Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe

[jem]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Jem, the climate change denying, intelligent design peddling Man of Science has spoken.

you are a leftist tool.

Why don't you explain why ice cores show that temperature rises a long time before CO2 rises.

By the way I do not deny it... I request evidence of it before I come to a conclusion.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from jem:

you are a leftist tool...

This is your second reference in as many posts to politics in what is supposedly a pure science thread.

 

[Trader666]

Or how the ice caps are melting at half the rate previously thought:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=206448

Quote from jem:

you are a leftist tool.

Why don't you explain why ice cores show that temperature rises a long time before CO2 rises.

By the way I do not deny it... I request evidence of it before I come to a conclusion.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Trader666:

Gayfly, is that a self-portrait of you believing that everything spontaneously created itself from nothing because Stephen Hawking said so?

If I am not mistaken, there are many credible scientists who hold this view, which is the generally accepted standard of current knowledge. On the other hand, there are many quacks who do not hold this view. I have chosen to side with the scientists. Good luck with your choice:

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

you are a leftist tool.

Why don't you explain why ice cores show that temperature rises a long time before CO2 rises.

By the way I do not deny it... I request evidence of it before I come to a conclusion.

the tool gabfly gave no response.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from jem:

the tool gabfly gave no response.

I thought you were joking.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no...


A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing, eh jem?

 

[Trader666]

Many credible scientists? What happened? Up until now you basically worshiped Hawking as your science "god." For example:

Hawking, the world's foremost living theoretical physicist

That area of physics is almost universally recognized as highly speculative and there are competing theories that are respected and not by "quacks." So you're wrong yet again.

You only side with Hawking because you can't think for yourself. Which is especially laughable because it's obvious that scientists are speculating far beyond the range of their understanding.

Quote from Gayfly1:

If I am not mistaken, there are many credible scientists who hold this view, which is the generally accepted standard of current knowledge. On the other hand, there are many quacks who do not hold this view. I have chosen to side with the scientists. Good luck with your choice:

 

[jem]

Quote from Gabfly1:

I thought you were joking.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no...


A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing, eh jem?

you do not even understand what you read... Your study refers to 3 of the periods. Yeah so? How many other periods are there, does warming proceed CO2 then....
Why don't you answer the question einstein.

 

[Trader666]

You dumbass. You totally miss the point. Which is, there's a lot more than CO2 causing the warming cycles and they've been happening long before humans had any input.


<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2928230>

Quote from Gayfly1:

I thought you were joking.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no...


A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing, eh jem?

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Trader666:

Many credible scientists? What happened? Up until now you basically worshiped Hawking...

Then you haven't been paying much attention to my posts over time. I have often referred to Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller as well. Basically, I make it a point to side with the non-quack segment.