Let's see who does NOT believe that humans are creating global warming or that we should do anything about it.
There is Men's News Daily - Doug Powers and his "Pliocene Tortoises Driving SUV’s and other Global Warming Conundrums"
- his work can also be seen at WorldNetDaily, The American Spectator, and such.
The Business & Media Institute (Advancing the culture of Free Enterprise in America) and Ken Shepherd's "ABC Reheats Leftover Bias on Global Warming"
- links to your typical right-wing think tanks - including the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" - See last article "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial".
News Busters - "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Biaas" - and Lyford Beverage's "Good Morning America - Advocates for Global Warming Alarmism"
- This is another "Media Research Site" - along with "Business & Media Institute" (see above) and "Times Watch", and Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), "The Right News. Right Now" - all endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, Robert D. Novak, and representatives from FOX, The Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, etc.
At something called LiveScience Blogs - "Your Daily dose of Science scuttlebutt..." Robert Roy Britt writes, "Anti-Global Warming Noise ‘Won’t Stop Until Some of These Scientists are Dead’"
- from Imaginova - a leading science and technology media and commerce company. "Imaginova Network content is syndicated to MSN/MSNBC.com, Yahoo, FoxNews.com, CNN.com, USAToday.com and Captivate Networks." Major Investors include Gannett Company, Inc.
The Imaginova Network of media brands include: LiveScience™.com, focusing on innovative and intriguing science and technology news and multimedia features; SPACE.com®, a web site that offers rich and compelling space, astronomy and technology multimedia content; and Space News®, the premier business-to-business international news weekly dedicated to commercial and military space and satellite communications businesses.
Meanwhile (back in reality):
Journal says agency blocked report on hurricanes, warming
A government agency blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported yesterday...
In the new case, Nature said weather specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- part of the Commerce Department -- in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report.
According to Nature, a draft of the statement said that warming may be having an effect. In May, when the report was expected to be released, panel chairman Ants Leetmaa received an e-mail from a Commerce official saying the report needed to be made less technical and was not to be released, Nature reported.
Leetmaa, head of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, did not respond to calls. NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher was out of the country, but Nature quoted him as saying the report was merely an internal document and could not be released because the agency could not take an official position on the issue.
The journal said in its online report that the study was a discussion of the current state of hurricane science and did not contain any policy or position statements.
The report drew a response from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, who charged that ``the administration has effectively declared war on science and truth to advance its anti-environment agenda . . . The Bush administration continues to censor scientists who have documented the current impacts of global warming."
Clean Air Watch Assails EPA Soot Decision, Says Agency Ignores Its Own Science Advisers
"With this decision, the Bush Administration has abdicated its responsibility to protect breathers from dangers in the air," charged Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
"This is a huge victory for big polluters, and a deadly setback for the breathing public. It is the single worst action the Bush administration has taken on air pollution."
O'Donnell noted that literally dozens of medical and health groups -- including the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- had all urged the EPA to set much tougher standards to reduce both short-term and long-term exposure to particle soot.
EPA's independent science advisers had echoed that call.
But EPA Administrator Steve Johnson disregarded that scientific advice in the face of pressure from big polluters, including the oil, electric power, coal, chemical, steel, automotive and diesel engine industries -- big financial contributors to the Bush White House. O'Donnell noted an electric power industry lobbyist met with the White House on this issue as recently as Monday, Sept. 18.
"EPA's decision was based on political science, not real science," noted O'Donnell. "Why else would EPA disregard its own science advisers?"
Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
...The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report.
You have to wonder if the people in the first set of essays that I listed are being funded by Exxon (I would guess that most of them are) - or if they are merely repeating the talking points of those who are paid. What nonsense. I wonder if any of them believe it.
Update - here is a list from 2005 of some of the groups that have been funded by Exxon. And the "Media Research Center" is one of the groups. Of course - the various think tanks might fund who-knows-who?