There was no big bang?

gwb-trading said:
Futurecurrents has asserted that Global Warming is "settled science" several dozen times on ET.

The village idiot just keeps growing more hugely stupid...

A4cWeQM.png


So FC answer one question - is Anthropogenic Global Warming "settled science"?
More...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1*VPqRvoqEs4vW-0ObiaDoMQ.jpeg

Image credit: AP Photo / NIAID, Agriculture Department.
4.) Germ Theory. The idea that some diseases are caused by microscopic organisms was an extremely unsettling one when it was first proposed, yet it’s also been one of the most useful medical discoveries in all of human history. By no means is germ theory a complete description of illness or of the microscopic world, but given the effectiveness of modern medicine in combatting and preventing a whole host of diseases, it’s difficult to imagine that germ theory would ever be invalidated.
And yet there is still so much more for science to learn! The huge diversity of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, protists and viruses, some of which are parasitic and some of which are symbiotic (and some of which are a little of both) belie an incredibly complex and nuanced world. Diseases can be caused by a number of other factors that have very little to do with microorganisms, such as some autoimmune disorders, lethal genetic mutations, chemicals or other poisons. These theories are not complete (no scientific theory really is), but there are certainly aspects of them that can be considered as settled.
1*O0S0OpCFUjFSLAXJOTaHYA.jpeg

Image credit: Shutterstock.
5.) Global warming. And this is perhaps the most politically contentious scientific issue in the modern world. You probably already have your mind made up as respects what you think about this issue before you even read these words. Indeed, the idea that the science could ever be settled on this issue really riles some people up, and people are quick to label those with different opinions from their own as “alarmists” or “deniers” as the case may be.
Yet there are some scientific facts surrounding the climate that are settled: one is that the Earth has been warming and continues to warm significantly, and the second is that the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the Earth atmosphere has also increased by a significant percentage over the past two centuries due to human activity. Scientifically, the chances that the observed warming is a fluke, chance event is only 0.002%, meaning that we are 99.998% certain that the Earth is legitimately warmer today than it was a century ago. It would be unfair to science — both the scientific process and the scientific body of knowledge — to not consider these two pieces of the puzzle “settled.”
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-ever-be-settled-433601c3580e
 
gwb-trading

Futurecurrents has asserted that Global Warming is "settled science" several dozen times on ET.

The village idiot just keeps growing more hugely stupid...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-ever-be-settled-433601c3580e
Yet there are some scientific facts surrounding the climate that are settled: one is that the Earth has been warming and continues to warm significantly, and the second is that the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the Earth atmosphere has also increased by a significant percentage over the past two centuries due to human activity. Scientifically, the chances that the observed warming is a fluke, chance event is only 0.002%, meaning that we are 99.998% certain that the Earth is legitimately warmer today than it was a century ago. It would be unfair to science — both the scientific process and the scientific body of knowledge — to not consider these two pieces of the puzzle “settled.”
 
Some science and knowledge is more settled than others.

The innate nature of CO2 to absorb and then re-radiate certain wavelengths is settled science. It has been demonstrated many times. Nothing is suddenly going to change the physical nature of the CO2 molecule. No how no way in this local part of the universe. It is settled science.

The nature of the first moments of chaos where we cannot see is not settled science. It is not now and may never be knowable. Just like how life began. We will have models of certain probabilities, but never the sure answer.
 
Last edited:
trendlover said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1*VPqRvoqEs4vW-0ObiaDoMQ.jpeg

Image credit: AP Photo / NIAID, Agriculture Department.
4.) Germ Theory. The idea that some diseases are caused by microscopic organisms was an extremely unsettling one when it was first proposed, yet it’s also been one of the most useful medical discoveries in all of human history. By no means is germ theory a complete description of illness or of the microscopic world, but given the effectiveness of modern medicine in combatting and preventing a whole host of diseases, it’s difficult to imagine that germ theory would ever be invalidated.
And yet there is still so much more for science to learn! The huge diversity of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, protists and viruses, some of which are parasitic and some of which are symbiotic (and some of which are a little of both) belie an incredibly complex and nuanced world. Diseases can be caused by a number of other factors that have very little to do with microorganisms, such as some autoimmune disorders, lethal genetic mutations, chemicals or other poisons. These theories are not complete (no scientific theory really is), but there are certainly aspects of them that can be considered as settled.
1*O0S0OpCFUjFSLAXJOTaHYA.jpeg

Image credit: Shutterstock.
5.) Global warming. And this is perhaps the most politically contentious scientific issue in the modern world. You probably already have your mind made up as respects what you think about this issue before you even read these words. Indeed, the idea that the science could ever be settled on this issue really riles some people up, and people are quick to label those with different opinions from their own as “alarmists” or “deniers” as the case may be.
Yet there are some scientific facts surrounding the climate that are settled: one is that the Earth has been warming and continues to warm significantly, and the second is that the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the Earth atmosphere has also increased by a significant percentage over the past two centuries due to human activity. Scientifically, the chances that the observed warming is a fluke, chance event is only 0.002%, meaning that we are 99.998% certain that the Earth is legitimately warmer today than it was a century ago. It would be unfair to science — both the scientific process and the scientific body of knowledge — to not consider these two pieces of the puzzle “settled.”
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-ever-be-settled-433601c3580e
More...

After all, one of the most important cornerstones of science is the willingness to challenge the conventional wisdom. Science advances not merely by accepting the current best explanations as a foregone conclusion, but by testing them, probing them, pushing their limits and looking for gaps. After all, what was once accepted as the consensus position is laughably inadequate in light of our present knowledge and understanding.
More...

That is a great paragraph for all of the libtards to read. Thank you for posting.
Please explain why libtards get their panties in a bunch when anyone challenges GW claims when the article your posted states that it is a cornerstone of science?
 
Last edited:
WeToddDid2 said:
That is a great paragraph for all of the libtards to read. Thank you for posting.
Please explain why libtards get their panties in a bunch when anyone challenges GW claims when the article your posted states that it is a cornerstone of science?
More...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After your quote paragraph, there is more.


This. "But hold on. Just because something is open to revision if-and-when new information comes in doesn’t mean there aren’t aspects that have been so rigorously tested — that are so scientifically robust — that they can be considered “settled” or “correct enough” no matter what else we learn."

This. "But just because science is continuously challenging itself, assimilating new information, and revising its conclusions, doesn’t mean there aren’t many aspects that can be considered settled, at least at present. Let’s take a further dive inside."

This. "Yet there are some scientific facts surrounding the climate that are settled: one is that the Earth has been warming and continues to warm significantly, and the second is that the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the Earth atmosphere has also increased by a significant percentage over the past two centuries due to human activity. Scientifically, the chances that the observed warming is a fluke, chance event is only 0.002%, meaning that we are 99.998% certain that the Earth is legitimately warmer today than it was a century ago. It would be unfair to science — both the scientific process and the scientific body of knowledge — to not consider these two pieces of the puzzle “settled.”
 
trendlover said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After your quote paragraph, there is more.


This. "But hold on. Just because something is open to revision if-and-when new information comes in doesn’t mean there aren’t aspects that have been so rigorously tested — that are so scientifically robust — that they can be considered “settled” or “correct enough” no matter what else we learn."

This. "But just because science is continuously challenging itself, assimilating new information, and revising its conclusions, doesn’t mean there aren’t many aspects that can be considered settled, at least at present. Let’s take a further dive inside."

This. "Yet there are some scientific facts surrounding the climate that are settled: one is that the Earth has been warming and continues to warm significantly, and the second is that the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the Earth atmosphere has also increased by a significant percentage over the past two centuries due to human activity. Scientifically, the chances that the observed warming is a fluke, chance event is only 0.002%, meaning that we are 99.998% certain that the Earth is legitimately warmer today than it was a century ago. It would be unfair to science — both the scientific process and the scientific body of knowledge — to not consider these two pieces of the puzzle “settled.”
More...

Wingnuts are good at pick'n'choose.
 
Ok, for the OP WeToddDid2. Your first post with your link say this.

"Either way, the universe was once very, very small and hot.
"The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science."
So I think when poster futurecurrents talk about the earth is warmer, and this is from humans, he talk about (settled) science (for this time). So similar to; "The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science." from your link on the page 1. So when people say futurecurrents is the idiot, they are really the stupid people.
 
What I am saying is from the OP link on the page 1,
"The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science."
This tell you (some) science is settled from the big bang theory.

This is the same when poster futurecurrents talk about the earth is warmer, and this is from humans. This is overwhelming with evidence. This is some settled science for the global warming research. That is what poster futurecurrents talk about. Futurecurrents is not talking about all the scientists know all the answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top