Which are the "sides" in the Global Warming debate?

Question

What groups represent those for controlling global warming (pro-Kyoto) and those who dismiss the findings?

On the pro-Kyoto side, for example, I picture Environmentalists, NGOs, and on the anti-Kyoto side I see the oil industry, politicians.

What side do you think these groups fall into:

1 Hollywood

2 The Military

3 Education System, Professors, Teachers

4 Bureaucrats, Politicians

5 Catholic Church, Judaism and Islam

thanks.

Answer 1

Back when I went to school and college I had to do my own research.

Maybe you should try it sometime......

Answer 2

I don't think it can be broken down that simply.

Global warming is a 'Subjective' science, as it requires some scientist to look over the data, then they basically vote if the data supports the theory.  If it does, then they say the science is real.  However not everyone shares these same ideas.

Many other scientist demand proof.  This is 'Objective' science.  For an example the effects of gravity is a good example as you, I, or anyone else can determine how long it will take before an object reaches the ground if dropped.  

There's mathematical formulas to explain the actions in Objective science, but not in Subjective science.  This is why no one argues over what the speed of light is.

It all depends on how you were taught and if you like to follow a crowd.

Answer 3

Most of these are pretty easy to answer.

Which side do you think the Catholic Church would be on? Most don't even believe that Global Warming is real! They definitely "dismiss the findings". The military is also easily answered. And you already answered number 4. If you think about it you could find the answers to these in no time! You don't need me to do your homework!

Answer 4

HAVING TROUBLE WITH YOUR HOMEWORK?

Answer 5

Good Question!!! But, the issue is simpler than you think!

It is all between optimists that believe America can do anything and nothing is impossible, therefore Global Warming with its implications of doom, must be false propaganda.

Optimists like this exist in the 5 groups you listed.

The non-optimists are not pesimist. We do not believe on the omnipotence of anybody, nation or group of nations. Some religions (e.g., Catholics) believe only God is Omnipotent.

The floods in Burma (Myanmar), like Katrina, are likely results of Global Warming but the link is tenuous and there is no reason to make that claim. Hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes may all be affected by Global Warming but we do not have ANY model that predicts them, much less whether the model, that does not exist, includes or excludes Global Warming.

Best look up the level of these lakes, beginning with what was the 4th largest in the world: The Aral Sea in Russia, that lost 75 percent of its water and left thousands without food.

Also, look at Lakes Superior and Mead, they both are at record low levels and drop further down every year.

Some are now predicting a new Dust Bowl for the west but, remember, the one in the 1930s ended, eventually.

So, believers in Global Warming look at the loss of water in Greenland, 56 Cubic Miles per year, and the newer finding that the South Pole also lost a similar amount last year, do support the view of Global Warming, as does the NASA photos of the Northwest Passage between the oceans, clearly seen from a satellite photo.

That in June 2007 a British swimmer went swiming for 19 minutes while wearing speedo trunks, goggles and a cap at the very North Pole.

If that does not seem convincing, that's OK, more data is piling on and nothing supports the view that Global Warming is false. If you hear of any, please, let us know. Thanks.

The 200 liquid lakes found under the South Pole say little either way.