It is really sad that regular people and even scientists don' realize that the study of moleules IS chemistry. Water molecules absorb and releasd hundreds of times more heat energy than carbon dioxide molecules. CO2 never controlled climate, and will never do so in the future. Take the time to look at the numbers... don't read newspapers and magazines, and for heaven's sakes, don't listen to politicians.
Water molecules are the ONLY molecules in the atmosphere that exist in ALL THREE PHASES, and it is the amount of heat associated with the phases changes that influence climate.
DO YOU OWN RESEARCH. Parroting headlines will not solve any problems. Taking actions against the wrong target will waste time, money, resources, and cost many lives.

By the way, when I said smearing, I was only exaggerating since really we didn't even do any such thing.
Still, that picture CRACKS me up!

Smearing? What's smearing? I apologize if making a joke bothered you; you did, however, include a link to a picture of a fire-breathing Al Gore, so...
Sorry, Smoky --
When I said: Okay, enough of the smearing.
That was also meant to include me, brutha! ;^)
Hope you enjoyed the fire-breathing Al Gore though!

"I was just worried a few posters on here denied global warming as a reality. Now, it's certainly not sin to do so, but it's irresponsible, and also it potentially misleads people."
Then you're worried for no reason, Paul. Some of us have noticed that there's no proof that human activity is the cause of the very slight increase in global temperatures that seems to be happening, but I don't think any of us have denied that the earth's climate seems to be a teeny bit warmer now than it was in the very recent past. We've also noticed that there's no proof the earth's climate will continue to warm, and that there's no way to predict what the earth's climate will be in another 50 to 100 years. We've also noticed that there's no reason to believe global warming is a natural evil. Seems to be a mixed bag actually. God send His sun to shine upon the just and the unjust. My counsel is that you get worried about the irresponsibility of misleading people into thinking that we're experiencing a slow-motion global catastrophe, not about the irresponsibility of noticing that the emperors of the religion of Global-Warmingism are buck naked.

Smoky:
Okay, enough of the smearing
Smearing? What's smearing? I apologize if making a joke bothered you; you did, however, include a link to a picture of a fire-breathing Al Gore, so...
Whether or not GW is actually human-caused, there is still the care of the environment that remains amongst our responsibilties as stewards of God's great green earth.
I completely agree. Where would I hike if the environment were destroyed?

Global Warming?
That has nothing on what is in store for this broken world of ours...

I will never accept Global Warmers!

Global Warming is caused by humans.
See, most are forgeting that Nature was created within the Divine Order of the Universe.
Now sin goes against that Order.
So Nature takes revenge, only that God stops it.
But there comes a point where He lets go.
Like the Great Flood. Like Sodom...
And we are reaching those limits where God will simply not stand and let His "hold"on Nature go, and it will make justice and reparation for our sins.
Really close.

It makes that whole "Inconvenient Truth" thing so ironic.
Smoky:
Okay, enough of the smearing.
Let's not make light of Global Warming.
Whether or not GW is actually human-caused, there is still the care of the environment that remains amongst our responsibilties as stewards of God's great green earth.
Again, I am more than open to hard scientific evidence which supports Gore's side (and, in fact, examined much of it); however, in light of several of the evidence presented by the actual scientific community that has explored both ends of the spectrum, there is too much of an uncertainty from both sides as to what exactly is the causative agent in all this GW.
One bet might be a collection of contributing factors that might be resulting in such an occurrence.
Nevertheless, whether it is or not, it shouldn't relieve us of our duty to take care of the environment as God had given all this, His Creation, to us as a gift and a responsibility.

Actually, Algore *did* invent the Red Sox, but he called them the Green Sox. The name change occurred when Che Guevera bought them for an unspecified number of Carbon Credits.

Didn't Al Gore invent the Boston Red Sox?
Nope, but he did invent his 'inconvenient truth' as well as the Internet!
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe
Carbon Offsets: Al Gore's Big Easy
Yet, I've got to say, although I don't subscribe to this blog, I love Al's picture here:
Inventor of the Internet

Didn't Al Gore invent the Boston Red Sox?
Yes, which means he's ultimately responsible for global warming, having personally signed Babe Ruth.
It makes that whole "Inconvenient Truth" thing so ironic.

Didn't Al Gore invent the Boston Red Sox?

Anyone who denies global warming is a Republican.
Either that or a conspiracy-theorist! ;^)

1.) Anyone who denies global warming is a Republican.
2.) Republicans are red.
3.) Some socks are red.
4.) Boston is home to the Red Sox franchise.
5.) The Red Sox can never win the World Series due to the curse of the Bambino.
6.) Babe Ruth caused global warming.
7.) Babe Ruth is a human.
Thus, the obvious conclusion:
Global Warming is human-caused.
Duh! Try to poke holes in that argument.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Of course, there are the WSJ Op-Eds:
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
Will Al Gore Melt?
If not, why did he chicken out on an interview?

That's why I go to a qualified doctor for treatment, despite the many errors of the medical establishment over the centuries on eg semen/sperm.
Unless you're unusually trusting, you will first go to a general practitioner to find out if anything is wrong-- "hey, doc, my knee isn't bending so well; is that bad?" Then, *if* he says that's bad, you'll look into a specialist, and then another specialist for a second opinion, see if an operation is needed, or if you can just change a little-- take stairs one at a time, rather than two.
You won't go straight to New Knees R Us, tell them that your knee doesn't bend as well as it did when you were younger and ask them if you should fix it.
We haven't even gotten to agreeing that there's a problem yet-- the general practitioner-- to figure out if it's something that will impact how we live. Folks want to skip going to the various specialists and seeing if we can take the steps one at a time-- adapt to the changes-- and go directly to radical surgery which may or may not work but will be hugely painful in any event.
In other news....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070...
Gore's been challenged to a TV debate-- wish he'd take it.

Leo:
Put simply, I feel that the mainstream hypothesis is closer to the observed data and has greater and more consistent explanatory power.
Please list in elaborate detail the hard evidence for the above statement.
Again, how can you clam that the mainstream hypothesis is closer to the observed data than any alternate?
You seem to be more willing to yield to group mentality than to the Science of it all.
But until one has done enough research oneself on a complex scientific or medical issue it is rational to rely on those who have studied the subject in depth.
Are you saying here that their opponents have NOT studied the issue in depth?
Again, aren't these opponents on human-caused GW also eminent scientists as well?
We have a probability. I, in common with most of the scientists and governments, believe that it is more probable than not that recent GW is caused by human activity.
Most scientists?
You know this how?
Aren't a majority of the scientists in the opposition once members of the IPCC, in fact?
Further, how can you even claim most scientists when the only ones you're actually listening to are those who hog up the media spotlight and act as harbingers of doom in order to drum up support for their agenda!
Initially, you seemed to have admirable intentions in that you appeared to desire an interest in the science of it all rather than the mob; but need I mind you that science has nothing to do with the degree of group mentality, the strength of third party backings or even government support, it has all to do with empirical data and the logic that interprets. However, keep also in mind that the LOGIC there is only as good as the assumptions made.

Leo-
I happen to be solidly behind the idea of alternative fuels, driving less and green practices in general, just on theological grounds... waste is a sin, dirtying things up and leaving the mess for others to clean is a sin, taking more than you need and leaving little for others is a sin. Above all, ruining something beautiful when this is unnecessary is not only a sin, but just a shame.
For all those reasons, I think we shhould be looking at the most environmentally friendly lifestyles we can reasonably manage.
What I don't care for, and what I think is more dangerous than this mild uptick in global temperature (which by no means spells imminent disaster), is the panicked stampede toward global treaties that claim authority over the resources and activities of the entire planet, and the benefits of which are not at all clear. This amounts to the creation of a powerful, elite, unelected uber-state.
I don't believe that the vast majority of REAL climate scientists (not climate "experts", whatever that is) are sold on "man-made global warming" and I think many that might doubt it are afraid to say so. That does not make them liars, that just makes them human.
All I know is what I read and hear. I have not independently polled climate scientists, I have not studied ALL the research, but the sense I have now is that man-made global warming is in no way proven, but one side keeps screaming that the debate is over, insisting that all "reputable" scientists are in agreement. The "disreputable" ones being, by definition, the ones who disagree with them.
I am not buying it.

Over the last few years I have taken an interest in this subject. My science background has helped me to understand some of the evidence. I have examined evidence including that which was contrary to my positions at various times; most recently watching the film (twice), reading the transcript of the debate with Critchton et al and evaluating the sceptical sites such as oism. Others here can probably say the same and more.
I do not claim (and I don't know anyone who does) that human factors are the only causes of climate change. I would dearly like it to be case that our activities were not having any harmful effect on the climate. I am not a natural follower of any type of fashion - as my wardrobe confirms! Nor am I guilt-racked as my confessor can't confirm.
Put simply, I feel that the mainstream hypothesis is closer to the observed data and has greater and more consistent explanatory power. Not just because it is the majority expert view - although that has weighed when I have not had enough knowledge or information to decide. Obviously others have come to different conclusions from the same data.
I keep referring to the UK Meteorological Office report 'Climate Change and the Greenhouse Effect' (Dec 2005)
www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/index.htmlreport
not because it is a sacred text or party manifesto but because it is a good summary with graphs and other research which accounts for a lot of the alternative/'sceptical'explanations. I try not to dismiss scientists who have spent many years studying a subject as 'liars' or 'groupthinkers' because I disagree with their factual (rather than value-based) conclusions.
Science proceeds by testing hypotheses/models against observations. Neither majorities nor minorities, the establishment or the heretics make an hypothesis true or false. But until one has done enough research oneself on a complex scientific or medical issue it is rational to rely on those who have studied the subject in depth. That's why I go to a qualified doctor for treatment, despite the many errors of the medical establishment over the centuries on eg semen/sperm. Jimmy's expertise on certain matters is why people seek and value his opinion on those matters.
Like medicine, climatology is not an exact science, we don't know all the factors and how they interact - we would probably only know beyond a shadow of a doubt if we had 100 identical planets and a few centuries over which to conduct controlled experiments involving the main suspected variables.
Unfortunately we have limited and imperfect information - as with most practical judgments. Just because one side cannot prove their case with 100% certainty, it does not mean the other side is 100% likely to be correct or 100% incorrect. We have a probability. I, in common with most of the scientists and governments, believe that it is more probable than not that recent GW is caused by human activity. My inexpert quantification of that probability is that I feel about 80% certain it is true. An admission of the scientific uncertainties is not inconsistent with saying the weight of available evidence is more on one side than the other when making a practical judgement.
A few years ago most GW sceptics denied that the planet was warming. In the face of the evidence most now admit the planet is warming but say it is not significantly due to human activity. Once there was a denial of a CO2 -> temperature relationship now the opposite temperature -> CO2 relationship is posited.
The most coherent sceptic explanation given on this page for recent warming and increased CO2 is that increased solar absorption has warmed the planet and caused an increase in CO2, some suggest a possible 800 year time lag before warming causes CO2 release.
Although this may be true of ancient warmings, I do not find this a plausible explanation of recent warming because:
CO2 levels are now at the highest they have ever been in 650,000 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
unlikely if this were caused by a natural cyclic phenomenon manifest in eg the Middle Ages.
Ice cores and direct measurements reveal that since the end of the last ice age CO2, methane and nitrous oxide levels were relatively stable until the industrial revolution when they increased markedly and continue to rise. This seems too coincidental with industrialization. See graphs on page 3 of 'IPCC Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers'. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
What has caused the current unprecedented (650,000 years) levels of CO2? where has it come from? The unprecedented burning of coal, oil and gas? or solar activity releasing CO2? Measurements have been made of the relative ratios of radioactive Carbon14 to stable Carbon12 in tree rings known to be from 1850-1950. The proportion of Carbon14 reduced over that time due to being 'diluted' by older Carbon12 probably from coal, oil and gas not 'newer' Carbon14 sequestered within the last several thousand years. There is only enough carbon14-carbon12 to allow carbon dating up to about 60,000 years before the present. Note to Young Earthers: this study is not attempting to date the tree rings by carbon14 dating, the dates of the tree rings were determined from documentary and non-radiometric means.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/...
I do not find a consistent 'narrative' or model within the GW sceptic accounts, which accounts for enough of the observations. Instead, I find the following evidence a 'better fit' although not a 'perfect fit':
Significant global warming has been observed since the 1970s - I don't think anyone challenges this observation any more.
www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide24.pdf
Natural factors alone (including the sun and volcanoes) cannot explain recent warming ie models/hypotheses which exclude human activity cannot explain the observations
www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide27.pdf
Recent warming can be simulated when man-made factors are included ie models/hypotheses which add human activity to natural activity explain the observations better.
www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf

Leo, are you familiar with the evolution of what scientist say a sperm does? Look it up, some time. Maybe you'll get the point.

Okay, Leo -- you're right -- your GW crusaders have NOT benefitted at all from all that capital gained from both political and other such heavy-weight third party factions.
Again, you've yet to pour over the scientific data that was presented by the other side; yet, you claim such allegiance to the GW powerbase that currently controls both the perception and hearts of the populace.
However, that doesn't make it correct or factual!
Mind you, there were hundreds of scientists back in the days that believed protein actually carried genetic data and not DNA!
The consensus of hundreds of scientists (at least, from what you claim subscribe to human-caused GW) does not dictate scientific fact.
If you are truly interested in the Science of it all, you would not narrow your point-of-view to just the advocates of human-caused GW, but to their opponents as well.
Mind you, these are not run-of-the-mill scientists but respectable, prominent figures -- many who were members of the IPCC, in fact!

Yes, I agree. Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
I was asking :
'But what about the political side? who gains there?'
and asking for a viewpoint that accounted for the political consensus in Europe as this issue seems so party-polarised in the US.
If it helps just ignore the bit in brackets.

Truth is not determined by a vote.

"Consensus"? Consensus is not science; consensus is anti-science.

So, there is no organized conspiracy to promote human-caused GW, just common interests and groupthink by thousands of scientists who are lying to get funding.
If 'cui bono' 'who gains?' is a relevant question, then it could be turned either way depending on your view: climate researchers seeking funding or oil companies and big business seeking profits. I mentioned Voltaire et al as an example of an invalid 'follow the money'/cui bono allegation.
Sure, groupthink happens, we all need to be alert to this in ourselves and the groups we regard as our circle/political allies. I suppose we should charitably give and receive such suggestions. A better solution might be to examine the science on its merits without ad hominem.
In support of my claim that GW has a significant human cause, I mainly cited the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Centre. Some have claimed that those scientists have deliberately manipulated their models to achieve a particular result - lying rather than groupthink.
I don't deny that both sides have used ad hominem arguments, I enquired into whether the ad hominem against the scientific sources of my claims was justified.
I've received an answer to why thousands of scientists claim that recent GW is human caused - they are lying for funding or deceived by groupthink. But what about the political side? who gains there?
(Bear in mind that there is a general left-right consensus in Europe that GW is human caused.)

Vastly remaking our society--as well as perpetuating a whole of lot human poverty and suffering, rather than alleviating it--is a very high price to pay as "a precaution."
Father, you've put in words exactly what I've been increasingly feeling.

It would've been had one or two folks actually sent you such email.
In perspective, it rises to 'false accusation'.
Again, it's off-topic.

Likewise, this is not hyperbole.
Of course it is.
But, that's not relevant to the current topic
No, it's not. :)

Also (in an attempt to silence the throngs of Seinfeld fans who've sent me hundreds of hate emails in the last 20 minutes) -- YES, I do realize it's Bosco, not Boson.
Posted by: Smoky Mountain Hiker | Mar 19, 2007 2:20:47 PM

Likewise, this is not hyperbole.
But, that's not relevant to the current topic -- GW.

Hmmm. I get that you're saying that you were kidding (I think?), but I don't think your statement quite fits "hyperbole" -- which I understand to mean "gross exaggeration for comic effect".

Sheesh. Who did I accuse?
Hyberbole.
You should try it some time.

Hyperbole?
More like false accusation
You're taking seriously what was meant as a joke.
Sheesh. Who did I accuse?

Hyperbole?
More like false accusation.

Doh! Hyperbole.

Paul,
My apologies!
Just visited your website; I now see why you posted as you did!
Whoa!
You're into some heavy stuff!

How can you even claim that people here are sending you these 'hundreds of hate emails'
Hyberbole.
You should try it some time.

in an attempt to silence the throngs of Seinfeld fans who've sent me hundreds of hate emails in the last 20 minutes
Smoky:
How can you even claim that people here are sending you these 'hundreds of hate emails' when you don't even list your email address under your name/post?

Also (in an attempt to silence the throngs of Seinfeld fans who've sent me hundreds of hate emails in the last 20 minutes) -- YES, I do realize it's Bosco, not Boson.

Esau-- Jersey is a dariy breed. That means they live in stock yards-- except for the few that are on very, very small farms (less than several hundred cattle) that can be brought in each morning for milking, then put to pasture. (Not like you're supposed to *know* that, I only know that because I grew up with a mother who has a BS in Ag with a minor in education.)
Thanks for the info!
The only thing I know when it comes to cows presently is:
cow 'farts' = bad
steak = good

As for the physics jargon...
I was just giving you a hard time; I don't think your use of physics jargon was necessarily inappropriate given the subject, though the inclusion of a gasp! equation pushed the boundaries a bit.
No harm intended.

It is sad that politics is sunk so deep into this debate, especially since Al Gore, for example, is terrible at supporting what he thinks would be the best change (private jets are not a good idea).
I have two friends, one a physicist, and one a climatologist, both strong Christians, who sold their cars, and now walk and use public transportation (easier for them, since they work at a University). One is trying to argue me into it.
And, granted that Global Warming is a reality (I accept it like I accept that Japan exists, though I've never seen it), it certainly does not suggest that humans have caused it, that we can do anything about it, or that it is such a bad thing.
I am probably also colored in my thinking since I have worked for the National Renewable Energy Labs in the past.
Publication is not affected very much by politics. Funding is. And that will slow the process of really figuring out cause. Possibly, until it becomes obvious that humans are the cause, or until it becomes clear that global warming, in fact, was not the correct explanation.

Paul- problem being that "not long" in science can be really, really long and cause a lot of damage. I am NOT slandering by assoiciation, but eugenics is a good example of a science theory that wasn't around for long and still caused a huge amount of damage.
We have a bit of a problem these days because science is becoming popularized-- there is the possiblity of world-wide fads. The highly emotional reaction to any questioning of human-caused global warming is like that of someone's pet theory being threatened than what science is *supposed* to be like.
To twist an old phrase, politics is the natural state of man.....

To Foxfier:
Thank you for simplifying. I miss the point quite often.
Now, no one wants their own theory to be dismantled. However, since only very few people's pet theories are established, and most people's theories are not, more people want to overturn the existing theory than want to keep the existing theory.
Typically the existing theories survive because they are more intelligent, because the facts fit them better, often because they are correct. Sometimes, simply because they are more beautiful.
But existing theories don't survive for very long on ego alone. Scientists torment each other (Mach and Boltzmann make an excellent example), and try to keep their theories alive, tooth and nail. But ultimately, reality wins out. That's the beauty of the process.

Esau-- Jersey is a dariy breed. That means they live in stock yards-- except for the few that are on very, very small farms (less than several hundred cattle) that can be brought in each morning for milking, then put to pasture. (Not like you're supposed to *know* that, I only know that because I grew up with a mother who has a BS in Ag with a minor in education.)

"Okay, so you think that for the mere opinion of these folks you know that proclaim GW, we should accept wholesale these conclusions?"
If you want to sound like an intelligent person, unless you happen to be a climatologist, or at least happen to understand their jargon. Where, in a peer-reviewed publication, do we find any denial that global warming is the best explanation? Where do we find a more likely alternative?
Whether you are actually right or not, unless you can provide a better model for the data than exists, or unless you can point to a better model, no one will listen to you, and you will have lost all credibility among (a) the scientific community and (b) most Americans, who have been filled with a pop-sci and skewed version of the facts by Al Gore.
It's just a suggestion, you don't need to follow it. But if people want to be listened to about the objection about global warming being human caused, then those same people need to stop denying global warming altogether, without sufficient understanding or justification. Else they will get nowhere. Not with me. Certainly not with the scientific community. Likely not with the American People.
As for the physics jargon, its purpose was only in establishing that many established theories have been shown to be wrong, typically in certain details, and corrected. The larger the correction, the more famous the physicist. New physicists, at least, want there to be large changes.

But, you asked about other established theories that have been falsified, and have made scientist's careers. Jay Gould would be a good example, challenging the current form of the Darwinian theory of evolution with punctuated equilibreum.
No, I asked, to rephrase it more simply, for an example of lots of someones being glad their pet theory was gutted, and giving their full support to that.

Examples from my field (Physics) abound. We first have Electromagnetism, challenged by Einstein's Photoelectric theory, an alternate interpretation which was formulated by Bohr into Quantum Theory, which was shown by Dirac to be lacking, and then became Relativistic Quantum Theory, and then Quantum Field Theory, first in the form of Landau's scalar model, then in Dirac's own Spinor formalism, then with Feynman and Dyson in QED. But QED, it turned out, failed to predict certain other interactions, and was CP invariant. CP-breaking, contradicting that well-established invariance, was a rogue prediction that was substantiated with Kaon decay and now with D-Bar mixing.
O-kay, so you know esoteric stuff that perhaps the majority of us (save perhaps Augustine) don't.
That really helps in convincing us!
After about fifteen more changes to the esbalished theory, we have what we expect now, an SU(3)xU(2)xU(1) theory. We are looking for the Higgs boson to finish the theory off, but everyone is praying that it isn't there. And this, because it will make way for another Yang and Mills, or another Wilson, or another Dyson and Feynman.
More impressive-sounding stuff -- though, since the majority of us don't get all this physics-speak, does it really advance your argument?
I can't speak for climatology. But in Physics, people like change. They also like accuracy.
And, according to every climatologist I know, and every climatologist they know (save a couple rogue professors), and to every peer-reviewed article I can find, Global Warming is the current explanation of the existing data. If you could do a more accurate Fourier Analysis to suggest some sort of extended-cyclic approach, and if you could get it to work out (no one has yet), I am certain someone would publish you.
Good luck getting funding, though.
Okay, so you think that for the mere opinion of these folks you know that proclaim GW, we should accept wholesale these conclusions?
Again, extrapolations on empirical data are only as good as their assumptions!

"Cows and bulls can produce 500 litres of methane a day."
Got a match?

Examples from my field (Physics) abound...
[snip about 37 pages of esoteric physics mumbo-jumbo]
...We are looking for the Higgs boson to finish the theory off, but everyone is praying that it isn't there.
Boson? Isn't that the chocolate drink that got George Constanza in trouble?