NASA Says Hotter Summers Since 1980 Caused by Global Warming: Is Global Warming Man-Made?

Because you haven't realized yet that the Rockefeller family has an enormous stake in ExxonMobil, and they're the same Rockefellers who have poured outrageous amounts of funding into pro-AGW research, propaganda, and policy through their various non-governmental organizations? ;)

ExxonMobil once put a measly $23 million into dissenting research, which has forever tainted the discussion despite the US government alone putting over one thousand times that much into pro-AGW research and well over three thousand times that much into global warming-related policies in total. That's aside from the billions that powerful nongovernmental organizations (many with deep ownership ties to ExxonMobil's primary shareholders) have put into pro-AGW research. All told, research critical of the AGW theory has gotten some millions in funding...while pro-AGW research funding has gotten into the hundreds of billions. In short, the funding bias is very much not on the side of the skeptics.

Ever notice that the plan for Cap and Trade was created by Enron? (You remember Enron, don't you?) Ever notice that Shell Oil overtly came out in support of the AGW theory and Cap and Trade taxes back in 2009? Sooner or later, ExxonMobil will come out and overtly support Cap and Trade policies too, much like Shell has. In the meantime, they'll continue staying silent - and not funding anyone to any significant extent whatsoever - to make it easier for partisans and religious environmentalists to use the argument you just did without critical thought. The truth is, they are not fundamentally opposed to Cap and Trade policies at all, as long as they have a say in the specifics and ensure they get a cut of the pie...which they will.

You can pretend I work for an oil company though (and that they're on the skeptics' side) if it helps you sleep at night.

Oh, for Pete's sake. The guy did consulting work for oil companies in the 1990's and received a few thousand bucks in expert witness fees in the same time period and nothing since. He hasn't even received ANY climate research funding from them, and you're acting like his funding gives him such little credibility that you can't even read his article about the institutional politics of scientific organizations (complete with tons of specific examples that you can check on yourself)?

Once again, the very first thing you did was to jump for an ad hominem attack. Apparently, any possible reason not to think or absorb new information from a new source is good enough for you. At this point, I think you're just finding excuses to retreat into your position without doing your due diligence on the issue. (Meanwhile, you haven't once stopped and questioned the sources of AGW theory funding.)

Now, if you are done making excuses and want to get a taste for what's going on, then read the article...carefully. If the website bothers you, just Google "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" The introduction is slow and vague, but section 2 gets into the takeover of the major scientific organizations (who speak for thousands of scientists) by political/activist interests with no scientific background but with veto powers over almost everything. I suspect you wouldn't understand why that's a bad thing, but maybe you'll surprise me with a genuine respect for science and indignation at the abuse of scientific institutions by non-scientists. Section 3 gets into the systematic alteration of data by scientists, not necessarily as deliberate misconduct, but to make better sense of the models and simulations assumed to be correct in light of data assumed to be ridden with errors. There are plenty of specific examples in sections 2 and 3, and the ones in section 2 at least are easily both verifiable and falsifiable.

BTW, if you're still hung up on the oil company red herring, remember that you still haven't successfully countered my points above regarding the energy companies, like their pitiful monetary support of dissenting research (i.e. their "hearts" clearly aren't in it), ExxonMobil's ties to the Rockefellers and their AGW funding, Enron's development of Cap and Trade, and Shell's overt support thereof. No, incredulous laughing and insults do not apply as intellectually honest arguments.