Virtually, as in not real? The fact is that your list had organizations that are more about politics and not science. You had lobbyist who are funded by Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.<quoted text>
My long list was virtually 100% of the world renown, SCIENCE based organizations.
I could include political organizations such as GreenPeace and Sierra Club. But did not.
You have **0** science organizations that say global warming is a hoax,(excluding petroleum backed science organizations that are on neutral) because 100% of these are right wing organizations.
Actually, it should make it easy for you to refute it... if you could.
Gee, weren't you the one who said it was twits that don't support their statements.
Where's the beef by a REPUTABLE science journal.
I already proved to you that Roy Spencer's article you cited was proven to have such flagrant errors in it (and it was published in a satellite journal, which is his speciality) that the editor resigned.
You refused to even acknowledge it. Which is about the time I started calling you a liar.
Then the article itself wouldn't be officially from NASA would it. Of course you can have nut case letters.
Now are you really THAT unintelligent?
yes, like the right wing misinforamtion crap site you REGULARLY post frm.
You mean, unlike you?
ha ha And you don't read well. Your author asks should NASA tell the truth when its own satellites are telling them it is warming.
From YOUR source:
"But what is NASA to do? Many of its satellites are providing climate scientists the data they use to make their findings. Is the space agency to deny its own data?"
Tsk tsk. LOL.
As for what I had I had the ones who are not government funded.
Also I have no beef with reputable science journals but what you had was not reputable science journals but the sceince equlivant of the national Enquirer.
Also your claim was I could not find one with a offical NASA logo. Which only goes to prove that the logo mean little. Anyone can use it since it is public domain. As for what the satellites are saying, they are not saying anything since they are machines. What they are reporting is an entirely different story and many at NASA say the data report something other than what you want it to say.
And yes, you should look deeper to find the truth like me. Your posts have shown that you have not looked any further than what you wanted to find.