theCPE

Well the bed illustration is not 3 dimensional as actual spacetime curvature would be. Planets and stars aren't actually sitting on spacetime like you would be standing on your bed.

I have heard this argument so many times, it really is the only leg that most man made GW proponents base all defense on: The number of articles about GW and that they are in peer reviewed journals. How difficult is it to understand that number of articles in support of versus number of articles opposed to has zero effect on the correctness of either side. BTW peer reviewed doesn't mean anything. In my field of electrical engineering I read papers from peer reviewed journals all the time that are inconclusive, use misleading data analysis, and sometimes just plain wrong. A paper being in a peer reviewed journal does not mean right. Yes, suggesting that anyone that disagrees with you should be ignored is a strong basis for sound scientific research and accuracy. And this is the actual truth behind GW. It has nothing or little to do with whether or not man is causing it. It comes down to people with ulterior motives. The motives being harm "BIG OIL", force society to accelerate specific research, personal gain from the next big energy source. How humurous. "irregardless of GW" and "ignore anyone that disagrees" Right.

What about asians? Isn't Jackie Chan supposedly about 70 years old:)

You misunderstood. People concerned with gore's scientific abilities or knowledge are most likely people that disagree with his stances on GW. Meaning.... When a politicians policies are contrary to what you believe, then you question their logic, economic understanding, or science knowledge. BTW there are plenty of partisan scientists:)

Well interestingly enough, in large portions of the country this year record lows were recorded. Not conclusive evidence that man made GW isn't real, just food for thought.

Yeh, like the original poster stated (only in the reverse) it isn't really that difficult to do a careful and detailed analysis of the available data, current and historical to see how at best the idea of man made GW is inconclusive and miniscule. People should really try to concentrate more on determining the truth of things on their own before blindly listening to politicians or groups with obvious bias.

The grasp of science that politicians have only concerns people when the politician doesn't agree with them. I wonder which people are concerned by gore's lack of scientific knowledge....

An easy illustration of general relativity: Place a few balls (ping pong, golf, tennis, marbles even) in random spots on your bed. Stand in the center of your bed. The surface of your bed is spacetime being bent by mass (you). The balls will roll to you. (gravity) If the balls had energy or motion they would not roll directly to you, but instead would orbit or curve their path due to you. That is general relativity and gravity. The spacetime curvature makes objects accelerate. Newtonian physics calls gravity a force between massive objects. Either way, an acceleration occurs due to mass.

I think there are a few things that some people don't realize mainly because they have a preconceived belief which misguides their attempts of researching the topic. First, anyone that sites numbers of papers written on GW as evidence it exists is well, silly. There is never a shortage of ignorance and sheep flock together. The hypothesis has always been that increases in CO2 concentration directly relate to temperature increases. However, there are a couple of problems with this hypothesis. The relationship is usually assumed linear which has never been proven. Also, the effect is assumed immediate which once again has never been proven. In fact most of the effort spent on GW is on conjecture; what if the temperature increases by X amount what will the planet be like then? Little effort is actually spent proving the hypothesis accurate or formulating a new hypothesis. You only have to watch Gore's silly movie to see just this phenomenon of effort applied to conjecture versus effort applied to science. Just like the famine and global cooling scares of the 70's, GW is a fad. The effects humanity can have on the planet is miniscule; whatever climate changes are destined to occur will occur as dictated by nature. Historically, temperature and co2 ppm has fluctuated as evident from extractions from glaciers. These fluctuations occured far before man or industry existed, that isn't difficult to follow right? If ice ages have started and ended without man existing....obviously extreme warming and cooling occurs naturally. Why suddenly should we assume any changes that occur now are due to man? What your GW advocates wont tell you: Water vapor is the majority contributor to GW. In fact CO2 is only responsible for roughly 3% of GW. That is why kyoto protocols and other silly legislation would not only be ineffective but also dangerous to the economy...they focus on CO2. Further, co2 is not just produced by man, in fact the majority of co2 produced is from nature (around 60%) This is what you have..... (.03)*(.4) = .012 = 1.2% At best man is producing 1.2% of GW. There is more though. The temperature swings that have been seen historically, (2-5 degrees over several centuries) can not be entirely caused by co2 ppm alone. Meaning, other things obviously effect temperature. The sun DOES have cycles. It isn't prudent to have at best inconclusive evidence and force dangerous legislation, in fact it is pretty irresponsible. But what gets funding? Saying something might be a problem....or preaching doom? But obviously, we all know politicians and celebrities are notorious for having sound scientific beliefs.

As someone has already posted, string theory and all of its derivatives are mathematical games and not physics at all. It really is a shame so many physicists get roped into following such a silly "theory".