...proving the lie.... "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you. No, you hold the hope that they hold that hope. They don't. Those values have no more turned out to be fine tuned than the earth has turned out to be flat. They are scientists, they will look to science to discover more information about the values. Basing hope on unfounded appearances of something is what religious people like you do. Which just goes to show how confused you really are about this. Rubbish. One of your favorite name drops has already told you why essentially the values turn out the way they are. Due entirely to the laws of physics. The religious 'fine tuning argument' is based on creationists arriving at spurious assumptions after hearing about mathematical models that put a value to the fundamental physical constants of the universe. They rely on a lack of information quite separate from the values. Once there is more information and fundamental physical constants of the universe are understood, the religious 'fine tuning' argument dies a death like every other lack-of-information-pseudo-scientific creationist claim has before it. The Theory of Everything is a suggestion that there will be, as part of theoretical physics (you know, that stuff which makes the truly extraordinary possible), a principle that will explain the principles that unify all principles. That you think it is only to do with string theory just shows exactly how little you understand any of this. But not understanding is what you rely on, push your groundless religious belief upon, post the sheer nonsense and misinformation you do, and maintain the delusions you hold. You are pretending scientists and science says something they don't from which you form the unreasoned fantasy that doing so makes a case for an unexplained and unexplainable imaginary creator. Of course it doesn't, and doesn't even make it to pathetic either.
Ok liar... why don't you tell us what "one of my favorite name drops" says about the fine tuning. And don't be a fool and claim a Nobel prize winners states there the constants change in our universe. apparently you claim this is a religious argument. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Your patience is commendable stu. This reminds of some lyrics from Harry Nilsson's "The Point" "You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear, you dig?" says the Rockman. "You ever been to New Delhi? " No" ,"So, you see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear".
only a sock puppet would act as dense as you are acting. Stu's has not supported a single statement with science.
Says the guy who can't admit CO2 can lead temperatures higher no matter how many times it is explained to him that CO2 is greenhouse gas and there is 40% more in the last two hundred years and thinks all the world's science organizations and climatologists are wrong about AGW .
..and again... proves the lie... "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you." That's twice on the run now and still amazingly, you seem oblivious to what you've proved yourself to be. I already did many times..... you seem oblivious of that too. How do you get so confused over such straightforward things? Ah, it'll be because you're oblivious of them and to the things that are actually said to you. Yours is. It's a creationist one - so an absurd one, and it's all about a creator god. It's religious. My my, don't say, you're oblivious of that too.
Thank you kindly fc. I suppose it's a way of giving. Talking to Jem is like joining a care in the community program.
Its odd that the historical data shows warming precedes the buildup of CO2 and you insist you know something for a fact which is pure speculation. Do I suspect we are warming... yes. Have you shown its caused by CO2...no. It could be part of the cycle. period. Get some proof if you wish to pretend you have proof.
Science vs B.S. Penrose, Hawking, Weinberg even Dawkins vs Stu and the sockpuppets. Why et atheists lie. <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So you can't admit that rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures even though you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and CO2 has been proven by historical data to raise temperatures in the past. Do you know how to put two and two together? Five is not the answer. No matter how you try to add it up. You are so incredibly closed-minded it's not even funny. Virtually all the world's relevant scientists agree, but jem knows better. Because jem only trusts science when he misconstrues what they say to support his fanciful arguments. Typical of GW deniers and religious fanatics everywhere. So here is proof, you cannot, will not and do not understand science. AGW is very straightforward compared to talking of fine-tuning and multiverses, yet you can't even manage to grasp the simple concept that rising CO2 levels cause temps to rise. You have a bad case of ideological ignorance and intentional self-delusion.