That is because global warming (call it what you will) is more of a political movement than a scientific one.
Oh god.... 'Theory' does not mean the same thing in science as it does colloquially. No scientific theory is 'proven', it is just not disproved. In fact refutation is one of the hallmarks of science, NOT proof.
I think you're misusing the term sustainable bradders. Personally I don't like the term because of the confusion it causes.
That's already been tried...........on several occassions that spring to mind..................It didn't really work out though, seeing as how the population is now far greater than it was then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis...............but even James Lovelock has now changed his 'theory', like many of the prophets of doom (sorry, global warming and client change scientists) are gradually being forced to do as they find what they have spouted is b*llox. AL
This appears to be a reference to the placebo effect: If some people find that praying to a god, taking homeopathic medicine, etc makes them feel better, what is wrong with that? OK, placebos do indeed work, and do make some people feel better. But the scientific explanation lies somewhere within the psychology of the user, not in some fictional supernatural agency. If believing in a god makes you feel better, that is no proof that god actually exists outside your own mind.
and of course, in your opinion, the likes of you are justified in removing whatever that is because its not been proved and flatly deny someone else an opinion or comfort. Can someone prove the big bang to me? Im struggling to find the facts, rather than theory and estimation, of what happened because no one was there... A staunch pro science is no different to a staunch pro religion; blinkered views based on their paradigms allowing no tolerance nor credence to the others
I agree, but only to the extent that the sentence holds, which is not very far in reality. The problem is that this is a very powerful beleif that cannot be easily contained within a person's mind. It has a habit of spilling out all over the place like a bucket of shit. We're always cleaning up the mess.
No, but there are plenty of books on the subject. Funny thing is the theories still work wether you beleive them or not. Beleif, thankfully is not required. BTW the first person to propose the expansion of the universe was a catholic priest (Lamaitre). Go figure. Well where do we start with that statemet... here a start: Strawman Apeal to ignorance (implied) False comparison Oh and wrong :biggrin:
Well thanks for telling me what you think my opinion is. In fact I have never said that I want to deprive people of the comfort of taking placebos, or believing in nonsense or fantasies, if that is what they want. But I really don't want them imposing their nonsense on me. Is that going too far for you?
OK. I'll bite. Do you deny that the universe is expanding. No? Good. So therefore if we go back in time the universe was more dense now than it currently is. This is a fact the proof of which goes back to Hubble in the 30s (?) Do you deny the existance of the cosmic background radiation that permeates the universe? No? Good. Because those are photons from the super-dense state of the early universe. I could go on...
Please do...I deny the universe is expanding because where is the proof? How is the universe being measured for size? Who created the measure? How did they get a baseline? What was the size to start with? How was the theory tested to move from fiction to fact? Have any of the assumptions and 'facts' originally used subsequently changed, and if so has the whole fact base been re-evaluated to ascertain the impact of said changes? Is that enough for now ;-)
