G20 Nations Reportedly Set To Kowtow To Trump On Climate Change

[SoonerRedYukon101]

MAGA, bitches.

Notice they don't call it global warming anymore. They conveniently changed the terminology to "climate change" since it's, well, not getting warmer.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/2...ail&utm_term=0_8f98a37810-bdb646bfda-20197701

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Russian gooner bot still completely full of shit lol

 

[HighStickHarry]

Russian gooner bot still completely full of shit lol

Do you have a graph that starts in 30,000 bc?

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Do you have a graph that starts in 30,000 bc?

Is that when man-made climate change began occurring? Something special about that date?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Is that when man-made climate change began occurring? Something special about that date?

Just a larger population sample. It doesn’t tell much of the story to do 150 years of a 6 billion year old earth

 

[SoonerRedYukon101]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...keI-rYOiTYzr99RIk0B47VPWGhm7ata0#5205289a3de0

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...keI-rYOiTYzr99RIk0B47VPWGhm7ata0#5205289a3de0

Lol...what a donkey...

“In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:233–34[4]In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[8]”

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

To me, human influenced climate change is common sense. When you have a closed system, destroy or degrade the natural filtering system and inject millions of tons of Carbon and CO2 into it, there are going to be adverse effects. The question is ...what will the magnitude and time frame of those effects be?
My scientific passion lies in Astrophysics, and some people dispute the Big bang theory. The Big Bang happened. It is so intricate and complicated ( more happened in the first second of the Big bang then has happened in the 13.82 billion years since) that certain aspects can be challenged, that does not mean the entire theory is incorrect. People can also find errors in certain aspects of Climate change models , that does not mean the entire premise of Climate change is incorrect.

 

[Headhunter]

I think the sun and natural cycles have a lot more to do with temperature than anything man could do.

What worries me is all the crap being dumped into the oceans. Why aren't we freaking out over that mess?

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

I think the sun and natural cycles have a lot more to do with temperature than anything man could do.

What worries me is all the crap being dumped into the oceans. Why aren't we freaking out over that mess?

its not the varying intensity of the Sun causing the problems, it is the increased retention of the heat due too Greenhouse gasses. Just look at the difference in surface temperature between Mercury and Venus, Mercury is much closer to the sun yet the temperature on Venus is 200 degrees hotter. I do agree about the oceans, many people are freaking out about that, they just are not a loudly heard

 

[long-duc-dong]

It’s chilly out this morning.

 

[Alpha Poke]

You can't include the word theory and then unequivocally state "it happened."

Do I think it's plausible, ehh, at this point it requires the same blind faith as the big bearded white guy theory.

If we want to talk about co2 and the ramifications we have data points where it was much higher.

Evidently dinosaur farts were really bad for the environment and their cars must've been even worse than ours.

 

[imprimis]

Let's mandate those carbon emitters like earthquakes, forest fires, and volcanoes out of existence.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

You can't include the word theory and then unequivocally state "it happened."

Do I think it's plausible, ehh, at this point it requires the same blind faith as the big bearded white guy theory.

If we want to talk about co2 and the ramifications we have data points where it was much higher.

Evidently dinosaur farts were really bad for the environment and their cars must've been even worse than ours.

For something to be classified as a "Theory" it has to be well tested and be able to make predictions that are verifiable through observation. Every photon is a snapshot of the moment it left its source, thus allowing us to look back into time. The Universe is 13.82 Billion years old, yet we have a photograph of the entire universe when it was only 300,000 years old, allowing us to verify many of the aspects of the theory to that point. Also, they have been able to recreate conditions back to 10^-47 seconds in the LHC and those conditions matched predictions. On a religious note, if you want to go in that direction, the Vatican endorsed the Big Bang theory as the official development of the universe back to the point of the Singularity

 

[Alpha Poke]

You can't definitely say," it happened," it's a plausible theory, nothing more.

You believing it doesn't change that.

I'm sure you'll waste a lot more words proving me right inadvertently, like the above.

 

[anon_lnhkpgkt86jc6]

Can they reconstruct temperature and carbon from thousands of years ago?

 

[JimmyBob]

Can they reconstruct temperature and carbon from thousands of years ago?

Absolutely, anything that fits the "narrative" is readily available.

 

[Alpha Poke]

I guess the French aren’t fans of the immediate effects of climate change...$7/gallon gas (not rising temps).

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

You can't definitely say," it happened," it's a plausible theory, nothing more.

You believing it doesn't change that.

I'm sure you'll waste a lot more words proving me right inadvertently, like the above.

You actually can.....there is one fact that is absolutely proven and undeniable........the fact that the universe is expanding ( 63km per second per MegParsec)......that allows for two other undisputed facts.....1) At any point in the future the Universe will be larger than it is now and ....2) at any point in the past, the universe was smaller than it is now........That second fact allows us to "rewind" the universe which we have done very accurately using the equations of GR, as I have said, light, acts as a time portal, it allows us to look back into time and confirm our findings........as I have said, the Big bang theory is so intricate, that some parts can be disputed , but overall it did happen, because...it had to happen for the universe to be what we see today.........there is a great article in this months Astronomy magazine about how over the last century many of the top minds have tried to debunk the Big bang theory , and none have come close , in fact the name "Big Bang" was given to the theory to try to down play it as stupid........but it has held pat for almost 100 years

 

[aix_xpert]

You actually can.....there is one fact that is absolutely proven and undeniable........the fact that the universe is expanding ( 63km per second per MegParsec)......that allows for two other undisputed facts.....1) At any point in the future the Universe will be larger than it is now and ....2) at any point in the past, the universe was smaller than it is now........That second fact allows us to "rewind" the universe which we have done very accurately using the equations of GR, as I have said, light, acts as a time portal, it allows us to look back into time and confirm our findings........as I have said, the Big bang theory is so intricate, that some parts can be disputed , but overall it did happen, because...it had to happen for the universe to be what we see today.........there is a great article in this months Astronomy magazine about how over the last century many of the top minds have tried to debunk the Big bang theory , and none have come close , in fact the name "Big Bang" was given to the theory to try to down play it as stupid........but it has held pat for almost 100 years

But its also estimated that the rate of growth is decelerating, which implies a resistance and there are some theories that indicate that the universe will eventually reach critical mass and snapback like a rubber band, which would dispute your 'undisputed' fact that at any point in the future the Universe will be larger than it is today.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Just a larger population sample. It doesn’t tell much of the story to do 150 years of a 6 billion year old earth

It depends upon what you want the story to say.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

But its also estimated that the rate of growth is decelerating, which implies a resistance and there are some theories that indicate that the universe will eventually reach critical mass and snapback like a rubber band, which would dispute your 'undisputed' fact that at any point in the future the Universe will be larger than it is today.

The Universe expansion is accelerating, that acceleration is being driven by Dark energy, the expansion has been accelerating since the universe was about 7 billion years old.........the only two complete studies which mapped the expansion history of the universe both showed continued acceleration at a 5 sigma level of probability, and the second study which is considered the more accurate of the two confirmed the 5 sigma level also, and also determined a less than 3 sigma level that the universe was not accelerating.......if the universe was not flat.......but we have now confirmed that the universe as a whole is flat, although local 4 dimensional space - time ( Minkowski space-time) is curved......... one interesting thought proposed by Stephen Hawking........Could intelligent beings exist in a contracting universe?

 

[AC_Exotic]

For something to be classified as a "Theory" it has to be well tested and be able to make predictions that are verifiable through observation. Every photon is a snapshot of the moment it left its source, thus allowing us to look back into time. The Universe is 13.82 Billion years old, yet we have a photograph of the entire universe when it was only 300,000 years old, allowing us to verify many of the aspects of the theory to that point. Also, they have been able to recreate conditions back to 10^-47 seconds in the LHC and those conditions matched predictions. On a religious note, if you want to go in that direction, the Vatican endorsed the Big Bang theory as the official development of the universe back to the point of the Singularity

This long paragraph has little validity for the same reasons that incest is hazardous to a family tree.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

This long paragraph has little validity for the same reasons that incest is hazardous to a family tree.

That is idiotic

 

[CowboyJD]

I guess the French aren’t fans of the immediate effects of climate change...$7/gallon gas (not rising temps).

The French are notable for their reasonableness and mental acuity.

 

[AC_Exotic]

That is idiotic

So is a room full of incestuous "intellectuals" opining on the pleasant odor of each other's farts.

 

[Alpha Poke]

The French are notable for their reasonableness and mental acuity.

Versailles tells you everything you need to know about Frogs.

Just poop in the corner, we'll clean it up later.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

 

[Alpha Poke]

This dude touches on my biggest hang up on the Big Bang which is the law of conservation of energy.



If you really want to get your melon opened up.






@COWBOYintheUK

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Sir Roger Penrose is one of the great Astrophysicist of our time, his Penrose diagrams really simplify the effects in the areas around Event horizons of black holes, but I watched the entire thing and found nothing that remotely questioned the Big Bang Theory or the expansion of the Universe......he briefly touched on the Second law of Thermodynamics, which in Astrophysics refers to the Thermodynamic arrow of time (Entropy) but I don;t see what you were getting at

 

[Alpha Poke]

Sir Roger Penrose is one of the great Astrophysicist of our time, his Penrose diagrams really simplify the effects in the areas around Event horizons of black holes, but I watched the entire thing and found nothing that remotely questioned the Big Bang Theory or the expansion of the Universe......he briefly touched on the Second law of Thermodynamics, which in Astrophysics refers to the Thermodynamic arrow of time (Entropy) but I don;t see what you were getting at

Did that clip have the many big bangs? If not you can find the entire episode.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Did that clip have the many big bangs? If not you can find the entire episode.

He did speak about that , but he was totally speculating, there is no scientific or observational data to support that, but it is a possibility. The expansion history of the universe has been documented and confirmed to a very high level of probability, we have a photograph of the entire universe when it was only around 300,000 years old, the LHC has duplicated the conditions of the universe 10^-42 seconds after the big bang started thats
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second and it was exactly what was predicted by GR........and the LHC is on a two year shutdown to upgrade to duplicate even further back.........anyway the reason I brought up the Big Bang in a Climate change debate was to illustrate that there is so much data that goes into Climate change models ( as it does with the Big Bang) that many parts can , and should be questioned, but , even if certain parts are found to be incorrect, that does not mean the entire theory or model is wrong, and conversely, just because one portion is found to be correct, that does not confirm the entire model correct either...but Climate change is so important, it needs to be taken seriously because it would have grave consequences for our entire species

 

[Alpha Poke]

Now you need to move to Weinstein.