first site?
People are welcome to remember the first site. It's a political neo-conservitive economics site which simply asserts that there's a lot of people who don't believe in Global warming. It's unreliable in the same manner that answersingenesis is.
But again, if you would like to raise and support specific points, I'm happy to discuss them.
Well... Lets see... global climate going up .000000000000000000000000001 degree doesn't seem too bad... Global climate change does not mean Massive global climate change... It simply means global climate change... If its part of nature, and doesn't do anything drastic to us, then I don't exactly think its that much of a threat.
For want of a nail, a shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe, a horse was lost.
For want of a horse, a rider was lost.
For want of a rider, a skirmish was lost.
For want of a skirmish, a battle was lost.
For want of a battle, a war was lost.
For want of a war, a nation was lost.
What difference could one nail make?
I'd suggest you look up "butterfly effect" and the experiment that first uncovered it (it was a climate experiment) before you make such claims. On the other hand, such an order of change is not what anyone is discussing or caring about. More than that has already happend. Please stick to the actual topic rather than a
reducto ad absurdium that really doesn't relate. There's certainly a threshold before we really call it "global warming".
)
