Al Gore: Cigarette smoking 'significant' contributor to global warming

[Mirorgate 0]

Oh, Steven, why even try? When people say things that defy logic and then pat each other on the back for it, how could you have anything to gain? If they can't even tell that their arguments are weak, how can you argue with them?

Wow... so your intellect is so HUGE in comparison. Honestly. The implications in such a post as this is rather demeaning to more than just one person, including yourself Alex. Just because you agree with one thing, others agree with something else... their arguements are weak and they can't tell because they are so pathetically mentally challenged. Unlike you or Steven.

gotcha.

[Alex+R 0]

Oh, Steven, why even try? When people say things that defy logic and then pat each other on the back for it, how could you have anything to gain? If they can't even tell that their arguments are weak, how can you argue with them?

Wow... so your intellect is so HUGE in comparison. Honestly. The implications in such a post as this is rather demeaning to more than just one person, including yourself Alex. Just because you agree with one thing, others agree with something else... their arguements are weak and they can't tell because they are so pathetically mentally challenged. Unlike you or Steven.

gotcha.

I'm not really talking about you. It's not really an agree/disagree political issue. That's the sad thing.

I've said nothing about my own intellect.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you have no trust in scientists who actually know what they're talking about?

Framers Almanac actually gave my grandfather and father more info on the wheather and patterns there of more so than a lot of scientists ever did. We called it common sense and trending. That is what mdyoung, lucky, and everyone else has been stating. nothing more, nothing less.

Was it common sense that got us to the moon? Give credit where credit is due.

oh how cuuuute! we're talkin about weather, mean temperatures etc and you pull landing on the moon? I get that you feel strongly about global warming. Its good to have a cause. When I mentioned the Farmers Almanac, they also use scientific method to get data, but also common sense, and you can actually see cycles and trends.

You used your anecdotal example as if it relates to the science behind Global Warming. To even suggest it does is silly.

Really? US weather trends dont calculate in global warming?? how you figure that one?

You're suggestion that using common sense when it comes to Global Warming is sometimes more reliable than scientific study is ludicrous. We're not talking about the weather channel here, but the theory of Global Warming and how much of it is affected by human activity. If you want to apply your common sense then why don't accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? You want to challenge the validity of the theory, go ask a scientist or read up on it...I think it's silly to even be debating the science of Global Warming as if it's up to one's own opinion vs. scientific study.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[mawilson 2,133]

Ok. Global warming is real. Horrible things will happen... eventually.

Only one problem -- people don't care about "eventually". They care about "right now".

[ieldanth 0]

When the Farmers' Almanac was mentioned, it was about observations and compiling the data gained thereby, which is all the scientific community is doing as well, in a nutshell. The moon landing tangent would have made more sense if these scientists were actually researching how to control weather rather than just observing it and making predictions.

To that end, I think I would rather take my chances with Mother Nature than have someone controlling the weather. Too many possibilities for mischief.

[Mirorgate 0]

You're suggestion that using common sense when it comes to Global Warming is sometimes more reliable than scientific study is ludicrous. We're not talking about the weather channel here, but the theory of Global Warming and how much of it is affected by human activity. If you want to apply your common sense then why don't accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? You want to challenge the validity of the theory, go ask a scientist or read up on it...I think it's silly to even be debating the science of Global Warming as if it's up to one's own opinion vs. scientific study.

No, I wasn't equating anything. See below.. some ppl get it. No apply common sense... in the theory of what has happened to this planet over the millenia.. it has been noted that there have been more than one Ice Age. Guess what? The planet has to warm up to recede from an Ice Age. It has to cool down to enter one. you say I have to read up on the theory of global warming to challenge it... meaning that I of course haven;t.. yet you can not with any absolute certainty state that.

You want to challenge the validity of the theory

yep.. even you state over and over again theory.. yet take the tact that it's firm fact and it's all our (humans) fault.. instead of maybe nature just doin it's thing.

When the Farmers' Almanac was mentioned, it was about observations and compiling the data gained thereby, which is all the scientific community is doing as well, in a nutshell. The moon landing tangent would have made more sense if these scientists were actually researching how to control weather rather than just observing it and making predictions.

To that end, I think I would rather take my chances with Mother Nature than have someone controlling the weather. Too many possibilities for mischief.

as stated above... at least someone looked at what I wrote objectively v emotional response.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're suggestion that using common sense when it comes to Global Warming is sometimes more reliable than scientific study is ludicrous. We're not talking about the weather channel here, but the theory of Global Warming and how much of it is affected by human activity. If you want to apply your common sense then why don't accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? You want to challenge the validity of the theory, go ask a scientist or read up on it...I think it's silly to even be debating the science of Global Warming as if it's up to one's own opinion vs. scientific study.

No, I wasn't equating anything. See below.. some ppl get it. No apply common sense... in the theory of what has happened to this planet over the millenia.. it has been noted that there have been more than one Ice Age. Guess what? The planet has to warm up to recede from an Ice Age. It has to cool down to enter one. you say I have to read up on the theory of global warming to challenge it... meaning that I of course haven;t.. yet you can not with any absolute certainty state that.

James, I wasn't suggesting that you haven't read about Global Warming or that you don't have any understanding of it. My point and it was for all who doubt or challenge the validity of the science behind Global Warming is that presuppositions mistakenly being equated with true scientific study (We've had Ice Ages before...it's cooler where I live, etc).

You still didn't answer my question about using common sense in giving weight to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Is your answer to that consensus, the above in red? When scientific study of this magnitude gets reduced to simple anecdotal stories and rhetoric, then it becomes trivialized and the importance of the findings lost. I wouldn't argue neurosurgery with a neurosurgeon because my common sense tells me I don't know sh!t about it, or whatever precursor knowledge I have is infanticimal to his knowledge and expertise. So I'll accept his professional analysis without question. If I did question it, I'd go get a second or third opinion from other neurosurgeons. If I interviewed a thousand neurosurgeons who have all basically said the same thing, I'd be lacking common sense not regard what they have to say, yes?

[Mirorgate 0]

You're suggestion that using common sense when it comes to Global Warming is sometimes more reliable than scientific study is ludicrous. We're not talking about the weather channel here, but the theory of Global Warming and how much of it is affected by human activity. If you want to apply your common sense then why don't accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? You want to challenge the validity of the theory, go ask a scientist or read up on it...I think it's silly to even be debating the science of Global Warming as if it's up to one's own opinion vs. scientific study.

No, I wasn't equating anything. See below.. some ppl get it. No apply common sense... in the theory of what has happened to this planet over the millenia.. it has been noted that there have been more than one Ice Age. Guess what? The planet has to warm up to recede from an Ice Age. It has to cool down to enter one. you say I have to read up on the theory of global warming to challenge it... meaning that I of course haven;t.. yet you can not with any absolute certainty state that.

James, I wasn't suggesting that you haven't read about Global Warming or that you don't have any understanding of it. My point and it was for all who doubt or challenge the validity of the science behind Global Warming is that presuppositions mistakenly being equated with true scientific study (We've had Ice Ages before...it's cooler where I live, etc).

You still didn't answer my question about using common sense in giving weight to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Is your answer to that consensus, the above in red? When scientific study of this magnitude gets reduced to simple anecdotal stories and rhetoric, then it becomes trivialized and the importance of the findings lost. I wouldn't argue neurosurgery with a neurosurgeon because my common sense tells me I don't know sh!t about it, or whatever precursor knowledge I have is infanticimal to his knowledge and expertise. So I'll accept his professional analysis without question. If I did question it, I'd go get a second or third opinion from other neurosurgeons. If I interviewed a thousand neurosurgeons who have all basically said the same thing, I'd be lacking common sense not regard what they have to say, yes?

Steven, honestly, take a step back and reread. we're basically saying the same thing but from two different angles. Do I admit that the globe is getting warmer? Sure. DO I specifically state that we (humans) are the main cause of it? No, but that is what many people want us to believe. Do we help... sure. What do you think happens when you hack down a forest and build a concrete jungle that radiates the heat back into the atmosphere. Can I debate a scientist on the grounds of what I know and understand? Of course I can. Why should I sit here and take them at their word that this is what is going on as fact when they use terminology as "theory" "We believe" etc., and then the other side that has just as many scientists have opposite findings and label their work "theory" and "we believe". And yes.. common sense should always get mixed into the equation.. if someone thru 'I' numbers in mathematics try to convinse me that 2+2+I=5 where I represents the exponential growth of 2.. I'm going to question it. And I'm going to question it until I'm satisfied with the answer that they give me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

James, I wasn't suggesting that you haven't read about Global Warming or that you don't have any understanding of it. My point and it was for all who doubt or challenge the validity of the science behind Global Warming is that presuppositions mistakenly being equated with true scientific study (We've had Ice Ages before...it's cooler where I live, etc).

You still didn't answer my question about using common sense in giving weight to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Is your answer to that consensus, the above in red? When scientific study of this magnitude gets reduced to simple anecdotal stories and rhetoric, then it becomes trivialized and the importance of the findings lost. I wouldn't argue neurosurgery with a neurosurgeon because my common sense tells me I don't know sh!t about it, or whatever precursor knowledge I have is infanticimal to his knowledge and expertise. So I'll accept his professional analysis without question. If I did question it, I'd go get a second or third opinion from other neurosurgeons. If I interviewed a thousand neurosurgeons who have all basically said the same thing, I'd be lacking common sense not regard what they have to say, yes?

Steven, honestly, take a step back and reread. we're basically saying the same thing but from two different angles. Do I admit that the globe is getting warmer? Sure. DO I specifically state that we (humans) are the main cause of it? No, but that is what many people want us to believe. Do we help... sure. What do you think happens when you hack down a forest and build a concrete jungle that radiates the heat back into the atmosphere. Can I debate a scientist on the grounds of what I know and understand? Of course I can. Why should I sit here and take them at their word that this is what is going on as fact when they use terminology as "theory" "We believe" etc., and then the other side that has just as many scientists have opposite findings and label their work "theory" and "we believe". And yes.. common sense should always get mixed into the equation.. if someone thru 'I' numbers in mathematics try to convinse me that 2+2+I=5 where I represents the exponential growth of 2.. I'm going to question it. And I'm going to question it until I'm satisfied with the answer that they give me.

Just be consistent then with your skepticism. Everytime you go to specialist and he tells you something - debate him on it, and good luck with that.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.