Pressure groups and global warming?

Question

1. What pressure groups are stating the dangers of global warming?
What reasons might they have for giving this evidence?
what do they suggest we do about it?

2 what pressure groups are critical of the evidence for global warming?
what counter arguments are they using?
what reasons might they have for these viewpoints?

please help its for my science homework :/

Answer 1

The correct term is:

"climate change": our planet went through different phases during its existence, a the moment we go through a phase of increases in the temperature of our atmosphere



the term " global warming" is exactly "anthropogenic global warming" meaning: what part of this increase is caused by human contribution. The Environmental Protection Agency has a website which deals with this question and is full of data.



On international level the main group dealing with it is the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" which convened in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro during the Earth Summit, members are app. 190 states and nations of this planet, the most significant decision was the signing of the "Kyoto Protocol", the enclosed website shows the countries which has signed and ratified the agreement, the largest country which has not signed are the United States.



As the Kyoto protocol comes close the end of its end (by year) further negotiations have started for a follow-up agreement: see website.



To your questions:



1.) What pressure groups ?

The nations which are members of the "United Nations" based on discussion, democratic decision, negotiation and and agreement based on the earth summit in Rio and the Kyoto protocol, signed and ratified .

Reasons: in acceptance of the scientific facts documented e.g. by the Environmental Protection Agency.



Main reasons: many countries already have to deal with climate change effects.



Suggest: they do not suggest, they have already committed them self for e.g. reduction in the production of greenhouse gases, increase of alternative energies and other supporting laws and regulation: e.g. European Union : Emission standards for cars (also in the US)



2. Critical ?



???



My personal opinion is that the evidence is so strong that it indicates a human influence on the rising temperature of this planet. An overlooked argument is that we have today app. 6.5 - 7 bn people on this planet and based on mathematical models it will be 9 bn by 2050 and nearly 10 bn by 2100.

This will put additional pressure on the resources of this planet and we have to go from a economy which uses this resources in a way that at the end there usage as waste to an economy which makes a more efficient use of the resources (more efficient use) and allows the re-use or multiple use and also considers the side effects of the use (e.g. greenhouse gases, dumps sites, and actual: avoids oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.)

Answer 2

Chinese and Americans are the only peoples still believing (in majority) the Global Warming evidence is not there. They are the biggest polluters at the same time. Do the math. They only ridicule themselves when they ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists, the consensus, and countless National Academies of Science including their own countries'.

Answer 3

"You have to keep in mind that billions upon billions of dollars is spent on showing there is global warming, showing it's bad and showing that man is causing most of it. Most of this money is coming from governments."



True *in a way*.



There has been a lot of money spent on researching this. The research shows that it's there, it's bad, and that man is causing most of it. Most non-commercial research comes from governments.



If it wasn't there, the research wouldn't find it, and we'd all be greatly relieved.. It's that simple.



Scientists have this absurd wish to see the results of scientific research taken seriously by policy makers. Hence such pressure groups as the UK's Royal Society



http://royalsociety.org/Joint-Royal-Society-NERC-Met-Office-climate-science-statement/



…Joint-Royal-Society-

NERC-Met-Office-

climate-science-statement/





with endorsements or similar statements endorsed by the [US] National Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Russian Academy of Sciences etc listed at:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_Science



…/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_

change#Academies_of_Science



have (the fiends!) issued warnings regarding climate change.



As for the other side, look up "global warming controversy" and "Fred Singer" in Wikipedia. W is not a primary source but will give you links you can follow up.

Answer 4

You can make money in binary options only if you treat it as a real form of investing. Learn here https://tr.im/MEIeQ



This means learning how it works, learning how to read charts and learning how you can make accurate predictions. All these are not that difficult but it takes some time. If you treat it as gambling and just make random predictions then you will obviously not win.

Answer 5

1. Greanpeace and WWF are the largest environmental groups in the world with assets in the billions of dollars. Every other environmental group is behind stopping global warming. If any environmental group disagreed with CO2 reductions, they would be tarred and feathered or worse.



2. There are not many organized groups critical of man made global warming. It's more a motly collection of individuals. Heartland.org is probably the largest single group that is critical.



You have to keep in mind that billions upon billions of dollars is spent on showing there is global warming, showing it's bad and showing that man is causing most of it. Most of this money is coming from governments.



The people critical of global warming don't get anywhere near that amount of funding. Although, it is occasionally accused that some individual critic is funded "by big oil companies" but this is usually thousands of dollars and is a drop in the ocean compared to the other side of the coin.

Answer 6

Unfortunately it's mostly divided between political parties:



From the Left the pressure is coming from environmentalists who back peer reviewed scientific research. A recent study found that 97% of top climate scientists agree with the IPCC's assessment on AGW (Humans are contributing to global warming.) The Left wants to limit the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.



From the Right the pressure comes from PR firms who are hired by fossil fuel lobbies. They, on behalf of their clients, mislead the public into thinking that climate change is fake or it's not a big deal. The Right wants to keep making money by selling electricity and oil.



Bottom line is there is a huge and well funded effort to misinform the public on climate science. It's almost like we're in the middle ages again burning scientists at the stake.

Answer 7

I don't belong to, or follow any groups but I have followed the Global Warming issue since I read the 1995 IPPC Kyoto report on GW.



First, there is no consensus, but some scientist want us to believe the GW is a problem. So consider this, did you know in 1974 these same scientists were warning us about global COOLING?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html



Did you know In 2007, the UK High Court ruled “Inconvenient Truth” contained “Nine Key Scientific” errors?” The judge ruled it, a "political film" not a science film!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html



So we know that for some reason, some scientists and politicians want us to believe there is a crisis, of one kind or another. Lets look at the data they base their arguments on.



1. Climategate emails document researchers “hiding data,” "adding temps,” and their hate for dissenters. They had to adjust the data to agree with what they want to say.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/



2. The Russians confirm UK scientists MANIPULATED DATA to exaggerate global warming

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/



3. The Chinese say that weather stations were moved around to get higher readings in China!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud



How can you base ANY argument on "data" that has been tweaked, adjusted, and manipulated? How can you prove all the data your argument is based on is real data? I think its impossible, and as far as I can tell all the data is corrupt.



If they want me to believe this, they need to start over with a team of scientists from each side.

Answer 8

Global warming, schmarming: pollution is poison and it's killing us all. We can stop it, but oil and coal own the politicians on both sides as they, the carbon industry is now free (instead of furtive) to "speak" with millions of dollars in 'campaign funds' (bribery).



We need to overturn (throw?) the Supreme Court decision making money = speech.

Answer 9

There's two types of people who are alarmist about global warming -

People with socialist political ideas and people whos jobs depend on it. Some people are making a fortune out of global warming.

Answer 10

1.- Environmental groups and Democrats.

-To help push there agenda and help there friends. The ones that will make money on carbon trading and have investments in "green" projects.

-Raise taxes and create more legislation.



2. -Groups that are against government controls and higher taxes. Republicans.

-There is no physical proof that man and CO2 release is having an effect on temperatures. History shows that the earth goes through cycles and we are just in another cycle.

-People don't want to pay more in taxes and higher energy cost to solve a problem that doesn't exist. And even if it did exist higher taxes and regulations won't solve it.