Other Answers (11)

• If you wish to talk about things that are flawed, biased, dishonest .
  ICSC and from the menu on their site the ICECAP %26amp; SPPI are all the Heartland institute
  There is also a link in the menu to %26quot;Manhattan Declaration%26quot; an event organised by, you guessed it the Heartland institute.
  As a group organising the denier dis-information they are not even that good at what they do. They are also responsible for the phony petition. Most of the supposed facts against AGW seem to go back to one source. This would also include the recent spreading of APS article by the journalist Mocketon again first pushed by SPPI.
  
  Were you afraid of letting us all know the paper is from the SPPI?
  
  That paper is little more than a conspiracy theory. The main discussion is all about the authors of the IPCC reports. This is not scientific evidence, and it doesn%26#039;t refute the scientific evidene.
  Oops, they agree with the IPCC
  
  OK, then let%26#039;s listen to our scientists from NASA (they have more climate scientists than any other organization in the world):
  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...
  http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007...
  Oh Oh, NASA seems to agree with the IPCC too
  
  Maybe we should just listen to the US Global Change Research Program:
  http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/default.php
  Dang it, they agree with the IPCC too
  
  Perhaps National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...
  Nope, not them either
  
  The National Center for Atmospheric Research:
  http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climat...
  Nope
  
  Boy, for only a %26quot;few dozen scientists%26quot; (as your link indicates are all that believe this stuff) they sure have taken control of a lot of prestigious organizations.