Why is Global Warming beginning to lose support, internationally?

Because it's a lie.

"Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

This is bad timing. The UN's World Meteorological Organization called the conference in order to draft a global plan for providing "climate services" to the world: that is, to deliver climate predictions useful to everyone from farmers worried about the next rainy season to doctors trying to predict malaria epidemics and builders of dams, roads and other infrastructure who need to assess the risk of floods and droughts 30 years hence.

But some of the climate scientists gathered in Geneva to discuss how this might be done admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term climate changes from global warming. "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office.

If the climatologist cannot predict the temperature in a week, how can they in 50 years? Global warming has evidence, the devil is in the details.

Will an increase in CO2 create warming? Yes

Will the warming be great? Probably not

Do we add enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have any efffect? Maybe, but it would certain not go above the error in measurement.

Will warming cause the icecaps to melt? Yes

Will the melting occur quickly? Absolutely not

Will the melting cause the sea level to rise? Maybe, but you would need to account for more H2O in the atmosphere, and more ice formation in the South pole.

Can man cause global warming? Yes

Will that global warming be large? Probably not

Will the global warming we cause be significant in relation to other factors? No, one eruption will put more crap in the atmosphere than we can in years

Is global warming bad? Yes and no.

an increase of 2-3 degrees will only have positive affects like increase the amount of food production.

An increase of 5-6 degree would cause flooding and a whole lot of problems.

So the real question is if we can actually increase the global temperature by 5-6 degrees with just CO2 and methane?

The only "science" suggesting this is a multiplicative feedback loop between CO2 and H2O, that is truly impossible by the standards of physics. It is impossible because there is only a certain amount of energy that can be held from the wavelengths the sun emits. The wavelength CO2 absorbs are short and certainly do not have enough energy to suggest a change of 5-6 degrees.

let me first say Global warming took awhile to happen, and it will take a while to fix, which i personally believe were to late on that. Secondly I don't believe the nation of the world will find an alternate source of energy in time to reverse the hands of time. Although many innovative idea have come about with the advent of hybrids and ethanol >.> which i hear isn't that great because it still uses oil to produce the thing. I haven't heard a good plan yet these model that they present in the PDF is from 2012-2050 its 2008 how about they start now and not wait till 2012 to see the results. Wait its politics everything is slow >.> do you sense the sarcasm i hope you do, because im trying to get my point that its too late!!!! I agree with my plan and that is get rid of the oil consumption now and maybe we might have a chance. To add further its the government the could easily mandate and subsidies all cars be turned into hybrids, lets start using our money in a productive way. beside I hear it doesn't cost that much. Is my car a hybrid no, but at the same time i only use if for work, i live less than a block away from a commercial zone, i use reusable bags when i go shopping the whole deal i walk to my store ect. You want to see a difference start with yourself, and those around you that is my POV.

If you notice, GW has gone the way of the Dinosaurs. Now it's "Climate Change". A far more dangerous term in my opinion as it allows for wide interpretation. The basic premise is what's flawed. The very idea (and never stated as such) of a steady state Earth is clearly absurd. The Geologic record all by itself precludes this belief. This is nothing more than a power grab by the eco-terrorists in our government that seek to put some animals or plants over the needs of man.

Only the truly ignorant will put their faith in the science of 100 years ago and farther in the past. The "warmers" keep on quoting records that would have been impossible to make as there was no ability to make these "scientific" observations on a global basis that long ago even if there was such an inclination at the time.

Tree rings tell a fair portion of the tale. Wild fluctuations in global climate representing Vulcanism and potential solar activity and even the potential of more or less particulate matter in the region of space the Solar system is moving through at the time.

There is no consensus among scientists or even climatologists-that is a flat out lie. In any case it takes a clear and overwhelming consensus of other scientific disciplines to make a theory like this stick. Geologists, astronomers and anthropologists need to be brought into the discussion as well. We must never forget one important fact in all this-Algore is not a scientist of any kind. Never has been. He is a radical and an environmentalist with an agenda.

first became aware of global warming in1989 , at school when my Geography Teacher advised me that if something was not done soon, it would be too late. This was re-iterated in the early 90's at my profs at University. So simply I believe its too late. Its not a lie or a scandal. The world is dying and the only real way is to to drastically decrease the world's population. There are simply too many of us too be sustainable. Nothing else will

Realistically make a differnce. Either 1/3 of the pop dies naturally or we will die from weather, lack of food etc...

Because people are waking up to the fact that weather and climate are cyclical, that 11 years ago Al Gore said we needed drastic change in carbon emissions, or in 10 years we would suffer an ecological catastrophe, and that if the advice of the loony, chicken little, global warming alarmist were followed, the global economy would collapse, and we would all be destined to live in the stone age.

If we all agreed to give up gas burning engines, fossil fuel generated electricity, all the conveniences of modern life, all the trees in the world would have to be cut down to use as building materials, cooking and heating. There would be no reduction in carbon emissions as we burn up all the forests in the world. There are only 6.7 billion people on Earth.

Global warming and cooling are natural phenomenons and have happened historically.

The powers that be are always looking for ways to fleece the pa-eons and this subject offered the perfect vehicle.

I have wondered if this was not an appeasement gift to Al Gore, because he lost the election to G.W. Bush.

jj~

Talk to climatologists. They are the ones studying it, not just "scientists." Having some physicists not think it's happening is no better than you saying it. They are not the experts looking at the data.

Show me where numerous climatologists say it's not occurring and I'll listen.

Because people are not stupid and are waking up to the fact that climate change is a natural cycle and has been constant for tens of thousands of years. Its nothing ore than yet another method to strip people of thier wealth and more importantly, thier freedoms.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but it is governments who dictate our way of living and what resources we use. They need us to use oil and gas but yet they punish us for it. There is a serious pollution problem that is not being addressed because of the need to make money over environmental protection.

All and all global warming or climate change is a blatant attempt to shift the blame onto the normal citizen and have them punished for their mistakes. We don't even need fossil fuels, they technology has been there for years. Wind, Solar, Tidal, Wave and Geothermal can power the entire earth forever if it was implemented but obviously the need for power overrules the need for a clean self sustainable energy.

Its ALL corrupt.

are fossil fuels limited in ammount? yes

do we have sufficient technology to survive without fossil fuels? no.

is it wise to support development of new technologies leading to energy production? yes

is it wise to cut the consumption of energy until we have the new techs? yes.

see? the logic works even if you manage to remove the global warming.

my point is>

the reason for denial of global warming is to justify one's enormous energy consumption and lack of self control.

Anyone who says that the gas with propagation of less than one percent of atmosphere mass is marginal, clearly thinks that Atmosphere works on democratic /polling/ principle. it DOESN'T.

as an analogy> quite a small ammount of copper may degrade tons of steel, if present in the source scrape metal.

TRACE minerals are ESSENTIAL in balance of various metabolic processes.