Ok, but three of those four can't really be said to do that. And you didn't offer them up as examples of people who deny the cataclysmic nature of global warming but rather "and I have more and more and more of similar type links with reasonable dissent to the entire man made global warming thing."
Since you've repeatedly said there is significant scientific disagreement on whether anthropogenic global warming is happening I'm interested in seeing some evidence of that.
There are at least three levels where people can fall from the common schools of thought.
1. Whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring. I honestly don't think, despite claims to the contrary from certain non-science groups, that there is a significant dissension on this among scientists with the actual qualifications to have an opinion. Denier #1 can vaguely be said to be in this camp.
2. Whether certain features and impacts claimed by some to be a result of global warming actually are. Oversimplification exists on both sides, particularly among the laity and scientists theorizing outside their area of expertise. Just as some point out every snowy day as a rebuke of global warming, there are others who will read every change from the status quo ante as a result of global warming. "If all you have is a hammer..." and so on. But it is possible to put yourself in opposition to specific instances of this without in any way rejecting the consensus in #1 about the reality and enormity of anthropogenic global warming. This is where Deniers 2 and 3 are, and to the extent that he has offered evidence on only one very narrow topic, Denier 1 could be put in here too.
3. Policy debate. You can agree entirely that global warming is happening and that it is partially or entirely man caused but still disagree what should be done about it. A lot of people are in this camp (including Denier #2 and myself). Some think the damages won't be as bad as claimed. Or that the mix of positives and negatives may weigh out on the good side (Richard Tol above or Gregg Easterbrook
earlier this year in The Atlantic. Or that the speed at which it is happening is slow enough that we'll be able to adjust as it happens. Or that it is simply so big and expensive to control that it is better to just hunker down and weather the storm (so to speak). Or that the world as we know it is coming to an end and unless we treat its control as a global Manhattan Project we face a near extinction event.
But types 2 and 3 are fundamentally different from type 1 and you can't just bundle all three of them up into a single package and offer them as evidence of type 1 as you did.
I know I am once again coming off as harping on minutiae and semantics (though I don't think I am). But there are myriad interesting and useful realms of debate related to global warming. Because, it is a difficult PR position to say "yes, we're heating the planet but I don't think that is a problem because..." I think many of the pundits who are really in that position cop out and take the much more easily defensed, though intellectually dishonest, approach of "we don't have to consider doing anything because some very smart people say it isn't happening and acting before unanimity is silly." An approach that then trickles down to the "rank and file" (a phrase much in the news lately, does anybody ever use this phrase other than reporters reporting on union negotiations?) level and fits in nicely with certain conservative fiscal views and the fact that the average person doesn't have the time or knowledge with which to sort out the competing claims in the editorial columns of the newspapers.
===
But, three months ago I decided to stop talking politics and science here so that I will stop coming off as a prick (though apparently still
sociopathic and without values) and I think it best that I go back to that. So I will now play Bioshock for 48 hours until the urge wears off.