At the time the scientists were saying that a 5,000 year old ice shelf had broken off. Okay if it was 5,000 years old what broke it off the last time? the egyptians using slave labor to build the pyramids?
Really?
1) Larson B had been a stable ice shelf 200 metres thick with a surface area of 3,250 square kilometres for at least 10,000 years. (source)
2) Even if that wasn't the case you can still attribute climate change to a cause, and that cause doesn't have to be the same cause as previous climate change. 2 b) Climate change one to two orders of magnitude slower than the current climate change would not be expected to have the same mechanism.
3) It is not believed that Egyptians used slaves to construct the pyramids.
The weather changes it goes up and down and side to side.
Yes. And the current going up is primarily due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
looking for a.01 degree change is like looking for a penny to pay a $1,000 bar tab. it matters yes but come on.
Honestly, when the fuck are people going to be done banging the fucking global warming bell?
Do you have a problem with us using our best understanding to make decisions?
We've gone from global warming to global climate change to global wow the ice caps are bigger than we remember from last 10 years.
Both the terms global warming and global climate change are in current use in the literature. The ice caps are smaller now than they have been in the recent past, as studies like this one show.
Give it a fucking rest already.
It is kind of important. If Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is accelerating, it is critical to know how fast, as it is closely related to sea level rise, which in turn takes large engineering projects to adapt to.
The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced.
This would be bullshit.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.
Atmospheric CO2 does not even blink at large volcanic eruptions.
Honestly.
That would help. But truthfully is more important, and for that you'd have to know what you're taking about.
Enough. Tired of it now. Can I vote against you all? Somehow? I want to. Seriously.
Here's wapo [washingtonpost.com] two weeks ago telling me Antarctic ice is increasing — because of AGW.
I think you are confusing sea ice with the ice sheet.
The Antarctic Sea ice is the ice that is floating on the sea around Antarctica. It grows in winter, and nearly disappears in summer, because there's a big continent where the pole is.
The Antarctic Ice sheet is the much larger slab of ice sitting on Antarctica. It is about 60% of all the fresh water on the planet, and consists of 26.5 million cubic km of ice. This is losing mass at an accelerating rate. The study in the OP finds that it is currently losing 125 cubic kilometres a year.
Fuck off with your head games.
It's not that bad. Sea ice sits on the sea. Ice sheets cover the land.
I'm getting kinda tired of the Global Warming doomsday cult
Good marketing there, mate. The PR professionals of the denialist movement like to throw around words like "cult" or "religion" for the scientific movement that they are trying to attack.
Casting the scientific position as religious attacks it's greatest strength, that it is scientific, and therefore our best guess of truth.
While I don't ignore the fact that man can alter the weather to some degree.
Okay.
I'm getting tired of hearing about how all life on Earth will end in a few years unless we vote for just one political party and their pet doomsday cult.
The article is about ice loss on the Antarctic. It doesn't discuss who you should vote for. It doesn't even assume the reader is in any country or democratic precinct.
Apparently, the sun has nothing to do with climate.
The current warming is not due to the sun. This can be shown because the current warming is occurring more in winter and night, as you would expect from greenhouse warming which slows the rate of heat loss. The sun would warm more when it is shining.
It can also be shown by the cooling of the stratosphere, showing that less heat is reaching the stratosphere from below. The sun would increase the temperature of the whole atmosphere.
Also, all global warming and ice age events for that last 100 million years were caused by present day American pollution but non-American pollution doesn't do anything....especially is it comes from China and India.
I think that this would be wrong.
Do you have a source?
So just remember, Al Gore has a carbon footprint 10000 times larger than you and is swimming in millions of oil dollars from the Middle East.
In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda.
This would be wrong. It has been known from the older GRACE satellites that Antarctic Ice has been losing mass from the ice sheet.
Now they are saying that if I don't drive a Prius, that the earths gravity will fail.
I don't think that that's what they're saying.
My reading of it is that they're saying that Antarctica and Greenland together are now losing 500 cubic kilometers of ice per year. They don't mention what will be the effect on that of you driving a prius, but I suspect not a lot.
This was measured using Gravity. I don't think that they say that gravity is failing.
> Indeed - they make more money [wsj.com] than their male colleagues.
No, they're earning less than their male colleagues. They're earning more as graduates than male blue collar workers who just lost their job.
That study did correct for job or education. From your link:
These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.
Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.
And men have been disproportionately hit by heavy job losses in blue-collar industries.
[...]
At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
> And you don't think there might be some factors that might contribute to that number not being zero other than lack of opportunity? How about the fact that a significant number of women still care more about building a family than a career?
The studies still show the discrepancy if you only count women who don't have a family.
This is why ENSO in the south Pacific is so important: by moving heat around it changes global circulation patterns, which changes the overall energy balance of the Earth.
Not directly. To change the energy balance of the Earth you have to move energy on or off the planet. Not around the oceans.
Since a critical component of the evidence for ACC is the regional variation of the predicted warming, this should at least give one pause.
Really?
When I looked at it, my understanding was that models reproduce the global mean surface temperature very well, but regional climate change is expected to be more affected by systems that originate on scales smaller than the cells of current climate models.
Where do you get this claim that the regional variation is a critical component of the evidence for ACC?
That and a cursory glance at the main spokesmodels for the pro-AGW crowd ('Litigious' Mann and 'Often Wrong' Al) should be more than enough to at least warrant a consideration that the science and political ramifications are not settled.
There are about 600,000 hits on google scholar to the search phrase "Global Climate Change", excluding patents.
Are you suggesting that Mike wrote them all, and you only know about them because Al Gore has publicized his work?
There are tens of thousands of primarily climate science researchers on the planet. You'll need a *much* broader ad hominem that that.
Except for the prediction part, which is pretty bad.
Stott el al, back in 2000 performed a high profile attribution study using models. I remember the paper, because its the one in which I realized that AGW was a real thing that needed responding to.
You'll notice from figure 1, that they let one of the models run on into the future. The warming trend has been bang on the nose, and there is even a couple of decades of hiatus in that model's run. (Starting a bit later than the observed one, and ending about 2020, but demonstrating that events such as the current one are reproduced by models of even that time. (Being an early paper from HadCM3).
Do you have an example of a paper that demonstrates this poor prediction from climate science?
"The greenhouse effect is demonstrable in a test tube, therefore it is the primary factor directly controlling the temperature of Earth."
I think the line is more, from our knowledge of optics, discovered using experiments in labs, we know the optical properties of CO2. We would expect that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would therefore increase the global mean surface temperature.
Observations confirm this.
The proportion that the global mean surface temperature change is attributable to AGW is known from a very wide range of evidence. We know from first principles that the greenhouse effect will cause warming, and we can compare that to the other things that change the radiative forcing on the surface of the planet and find that the greenhouse effect is the largest one. We observe the effect of changing radiative forcing from volcanoes, and calibrate out understanding of how much changes in radiative forcing affect temperature. We look at the distribution of the warming in time and space: We see a warming that is occurring mostly in winter and at night, showing the current warming to be a slowing of heat loss to space, not an increase in solar energy in. We can reach the same conclusion by observing the cooling of the stratosphere. We see greatly enhanced warming at the poles, and see the predicted feedbacks to greenhouse warming.
Climate models, too are an important tool for understanding and attribution of climate change, and these also provide evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic.
Good, this indicates that doctors and people who think they should take antibiotics like vitamins haven't completely screwed up our natural immunities and that most of the world still fights off this infections even though drugs no longer work on them.
The problem with Staph Aureus is that it's omnipresent in the respiratory tract and skin. It seems to have spent a long time evolving with immune systems, because it has two lines of defense (producing catalase and carrotenoids) which neutralise two of the chemicals that white blood cells use to break down foriegn bodies (superoxide and singlet oxygen). Additionally the protein A in the cell wall confuses the shit out of white blood cells, making them difficult to detect.
Add that to producing some really nasty toxins, and that's why a Staph Aureus bacteremia, even MSSA has about a 30% kill rate, even if you're in a modern hospital.
So it would be nice to have some antibiotics to fall back on, at least in the case of golden staph.
Can we please get back to the point where we take antibiotics when we're in need of them, not just because we might have an infection or have a mild infection?
The solution? We do not want to make antibiotics more toxic to the patient, so I suggest that every time there is an order for Zosyn and vancomycin (or whatever your decerebrate choice is at your institution) the ordering physician receives a short, painful shock from the keyboard. If you really think the patient needs the antibiotics you will take the shock. That would likely solve a lot of issues with inappropriate antibiotic use and be simpler than a stewardship program.
Although in this case the problem is prophylactic antibiotics given to livestock.
I see that you've never heard of nuclear energy, concentration solar energy, wind turbines, geothermal energy, biomass energy, sugar cane ethanol, methane digesters, hydro power, or photo-voltaics.
The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record.
This would be complete bullshit.
Unadjusted. Adjusted.
The adjustments make a small difference, but over the last 50 years, that only accounts for about 0.01C of the 1.14C warming trend.
Apart from the ridiculous tone of your comment, you seem to be under the false impression that Microsoft made those promises and/or that you made your purchase from Microsoft. Neither of those is the case.
Nope, I'm not under that impression. I'm under the impression that if Microsoft acquires Mojang, they acquire their assets and obligations.
Also, you can lie to us about your "purchase decision" all you like, but purchase decisions don't even come in to fair trading laws.
If I was mislead before entering into a purchase agreement, that comes under multiple fair trading laws. One is the Australian Trade Practices Act (1974). Another is the New South Wales Fair Trading Act (1987).
Even if you made this stick (which is possible because you're clearly an expert consumer lawyer) there would be no "high punitive fines" because the loss of value from this relatively minor aspect of the game's potential future is about as close to zero as it's possible to get without underflowing a double.
The Fair Trading Commission has been very heavy handed in the past. The fines are not about loss of value to the consumer, but about making deceptive conduct uneconomic.
Besides, Microsoft could just open-source the version they bought, while denying you all the improvements they made later on. In a community that depends on user-generated content, the support for a 5 year old version will be virtually nil.
I'd be happy with that.
And I'm not sure they'd end up with the most popular fork. The Minecraft community is pretty big
If its not written into the license you received when you purchased the product, its all too easy to dismiss in court.
Australian law is pretty generous with finding "misleading conduct". The standard is if it would lead an ordinary member of the public to be influenced
by it into error. The courts look at the likely audience and judge by the standards of
persons who are not stupid, but are perhaps of less than average intelligence and
background knowledge in that audience.
Also, it is
sufficient that the conduct in question has the potential to mislead or to deceive.
No intent to mislead or
deceive is required.
Slashdot Mirror
At the time the scientists were saying that a 5,000 year old ice shelf had broken off. Okay if it was 5,000 years old what broke it off the last time? the egyptians using slave labor to build the pyramids?
Really?
1) Larson B had been a stable ice shelf 200 metres thick with a surface area of 3,250 square kilometres for at least 10,000 years. (source)
2) Even if that wasn't the case you can still attribute climate change to a cause, and that cause doesn't have to be the same cause as previous climate change.
2 b) Climate change one to two orders of magnitude slower than the current climate change would not be expected to have the same mechanism.
3) It is not believed that Egyptians used slaves to construct the pyramids.
The weather changes it goes up and down and side to side.
Yes. And the current going up is primarily due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
looking for a .01 degree change is like looking for a penny to pay a $1,000 bar tab. it matters yes but come on.
On the other hand a 0.8 degree rise has put a number of species at extinction risk, has displaced tens of millions of people per year, and kills about 150,000 people annually.
The article does pre-suppose that any melting of ice would be the result of climate change. You could certainly argue against that assumption.
How?
Surely from energy considerations, melting ice implies that there's an energy imbalance?
Honestly, when the fuck are people going to be done banging the fucking global warming bell?
Do you have a problem with us using our best understanding to make decisions?
We've gone from global warming to global climate change to global wow the ice caps are bigger than we remember from last 10 years.
Both the terms global warming and global climate change are in current use in the literature. The ice caps are smaller now than they have been in the recent past, as studies like this one show.
Give it a fucking rest already.
It is kind of important. If Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is accelerating, it is critical to know how fast, as it is closely related to sea level rise, which in turn takes large engineering projects to adapt to.
The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced.
This would be bullshit.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.
Atmospheric CO2 does not even blink at large volcanic eruptions.
Honestly.
That would help. But truthfully is more important, and for that you'd have to know what you're taking about.
Enough. Tired of it now. Can I vote against you all? Somehow? I want to. Seriously.
If you've got enough mod points you can.
I read just the other day that Antarctica has more ice than ever!
I suspect you read that there the sea ice around Antarctica is more than ever. Antarctica has been losing huge volumes of ice for some decades.
Here's wapo [washingtonpost.com] two weeks ago telling me Antarctic ice is increasing — because of AGW.
I think you are confusing sea ice with the ice sheet.
The Antarctic Sea ice is the ice that is floating on the sea around Antarctica. It grows in winter, and nearly disappears in summer, because there's a big continent where the pole is.
The Antarctic Ice sheet is the much larger slab of ice sitting on Antarctica. It is about 60% of all the fresh water on the planet, and consists of 26.5 million cubic km of ice. This is losing mass at an accelerating rate. The study in the OP finds that it is currently losing 125 cubic kilometres a year.
Fuck off with your head games.
It's not that bad. Sea ice sits on the sea. Ice sheets cover the land.
I'm getting kinda tired of the Global Warming doomsday cult
Good marketing there, mate. The PR professionals of the denialist movement like to throw around words like "cult" or "religion" for the scientific movement that they are trying to attack.
Casting the scientific position as religious attacks it's greatest strength, that it is scientific, and therefore our best guess of truth.
While I don't ignore the fact that man can alter the weather to some degree.
Okay.
I'm getting tired of hearing about how all life on Earth will end in a few years unless we vote for just one political party and their pet doomsday cult.
The article is about ice loss on the Antarctic. It doesn't discuss who you should vote for. It doesn't even assume the reader is in any country or democratic precinct.
Apparently, the sun has nothing to do with climate.
The current warming is not due to the sun. This can be shown because the current warming is occurring more in winter and night, as you would expect from greenhouse warming which slows the rate of heat loss. The sun would warm more when it is shining.
It can also be shown by the cooling of the stratosphere, showing that less heat is reaching the stratosphere from below. The sun would increase the temperature of the whole atmosphere.
But also Solar activity does not correlate with the current warming.
Also, all global warming and ice age events for that last 100 million years were caused by present day American pollution but non-American pollution doesn't do anything....especially is it comes from China and India.
I think that this would be wrong.
Do you have a source?
So just remember, Al Gore has a carbon footprint 10000 times larger than you and is swimming in millions of oil dollars from the Middle East.
I believe that Al Gore is carbon neutral.
In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda.
This would be wrong. It has been known from the older GRACE satellites that Antarctic Ice has been losing mass from the ice sheet.
In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of 26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. (Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, I. Velicogna, Geophysical Research Letters, (2009))
You might be thinking of the Antarctic Sea Ice.
Now they are saying that if I don't drive a Prius, that the earths gravity will fail.
I don't think that that's what they're saying.
My reading of it is that they're saying that Antarctica and Greenland together are now losing 500 cubic kilometers of ice per year. They don't mention what will be the effect on that of you driving a prius, but I suspect not a lot.
This was measured using Gravity. I don't think that they say that gravity is failing.
> Indeed - they make more money [wsj.com] than their male colleagues. No, they're earning less than their male colleagues. They're earning more as graduates than male blue collar workers who just lost their job.
That study did correct for job or education. From your link:
These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.
Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.
And men have been disproportionately hit by heavy job losses in blue-collar industries.
[...]
At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
> And you don't think there might be some factors that might contribute to that number not being zero other than lack of opportunity? How about the fact that a significant number of women still care more about building a family than a career? The studies still show the discrepancy if you only count women who don't have a family.
Most of the research being done in the US at the moment is being done by post-docs.
They're not ordained climate scientists, but many of them get published.
You're going to need a broader reason why all the climate scientists have come to agreement. (I suggest, that's what all the evidence shows).
This is why ENSO in the south Pacific is so important: by moving heat around it changes global circulation patterns, which changes the overall energy balance of the Earth.
Not directly. To change the energy balance of the Earth you have to move energy on or off the planet. Not around the oceans.
Since a critical component of the evidence for ACC is the regional variation of the predicted warming, this should at least give one pause.
Really?
When I looked at it, my understanding was that models reproduce the global mean surface temperature very well, but regional climate change is expected to be more affected by systems that originate on scales smaller than the cells of current climate models.
Where do you get this claim that the regional variation is a critical component of the evidence for ACC?
That and a cursory glance at the main spokesmodels for the pro-AGW crowd ('Litigious' Mann and 'Often Wrong' Al) should be more than enough to at least warrant a consideration that the science and political ramifications are not settled.
There are about 600,000 hits on google scholar to the search phrase "Global Climate Change", excluding patents.
Are you suggesting that Mike wrote them all, and you only know about them because Al Gore has publicized his work?
There are tens of thousands of primarily climate science researchers on the planet. You'll need a *much* broader ad hominem that that.
Except for the prediction part, which is pretty bad.
Stott el al, back in 2000 performed a high profile attribution study using models. I remember the paper, because its the one in which I realized that AGW was a real thing that needed responding to.
You'll notice from figure 1, that they let one of the models run on into the future. The warming trend has been bang on the nose, and there is even a couple of decades of hiatus in that model's run. (Starting a bit later than the observed one, and ending about 2020, but demonstrating that events such as the current one are reproduced by models of even that time. (Being an early paper from HadCM3).
Do you have an example of a paper that demonstrates this poor prediction from climate science?
"The greenhouse effect is demonstrable in a test tube, therefore it is the primary factor directly controlling the temperature of Earth."
I think the line is more, from our knowledge of optics, discovered using experiments in labs, we know the optical properties of CO2. We would expect that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would therefore increase the global mean surface temperature.
Observations confirm this.
The proportion that the global mean surface temperature change is attributable to AGW is known from a very wide range of evidence.
We know from first principles that the greenhouse effect will cause warming, and we can compare that to the other things that change the radiative forcing on the surface of the planet and find that the greenhouse effect is the largest one.
We observe the effect of changing radiative forcing from volcanoes, and calibrate out understanding of how much changes in radiative forcing affect temperature.
We look at the distribution of the warming in time and space: We see a warming that is occurring mostly in winter and at night, showing the current warming to be a slowing of heat loss to space, not an increase in solar energy in. We can reach the same conclusion by observing the cooling of the stratosphere. We see greatly enhanced warming at the poles, and see the predicted feedbacks to greenhouse warming.
Climate models, too are an important tool for understanding and attribution of climate change, and these also provide evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic.
And even if you don't believe any physics whatsoever, and just throw all the observables into a neural net and get it to try to reproduce the global mean surface temperature by any functions of those variables, you still get that the current warming is primarily due to enhanced greenhouse effect.
Real scientists don't make such simplistic and unjustified steps in their logic.
Agreed. And they don't. Why are you making the simplistic and unjustified step of claiming that they do?
If you've heard of Nuclear and Hydro, how do you equate energy with only fossil fuels?
Good, this indicates that doctors and people who think they should take antibiotics like vitamins haven't completely screwed up our natural immunities and that most of the world still fights off this infections even though drugs no longer work on them.
The problem with Staph Aureus is that it's omnipresent in the respiratory tract and skin. It seems to have spent a long time evolving with immune systems, because it has two lines of defense (producing catalase and carrotenoids) which neutralise two of the chemicals that white blood cells use to break down foriegn bodies (superoxide and singlet oxygen). Additionally the protein A in the cell wall confuses the shit out of white blood cells, making them difficult to detect.
Add that to producing some really nasty toxins, and that's why a Staph Aureus bacteremia, even MSSA has about a 30% kill rate, even if you're in a modern hospital.
So it would be nice to have some antibiotics to fall back on, at least in the case of golden staph.
Can we please get back to the point where we take antibiotics when we're in need of them, not just because we might have an infection or have a mild infection?
Your favourite ID doctor, and mine, posted about this today. He has a solution:
The solution? We do not want to make antibiotics more toxic to the patient, so I suggest that every time there is an order for Zosyn and vancomycin (or whatever your decerebrate choice is at your institution) the ordering physician receives a short, painful shock from the keyboard. If you really think the patient needs the antibiotics you will take the shock. That would likely solve a lot of issues with inappropriate antibiotic use and be simpler than a stewardship program.
Although in this case the problem is prophylactic antibiotics given to livestock.
I see that you've never heard of nuclear energy, concentration solar energy, wind turbines, geothermal energy, biomass energy, sugar cane ethanol, methane digesters, hydro power, or photo-voltaics.
And yet this got modded up twice as insightful.
The science denier is strong on slashdot.
The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record.
This would be complete bullshit.
Unadjusted.
Adjusted.
The adjustments make a small difference, but over the last 50 years, that only accounts for about 0.01C of the 1.14C warming trend.
that's a funny claim to make when the fact is the hottest year in our very short records was 1998.
Nope. 2010
A comment on some blog is not a contract.
That's right.
And good luck making that stick, Microsoft's income is probably larger then your countries GNP.
than. FFS.
Apart from the ridiculous tone of your comment, you seem to be under the false impression that Microsoft made those promises and/or that you made your purchase from Microsoft. Neither of those is the case.
Nope, I'm not under that impression. I'm under the impression that if Microsoft acquires Mojang, they acquire their assets and obligations.
Also, you can lie to us about your "purchase decision" all you like, but purchase decisions don't even come in to fair trading laws.
If I was mislead before entering into a purchase agreement, that comes under multiple fair trading laws. One is the Australian Trade Practices Act (1974). Another is the New South Wales Fair Trading Act (1987).
Even if you made this stick (which is possible because you're clearly an expert consumer lawyer) there would be no "high punitive fines" because the loss of value from this relatively minor aspect of the game's potential future is about as close to zero as it's possible to get without underflowing a double.
The Fair Trading Commission has been very heavy handed in the past. The fines are not about loss of value to the consumer, but about making deceptive conduct uneconomic.
Besides, Microsoft could just open-source the version they bought, while denying you all the improvements they made later on. In a community that depends on user-generated content, the support for a 5 year old version will be virtually nil.
I'd be happy with that.
And I'm not sure they'd end up with the most popular fork. The Minecraft community is pretty big
If its not written into the license you received when you purchased the product, its all too easy to dismiss in court.
Australian law is pretty generous with finding "misleading conduct". The standard is if it would lead an ordinary member of the public to be influenced by it into error. The courts look at the likely audience and judge by the standards of persons who are not stupid, but are perhaps of less than average intelligence and background knowledge in that audience.
Also, it is sufficient that the conduct in question has the potential to mislead or to deceive. No intent to mislead or deceive is required.
The question is "could a reasonable person have believed him?", not "Is a reasonable person dumb as fuck"?