Lv 7
Trevor asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Can you name a credible scientific organisation that doesn't accept the theory of manmade global warming?

Please, only scientific organisations, not political parties, oil lobbyist groups etc. There's thousands upon thousands to go at, which of them don't accept that we're contributing to global warming?


PUNKER: Thanks for your answer but are you sure you haven't accidentally copied and pasted a section from Exxon's annual accounts. Every one of those organisations is funded by Exxon with the exception of the Greening Earth Society which is funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Alliance and the OISM which was founded by Professor Seitz who has substantial personal investments in the oil industry. Several also receive funding from the tobacco industry and other sources including Chevron, Shell, Amoco, Texaco etc. I did ask for credible organisations. By the way - the IPCC is apolitical, not political.

9 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The American Scientific Society of Exxon Studies (ASSES).

    The Danish Enterprise Network of International Environmental Research (DENIER).

    Oh wait, did you mean real organizations? Yeah, there's none of those. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG - nothing funny about that acronym) dropped its rejection of the consensus because its members demanded it.

    The Russian Academy of Sciences signed the 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection.

    And the 2005 Joint science academies’ statement:

    Global response to climate change

    From 2005:

    "The agreement of the Russian Academy of Sciences is also significant, as its members, who have previously been more sceptical of the science of global warming than the other institutions, last year advised President Putin not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol."

    Sounds to me like they agree with the consensus, Tomcat. You're about 3 years behind the times.

    *edit* Tomcat, you are incorrect. For starters, did you notice where it says "some members"? On top of that, future solar activity predictions tell us nothing about their opinion on the AGW theory. You are misunderstanding their conclusion. The 1.5°C cooling is from solar forcing alone and does not take anthropogenic effects into account.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    the Doctor Jello Stoned National Institute,has many supporters

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Tomcat
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    The Russian Academy of Sciences.


    I think you are about three weeks behind the times.

    <<<Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. They estimate that the Sun's reduced activity may cause a global temperature drop of 1.5C by 2020.>>>>>

    Any organisation that supports the above prediction cannot put much credability in your trace gas theory. Sigh......

    and that goes for you to Senior Bobby......

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Bob
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Tomcat (unlike punker_rocker) has definitely identified a real scientific organization.

    And their official position is that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

    They have a few members that disagree, but that's freedom for you.

    I trust that Tomcat will now change his mind about global warming. After all, the Russian Academy of Sciences says it's true. <grin>.

    TOMCAT - I said a few members disagreed. But the official position of the organization hasn't hanged. When you caught me in a mistake I admitted it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    OK, get real, Trevor. The IPCC is a POLITICAL GROUP. It is run by the United Nations! According to your definition, it is non-credible. Here are some organizations who dispute the AGW theory (or agenda, however you want to look at it):

    George Marshall Institute

    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

    Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    Greening Earth Society

    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

    The Heartland Organization

    Frontiers of Freedom

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute... name just a few. Again, you are using the consensus lie that was used to push the global cooling agenda in the 70's.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    There are none. Punker's list are not credible and the last three in particular are not scientific but neo-con so called 'foundations'.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I believe tomcat has your answer.


    Oh! You said credible.


    Eegah, you are incorrect.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Does it matter? Or has global warming become a popularity contest? One man with the facts trumps thousands of the consensus.

    Only subjective science requires a majority to believe it's real.

    Objective science requires only facts.

    You do not know if the climate will be warmer or colder in 5 years. You can only take guesses, and guesses aren't science.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    How about NASA! That is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, I'm sure you have not heard of most of the armchair wanna-bee scientists here!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.