Does anyone know of a decent advocacy group that argues against Global Warming?

Question

A group that has a good list of questions and/or details in their argument against Global Warming.

Answer 1

Just go to the Yahoo search engine.  Type in the first law of thermodynamics and global warming.

Global warming energy balance.  

If you really want to get to the heart of the debate you have to look in to the feedback systems.  Is water vapor a positive or negative feedback.  My training as an engineer you assume feedbacks are negative (you also realize systems from a single heat source when charted do not increase up like a smile)  The history suggests negative feedbacks, why do we cycle?  If feedbacks are positive we woudl be like 30 deg hotter now. LOL.  This is my personal oppinion, I am currently trying to model.  With the sun and other weather patterns.  Water vapor is both a positive and a negative feedback.  It would have been negative in the late 40's , + 60' -70's + 80's and 90's.  I.E. by the models the energy obsorb by water vapor would be the same for 1942 and 1980.  Anyway what is important, that until they prove the feedbacks the most the temperature will rise is 1 deg C +/- .5.  

I am skeptical, because a few years ago, when all this concensus and proven talk.  I went online looking for the evidence.  Being a Mechanical Engineer, I looked for energy and first law balances.  That is not being comunicated.  Look for it in Yahoo.  YOu will get skeptics using the first law.

Answer 2

No decent ones that argue against the idea that GW is occurring or is man a major factor..  There is really very scientific argument against these and the c**p recited here (solar cycle, natural cycle, sun out put increasing, solar rays, etc) is really just mis-information.  Scientist have considered the natural factors along with the anthropogenic causes.  Human activity is a major source of CO2 and global warming.

You could probably find good groups that focus on the ways to reduce warming though.  This is really where the focus is  and where you need to weigh in - what actions should we take, how much action, when should we take the actions, who pays.  This is productive and matters.  Trying to find fringe groups that want to debunk the scientific consensus is a waste of time.

Answer 3

Here are 26 arguments against global warming:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

And the scientific reasons why they're wrong.

There are many "advocacy" groups (mostly right wing) that argue against global warming.

And EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

The choice is believing advocacy groups (like heartland) or believing scientists.  Since I'm a scientist, I'll stick with them.

Answer 4

there are really no proven facts about warming. global warming isn't real!!!!

Here are some facts:

1) If you took every car off every road in the US the temperature would change less than a TENTH OF A DEGREE!

2) People cause 3.5% of temperature change with .4% coming from cars.

3) The polar bear population has gone from 5000 to 25000 in 10 years and for some reason, they are still being put on the threatened list! they can swim!

4) 5 billion dollars a year is wated by the US government to research "climate change"

5) no one has proved why the hole in the ozone layer appeared, so the theory that the extreme cold caused it is just as credible as the theory thet cfcs or whatever caused it.

6) Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

less than 20 years ago they were freking out about the next ice age!!!!

what more wil it take to convince you? why believe what politicians and liberal "scientists" say when you can just look at the science and prove it wrong!?

Answer 5

ONLY THE IGNORANT

Answer 6

yes i did know that there is a group but i just don't know the name but it is related to m.discoverychannel.com

Answer 7

Try www.climatescience.org.nz   This is a group of well respected climate scientists who argue a balanced view. Before he died Augie Auer was a contributor to this organisation. Auer was a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years and really knew his stuff.

Answer 8

The answer is no there are none, that alone should tell you something.

crazy_con the Heartland institute are are a joke and the only thing funnier is the "New York" conference they held.

and

"Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate"

"a report by some of the brightest names in the climate field."

"Written By: Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D."

published by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change which is also created by Fred Singer.

These, sorry this is your brightest mind/s

I like that he both writes and edits every thing himself, very scientific?

Please stop this or I am going to hurt myself laughing

Stl_luna's links (the working ones, anyway) only confirm there are no "decent ones"

Answer 9

try this !!!!

The origins of the modern liberal environmental movement in the campaign to ban DDT -- and how that led to the resurgence of malaria in the poorest countries, with devastatingly fatal consequences

How the government-dictated preference for corn-based ethanol and other biofuels is causing massive land overuse, soaring food prices, and increased hunger in the poorest places

How a single SUV tank of ethanol-based gasoline burns enough food to feed a starving African for a year

How public ownership of waterways causes pollution -- and was the real reason Cleveland's Cuyahoga River "caught fire" in 1969 (a founding myth of environmentalism)

How hormones from contraceptive and "morning after" pills are literally being flushed into rivers and causing bizarre sexual malformations in fish -- and why, for once, there has been no outcry from liberals

Yellowstone in flames: How liberal-inspired management programs in the Forest Service and the National Parks have led to major wildfires — including a near—catastrophic one in the nation's crown jewel, Yellowstone Park

How the Endangered Species Act actually increases the threat of wildlife extinction — while private approaches have helped species recover all over the world

Getting the Green: how the environmental movement is funded by industries that reap enormous profits from environmental laws and regulations

How overfishing of the oceans results directly from liberal opposition to property rights in the oceans, as embodied in the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)

Shut Up, He Explained: how censorship, manufactured outrage, and even phony "science" are being used to cut short the debate over global warming

The Lost Sea: how the last attempt to "scientifically manage" an economy, in Soviet Russia, caused the destruction of the Aral Sea — which Al Gore and others now wrongly blame on global warming

What history demonstrates about the importance of property rights in protecting the environment

Answer 10

You give the game away in your question!

a "decent" advocacy group against GW? That's an oxymoron!

The only advocacy groups against GW will be, once you get beneath the surface, supported or funded by those with other agenda, e.g. oil companies, mining, airlines, SUV manufacturers, etc.

Answer 11

No legitimate group is going to openly argue against global warming.  However, some PACs funded by the oil companies and auto manufacturers discreetly attempt to suppress any action taken in regard to global warming.

Answer 12

There are plenty...

http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/soroos/HSS3...

Answer 13

The Heartland Institute, which hosted this years 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, has promoted real science in dealing with climate change. Main stream media creating scare stories. They have also sponsored the "Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate". This is a report by some of the brightest names in the climate field. The report details why nature is the cause of global warming, not humans.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyo...

http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/...