framer
Well-Known Member
Aaaaaaand another one who thinks he's impressing anyone with pamphlet slogans. Must be genetic.
the derisive term "pamphlet slogans" coming from a global warming alarmist. Pretty damn rich.
Aaaaaaand another one who thinks he's impressing anyone with pamphlet slogans. Must be genetic.
the derisive term "pamphlet slogans" coming from a global warming alarmist. Pretty damn rich.
Nothing happened because of red shift. Red shift and blue shift are caused by the doppler effect. The classic example of doppler effect is if you're standing near a railroad track and a train is approaching the sound of the train has a higher frequency, when it passes you and is moving away the sound has a lower frequency. That is because as it is moving towards you the sound waves are closer together because as they are being created the train is moving closer to you. But after the train passes you the sound waves are being created as the source is moving away from you so the sound waves are further apart.Have you ever heard someone sit down and tell you what the "Big Bang" is? That there was a point that the Universe never existed and the next moment it existed in all of its entirety? Because of red shift? What are your contributions to astrophysics?
The Big Bang violates the laws of thermodynamics and entropy at the very least. It also means that objects can travel faster than the speed of light. It is basically science mythmaking because they don't know the answer.
If you have never considered these things while choosing to vociferously defend the theory, that makes YOU the dogmatic moron.
Hello... It's an oval.
Has the peer review ever rejected any alarmist theory as hogwash? Seriously, has anyone ever been singled out as being way too extreme and alarmist by the scientific community? .
Back in 2006 when Al Gore said we were ten years away from this same moment did he have scientific backing or was he just making stuff up? If it was based on scientific opinion (as I believe it was) why has the "point of no return" been moved twice as far into the future as it originally was? What happened that averted the crisis in 2016?It was my understanding that the scientists, and I am going to have to refresh my memory by seeing if it was the scientists behind the UN report, or those behind the administration's latest National Climate Assessment, or both, who stated we would reach a "point of no return" by 2030. It was the scientists who raised that assessment, not the politicians. Yes, some politicians adopted it, because, apparently, they took it seriously. But it was not the current "leaders of the political side of this movement" who invented this claim.
I'm also not sure "doomsday" is the right word, either. I believe what is being claimed is that the human-inhabitable regions of the globe will shrink as a result of global warming. The word "doomsday" almost implies some kind of end times or human extinction event to me. It conjures images like that in my mind. I believe, if the scientists are correct, that we are talking about shrinking the human-inhabitable zone on the planet. Through rising seas, (and that aspect is expected to have a greater impact where I live), increasing desert regions, etc.
Believe it or not, I hate media bias on all sides. It just rarely happens towards liberals. You do realize that there is a difference between opinion shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc vs. news shows on each of these stations. Opinion shows are biased and meant to appeal to their audience. It is in the regular news shows where the liberal bias is at its worst.
I would argue the vast majority of people seek to fulfill their confirmation biases, regardless of their inclination. Not knowingly perhaps, and maybe with token attempts at different sources to convince themselves they are "open-minded" (a little like the claim of having a "black" friend). People are generally creatures of comfort and truly challenging your ideas and beliefs is generally going to be uncomfortable.I don't believe it, sorry. It happens all the time to liberals. There are no end of right leaning media sources; any conservative will have absolutely no difficulty finding media that will reflect his/her world outlook. Thus the ongoing persecution complex within the right is silly. The fact that so many right-leaning people flock to right-leaning outlets, moreover, is proof that they are not searching for unbiased news sources, and thus don't object to them per se, but rather prefer biased news sources reflecting their world views.
I further vigorously dispute your argument that the other mainstream news orgs (e.g., CNN, NBC, NYT, Wash Post, etc.) are equal to Fox. That is on its face a ridiculous and false assertion. Fox, at least its commentary and not hard news functions, is, for all intents and purposes, the propaganda arm of the Trump Admin. There's being biased (and I concede the existence of bias, everyone is human after all), and there's being a purveyor of propaganda. CNN is the former, Fox is the latter.
I would argue the vast majority of people seek to fulfill their confirmation biases, regardless of their inclination. Not knowingly perhaps, and maybe with token attempts at different sources to convince themselves they are "open-minded" (a little like the claim of having a "black" friend). People are generally creatures of comfort and truly challenging your ideas and beliefs is generally going to be uncomfortable.
The big questions that really have no answers in regards to the big bang center around why, and what happened before.
Actually the idea that there was nothing before due to the time thing is only one theory. What about the big bounce, or the bubble theory, or the limitless theory? It is still very much a topic of debate with scientists pretty much all over the board. @colton can chime in way better than most of us I'm sure.There was no before, since time began with the big bang. And science is mostly about how rather than why. It's true that there is currently a lot of questions about the nature of the singularity, and many questions about when the arrow of time correlated with space, and the mechanism, or even the existence of the inflationary period.
There's still much to learn about the universe's history.
Actually the idea that there was nothing before due to the time thing is only one theory. What about the big bounce, or the bubble theory, or the limitless theory? It is still very much a topic of debate with scientists pretty much all over the board. @colton can chime in way better than most of us I'm sure.