Flash of Light when life begins... see as sperm hits egg

[Ricter]

You asked if I had peer reviewed science showing co2 lags temperature change.
I posted it. What you wrote now is just red herring.

Every agw scientists knows co2 levels lag change in temperature.

Yet your team is arguing/hoping to find science showing the laggard causes the leader.
Its possible co2 somehow magnifies natural warming caused by the sun and tides.
(it probably does during the warming phase after and ice age....) But... its going to be very hard for science to show man made co2 causes warming because our system is complex and co2 also causes cooling.


If you have some science I will change my writing.
I would not bother me at all if science could prove man made co2 causes warming. I just don't want to see carbon output being used to rob our kids of liberty.

The entire IPCC website, their reports, peer reviewed, show that rising CO2 is driving the recent warming, to a degree X and certainty Y. You simply choose to fall back on the "not how it used to happen" argument.

Back to the blanket analogy... my wife used to add or subtract a blanket, and I'd warm or cool accordingly. But now I add or subtract the blanket, and I warm or cool accordingly, but it's not me causing it now because it has always been my wife on blanket duty?

 

[jem]

1. Actually, if you look at the data... its the complete opposite of what you just spewed. The peer reviewed paper was from 2013 and included 2011 data. Its not a how it used to be argument. Its a "how it is now" study based on current instrument data.
Other papers show how it used to be. Those studies show CO2 lags temperature in the proxy records by 200 to 800 years as well.


2. I have read those IPCC reports have you?
If you follow the footnotes. The footnotes lead to models. if you read what the developers of the models say... you see they completely discount the predictive abilities of their models. The academics produce disclaimers saying that their work and graphs are not predictions. Their models are created with the assumption that CO2 causes warming. They therefore can not be called predictive... they are projections based on assumptions. And those assumptions fail on real time data. which is why the pause was so important.

Seriously, its why you can't find science showing man made co2 causes warming or even a list of say 100 real scientists stating science says man made co2 causes warming.

The IPPC politicians take academics work and turn it into political bullshit.
You can check this for yourself as I did a thread with links about this a few years ago.

3. your blanket analogy is a bunch of hot air... pun intended.
we are not in a closed system... and we have negative feedbacks.

The entire IPCC website, their reports, peer reviewed, show that rising CO2 is driving the recent warming, to a degree X and certainty Y. You simply choose to fall back on the "not how it used to happen" argument.

Back to the blanket analogy... my wife used to add or subtract a blanket, and I'd warm or cool accordingly. But now I add or subtract the blanket, and I warm or cool accordingly, but it's not me causing it now because it has always been my wife on blanket duty?

 

[stu]

1.2.3.

"Deny the science. Reject the science. Refuse the science.
Ridicule scientists. Let 'Conspiracy' be the cry"
Flat Earthers

 

[jem]

that is what you do when you are confronted with science which contradicts your 1950s random chance did it all posture.

I present the science and the scientists.
I showed that top scientists were stating that our universe appears very fine tuned.
You denied it for years.

I showed you that scientists state that as of then (and now) there were no complete plausible pathways from non life to life. You bullshitted your ass off for pages... and will probably do so again in the future.

So don't falsely mount a high horse and claim you are for science. you have been for trolling b.s. for years whether it be for science... the dictionary definition of atheism or whether Jesus was a historical figure.

That you have the balls to pretend you are not a paid troll is funny.

"Deny the science. Reject the science. Refuse the science.
Ridicule scientists. Let 'Conspiracy' be the cry"
Flat Earthers

 

[stu]

I showed

what you say isn't true. You showed that you'll keep saying the same things, even when they are not true. Like all the above and including this...

I am not pushing the bible or Jesus in these science threads.

... at the same time that you're posting bible stuff!

 

[jem]

why do I have to prove this to you again?
what part is not true? exactly.

1. I have posted dozens of scientists stating our universe appears very/extremely/spectacularly fine tuned. And some even say our universe is fined tuned for life.
I have explained to you the the physical constants of our universe are fined to to 20 decimal places are more. and the cosmological constant is tuned to more than 20 decimal points...
that is fine tuning.


2. with respect to life coming from non life you stated "There is plenty of science showing life from non life." I had to disabuse you of that silly statement and then you denied you ever said it.

but you did say it...


http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...ument-against-god.215062/page-90#post-3270666

 

[stu]

1. 2.
I am not pushing the bible or Jesus in these science threads.

what part is not true? exactly.

All of it.

You're always attempting to either insert or insinuate bible/god into science. It isn't science.

 

[jem]

you can't stand science when it goes against your 1950s random chance assumptions.

The idea that our universe appears very fine tune is endorsed by many physicists (probably the vast majority). The extreme fine tuning of the standard model of physics was confirmed when CERN found the higgs boson where it was expected to be. That is not a bible based discussion. Its science.

Here is the video that debunked 5 years of your bullshit here on et about what Susskind was saying in his book.

 

[stu]

1950s random chance
The extreme fine tuning
Here is the video

No, it isn't science.

 

[jem]

for those of you who don't understand the troll and his sock puppets...

if you were to question stu on this... after pinning him down over many posts... he would then state he was referring to his jack in the box gif. Which of course he will now vehemently deny.

of course he got a like from the one of the few remaining no substance douches.