Now if you watch Foxnews
ROFL!
if you watch or read a reputable independent source you would hear no such thing, because its denialist rubbish spread by big oil. i do love a conspiracy theory, but this isnt one.

here is fox news’ real agenda;

“Fox News blurts out its agenda: “Now that Jones has resigned, we need to follow through…. First, stop cap-and-trade, which could send these groups trillions,” and then put “the whole corrupt ‘green jobs’ concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream.”"
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/08/fox-news-kerpen-americans-for-prosperity-green-jobs-van-jones/

Do the BBC, Times of London, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, and Guardian also make people laugh as sources?

"little" whomever above, is your Climate Progress site known for its unscrupulous attention to eliminating bias? Your credibility in condemning other news sources seems to be nil.

To answer your question, the tawdry blog that Littlerobbergirl cites, Climateprogress.com is run by Joe Romm, so i wouldn’t believe a thing they said.

Romm does things like ring scientists up and tell them ""I want to trash them [authors, reporters, anyone who disagrees with global warming]"" so could they oblige him by stating that they were misrepresented, as below: QUOTE:

""“I’d like a quote like ‘The authors of SuperFreakonomics have utterly misrepresented my work,’ plus whatever else you want to say.”""

Of course, the scientist in this case hadn’t been mis-quoted at all. But Romm still went out of his way to do a hatchet job on the authors anyway,

You can read the NY Times about it here:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/

Here is Jones’ comment:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

‘B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. ‘

There is warming since 1995, but there is a 5%+ chance that it could be from random noise in the sample. Further analysis looks at things like how the mean ENSO index has dropped since then, as has solar output, which suggests significant parts of nature contributed a cooling trend since then. This suggests something else is causing warming, but the ’statistical significance’ test doesn’t consider this.

And you’re right; the IPCC has made some mistakes. Note how they’re restricted to use of grey literature in Working Group II, rather than the physical sciences group, and a handful of mistakes in such a huge report is impressive.

There is no currently published climatologist who denies AGW. None.

There is no way for you to prove that you have posted honest statements because you have not. You prove why honest and educated people are so disgusted by know-nothings who lack morals.