Frankly, I barely remember any of the stuff you're talking about, but my impressions were quite different. For example, I don't think the central theme is that "guns should be outlawed", after all Michael Moore has been a member of the NRA since he was young, having won at least one NRA marksmanship award as a teenager. I think the point was that guns are used by Americans as a placebo to combat fear. I think the central theme was that fear and gun violence go hand in hand.
It's not my assertion that 150,000 people are already dying annually due to climate change, it's the World Health Organization's assertion. Some people would be inclined to think that they might have some credibility when talking about issues that concern the world and health.
At the very least we should be able to see that without climate change the flooding wouldn't have been as severe as it was. One of the most basic effects of a warming climate is to increase the amount of precipitation that wet areas get (and decrease the amount that dry areas get). More heat means more evaporation and that eventually means more precipitation.
Of course, not all weather incidents are related to climate change, but if climate change is occurring then we should be able to establish a baseline for what is a normal rate of weather disasters and then we can identify the number of events which lie outside of the expected range of events and we can therefore estimate the number of weather related disasters caused by climate change.
It isn't time to panic, but it is time to start taking the reasonable and logical steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. Many of those steps are still pretty good ideas even if you don't believe that climate change presents a danger.
It certainly is convenient to have so many excuses to dismiss anything you don't agree with. You know, some people might be inclined to believe that you dismiss them out of hand because you disagree with their conclusions rather than for actual legitimate reasons.
If you're interested in how the Global Humanitarian Forum came up with those numbers, here's a blog post explaining it.
How about the Global Humanitarian Forum estimating that "[c]limate change disasters kill around 300,000 people a year and cause $125 billion in economic losses"?
Yes, they will die from hunger, poor sanitation, wars (civil or otherwise) all of which are going to be made worse by climate change. The World Health Organization already attributes 150,000 deaths annually to the effects of climate change.
You may have stepped back a little too far to grasp what the human problem is. It's not that the end result is going to an uninhabitable planet (we hope) it's that a lot of people are going to die from the effects of climate change on the way there.
According to what I understand, the previous higher CO2 levels coincided with lower levels of solar output. Combining higher solar output and the same levels of CO2 would likely produce different results.
Exactly and that's the difference between a real skeptic and someone who claims to be a skeptic.
If you aren't skeptical about your own beliefs it doesn't matter much if your skeptical about other people's beliefs. You're still going to be easily manipulated by the people you agree with.
Not terribly, some people are still arguing that "it ain't happening!" and some people are still arguing "it ain't people that's doing it!" and some people are arguing "it's the sun!" and some people are arguing "it's not getting warmer, it's getting colder!"
These endless infantile arguments over the well established basics are derailing and inhibiting discussion and debate on the very topics you mentioned.
Of course, that's really the point of the "science is not settled" campaign being waged by the "Merchants of Doubt". They've done it for tobacco, asbestos and others, the goal is to delay an action that might be harmful to their products by waging a PR campaign to convince people that "there is no link between smoking and cancer", "asbestos presents no health risks at all" and "Global warming? If it's happening why is it so dang cold right now?"
It's a little depressing how easily Americans are manipulated by a well crafted PR campaign.
2) Al Gore isn't the main leader of climate change, he's most likely just the person you are most aware of being associated with it.
3) I consider it highly unlikely that anyone could really afford to pay off that many scientists without leaving a clearly visible money trail.
4) The point isn't to damn the economy or take away anyone's technology. The point is to reduce our reliance on a limited supply of petroleum which is having an effect on the global climate which is going to be harmful to many people.
5) Frankly, I'm not pursuing any policies.
6) I think you are likely overstating the negative consequences of taking actions to reduce carbon emissions
7) I would be skeptical about the results of any such a laws. I strongly suspect it would be used to enslave people regardless of the outcome of climate change. I'm strongly reminded that in there have been many times when disaster was averted only to have people immediately declare that was never any danger because disaster didn't happen.
8) Juries routinely face the question of how much evidence is enough. It's their primary job to determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
9) You are making a huge jump to reach the conclusion that I think "we don't need to be fully informed". I'm merely pointing out that you can always claim there isn't enough evidence. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if every defense lawyer who ever practiced law routinely used that claim in their closing arguments. It's a claim that requires justification.
10) People like me do not come out and say the scientists were paid off or anything like that. You might notice that I said nothing of the sort. I hope these researchers are right, it would be good for everyone if they were.
11) Also people like me do not unthinking back catastrophic predictions of climate change. People like me usually assume that it's an idiot reporting making the claims and that they are not backed up by the underlying science. Then we check to see what the real story is. It's partly of really actually being skeptical.
12) I don't blindly support any side. I'd really rather than climate change wasn't occurring, but like you said, I can't blindly agree with you when the evidence indicates it is occurring.
13) As long as you continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking zealot, you will find agreement difficult to reach on any issue.
Not only that, most people fail to make the connection that the primary sponsors of terrorism are currently Saudi Arabia and Iran (Also notable as the top 2 oil exporters). In particular, there are a few oil billionaires in those countries who are deliberately funding radical Muslim jihadists. A dramatic reduction in oil consumption would likely do more to combat terrorism than sending soldiers to the Middle East.
So to U.S. keeps giving money to the primary sponsors of terrorism so they can fight terrorism. It's a no win situation, as long as you have to pay the people you're fighting for the privilege of fighting them.
1. Regardless of whether you like the term climate change or not, and whether or not your paranoia is justified, climate change is still not a slogan.
2. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record. I'm not sure how this plays into your claim that temperatures are falling. In fact, as I understand it, the 10 hottest years on record are (in order): 2010*, 1998, 2005, 2009, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2001. That list doesn't look much like "temperatures are falling". In fact, NASA is predicting that 2012 will likely displace 2010 as the hottest year on record.
3. Carbon taxes would not allow the skimming of profits to private funds and banking cartels. As a "tax" it would be going to governments. Cap and trade, on the other hand, would most definitely result in profit form private enterprises. In fact, I dare say, the whole idea of cap and trade is based on the idea that is better from private industry to profit than for the government to profit from the production of CO2.
4. We should be skeptical of all claims, not just those of people we disagree with. Many of your views, in particular, seem to be wildly out of sync with reality. A little more healthy skepticism of the people who you agree with might help you back to some views grounded in reality.
5. This is a perfect example of why debate has to eventually end. If you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a fraud or con artist then there can only ever be one satisfactory end to a debate. Now imagine there is at least one person who thinks the same way as you on the other side. The debate is now eternal, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
6. You might like to look at some the temperature graphs. The line is still trending upwards. It's true that 1998 and 2005 were the top 2 warmest years on record. However, the average global temperature for 2009 was virtually the same as the temperature of 2005. We expect to see warming and cooling cycles related to El nino and El nina effects. The next year that is likely to experience similar conditions to 1998 is expected to be 2012.
Yes, weather events do kill people every year, however, climate change is making many natural disasters worse and the greatest threats aren't from freak weather conditions but from changes systematic changes in agricultural areas. If once fertile areas are rendered minimally fertile due to repeated flooding, droughts, and pest migrations, it will likely take years (at best) to replace them. War and famine triggered by climate change represent the biggest threats from climate change. It is in our best interest to carefully consider what the consequences of each action is, including the consequences of inaction.
* As 2010 is not yet done, in theory there still remains a chance that it will be the second or third warmest year on record.
I think if you examine the evidence presented, I have passed no judgement at all on the article. I was merely pointing out a number of flaws in the post I was responding to.
I do not have to take sides to correct obvious factual and critical thinking errors.
Specifically on the subject to the journal article. It claims that their new evidence may indicate that rate of warming will be 30% lower than that predicted by other models. Frankly, I hope that they're right.
You state some should critically examine other's evidence but fail to review their own.
Actually, that's the exact opposite of what I was saying. In point: that to be a skeptic you need to critically examine everything, including your own assumptions.
Frankly, I don't think you've explained that very well, and you've forgotten one important possible scenario. What if I say my shirt is green... and it is green? But you can't see that because you're red-green color-blind?
Of course what you may not have understood my position: You actually need to examine the behavior of people who claim to be skeptics. It's easy and popular to make the claim, it's much harder to live up to it.
Human activity is just not on the same scale as these changes (which also likely means the feedback mechanisms that keep CO2 in line don't act in human timescales).
You are correct here in that human activity is not on the same scale as the changes that cause ice ages. Human activity is faster and stronger. We're not heading back into an ice age any time soon.
The journal article says the effect may reduce the rate of global warming, but will not stop it. Succinctly saying a doubling of CO2 may only increase temperature by 1.4 degrees instead of 2 degrees.
a term which was intentionally chosen to evoke images of Holocost Denial, by the way
It's true the term "Denier" also applies to "Holocaust Denial", but that's because they both involve denial of events for which there is overwhelming evidence. The "Denial" part is the commonality, if you think it's not nice to be grouped in with people who deny a great tragedy occurred, you might want to give considerable thought to whether you want to be part of group that may cause more great tragedies to occur. I'm sure you see the term as political manipulation, I just see it as the unfortunately consequences of letting what you want to be true determine what you believe to be true.
There's a few problems with your statement: 1) "Climate change" isn't a slogan, it's the name of the problem. A slogan would be "More cars, less land".
2) While the climate does change naturally, it changes naturally on a much slower time scale than we are currently experiencing. That's why scientists usually talk about Anthropogenic Climate Change.
3) There are political movements spawned to fix many different problems, and all of them provide "solutions" for the expected ills of the problem. It wouldn't be a political movement if it didn't propose solutions to the problem. This is expected.
4) Skepticism is good, and thus many people like to think or pretend that they're skeptics. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who only claim to be skeptics because they do not critically examine their own evidence only the evidence of others.
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
6) Ham-handed political solutions always spawn unknown and unintended consequences. The benefits of taking action have to weighed against the risks.
Most of the world would rather be talking about the benefits and drawbacks of different solutions to the problems posed by climate change, however, as long as the so-called debate over whether the problem actually exists it's difficult to have a rational discussion about what to do about the problem. Upton Sinclair wrote in one of his books: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!", and the debate over climate change has certainly demonstrated the profoundity of that statement. At some point, the debate has to end, regardless of how many people would rather that it continue until after they have retired and their salaries are no longer dependent on the problem not being addressed. There will always be a question of how much evidence is enough.
That's something you might need to ask yourself. What would actually convince you that climate change represents a danger to the lives of millions, possibly billions of people?
According to Daniel Pink, who wrote the book (Drive) on motivation, that's not a great idea either. According to a number of scientific experiments conducted on motivation, performance incentives cause people to work harder, but less efficiently. Additionally, once the incentive is removed, the employees motivation and enjoyment of the job has been permanently reduced.
Of course, if a company is hiring PIs to follow employees around, most likely everyone hates the company and hates working there already.
Thank goodness no one has invented a device or program by which we can modify images or video to make it look like you've done something wrong. Imagine if they could crop a photo to make it look like you've done something wrong, like maybe make it look likeyou're having an affair with an under aged girl. I'm glad we'll be quite safe until someone invents deception.
If Fox News wants more of their article to be rated higher they should focus on producing quality unbiased reporting.
Of course, since Google News is showing me that they currently have 5,681 Fox News stories indexed I'd have to conclude that they aren't censoring Fox. Of course if you weren't lazy and stupid, you probably could have figured it on your own, instead you fell back to the new default position of conservatives: "Everyone we don't like is a Nazi". Bravo, sir!
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I barely remember any of the stuff you're talking about, but my impressions were quite different. For example, I don't think the central theme is that "guns should be outlawed", after all Michael Moore has been a member of the NRA since he was young, having won at least one NRA marksmanship award as a teenager. I think the point was that guns are used by Americans as a placebo to combat fear. I think the central theme was that fear and gun violence go hand in hand.
In a world where the deck is stacked against him. One man chooses to deal himself a new hand of cards...
It's not my assertion that 150,000 people are already dying annually due to climate change, it's the World Health Organization's assertion. Some people would be inclined to think that they might have some credibility when talking about issues that concern the world and health.
You should really give the people you choose to disagree with more credit. I hardly think it's a stretch to say flooding at unprecedented levels in Pakistan is extremely likely to be related to climate change. It's not like this was just some normal flood, at one point one-fifth of Pakistan's total land area was underwater.
At the very least we should be able to see that without climate change the flooding wouldn't have been as severe as it was. One of the most basic effects of a warming climate is to increase the amount of precipitation that wet areas get (and decrease the amount that dry areas get). More heat means more evaporation and that eventually means more precipitation.
Of course, not all weather incidents are related to climate change, but if climate change is occurring then we should be able to establish a baseline for what is a normal rate of weather disasters and then we can identify the number of events which lie outside of the expected range of events and we can therefore estimate the number of weather related disasters caused by climate change.
Which is what the Global Humanitarian Forum did when they estimated that 300,000 deaths in 2009 were attributable to climate change.
It isn't time to panic, but it is time to start taking the reasonable and logical steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. Many of those steps are still pretty good ideas even if you don't believe that climate change presents a danger.
It certainly is convenient to have so many excuses to dismiss anything you don't agree with. You know, some people might be inclined to believe that you dismiss them out of hand because you disagree with their conclusions rather than for actual legitimate reasons.
If you're interested in how the Global Humanitarian Forum came up with those numbers, here's a blog post explaining it.
How about the Global Humanitarian Forum estimating that "[c]limate change disasters kill around 300,000 people a year and cause $125 billion in economic losses"?
Let me guess, more excuses?
How about the World Health Organization saying that climate change "is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths" each year?
More excuses?
Yes, they will die from hunger, poor sanitation, wars (civil or otherwise) all of which are going to be made worse by climate change. The World Health Organization already attributes 150,000 deaths annually to the effects of climate change.
Climate change is widely expected to hit the poorest people hardest.
I think you need to consider the effect of making all those factors worse.
You may have stepped back a little too far to grasp what the human problem is. It's not that the end result is going to an uninhabitable planet (we hope) it's that a lot of people are going to die from the effects of climate change on the way there.
According to what I understand, the previous higher CO2 levels coincided with lower levels of solar output. Combining higher solar output and the same levels of CO2 would likely produce different results.
Exactly and that's the difference between a real skeptic and someone who claims to be a skeptic.
If you aren't skeptical about your own beliefs it doesn't matter much if your skeptical about other people's beliefs. You're still going to be easily manipulated by the people you agree with.
Not terribly, some people are still arguing that "it ain't happening!" and some people are still arguing "it ain't people that's doing it!" and some people are arguing "it's the sun!" and some people are arguing "it's not getting warmer, it's getting colder!"
These endless infantile arguments over the well established basics are derailing and inhibiting discussion and debate on the very topics you mentioned.
Of course, that's really the point of the "science is not settled" campaign being waged by the "Merchants of Doubt". They've done it for tobacco, asbestos and others, the goal is to delay an action that might be harmful to their products by waging a PR campaign to convince people that "there is no link between smoking and cancer", "asbestos presents no health risks at all" and "Global warming? If it's happening why is it so dang cold right now?"
It's a little depressing how easily Americans are manipulated by a well crafted PR campaign.
Great, I'm guessing you're getting on the bandwagon right now, then? Or do people in Pakistan not count?
Somehow, I expect you'll make excuses instead.
You've got a lot of ranting and suppositions in there, but not much of use.
1) Even in the 70s most of the research indicated Global Warming not cooling. You need to understand that what the media says scientists are saying and what scientists are saying are not always the same thing.
2) Al Gore isn't the main leader of climate change, he's most likely just the person you are most aware of being associated with it.
3) I consider it highly unlikely that anyone could really afford to pay off that many scientists without leaving a clearly visible money trail.
4) The point isn't to damn the economy or take away anyone's technology. The point is to reduce our reliance on a limited supply of petroleum which is having an effect on the global climate which is going to be harmful to many people.
5) Frankly, I'm not pursuing any policies.
6) I think you are likely overstating the negative consequences of taking actions to reduce carbon emissions
7) I would be skeptical about the results of any such a laws. I strongly suspect it would be used to enslave people regardless of the outcome of climate change. I'm strongly reminded that in there have been many times when disaster was averted only to have people immediately declare that was never any danger because disaster didn't happen.
8) Juries routinely face the question of how much evidence is enough. It's their primary job to determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
9) You are making a huge jump to reach the conclusion that I think "we don't need to be fully informed". I'm merely pointing out that you can always claim there isn't enough evidence. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if every defense lawyer who ever practiced law routinely used that claim in their closing arguments. It's a claim that requires justification.
10) People like me do not come out and say the scientists were paid off or anything like that. You might notice that I said nothing of the sort. I hope these researchers are right, it would be good for everyone if they were.
11) Also people like me do not unthinking back catastrophic predictions of climate change. People like me usually assume that it's an idiot reporting making the claims and that they are not backed up by the underlying science. Then we check to see what the real story is. It's partly of really actually being skeptical.
12) I don't blindly support any side. I'd really rather than climate change wasn't occurring, but like you said, I can't blindly agree with you when the evidence indicates it is occurring.
13) As long as you continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking zealot, you will find agreement difficult to reach on any issue.
Not only that, most people fail to make the connection that the primary sponsors of terrorism are currently Saudi Arabia and Iran (Also notable as the top 2 oil exporters). In particular, there are a few oil billionaires in those countries who are deliberately funding radical Muslim jihadists. A dramatic reduction in oil consumption would likely do more to combat terrorism than sending soldiers to the Middle East.
So to U.S. keeps giving money to the primary sponsors of terrorism so they can fight terrorism. It's a no win situation, as long as you have to pay the people you're fighting for the privilege of fighting them.
1. Regardless of whether you like the term climate change or not, and whether or not your paranoia is justified, climate change is still not a slogan.
2. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record. I'm not sure how this plays into your claim that temperatures are falling. In fact, as I understand it, the 10 hottest years on record are (in order): 2010*, 1998, 2005, 2009, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2001. That list doesn't look much like "temperatures are falling". In fact, NASA is predicting that 2012 will likely displace 2010 as the hottest year on record.
3. Carbon taxes would not allow the skimming of profits to private funds and banking cartels. As a "tax" it would be going to governments. Cap and trade, on the other hand, would most definitely result in profit form private enterprises. In fact, I dare say, the whole idea of cap and trade is based on the idea that is better from private industry to profit than for the government to profit from the production of CO2.
4. We should be skeptical of all claims, not just those of people we disagree with. Many of your views, in particular, seem to be wildly out of sync with reality. A little more healthy skepticism of the people who you agree with might help you back to some views grounded in reality.
5. This is a perfect example of why debate has to eventually end. If you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a fraud or con artist then there can only ever be one satisfactory end to a debate. Now imagine there is at least one person who thinks the same way as you on the other side. The debate is now eternal, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
6. You might like to look at some the temperature graphs. The line is still trending upwards. It's true that 1998 and 2005 were the top 2 warmest years on record. However, the average global temperature for 2009 was virtually the same as the temperature of 2005. We expect to see warming and cooling cycles related to El nino and El nina effects. The next year that is likely to experience similar conditions to 1998 is expected to be 2012.
Yes, weather events do kill people every year, however, climate change is making many natural disasters worse and the greatest threats aren't from freak weather conditions but from changes systematic changes in agricultural areas. If once fertile areas are rendered minimally fertile due to repeated flooding, droughts, and pest migrations, it will likely take years (at best) to replace them. War and famine triggered by climate change represent the biggest threats from climate change. It is in our best interest to carefully consider what the consequences of each action is, including the consequences of inaction.
* As 2010 is not yet done, in theory there still remains a chance that it will be the second or third warmest year on record.
I think if you examine the evidence presented, I have passed no judgement at all on the article. I was merely pointing out a number of flaws in the post I was responding to.
I do not have to take sides to correct obvious factual and critical thinking errors.
Specifically on the subject to the journal article. It claims that their new evidence may indicate that rate of warming will be 30% lower than that predicted by other models. Frankly, I hope that they're right.
You state some should critically examine other's evidence but fail to review their own.
Actually, that's the exact opposite of what I was saying. In point: that to be a skeptic you need to critically examine everything, including your own assumptions.
Frankly, I don't think you've explained that very well, and you've forgotten one important possible scenario. What if I say my shirt is green... and it is green? But you can't see that because you're red-green color-blind?
Of course what you may not have understood my position: You actually need to examine the behavior of people who claim to be skeptics. It's easy and popular to make the claim, it's much harder to live up to it.
Well, the problem was "Ice Age, we're all doomed, give me political power" when I was in school
Frankly, that's simply not true.
Human activity is just not on the same scale as these changes (which also likely means the feedback mechanisms that keep CO2 in line don't act in human timescales).
You are correct here in that human activity is not on the same scale as the changes that cause ice ages. Human activity is faster and stronger. We're not heading back into an ice age any time soon.
Sorry, but what you've got there is called "spin".
The IPCC has has climate change in it's name since 1988.
Did you read the article?
Yes, did you?
The journal article says the effect may reduce the rate of global warming, but will not stop it. Succinctly saying a doubling of CO2 may only increase temperature by 1.4 degrees instead of 2 degrees.
a term which was intentionally chosen to evoke images of Holocost Denial, by the way
It's true the term "Denier" also applies to "Holocaust Denial", but that's because they both involve denial of events for which there is overwhelming evidence. The "Denial" part is the commonality, if you think it's not nice to be grouped in with people who deny a great tragedy occurred, you might want to give considerable thought to whether you want to be part of group that may cause more great tragedies to occur. I'm sure you see the term as political manipulation, I just see it as the unfortunately consequences of letting what you want to be true determine what you believe to be true.
There's a few problems with your statement:
1) "Climate change" isn't a slogan, it's the name of the problem. A slogan would be "More cars, less land".
2) While the climate does change naturally, it changes naturally on a much slower time scale than we are currently experiencing. That's why scientists usually talk about Anthropogenic Climate Change.
3) There are political movements spawned to fix many different problems, and all of them provide "solutions" for the expected ills of the problem. It wouldn't be a political movement if it didn't propose solutions to the problem. This is expected.
4) Skepticism is good, and thus many people like to think or pretend that they're skeptics. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who only claim to be skeptics because they do not critically examine their own evidence only the evidence of others.
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
6) Ham-handed political solutions always spawn unknown and unintended consequences. The benefits of taking action have to weighed against the risks.
Most of the world would rather be talking about the benefits and drawbacks of different solutions to the problems posed by climate change, however, as long as the so-called debate over whether the problem actually exists it's difficult to have a rational discussion about what to do about the problem. Upton Sinclair wrote in one of his books: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!", and the debate over climate change has certainly demonstrated the profoundity of that statement. At some point, the debate has to end, regardless of how many people would rather that it continue until after they have retired and their salaries are no longer dependent on the problem not being addressed. There will always be a question of how much evidence is enough.
That's something you might need to ask yourself. What would actually convince you that climate change represents a danger to the lives of millions, possibly billions of people?
According to Daniel Pink, who wrote the book (Drive) on motivation, that's not a great idea either. According to a number of scientific experiments conducted on motivation, performance incentives cause people to work harder, but less efficiently. Additionally, once the incentive is removed, the employees motivation and enjoyment of the job has been permanently reduced.
Of course, if a company is hiring PIs to follow employees around, most likely everyone hates the company and hates working there already.
Thank goodness no one has invented a device or program by which we can modify images or video to make it look like you've done something wrong.
Imagine if they could crop a photo to make it look like you've done something wrong, like maybe make it look likeyou're having an affair with an under aged girl. I'm glad we'll be quite safe until someone invents deception.
If Fox News wants more of their article to be rated higher they should focus on producing quality unbiased reporting.
Of course, since Google News is showing me that they currently have 5,681 Fox News stories indexed I'd have to conclude that they aren't censoring Fox. Of course if you weren't lazy and stupid, you probably could have figured it on your own, instead you fell back to the new default position of conservatives: "Everyone we don't like is a Nazi". Bravo, sir!