Leyden and Teixeira: Political “Civil War” Coming Because of Global Warming

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 11, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently tweeted that Peter Leyden’s and Ruy Teixeira’s article, “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War,” is a “Great read.” The article both urges and forecasts a blue-state takeover of America where our current political divide gives way to a Democrat dominion. This new “Civil War” is to begin this year and, like the last one will have an economic cause. Unfortunately, the thinking of Leyden and Teixeira is steeped in scientific ignorance which drives their thesis. Read more

Comments

And why do you presuppose that God should not want ice ages?
Err, you were the one who was claiming to know the mind of God by saying that he had kept the climate stable. I was just pointing out that is isn't so stable. The argument that ice ages happened, therefore there is no God does have some appeal, but alas not much validity.Bob O'H_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

AGW is also related to atheism because they both inflate the human ego with I Know Everythingism. C02 vs Temp will only ever be a statistical correlation, yet it's assumed in certain Smarter Than Thou circles that C02 forces the temp. This is beyond a simple error. This is Group A trying to get over on Group B an a global scale. Andrewasauber_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

AGW is an atheistic thing because only atheists are gullible enough to believe it. :razz: But I digress- AGW is real because humans have adjusted the data that makes it come to life. Leave the data alone and it all looks like natural variation.ET_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

And why do you presuppose that God should not want ice ages? That is a Theological argument, based on your limited knowledge, as to what you think God should and should not do. May I suggest that God has a reason for ice ages that you just might not be aware of??? After all He is omniscient and you are, well I hate to break it to you, but you are just little ole finite Bob no matter how highly you may think of yourself. In the following video, around the 35 minute mark, Hugh Ross covers ice ages, as well as many other factors, that were necessary to produce a habitat that is suitable for a technology advanced civilization to exist on earth:
Life and Earth History Reveal God's Miraculous Preparation for Humans - Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014) https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097
Of related note is this article:
Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity Table 1: Ice Age Cycle Benefits for Humanity Melting ice fields brought nutrient-rich alluvial silt to the plains. Wind-blown dust delivered other nutrients to the plains. Melting glaciers water the plains. Ice field and glacier retreat formed millions of lakes. Formations of lakes and connecting rivers transformed barren deserts into productive land regions. Geological relief yielded abundant hydropower resources. Retreating ice sheets formed land bridges warm enough to facilitate human migration. Glacial retreat formed many safe harbors. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers formed rich ore deposits. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers made possible enhanced abundance of plants and animals during the warm interglacial episodes. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers created spectacular scenery. https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/
bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

bs77 - Now could you answer my question? I wasn't asking about geologic time. If God has been keeping the climate stable, how do you explain the ice ages?Bob O'H_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

From post 5 which Bob (and weave) apparently did not bother to read:
Thus in conclusion, the atheist’s assumption for a stable climate that is optimal for life is actually a hidden Theistic assumption on his part. On Atheism there simply is no reason to presuppose that the climate should have been ‘surprisingly stable’ for life for all these billions of years, or to presuppose that the climate will remain ‘surprisingly stable’ for any extended period of time hereafter. Only on Theism is the assumption of a stable climate warranted: Genesis 8:22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
Also of note, It seems that the data for supposed Global warming has been massaged so as to arrive at a predetermined conclusion:
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare - March 2018 https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ Christopher Booker: The Fiddling With Temperature Data is the Biggest Science Scandal Ever - February 8, 2015 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/02/christopher-booker-fiddling-with.html
And let's not forget the infamous 'hide the decline' hockey stick:
Hide the decline - satire on global warming alarmists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
"Scientists" who massage data are not worthy of being called scientists,,, (that criticism applies to Darwinists also)bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 7 - I'm now curious to know what AGW is an atheistic position. Are you saying that God would stop the world from warming? And if one could demonstrate that mankind was affecting the global climate, would that be a demonstration of the non-existence of God?Bob O'H_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

I wonder if some of the flaming a/mat progs who comment on this site would join an actual Army of Global Warming Blockheads if a recruiter came to their door or sent them an email to click and join. ;) Andrewasauber_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Strange that they have to fudge with the data in order to see any global warming.ET_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

The idea that AGW is the driver behind a new Civil War in America to start, err, later this year is simply absurd.
The problem is there are some Really Stupid Global Warming Believers that are capable of some really stupid behaviors based on their weather fantasies. Andrewasauber_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Bob O'Hara as to:
BA77: A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists: Bob O'H: What about Christian chicken little global warming alarmists?
You are right. History is replete with people who have called themselves Christians and who have championed Atheistic positions. Darwin himself was not trained in advanced math, or in any other field that would be conducive to the founding of a new field of science, but was trained in liberal Christian theology. And almost immediately the liberal Christians of his day backed Darwin's pseudo-theory whilst the conservative 'scientific' Christians shunned his theory as being unscientific.
“Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species
In fact, Darwin's book, instead of being based on any math or experimentation, is replete with (bad) theological argumentation.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
To this day, Darwinian theory is dependent on (bad) theological argumentation.
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
The Biologos organization, i,e "Theistic Evolution", itself is a modern day example of severely compromised Christian theology masquerading as real science.
Michael Gerson: How Rejecting Evolution Led to Evangelical Support for Trump - March 14, 2018 Excerpt: Here is (Stephen Meyer) on theistic evolution,,, "This tangled — indeed, convoluted — view of the origin of living systems adds nothing to our scientific understanding of what caused living organisms to arise. As such, it also represents an entirely vacuous explanation. Indeed, it has no empiric or scientific content beyond that offered by strictly materialist evolutionary theories. It tells us nothing about God’s role in the evolutionary process or even whether or not he had a role at all. It thus renders the modifier “theistic” in the term “theistic evolution” superfluous. It does not represent an alternative theory of biological origins, but a reaffirmation of some materialist version of evolutionary theory restated using theological terminology." https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/michael-gerson-how-rejecting-evolution-led-to-evangelical-support-for-trump/
Thus when we see present day liberal Christians jumping on the pseudoscience of AGW it should not be all that surprising. Of course, my position would be to question whether anyone can truly be a Christian whilst championing atheistic positions which are based on (bad) liberal theology. Of course, it is not for me to to judge who is and who is not a Christian, but I certainly would not feel comfortable with such hypocrisy of logic in my own way of thinking. Verse:
Matthew 7:15-17 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
As to 'evil fruit':
From Darwin to Hitler - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anq6SAo1ue4 In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially the view that human life is sacred
bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists:
What about Christian chicken little global warming alarmists?Bob O'H_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

In the following articles, Michael Denton and Eric Metaxus gives us a glimpse at just how special Earth’s atmosphere actually is:
The Cold Trap: How It Works – Michael Denton – May 10, 2014 Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,, ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,, Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/the_cold_trap_h085441.html Existence Itself Is a Miracle – Oct. 2014 Excerpt: “For instance, if the earth were slightly larger, it would of course have slightly more gravity. As a result, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen respectively, would remain close to the surface of the earth. Since we can’t breathe methane or ammonia because of their toxicity, we would die. If Earth were slightly smaller, water vapor would not stay close to the planet’s surface, but would instead dissipate into the atmosphere. Obviously, without water we couldn’t exist.” Eric Metaxus https://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/26299
In the following articles and video, Michael Denton further reflects on just how extraordinary the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere is for human life:
The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013 Summary (page 11) Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive. It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1 Privileged Species – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg A Reasonable, but Incomplete, Account of How Humans Mastered Fire – Michael Denton – August 4, 2016 In short, the discovery of fire, our subsequent mastery of it, and the road it opened up to an advanced technology were only possible because of our inhabiting a world almost exactly like planet earth, complete with atmospheric conditions exactly as they are, along with the properties of carbon and oxygen atoms (and indeed many of the other atoms of the periodic table), and because we possessed a unique anatomical design (including the hand) uniquely fit for fire-making. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_reasonable_bu103048.html
Indeed, the earth and humans in particular are now shown to have far more significance in this universe than atheists had ever presupposed that we would have:
Humanity – Chemical Scum or Made in the Image of God? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElBWAwjPzyM
Moreover as was mentioned previously, although other atmospheres on other planets are quite different from Earth’s atmosphere, (in fact all other planets that we know about, with substantial atmospheres, all have opaque atmospheres which do not allow sunlight to penetrate to their surfaces), It is important to note just how fine-tuned our atmosphere for visible light to penetrate it.
Quote: “,,,These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.” – Fine tuning of Light, to Atmosphere, Water, Photosynthesis, and Human Vision (etc.) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiN9dU0W6rQ
Thus in conclusion, the atheist’s assumption for a stable climate that is optimal for life is actually a hidden Theistic assumption on his part. On Atheism there simply is no reason to presuppose that the climate should have been ‘surprisingly stable’ for life for all these billions of years, or to presuppose that the climate will remain ‘surprisingly stable’ for any extended period of time hereafter. Only on Theism is the assumption of a stable climate warranted:
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Comparisons to other solar systems that have now been made bares out just how special the Earth’s stable solar system actually is:
Paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Suggests Our Solar System Is Exceptional – Casey Luskin – September 10, 2015 Excerpt: our solar system stands out dramatically compared to other solar systems we’ve discovered and that getting rocky planets orbiting near their star as Earth does, in the circumstellar habitable zone, requires a very exceptional set of circumstances. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/paper_in_procee099171.html Earth Resides in an “Oddball” Solar System – January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Our solar system may be an oddball in the universe. A new study using data from NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope shows that in most cases, exoplanets orbiting the same star have similar sizes and regular spacing between their orbits. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yer-average-planet-watch-earth-resides-in-an-oddball-solar-system/ How weird is our Solar System? Is it odd like your quirky uncle, or odd like a leprechaun riding a unicorn? – May 2015 Excerpt: “It’s increasingly seeming that the solar system is something of an oddball,” says Gregory Laughlin, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the US.,,, Once you get over the fact that planets are as common as stars, you’re faced with their startling diversity. “We kind of always vaguely hoped and expected planets to be common,” Laughlin says. “And that’s absolutely right – they are common. But they are weirder than our own solar system would lead us to expect.”,,, “Having nothing interior to Mercury’s orbit and having Jupiter itself – a massive planet on a Jupiter-like orbit – combine to make us unusual,” Laughlin says.,,, “Every indication right now looks like we might be rare,” Walsh says.,,, “There’s zero evidence that Earth-like environments are common,” Laughlin says. “There’s zero evidence that life is common.” http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150515-how-weird-is-our-solar-system Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets; Excerpt: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems: https://crev.info/2011/02/bustednbsp_planetmaking_theories_don146t_fit_extrasolar_planets/
In particular, the atmospheres, and chemical compositions, of exoplanets are turning out to be far more diverse than was expected:
Compositions of Extrasolar Planets – July 2010 Excerpt: ,,,the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions. http://www.reasons.org/compositions-extrasolar-planets Hubble reveals diversity of exoplanet atmosphere: Largest ever comparative study – December 14, 2015 Excerpt: “We found the planetary atmospheres to be much more diverse than we expected.” http://phys.org/news/2015-12-hubble-reveals-diversity-exoplanet-atmosphere.html Rains On Different Worlds – info graphic (sulfuric acid rain, glass rain, diamond rain, iron rain, methane rain) http://tehgeektive.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/rain-on-different-planets.jpg Molten glass files: Blue alien planet is NOT like Earth – Nov. 3, 2016 Excerpt: And then there’s the weather. The winds on HD 189733b (which lies about 63 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Vulpecula) blow at up to 5,400 mph (8,700 km/h) — about seven times the speed of sound. And if that’s not crazy enough for you, scientists think the rain on this world is made not of water, but of molten glass. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/molten-glass-files-blue-alien-planet-is-not-like-earth/
bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

And to top all that off, Atheists have no explanation for why the climate on Earth has remained ‘surprising stable’ for billions of years in the first place
A Stable Atmosphere: Another Reason Our Planet Is Special – Daniel Bakken – January 20, 2015 Excerpt: David Waltham’s central argument in Lucky Planet is that the geological evidence shows the Earth has had a “surprisingly stable climate.”1 There are many reasons the Earth shouldn’t have one. He observes, “[O]ur beautiful, complex biosphere could never have occurred if Earth had not enjoyed billions of years of reasonably good weather.”2 There are many processes that keep Earth’s environment habitable, “which [in] the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal.”3 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/a_stable_atmosp092851.html
The following articles highlight just how ‘special’ Earth’s case turns out to be:
We may be overlooking a critical factor in our quest to find alien life – August 2016 Excerpt: Many scientists assume that plate tectonics is a given on rocky, Earth-like worlds, but this may be rarer than anyone imagined. A new study in the journal Science Advances questions the idea that rocky worlds “self regulate” their heat after forming. The implications could be enormous, says study author Jun Korenaga, a geophysicist at Yale University. Essentially, we could be overlooking another “Goldilocks” factor in our searches for worlds habitable to aliens: a planet’s initial temperature. If you’re a planet and you start out too hot, the thick layer of rock below the crust called the mantle doesn’t give you plate tectonics. If you’re too cold, you also don’t get plate tectonics. The mantle is not as forgiving as scientists once assumed: you have to have the right internal temperature to begin with. “Though it’s difficult to be specific about how much, it surely does reduce the number of habitable worlds,” Korenaga wrote in an email to Business Insider. “Most … Earth-like planets (in terms of size) probably wouldn’t evolve like Earth and wouldn’t have an Earth-like atmosphere.” That would mean that many planets in the “Goldilocks” zone may not be habitable after all.,,, ,,, Mars and Venus weren’t so lucky. Those planets have a “stagnant lid” of relatively unbroken crust, and in Venus’ case, the consequences are clear: Without the ability to bury carbon in the atmosphere, the surface turned into an 860-degree-Fahrenheit hell. The new models suggest that rocky planets which can regulate their temperature, and thus develop all the geologic support systems life needs to emerge and thrive, are much rarer than we might hope.,,, he wrote. “[A] planet like Earth could well be the one of a kind in the universe.” http://www.businessinsider.com/goldilocks-exoplanet-habitability-internal-heat-2016-8 Scientists ‘Iron Out’ Phenomenon That Sustains Magnetic Field Of Earth – 2 June 2016 Excerpt: “Without Earth’s magnetic field, life on the planet might not exist. For 3.4 billion years, this magnetic field has prevented Earth from becoming extremely vulnerable to high-energy particles called cosmic radiation. Scientists know that what generates the protective magnetic field is the low heat conduction of liquid iron in the planet’s outer core. This phenomenon is known as “geodynamo.” However, although geodynamo has been identified, experts have yet to understand how it was first created and sustained all throughout history….In the end, researchers found that the ability of iron to transmit heat were not at par with previous estimates of thermal conductivity in the core. It was actually between 18 and 44 watts per meter per kelvin. This suggests that the energy needed to sustain the geodynamo has been present since very early in Earth’s history, researchers concluded. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/162458/20160602/scientists-iron-out-phenomenon-that-sustains-magnetic-field-of-earth.htm
Moreover, besides having the just right conditions to enable long term plate tectonics, and a magnetic field, which is a necessary condition for advanced human life, solar systems which are able to maintain a proper ‘goldilocks’ orbit for billions of years for any planet like earth are much rarer than was previously thought:
“You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?” R. Webb – Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? – New Scientist – 2009 Milankovitch Cycle Design – Hugh Ross – August 2011 Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive. http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design Evidence from self-consistent solar system n-body simulations is presented to argue that the Earth- Moon system (EM) plays an important dynamical role in the inner solar system, stabilizing the orbits of Venus and Mercury by suppressing a strong secular resonance of period 8.1 Myr near Venus’s heliocentric distance. The EM thus appears to play a kind of “gravitational keystone” role in the terrestrial precinct, for without it, the orbits of Venus and Mercury become immediately destabilized. … First, we find that EM is performing an essential dynamical role by suppressing or “damping out” a secular resonance driven by the giant planets near the Venusian heliocentric distance. The source of the resonance is a libration of the Jovian longitude of perihelion with the Venusian perihelion longitude. http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/116/4/2055/pdf/1538-3881_116_4_2055.pdf Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011 Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-gaps-fine-tuning-and-newtons-solar.html Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine – 2011 Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,, As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism. Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.” https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine
bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists: First off Global warming is not unprecedented
Temperature of Earth for the last 10,000 years http://climate.geologist-1011......atures.png The evidence shows repeatedly that global warming is not unprecedented and according to Ruddiman (2001) as well as Singer & Avery (2006), global warming is a regular cyclic phenomenon on planet Earth. In fact, the normal global mean temperature for planet earth given the Phanerozoic history, is actually 19.5 degrees Celcius; a full three degrees higher than the present mean. http://climate.geologist-1011.net/ Temperature of earth last 5 million years: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif
Moreover, CO2 does not directly correlate to temperature
What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change – PragerU – video CO2 and Temperature have not directly correlated for millions of years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. Paper – Anthony Watts / April 11, 2012 Excerpt: Only at greater time scales is there time for even seawater thousands of meters deep to fully warm and release more CO2. Accordingly, only at greater “medium” time scales does CO2 and temperature correlate highly, as can be seen contrasting the 400,000-year graph to the 11,000-year graph. Evidence for how CO2 in ice core data lags temperature by centuries has been discussed before at Watts Up With That, including articles in 2009 by Frank Lansner and R. Taylor. A simple Henry’s Law formula is applicable to a glass of water on a table releasing more previously-dissolved gas when warmed, but it is not literally valid when there are chemical reactions with the solute (CO2). The oceans are a far more complex system in general. However, still, more CO2 is released eventually when the planet warms. The atmosphere and the ocean surface (or shallow zones) warms much first, then deeper waters later. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ The Truth about CO2 – Patrick Moore – co-founder GreenPeace – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
Moreover, CO2 levels for optimal plant growth are actually much higher than they presently are
Human Emissions Saved Planet Excerpt: Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today. At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children? https://uncommondescent.com/global-warming/greenpeace-founder-patrick-moore-on-global-warming/ Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses Introduction The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

Civil war may indeed be forthcoming in the United States. It certainly seems like we are in the early stages of such a conflict. Hatred between the two rival tribes (reds and blues) is very real, and seemingly unreconcilable without a clear winner arising through large scale violence.Truth Will Set You Free_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply