All this does is give the employee a false sense of security. The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.
Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.
Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction. It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction. There is no law that says you have to let them.
We're diverging pretty far off-topic, but if you treat people like animals and tell them they have no place in society, don't be surprised when they develop this anti-institution mentality.
We then release them back into society with no real effort at rehabilitation. We need more low-security prisons with a focus on rehab, education and therapy. I know people don't want to spend money taking care of prisoners, but ultimately we're preserving society by trying to cut down on repeat offenders.
Our current prison system is broken.
Part of the idea of prison is punishment. Sure, there should be some attempt at rehabilitation, but I don't want the guy who rapes my little girl spending a mere five years of counseling sessions. I want to know that he experiences punishment! Look at the death penalty, for example. There is no hope point in rehabilitating death row.
As a scientist, you should know that the best news you can receive is to find out that the something you knew to be true, was wrong. This means you get to learn something new and advance your knowledge and the knowledge of the community as a whole. From what I can tell, climatologists are not so excited to find out something that may invalidate their latest models. They seem to get defensive, which is understandable, and territorial, which is not.
The bottom line is that I do not know. I don't think Al Gore knows. If he did, he would be riding a bike, not flying in a private jet. And that is part of the problem. Not only will I discount the "facts" of those who do not heed them themselves, but I tend to go the opposite direction. If they obviously don't believe it, why should I? I know, Al Gore is not a scientist, but he is the face and voice of Global Warming. He claims that CO2 will end the world and I have to change MY ways. Of course, he spews more CO2 in a year than I will in my life time and yet, none of these "scientists" that he claims to get his data from will tell him that the CO2 from his lifestyle is no different than CO2 from my lifestyle. If they won't tell him to change his ways, why should I let them tell me to change mine?
And there, at the end of your reply, comes the truth. You are scared of giving up control, of change, so you choose to fight for the alternative. I sympathise but cannot agree that it is the right thing to do.
Right! Just as so many here think that government eavesdropping on their phone calls is a violation of their rights, I feel that telling me what to drive or how hot or cold to keep my home, or how many kids I can have or what car I can drive, or how many people I can drive to work with, or how far I can live from my job... etc... are a violation of MY rights. The main difference is that it does not change my life or what I can or can't do if the government listens to my phone calls. My life is changed when I have to start reusing my child's diapers!
Now given that the Pleistocene period ended a mere 10,000 years ago, and it produced glaciers that covered much of N. America with an ice sheet that was up to 4 km thick, I don't think that the maximum of a degree or two of warming due to Anthropogenic CO2 is going to make a damn bit of difference to what mother nature will do all on her own, with or without our help.
So that is why I will fight like hell to keep my rights. This country (the US) was founded on the rights of citizens to determine their own destinies. Don't get me wrong, I fully respect your point of view. But please understand that I served to defend the rights of not just my countrymen, but for people worldwide who didn't have the luxury of being born in a relatively free country. I will not give up control of my life to any governmental body for something as flimsy as this. Or do I need to break out the Ben Franklin quote about those that will give up their rights for security?
Nice chat. You seem very intelligent and knowledgeable. However, I feel that you, like many others (myself included), thinks that we know much more than we really do. You have much more confidence in the certainty of it all than I do.
You want permission to pollute air that everyone breathes.
No. I don't want the government telling me that the air I breath out is a pollutant and must be regulated.
You want permission to waste oil that is in limited supply.
Yep! Market forces take care of this. If we waste oil, then it's supply becomes scarce, meaning the price goes up. This means that people will waste less of it. What I don't want is the government making it artificially scarce, which places a burden on everyone, including those that never wasted it to begin with.
You want permission to burn coal, the mining of which literally strips the tops off of mountains and the sludge from which completely clogs entire rivers.
If my local community that lives near that mountain and those rivers decide that it is in the best interest of my community, then YES! I want the right to do that! It's not the business of people who live 1000 miles away to tell my community what we can and can't do with the mountain that they will never see.
You want to be left alone but you aren't actually leaving others alone.
Actually, I am. It's none of my business what the people of Alaska do in ANWR. It's none of my business that the people of California banned incandescent light bulbs. It's none of my business that the people of MA want government provided health care.
Of course, there are limits. The state of New Mexico can't dam a river that flows through Arizona. There needs to be some sort of federal government to act as an arbiter for interstate disputes.
You're indirectly raping & pillaging the planet.
And who are you to decide that? How about if I tell you that you are not allowed to waste computer resources to post on slashdot. You are raping the planet by doing so and therefor, it's forbidden!
You don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't do unless you are willing to grant me the same rights. So, turn off you computer and immediately drive it to the nearest recycling center and leave your computer, car and clothes there so that they may be returned to the Earth. As for your home, I expect you to never return and allow it to naturally compost into a rich organic soil for plants to thrive. Until your natural death, you must learn to survive on whatever twigs and berries you can find naturally. Be sure to defecate near the plants you live off of as to return what you have shamelessly and greedily taken from them.
I have no doubt that the climate is changing. Of course it is. That's what it does. It always has and always will. If it were not warming, it would be cooling, and there would be politicians claiming that man was responsible.
There is also no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its percentage in the atmosphere has an effect on the climate. What is debatable is how much of an effect that is. Within that debate, the amount of CO2 that man is directly responsible for must be considered as well.
As to your source, it's a video, so it's not like I can copy and paste from it. But the title itself is telling, The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History. From everything I've read, water vapor, not C)2 is the "Biggest Control Knob" affecting the Earth's climate. So it would appear that this video is wrong starting with the title itself.
What the evidence shows So what we have on the best current evidence is that
* global temperatures are currently rising;
* the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
* the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
* there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
* the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
* if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
* the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
* water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
* determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-m water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
* the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.
In other words, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's concentration is minuscule in the atmosphere and its effect even less so.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
I'm not going to give up control of my life for a 0.0028 affect in greenhouse effect especially when considering that natural variation of climate outweighs this effect by an exponential order of magnitude. It's as if we are trying to bail out the Titanic with a shot glass.
So why are we trying to implement policies to combat that change? Do we really think that we can keep the Earth just like it is today?
It's not so much about maintaining the current climate trends, but slowing (or removing) the impact of our own civilization on climate alteration. Yes, the Earth goes through significant climate shifts naturally. The question being asked and trying to be answered is what influence (if any) does humanity have on these shifts?
Man's influence on the climate is nothing compared to nature's influence on the climate. The result of any changes made by man is much less than the natural variability of Earth's natural climate system. Water vapor makes up 95% of the Earth's greenhouse gasses, yet it's not considered a pollutant. CO2 makes up 3.618% of the Earth's greenhouse gasses, 0.117% of that is man's doing. In other words, if all of man were to die and all the machine's turned off, the Earth's greenhouse effect from CO2 would decrease by 0.117%. Keep in mind that this figure is not the total change in temperature, but the total amount of greenhouse gas effect. There is much more to the climate than greenhouse effects.
Really? That's it? Government wants to change my lifestyle for a 0.117% change in total greenhouse gas output? This becomes increasingly ridiculous when you consider that 0.117% of greenhouse gas has basically no effect to the planet's climate when compared to what Mother Nature will do all on her own.
Yes. That is exactly what Republicans want. The GOP's secret mission statement is the pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a dastardly plot to destroy the world so that Dick Cheney can finally realize his dream of being the last man on earth when his final O2 canister runs out.
Oh, shit. You have found us out.
Then tell us what it is that you DO want. It really seems as if Republicans (at least the ones I interact with) take the concept of global warming as a personal insult. Seriously--they get incensed about it and act as if those who believe in global warming also believe the moon is made of green cheese and that it's OK to kick puppies. Please explain to us just what the GOP's objection is to global warming, and why they won't just ignore the issue and concentrate on economics or defense. Because right now it seems the only reason they oppose it is that it was popularized by Al Gore.
We want to be left alone. Not only do we want the government to leave us alone, but we want the government to protect us from the "Do-Gooders" that would try to tell us what to do. We want to control ourselves. This means local control. Everyone wins here. If you want government run health care, elect local legislators that want government health care or move to a state that offers it. Don't want it? Move to a state that does NOT offer it.
We do not want a single all powerful government telling all 50 states what is best for all 50 states. What works in Alaska will not necessarily work in Hawaii. What works in NY may not work in KY. The people of Boston may want different things than the people of Austin. Let the people decide the laws that affect their lives or allow them to move to a place that fills their needs.
That is what Republicans want.
As for Global Warming, we see it as an attempt to control our lives. We are told that we can't drive a 4WD pickup truck because it releases too much CO2. This means that if you live in Michigan, for example, you have to live in a place where the government plows the roads because a Prius won't drive through 3-ft snow drifts. In other words, government is trying to make so that the people are dependent on government. I don't want to depend on government because, as we saw with Katrina, sometimes government fails. If you depend on that government, you are screwed!
Besides, the one thing you need to completely disprove the point of this summary is to realize that it was COLDER this year than last year and COLDER this year than average on the days with record snow. So saying "warmer temps caused the snow" is bullshit because temps were not warmer!
Not true in Canada. For the most part country wide there has been very little snow, and it's been much warmer than average. Where I am most lawns are bare of snow except for the occasional patch.
Exactly! Because climate is not weather. The point of this/. article is that the snow proves AGW because warmer temps cause snow. The temps were not warmer.
Meanwhile, people point to the lack of Canadian snow as proof of AGW. So warmer temps with less snow prove AGW because it's warmer. At the same time, colder temps and more snow prove AGW because... it's warmer?
Fact is that local weather neither proves nor disproves AGW. I'm tired of people looking outside, and no matter what the weather may be claiming that it is a direct result of AGW.
No, the major argument against AGW "skeptics" is that their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering.
Let's break that up:
science is nonexistent
Like throwing out data that doesn't fit the models? Like deleting data that could be used to refute your outrageous claims (hockey stick)? Like shunning those publications that would publish critical peer review articles? Like including wild claims from biased sources without verifying the sources?
ad-hominem attacks
Like when the CRU "scientists" tried to block peer review articles from being published? Like when "skeptics" are accused of working for "big oil"? Like when alarmists refute skeptics' claims by saying "their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering."?
fearmongering
Like when alarmists claim that NY and Florida will be underwater? Like the claims that the Himalayan mountains will be ice free? Like the claims of an ice free N. Pole? Like the claims of more and deadlier hurricanes?
Tell me again how it's the skeptics' science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering.
Climate change (and I mean that in the broadest sense, be it global warming or the onset of an ice age) is never a simple "everywhere gets a little bit warmer" or "everywhere gets a little bit dryer". Some places change in one way, some in another. The UK had the coldest January in 25 years, but the global average temperature in January was the highest since records began. Some places will have droughts, some places will have more snow, but it's still impossible to predict with any accuracy what will happen in any one place at any one time. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and say "it's impossible to be certain, so lets give up".
And Death Valley used to be underwater. All of N. America was under an ice flow that was 10 times taller than the Empire State Building. The Sahara was a lush forest. Climate changes. There is no natural state except for change itself.
So why are we trying to implement policies to combat that change? Do we really think that we can keep the Earth just like it is today? Is that the goal? Should we try to change the climate so that we can return N. America back to its natural, under ice state? Should we try to return the Earth to it's glorious molten past? Should we try our best to strip the atmosphere of all oxygen so to usher in the return of Methanite bacteria? Of course not. And you are correct that we should not "throw in the towel." We should predict where the climate is heading and spend our resources to adapt to the change instead of trying to stop it!
The last time I checked, the scientific method didn't include debate,
Yes it does. It's called peer review and it has been lacking. Unfortunately, similar to what happens too often in a debate, the scientists try to discredit those that criticize their work via the peer review process instead of criticizing the arguments that are produced. This is what much of the CRU scandal was about. They tried to silence their critics.
Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science works
Given what I just said, we could say the same about you.
Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...
The problem is that in many cases, they are substituting one form of pollution for another. Take CFL light bulbs for example. Sure, they result in less carbon, but contain mercury. Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2, both to people and the environment.
A bigger problem is that government is trying to use AGW for political means, like to for income redistribution or "leveling the playing field" by telling people that no matter how much they make or have, they are not allowed to spend it. In a world where energy usage is capped, everyone has an allowance of carbon they are allowed to release directly or indirectly. The goal is to make so that everyone is allowed to use the same amount, thus leveling the playing field. Whether you are rich or poor, you are allowed to use X number of carbon credits. This not only includes how much energy you use directly in your car or home, but how much stuff you are allowed to buy since it costs energy to produce and transport those products. Suddenly, how much money you have or make is meaningless because you are not allowed to spend it. Everyone is allowed to have the exact same amount. This is exactly what Marx envisioned.
People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
Agreed. But the problem is that it is the "alarmists" doing much more of this than the "skeptics". However, many on both sides are starting to realize that it is cheaper, much less disruptive and more beneficial to spend resources to adapt to climate change than to attempt fight it.
They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants,
I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"? And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.
The main point of this slashdot summary and the article that it links to is that MORE snow is a sign of global warming. If that is the case, then wouldn't the lack of snow in Vancouver be a sign AGAINST global warming?
Besides, the summary and the article say that it was warmer temps that caused all the snow. Now, I understand that it snows more at 30 than it does at -30 (degrees F, of course). But that's not what we are talking about here. It's not a +-30 degree thing when it snows in NY City and Tallahassee FL in the same day.
Besides, the one thing you need to completely disprove the point of this summary is to realize that it was COLDER this year than last year and COLDER this year than average on the days with record snow. So saying "warmer temps caused the snow" is bullshit because temps were not warmer!
It's not just "more ice" and "less ice" or "more hurricanes" and "fewer hurricanes." The questions is where the local climate is changing, and whether it is changing in according to large scale models.
So, you mean to tell me that a model predicted record breaking snow in 49/50 states, and NO SNOW in Vancouver in the same year? And these same models not only predicted more and less ice in Antarctica, but where there would be more and where there would be less ice in Antarctica? And this same model predicted a near record number of hurricane's in hitting N. America in 2005 and no hurricanes hitting N. America in 2006?
Must be one hell of a model. Do you have a link as to where I can download this model. Why are we not using this model for everything. Seems like we found the ONE model that works. (BTW, of all the different models only one model can work. If two models get different results, at least one of them is wrong! And in order for a model to be correct, it has to be correct 100% of the time (provided that data is accurate). So, you are saying that all this was predicted by ONE model, correct?)
And as for hurricanes, we heard all year that the 2005 rough hurricane season was due to global warming and that it would only increase. The same models predicted that 2006 would be the worst in history. It wasn't. So what did we hear? "The lack of hurricane's in 2006 was due to Global Warming."
If a ball falls down it is because of gravity. If it bounces back up it is because of gravity.
Actually, a ball bouncing up are due to Newton's laws of motion. When the ball hits the ground, the ground pushes back. See Law 3: Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force F on the first body. F and F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. And since the ground is pushing back, Law 2 applies: A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related to F by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. Alternatively, force is equal to the time derivative of momentum. So, you see, gravity has nothing to do with it.
If comet flies into the solar system it is because of gravity. If the comet slingshots around jupiter and permanently exits the solar system it is because of gravity.
This would deal more with Kepler's laws of planetary motion, angular momentum as well as gravity. See, if it were just gravity, the comet would simply fall into whatever body applying a gravitational force to the object. But there is much more to consider than just gravity. As for it slingshotting out... well, that seems happen when momentum is greater than the force gravity exerts on the object. In other words, if the comet slingshots around jupiter and permanently exits the solar system it is NOT because of gravity, but in spite of it....And your last one:
If the tide rises it is because of gravity. If the tide recedes it is because of gravity.
That's like saying, "if the day gets bright, it's because of the sun. If it gets dark, it's because of the sun." In other words... Um.... No. No one would say that. Tidal forces are due not just to gravity pulling on an object, but gravity from two different bodies pulling on an object. See, one body can not cause tidal forces. So, to say that it's caused by gravity is a gross oversimplification that no one would make. They may say that tides rise because of gravity, but they would say that they fall because of gravity. They may say something like "tides fall because of LACK of gravity" but that's not true either. It would be that tides fall because of a lack of gravity from the object that caused them to rise.
But to relate this back to AGW, see, we are hearing the very contradictory argument that you are saying is bunk. I've heard scientist say that AGW will lead to warmer temps. I've also heard that AGW will lead to colder temps. In the summer, we hear a from the first group. In the winter, we hear from the second. Hell, right now, I've heard both camps at the same time. I've heard that the lack of snow in Vancouver is due to AGW while also hearing that the snow in 49/50 US states is also due to AGW. I've heard that the increase in snow is because warmer air holds more moisture, resulting in more snow. (However, it appears that it is actually colder than it was this time last year, debunking that claim). Here is a Vancouver's no snow is caused by AGW article: http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Global-warming-comes-up-again-due-to-unusually-warm-Vancouver-Olympics
So, there you have it! Two serious articles claiming that AGW both causes more snow and less snow... IN THE SAME YEAR! See, it's not us AGW deniers making shit up.
Let me give you an example of another ridiculous argument I've actually read: 1) Global warming causes oceanic conveyor to stop because it melts the ice caps 2) This causes the area near the poles to become mu
Sorry, I mis-remembered: 2009 is the second warmest year on-record. 2000-2009 is still the warmest decade.
Is that with or without the data from the Siberian weather stations? Seems that all the cold spots have been omitted in some of the recent data sets. Is your source one of them?
Here is what I got from the article:
To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.
So... how can they claim that it's the warmest record in history when the control data set only includes data from 1951-1980? Why does Antarctica, which takes up only a small fraction of the earth's surface make up 1/3 of the report? Why not the arctic? And again, is this from the dataset where monitoring stations were mysteriously moved when they shouldn't have been, not moved when they should have been (like when a parking lot is build where the monitor stands), or omitted altogether, like was the case in Siberia.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Republicans are suggesting that we do: keep pumping out billions of tons of CO2 a year and see what happens... There are easier ways to falsify AGW's predictions than to wait 40 years and take a look at the climate... Ocean acidification, changes in weather patterns over a statistically significant period of time that can not be explained through purely natural warming processes etc..
Yes. That is exactly what Republicans want. The GOP's secret mission statement is the pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a dastardly plot to destroy the world so that Dick Cheney can finally realize his dream of being the last man on earth when his final O2 canister runs out.
To clarify on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.
So, let's see if I understand. If your first post, you basically said:
AGW predicts increasing Antarctic ice. We see increasing Antarctic ice, so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.
Then in your second post, you said:
Oh, wait, I just learned something. It appears that Antarctic ice is increasing in some places, but receding in others. This was predicted in AGW models so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.
Did I get that right?
Ever stop to consider that there is a reason we don't believe this shit? And I don't mean to rag on you, but this is the kind of crap that we hear all the time from what are supposed to be scientists. It's hot, so it proves AGW. It's cold, so it proves AGW. If there are more hurricanes, its AGW. If there are no hurricanes, its AGW. There is no snow at the Olympics because of AGW. There is too much snow in Washington because of AGW. Warmer temperatures mean AGW. Colder temps mean AGW.... and so on and so on and so on!
See, when you change historical data to make your model match current conditions, it's fraud. (AGW climatologists tend to throw out data that doesn't make sense to their models) You change the outcome of your model to match current conditions, it's fraud. (You see this one A LOT! Remember all the predictions that said hurricanes would increase and then we had a year with virtually no hurricanes? Remember the scramble to claim that the LACK of hurricanes was due to AGW?)
Until you walk by an e-billboard and a loud commercial for some herpes treatment starts up.
That can work two ways. Consider the following:
You finally made it to the magical third date. You have a good idea as to what will happen, but you know she holds the cards. You took special care to clean your undercarriage and wear the underwear that has no holes or stains. You meet her at the restaurant. She is wearing something sexy! You... Are... In!
After a flawless dinner where you managed to not say anything stupid and she laughed at all your jokes, you are walking with her back to your car, hand in hand. You pass by one of the new billboards that recognizes your ID card's chip and gives you the new personal ads. You wonder what add will you get this time; WOW4? Duke Nukem Forever Expansion? XBox720? The new Android V? Nope. It looks like it picked up her card first.
Worried about your genital herpes? Try Herpago and get those bumps GONE!
We had a great evening. What, you think I'm going to let a virus filled pus pockets stop me? It's not like I get this chance very often. I'm a Slashdot user after all.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.
BZZZZTTTT! Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.
Sorry. Try again.
What are you on?
All this does is give the employee a false sense of security. The corporation is still going to think of you as disposable.
Programmers should be able to buy their own health care without their employer being a part of the transaction.
Um, programmers, or anyone else CAN buy health care without their employers being part of the transaction. It's probably going to cost more because when we say that employers are "part of the transaction", that means they are paying for a large part of the transaction. There is no law that says you have to let them.
We're diverging pretty far off-topic, but if you treat people like animals and tell them they have no place in society, don't be surprised when they develop this anti-institution mentality.
We then release them back into society with no real effort at rehabilitation. We need more low-security prisons with a focus on rehab, education and therapy. I know people don't want to spend money taking care of prisoners, but ultimately we're preserving society by trying to cut down on repeat offenders.
Our current prison system is broken.
Part of the idea of prison is punishment. Sure, there should be some attempt at rehabilitation, but I don't want the guy who rapes my little girl spending a mere five years of counseling sessions. I want to know that he experiences punishment! Look at the death penalty, for example. There is no hope point in rehabilitating death row.
Certainly under linux ram used as disk cache is marked "free".
Strange. On my system, it's marked as cache.
My System Monitor under gnome in Ubuntu 9.10 shows:
44% used by programs
11% used as cache
I'm not saying your system is wrong, just different. That's the beauty of Linux.
Was that 0.117% of the 3.618%, or of the total atmosphere? Either way, barely a spit in the ocean.
I suggest a new name for AGW: Climate homeopathy.
CO2 makes up 3.618% of the atmosphere. Of that, 0.117% is man made. So, if man never existed, the atmosphere would be 3.501% CO2 instead of 3.618%.
As a scientist, you should know that the best news you can receive is to find out that the something you knew to be true, was wrong. This means you get to learn something new and advance your knowledge and the knowledge of the community as a whole. From what I can tell, climatologists are not so excited to find out something that may invalidate their latest models. They seem to get defensive, which is understandable, and territorial, which is not.
The bottom line is that I do not know. I don't think Al Gore knows. If he did, he would be riding a bike, not flying in a private jet. And that is part of the problem. Not only will I discount the "facts" of those who do not heed them themselves, but I tend to go the opposite direction. If they obviously don't believe it, why should I? I know, Al Gore is not a scientist, but he is the face and voice of Global Warming. He claims that CO2 will end the world and I have to change MY ways. Of course, he spews more CO2 in a year than I will in my life time and yet, none of these "scientists" that he claims to get his data from will tell him that the CO2 from his lifestyle is no different than CO2 from my lifestyle. If they won't tell him to change his ways, why should I let them tell me to change mine?
And there, at the end of your reply, comes the truth. You are scared of giving up control, of change, so you choose to fight for the alternative. I sympathise but cannot agree that it is the right thing to do.
Right! Just as so many here think that government eavesdropping on their phone calls is a violation of their rights, I feel that telling me what to drive or how hot or cold to keep my home, or how many kids I can have or what car I can drive, or how many people I can drive to work with, or how far I can live from my job... etc... are a violation of MY rights. The main difference is that it does not change my life or what I can or can't do if the government listens to my phone calls. My life is changed when I have to start reusing my child's diapers!
Now given that the Pleistocene period ended a mere 10,000 years ago, and it produced glaciers that covered much of N. America with an ice sheet that was up to 4 km thick, I don't think that the maximum of a degree or two of warming due to Anthropogenic CO2 is going to make a damn bit of difference to what mother nature will do all on her own, with or without our help.
So that is why I will fight like hell to keep my rights. This country (the US) was founded on the rights of citizens to determine their own destinies. Don't get me wrong, I fully respect your point of view. But please understand that I served to defend the rights of not just my countrymen, but for people worldwide who didn't have the luxury of being born in a relatively free country. I will not give up control of my life to any governmental body for something as flimsy as this. Or do I need to break out the Ben Franklin quote about those that will give up their rights for security?
Nice chat. You seem very intelligent and knowledgeable. However, I feel that you, like many others (myself included), thinks that we know much more than we really do. You have much more confidence in the certainty of it all than I do.
Seriously, any number of sci-fi authors have covered this problem in enormous detail over the last few decades
I thought they changed their name to SyFi.
Sounds a bit like anarchy.
No. It sounds like local control.
You want permission to pollute air that everyone breathes.
No. I don't want the government telling me that the air I breath out is a pollutant and must be regulated.
You want permission to waste oil that is in limited supply.
Yep! Market forces take care of this. If we waste oil, then it's supply becomes scarce, meaning the price goes up. This means that people will waste less of it. What I don't want is the government making it artificially scarce, which places a burden on everyone, including those that never wasted it to begin with.
You want permission to burn coal, the mining of which literally strips the tops off of mountains and the sludge from which completely clogs entire rivers.
If my local community that lives near that mountain and those rivers decide that it is in the best interest of my community, then YES! I want the right to do that! It's not the business of people who live 1000 miles away to tell my community what we can and can't do with the mountain that they will never see.
You want to be left alone but you aren't actually leaving others alone.
Actually, I am. It's none of my business what the people of Alaska do in ANWR. It's none of my business that the people of California banned incandescent light bulbs. It's none of my business that the people of MA want government provided health care.
Of course, there are limits. The state of New Mexico can't dam a river that flows through Arizona. There needs to be some sort of federal government to act as an arbiter for interstate disputes.
You're indirectly raping & pillaging the planet.
And who are you to decide that? How about if I tell you that you are not allowed to waste computer resources to post on slashdot. You are raping the planet by doing so and therefor, it's forbidden!
You don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't do unless you are willing to grant me the same rights. So, turn off you computer and immediately drive it to the nearest recycling center and leave your computer, car and clothes there so that they may be returned to the Earth. As for your home, I expect you to never return and allow it to naturally compost into a rich organic soil for plants to thrive. Until your natural death, you must learn to survive on whatever twigs and berries you can find naturally. Be sure to defecate near the plants you live off of as to return what you have shamelessly and greedily taken from them.
I have no doubt that the climate is changing. Of course it is. That's what it does. It always has and always will. If it were not warming, it would be cooling, and there would be politicians claiming that man was responsible.
There is also no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its percentage in the atmosphere has an effect on the climate. What is debatable is how much of an effect that is. Within that debate, the amount of CO2 that man is directly responsible for must be considered as well.
As to your source, it's a video, so it's not like I can copy and paste from it. But the title itself is telling, The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History. From everything I've read, water vapor, not C)2 is the "Biggest Control Knob" affecting the Earth's climate. So it would appear that this video is wrong starting with the title itself.
I'll provide the source:
What the evidence shows
So what we have on the best current evidence is that
* global temperatures are currently rising;
* the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
* the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
* there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
* the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
* if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
* the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
* water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
* determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-m water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
* the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.
In other words, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's concentration is minuscule in the atmosphere and its effect even less so.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
I'm not going to give up control of my life for a 0.0028 affect in greenhouse effect especially when considering that natural variation of climate outweighs this effect by an exponential order of magnitude. It's as if we are trying to bail out the Titanic with a shot glass.
So why are we trying to implement policies to combat that change? Do we really think that we can keep the Earth just like it is today?
It's not so much about maintaining the current climate trends, but slowing (or removing) the impact of our own civilization on climate alteration. Yes, the Earth goes through significant climate shifts naturally. The question being asked and trying to be answered is what influence (if any) does humanity have on these shifts?
Man's influence on the climate is nothing compared to nature's influence on the climate. The result of any changes made by man is much less than the natural variability of Earth's natural climate system. Water vapor makes up 95% of the Earth's greenhouse gasses, yet it's not considered a pollutant. CO2 makes up 3.618% of the Earth's greenhouse gasses, 0.117% of that is man's doing. In other words, if all of man were to die and all the machine's turned off, the Earth's greenhouse effect from CO2 would decrease by 0.117%. Keep in mind that this figure is not the total change in temperature, but the total amount of greenhouse gas effect. There is much more to the climate than greenhouse effects.
Really? That's it? Government wants to change my lifestyle for a 0.117% change in total greenhouse gas output? This becomes increasingly ridiculous when you consider that 0.117% of greenhouse gas has basically no effect to the planet's climate when compared to what Mother Nature will do all on her own.
Yes. That is exactly what Republicans want. The GOP's secret mission statement is the pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a dastardly plot to destroy the world so that Dick Cheney can finally realize his dream of being the last man on earth when his final O2 canister runs out.
Oh, shit. You have found us out.
Then tell us what it is that you DO want. It really seems as if Republicans (at least the ones I interact with) take the concept of global warming as a personal insult. Seriously--they get incensed about it and act as if those who believe in global warming also believe the moon is made of green cheese and that it's OK to kick puppies. Please explain to us just what the GOP's objection is to global warming, and why they won't just ignore the issue and concentrate on economics or defense. Because right now it seems the only reason they oppose it is that it was popularized by Al Gore.
We want to be left alone. Not only do we want the government to leave us alone, but we want the government to protect us from the "Do-Gooders" that would try to tell us what to do. We want to control ourselves. This means local control. Everyone wins here. If you want government run health care, elect local legislators that want government health care or move to a state that offers it. Don't want it? Move to a state that does NOT offer it.
We do not want a single all powerful government telling all 50 states what is best for all 50 states. What works in Alaska will not necessarily work in Hawaii. What works in NY may not work in KY. The people of Boston may want different things than the people of Austin. Let the people decide the laws that affect their lives or allow them to move to a place that fills their needs.
That is what Republicans want.
As for Global Warming, we see it as an attempt to control our lives. We are told that we can't drive a 4WD pickup truck because it releases too much CO2. This means that if you live in Michigan, for example, you have to live in a place where the government plows the roads because a Prius won't drive through 3-ft snow drifts. In other words, government is trying to make so that the people are dependent on government. I don't want to depend on government because, as we saw with Katrina, sometimes government fails. If you depend on that government, you are screwed!
Besides, the one thing you need to completely disprove the point of this summary is to realize that it was COLDER this year than last year and COLDER this year than average on the days with record snow. So saying "warmer temps caused the snow" is bullshit because temps were not warmer!
Not true in Canada. For the most part country wide there has been very little snow, and it's been much warmer than average. Where I am most lawns are bare of snow except for the occasional patch.
Exactly! Because climate is not weather. The point of this /. article is that the snow proves AGW because warmer temps cause snow. The temps were not warmer.
Meanwhile, people point to the lack of Canadian snow as proof of AGW. So warmer temps with less snow prove AGW because it's warmer. At the same time, colder temps and more snow prove AGW because... it's warmer?
Fact is that local weather neither proves nor disproves AGW. I'm tired of people looking outside, and no matter what the weather may be claiming that it is a direct result of AGW.
No, the major argument against AGW "skeptics" is that their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering.
Let's break that up:
science is nonexistent
Like throwing out data that doesn't fit the models? Like deleting data that could be used to refute your outrageous claims (hockey stick)? Like shunning those publications that would publish critical peer review articles? Like including wild claims from biased sources without verifying the sources?
ad-hominem attacks
Like when the CRU "scientists" tried to block peer review articles from being published? Like when "skeptics" are accused of working for "big oil"? Like when alarmists refute skeptics' claims by saying "their science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering."?
fearmongering
Like when alarmists claim that NY and Florida will be underwater? Like the claims that the Himalayan mountains will be ice free? Like the claims of an ice free N. Pole? Like the claims of more and deadlier hurricanes?
Tell me again how it's the skeptics' science is nonexistent and their major tactics are ad-hominem attacks and fearmongering.
Climate change (and I mean that in the broadest sense, be it global warming or the onset of an ice age) is never a simple "everywhere gets a little bit warmer" or "everywhere gets a little bit dryer". Some places change in one way, some in another. The UK had the coldest January in 25 years, but the global average temperature in January was the highest since records began. Some places will have droughts, some places will have more snow, but it's still impossible to predict with any accuracy what will happen in any one place at any one time. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and say "it's impossible to be certain, so lets give up".
And Death Valley used to be underwater. All of N. America was under an ice flow that was 10 times taller than the Empire State Building. The Sahara was a lush forest. Climate changes. There is no natural state except for change itself.
So why are we trying to implement policies to combat that change? Do we really think that we can keep the Earth just like it is today? Is that the goal? Should we try to change the climate so that we can return N. America back to its natural, under ice state? Should we try to return the Earth to it's glorious molten past? Should we try our best to strip the atmosphere of all oxygen so to usher in the return of Methanite bacteria? Of course not. And you are correct that we should not "throw in the towel." We should predict where the climate is heading and spend our resources to adapt to the change instead of trying to stop it!
The last time I checked, the scientific method didn't include debate,
Yes it does. It's called peer review and it has been lacking. Unfortunately, similar to what happens too often in a debate, the scientists try to discredit those that criticize their work via the peer review process instead of criticizing the arguments that are produced. This is what much of the CRU scandal was about. They tried to silence their critics.
Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science works
Given what I just said, we could say the same about you.
Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...
The problem is that in many cases, they are substituting one form of pollution for another. Take CFL light bulbs for example. Sure, they result in less carbon, but contain mercury. Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2, both to people and the environment.
A bigger problem is that government is trying to use AGW for political means, like to for income redistribution or "leveling the playing field" by telling people that no matter how much they make or have, they are not allowed to spend it. In a world where energy usage is capped, everyone has an allowance of carbon they are allowed to release directly or indirectly. The goal is to make so that everyone is allowed to use the same amount, thus leveling the playing field. Whether you are rich or poor, you are allowed to use X number of carbon credits. This not only includes how much energy you use directly in your car or home, but how much stuff you are allowed to buy since it costs energy to produce and transport those products. Suddenly, how much money you have or make is meaningless because you are not allowed to spend it. Everyone is allowed to have the exact same amount. This is exactly what Marx envisioned.
People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")
Agreed. But the problem is that it is the "alarmists" doing much more of this than the "skeptics". However, many on both sides are starting to realize that it is cheaper, much less disruptive and more beneficial to spend resources to adapt to climate change than to attempt fight it.
They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants,
I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"? And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.
It is a massive double standard!
I couldn't have said it better!
sigh!
The main point of this slashdot summary and the article that it links to is that MORE snow is a sign of global warming. If that is the case, then wouldn't the lack of snow in Vancouver be a sign AGAINST global warming?
Besides, the summary and the article say that it was warmer temps that caused all the snow. Now, I understand that it snows more at 30 than it does at -30 (degrees F, of course). But that's not what we are talking about here. It's not a +-30 degree thing when it snows in NY City and Tallahassee FL in the same day.
Besides, the one thing you need to completely disprove the point of this summary is to realize that it was COLDER this year than last year and COLDER this year than average on the days with record snow. So saying "warmer temps caused the snow" is bullshit because temps were not warmer!
It's not just "more ice" and "less ice" or "more hurricanes" and "fewer hurricanes." The questions is where the local climate is changing, and whether it is changing in according to large scale models.
So, you mean to tell me that a model predicted record breaking snow in 49/50 states, and NO SNOW in Vancouver in the same year? And these same models not only predicted more and less ice in Antarctica, but where there would be more and where there would be less ice in Antarctica? And this same model predicted a near record number of hurricane's in hitting N. America in 2005 and no hurricanes hitting N. America in 2006?
Must be one hell of a model. Do you have a link as to where I can download this model. Why are we not using this model for everything. Seems like we found the ONE model that works. (BTW, of all the different models only one model can work. If two models get different results, at least one of them is wrong! And in order for a model to be correct, it has to be correct 100% of the time (provided that data is accurate). So, you are saying that all this was predicted by ONE model, correct?)
And as for hurricanes, we heard all year that the 2005 rough hurricane season was due to global warming and that it would only increase. The same models predicted that 2006 would be the worst in history. It wasn't. So what did we hear? "The lack of hurricane's in 2006 was due to Global Warming."
You can't make this stuff up!
If a ball falls down it is because of gravity.
If it bounces back up it is because of gravity.
Actually, a ball bouncing up are due to Newton's laws of motion. When the ball hits the ground, the ground pushes back. See Law 3:
Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force F on the first body. F and F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
And since the ground is pushing back, Law 2 applies:
A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related to F by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. Alternatively, force is equal to the time derivative of momentum.
So, you see, gravity has nothing to do with it.
If comet flies into the solar system it is because of gravity.
If the comet slingshots around jupiter and permanently exits the solar system it is because of gravity.
This would deal more with Kepler's laws of planetary motion, angular momentum as well as gravity. See, if it were just gravity, the comet would simply fall into whatever body applying a gravitational force to the object. But there is much more to consider than just gravity. ...And your last one:
As for it slingshotting out... well, that seems happen when momentum is greater than the force gravity exerts on the object. In other words, if the comet slingshots around jupiter and permanently exits the solar system it is NOT because of gravity, but in spite of it.
If the tide rises it is because of gravity.
If the tide recedes it is because of gravity.
That's like saying, "if the day gets bright, it's because of the sun. If it gets dark, it's because of the sun." In other words... Um.... No. No one would say that. Tidal forces are due not just to gravity pulling on an object, but gravity from two different bodies pulling on an object. See, one body can not cause tidal forces. So, to say that it's caused by gravity is a gross oversimplification that no one would make. They may say that tides rise because of gravity, but they would say that they fall because of gravity. They may say something like "tides fall because of LACK of gravity" but that's not true either. It would be that tides fall because of a lack of gravity from the object that caused them to rise.
But to relate this back to AGW, see, we are hearing the very contradictory argument that you are saying is bunk. I've heard scientist say that AGW will lead to warmer temps. I've also heard that AGW will lead to colder temps. In the summer, we hear a from the first group. In the winter, we hear from the second. Hell, right now, I've heard both camps at the same time. I've heard that the lack of snow in Vancouver is due to AGW while also hearing that the snow in 49/50 US states is also due to AGW. I've heard that the increase in snow is because warmer air holds more moisture, resulting in more snow. (However, it appears that it is actually colder than it was this time last year, debunking that claim).
Here is a Vancouver's no snow is caused by AGW article:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Global-warming-comes-up-again-due-to-unusually-warm-Vancouver-Olympics
Here is an article that claims that the recent snow storms are because of AGW:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html
So, there you have it! Two serious articles claiming that AGW both causes more snow and less snow... IN THE SAME YEAR! See, it's not us AGW deniers making shit up.
Let me give you an example of another ridiculous argument I've actually read:
1) Global warming causes oceanic conveyor to stop because it melts the ice caps
2) This causes the area near the poles to become mu
And all the recorded historical data proves these to be facts, right?
Yes.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
Sorry, I mis-remembered: 2009 is the second warmest year on-record. 2000-2009 is still the warmest decade.
Is that with or without the data from the Siberian weather stations? Seems that all the cold spots have been omitted in some of the recent data sets. Is your source one of them?
Here is what I got from the article:
To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.
So... how can they claim that it's the warmest record in history when the control data set only includes data from 1951-1980? Why does Antarctica, which takes up only a small fraction of the earth's surface make up 1/3 of the report? Why not the arctic? And again, is this from the dataset where monitoring stations were mysteriously moved when they shouldn't have been, not moved when they should have been (like when a parking lot is build where the monitor stands), or omitted altogether, like was the case in Siberia.
In other words, the raw has been tampered with.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Republicans are suggesting that we do: keep pumping out billions of tons of CO2 a year and see what happens... There are easier ways to falsify AGW's predictions than to wait 40 years and take a look at the climate... Ocean acidification, changes in weather patterns over a statistically significant period of time that can not be explained through purely natural warming processes etc..
Yes. That is exactly what Republicans want. The GOP's secret mission statement is the pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a dastardly plot to destroy the world so that Dick Cheney can finally realize his dream of being the last man on earth when his final O2 canister runs out.
Oh, shit. You have found us out.
To clarify on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.
So, let's see if I understand.
If your first post, you basically said:
AGW predicts increasing Antarctic ice. We see increasing Antarctic ice, so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.
Then in your second post, you said:
Oh, wait, I just learned something. It appears that Antarctic ice is increasing in some places, but receding in others. This was predicted in AGW models so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.
Did I get that right?
Ever stop to consider that there is a reason we don't believe this shit? And I don't mean to rag on you, but this is the kind of crap that we hear all the time from what are supposed to be scientists. It's hot, so it proves AGW. It's cold, so it proves AGW. If there are more hurricanes, its AGW. If there are no hurricanes, its AGW. There is no snow at the Olympics because of AGW. There is too much snow in Washington because of AGW. Warmer temperatures mean AGW. Colder temps mean AGW.... and so on and so on and so on!
See, when you change historical data to make your model match current conditions, it's fraud. (AGW climatologists tend to throw out data that doesn't make sense to their models) You change the outcome of your model to match current conditions, it's fraud. (You see this one A LOT! Remember all the predictions that said hurricanes would increase and then we had a year with virtually no hurricanes? Remember the scramble to claim that the LACK of hurricanes was due to AGW?)
Reminds me of a line from Full Metal Jacket. It goes something like:
If it's hot, it's because of GW.
If it's cold, it's because of well disciplined GW.
Until you walk by an e-billboard and a loud commercial for some herpes treatment starts up.
That can work two ways. Consider the following:
You finally made it to the magical third date. You have a good idea as to what will happen, but you know she holds the cards. You took special care to clean your undercarriage and wear the underwear that has no holes or stains. You meet her at the restaurant. She is wearing something sexy! You... Are... In!
After a flawless dinner where you managed to not say anything stupid and she laughed at all your jokes, you are walking with her back to your car, hand in hand. You pass by one of the new billboards that recognizes your ID card's chip and gives you the new personal ads. You wonder what add will you get this time; WOW4? Duke Nukem Forever Expansion? XBox720? The new Android V? Nope. It looks like it picked up her card first.
Worried about your genital herpes? Try Herpago and get those bumps GONE!
We had a great evening. What, you think I'm going to let a virus filled pus pockets stop me? It's not like I get this chance very often. I'm a Slashdot user after all.