In Slap At Obama, GOP-Led House Moves To Block Steep Cuts To Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Where did you get that graph from? Why didn't you link the source?

Though I'm not sure what you are talking about with temperatures lagging behind CO2 levels, they look pretty spot on to me. Some variance yes, but all science has margins of error.

There is a lot of evidence that shows that CO2 trends lag behind temperature trends in the grand scheme of our planet's climate changes.

Where is it?

It's only simple logic if you look at the overall picture. You seem to keep dismissing that I acknowledge that humans probably play a small role in affecting the speed or direction at which the climate changes, but I can't accept that it is to the extreme that you and others believe and claim it to be.

I AM looking at the overall picture. It's all about derivatives. The RATE (derivative) of CO2 increase and thus rising temperatures is at an unprecedented level. Forget simple logic, that is simple math right there. Well I think Calculus is simple, you may disagree. Don't want to make any assumptions there.

I haven't been intellectually dishonest on that part, ever. I have never denied the possibility that we are affecting it, but I do claim that it is a tiny part of the big picture, if we are. And I would even argue that the earth has natural ways to correct, if need be, the affect that we're having, as evidenced by the reality that the climate has NEVER remained steady or stagnant.

The earth's ways to "correct" for it is probably going to involve kicking humans off the planet. And in reality what you are referring to is the changing mutations that happen according to evolution. Life will go on. The world will go on. It's human society that is at risk. No one is saying the world is going to blow up from global warming or that global warming is going to kill all life on the planet.

originally posted by: okrian
a reply to: yuppa

Uh, yeah... because the scientists are really raking it in out there... especially compared to those corporations.

Scientists have to prove what they say (or at least prove that, without a doubt, they are onto something) in order to get funding while corporations, well, they don't have to prove a thing, just use their same old tactics... advertising & rhetoric, lobbying (and everything horrifying that comes with that), monopolies, price fixing, law suits, dirty politics, etc. etc.

Scientist have been known to cook up false data too to support their findings. and when there is thi s money to b e made in the future i dont trust them. I fthey want to be believed get ALL 100 PERCENT scientist to agree on it. till then i have a shadow of a doubt.

a reply to: yuppa
So thats all you got? It's a conspiracy that scientist from all over the world are making up data? For what?

Climate scientists dont exactly make great money. However PR people for the oil industry do. If you truly want to follow the money, that's where it will take you.

I seriously dont think you understand how science research works. Scientists seek answers based on data, their conclusion is based on analyzing the data.

Lets say 97% of the scientists said a large asteroid was on a collision course with Earth and they suggest launching rockets at it to divert its course or destroy it, and this will cost A LOT OF MONEY. Would you then say, the consensus isnt strong enough and we shouldn't waste tax dollars trying to divert an asteroid that we are not 100% sure will hit Earth?

Furthermore, would you reason that asteroids have hit in the past and didn't destroy Earth, so why bother even trying to stop it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good!

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Simple observations show CO2 levels are increasing. Simple logic and deduction say that the CO2 is coming from human activity(burning coal and petroleum. Simple science says CO2 causes a warming effect, in fact this can and has been replicated and verified by elementary school science projects, its just that simple.

You are simply wrong and clearly are ignoring the simple science behind AGW.

scientific arrogance to believe man is solely responsible for any warming when there is evidence of increased radiation and heating everywhere in our solar system.

a reply to: yuppa

man is solely responsible

I don't believe I've seen someone say man is solely responsible. That's quite absurd. Did a member say that, or is it hyperbole?

there is evidence of increased radiation and heating everywhere in our solar system

Evidence? You mean there is data that shows increased radiation and heating in our solar system is having a direct effect on the warming of our planet?

Have a link to that info? I'd like to read-up on that.

Also, it must be noted that you are agreeing that the planet is warming, but your "evidence" shows it to be the fault of radiation, etc.

I guess that's a good place to start. At least you agree the planet is warming.

a reply to: introvert

never said th eplanet wasnt warming. it naturally goes up and down. no matter what we do. and ive posted that info before moths back. just search fo rit yourself. im not doing it again.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

never said th eplanet wasnt warming. it naturally goes up and down. no matter what we do. and ive posted that info before moths back. just search fo rit yourself. im not doing it again.

You will have to help me because I've tried to find a halfway reasonable source to educate myself on the heating-up of "everything", as you said, and have yet to find one rooted in fact or collected data.

What I have found is that not "everything" is heating-up and the main driver of heat and radiation in the solar system, our Sun, has shown a cooling trend over the last few decades.

So I will need your help to find that info that shows everything is heating up.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

never said th eplanet wasnt warming. it naturally goes up and down. no matter what we do. and ive posted that info before moths back. just search fo rit yourself. im not doing it again.

You will have to help me because I've tried to find a halfway reasonable source to educate myself on the heating-up of "everything", as you said, and have yet to find one rooted in fact or collected data.

What I have found is that not "everything" is heating-up and the main driver of heat and radiation in the solar system, our Sun, has shown a cooling trend over the last few decades.

So I will need your help to find that info that shows everything is heating up.

HEres. ill drop some newer links i just found.
climats changes of planets
REad th eCOMMENTS below. papertiger makes some VERY good points and points out evidence to support their posistion.

The next link it from ATS itself.www.abovetopsecret.com... Whole solar system warming.

Anyway im thinking the 97 percent numbers a flat out lie on scientific support. id say closer to 47 prolly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Where did you get that graph from? Why didn't you link the source?

Though I'm not sure what you are talking about with temperatures lagging behind CO2 levels, they look pretty spot on to me. Some variance yes, but all science has margins of error.

That graph is something that I still had uploaded from probably a year ago discussing climate issues, so I just threw it in here. At this exact point in time, I can't recall from which site I borrowed it, but I do know that it's the data that was taken from ice core samples, so while it does show a lag (you have to remember, that is showing hundreds of thousands of years, so an average 400-year lag won't be readily noticeable by looking at the graph), I concede that it only shows a lag for the arctic (I believe) region, and if we had similar core samples from the equator going back that far, those may tell a different story.

But we don't--at least, not that I've found, so disputing that evidence would be relative hearsay and speculation in comparison to that empirical data.

Where is it?

Please see our previous discussion about me not spoonfeeding you information easily found on the internet. Of course, it's easy to find data and claims that it precedes temperature changes, too, so you have to use your own due diligence to look at the data, the organization releasing the data, how the data was collected, etc., and make your own decision as to whether or not one claim outweighs the other scientifically. As long as you've done that and have come to your conclusion--even if it differs from mine--then I have no issue with your stance.

I AM looking at the overall picture. It's all about derivatives. The RATE (derivative) of CO2 increase and thus rising temperatures is at an unprecedented level. Forget simple logic, that is simple math right there. Well I think Calculus is simple, you may disagree. Don't want to make any assumptions there.

But your ignoring the point that 135 years of data (only about 40-50 of those years are collected with relatively accurate instruments) showing a deduced correlation between CO2 increases in a few developed nations and a rise in global temperature (which was already rising) and changes in climate patterns (before which we have sketchy information about at best) does not equate to hard evidence that we are affecting the overall climate in any major way.

The earth's ways to "correct" for it is probably going to involve kicking humans off the planet. And in reality what you are referring to is the changing mutations that happen according to evolution. Life will go on. The world will go on. It's human society that is at risk. No one is saying the world is going to blow up from global warming or that global warming is going to kill all life on the planet.

In reference to the italicized portion of this, that whooshing sound is your credibility flying out of the window.

As far as the rest--"human society" is always at risk from natural processes and changes. In fact, it has been ever since H. sapien began walking on the planet. But the difference between those humans that survived and allowed our species to flourish and our current society is that they moved and adapted in order to survive; we just sit around, whining about rising sea levels flooding our streets or droughts happening more frequently, and expect people to pay money to fix a problem in lieu of moving in order to survive.

Our species has become narcissistic idiots, thinking we can control the earth instead of the other way around. Naturally warming climate cycles are not going to kill off our species, our stubborn, fixed-position lifestyles will.

a reply to: jrod

I was wondering when you'd chime in.

Thanks for your opinion on the matter.

Simple observation shows that CO2 levels have been dramatically higher in the past when life flourished on this planet (not in that graph I posted, but it's fact nonetheless). Human activity didn't cause that.

But I'm not ignoring that we're putting CO2 in the atmosphere, nor that we're having an effect on the current weather patterns (not climate) on the earth. I am, however, saying that the alarmist and overblown claims from those who espouse the AGW theory are hyperboles of the truth.

And citing elementary school experiments whose concentrations of CO2 are dramatically higher than what's in our atmosphere proves nothing. I could prove that cyanide can kill a human in certain doses, but that doesn't mean that I can't eat the seeds of an apple and survive without any major noticeable effect on my body. Yet, I'm sure that if a doctor were to take detailed enough readings of my functions and zoom in to the data to a ridiculously small level, the resulting chart would look catastrophic, all while I'm living a perfectly normal existence.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But we don't--at least, not that I've found, so disputing that evidence would be relative hearsay and speculation in comparison to that empirical data.

I'm not going to discuss an unsourced graph.

Please see our previous discussion about me not spoonfeeding you information easily found on the internet. Of course, it's easy to find data and claims that it precedes temperature changes, too, so you have to use your own due diligence to look at the data, the organization releasing the data, how the data was collected, etc., and make your own decision as to whether or not one claim outweighs the other scientifically. As long as you've done that and have come to your conclusion--even if it differs from mine--then I have no issue with your stance.

Do you doubt my due diligence?

But your ignoring the point that 135 years of data (only about 40-50 of those years are collected with relatively accurate instruments) showing a deduced correlation between CO2 increases in a few developed nations and a rise in global temperature (which was already rising) and changes in climate patterns (before which we have sketchy information about at best) does not equate to hard evidence that we are affecting the overall climate in any major way.

There is more than JUST that that proves CO2's effect with climate change. Like I've said previously, CO2 has been a factor in past climate changes. Therefore it is simple logic to assume that man producing tons of CO2 would have an effect on the climate. Everything you said above is just rationalizing away the data. "Oh look, we have what appears to be a troubling correlation between CO2 output and increasing temperatures" "Nope, nothing to see here, the climate was already warming already. Never mind that the rate (derivative) of the temperature increase is unprecedented or anything."

In reference to the italicized portion of this, that whooshing sound is your credibility flying out of the window.

*eyeroll* I doubt you had any credibility for me in the first place. But then again, I don't make remarks about my intelligence to hype up my credibility like saying I could be a Mensa candidate or anything. I just post links to people more credible than I am that show what I am saying. I let my evidence speak for itself.

As far as the rest--"human society" is always at risk from natural processes and changes. In fact, it has been ever since H. sapien began walking on the planet. But the difference between those humans that survived and allowed our species to flourish and our current society is that they moved and adapted in order to survive; we just sit around, whining about rising sea levels flooding our streets or droughts happening more frequently, and expect people to pay money to fix a problem in lieu of moving in order to survive.

WEEEEELL, if the right would get their heads out of their asses and actually join the conversation about solutions to climate change instead of continuing to beat the dead horse about it being real or not maybe there would be a solution that didn't involve Carbon credits we could get behind? Stop complaining about the solutions Democrats propose if you guys aren't proposing your own solutions.

Our species has become narcissistic idiots, thinking we can control the earth instead of the other way around. Naturally warming climate cycles are not going to kill off our species, our stubborn, fixed-position lifestyles will.

Well I'd say that the rest of the world is trying to prevent global warming from killing us off by trying to think up solutions to it. Meanwhile, here in the states the longer we talk about it being real or not, nothing gets done and that really WILL kill us off.

It's already happening whether you want to admit it or not. We are starting to see the drastic effects of climate change already and it's only getting worse. Your position, as the years go on, is going to look more and more ridiculous.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Do you doubt my due diligence?

I doubt your impartial due diligence, yes.

As I'm sure you do mine.

There is more than JUST that that proves CO2's effect with climate change. Like I've said previously, CO2 has been a factor in past climate changes. Therefore it is simple logic to assume that man producing tons of CO2 would have an effect on the climate. Everything you said above is just rationalizing away the data. "Oh look, we have what appears to be a troubling correlation between CO2 output and increasing temperatures" "Nope, nothing to see here, the climate was already warming already. Never mind that the rate (derivative) of the temperature increase is unprecedented or anything."

Well, for one, the rate of increase in temperature is not unprecedented, just unprecedented (and even that's disputable if we're being impartial) for the tiny portion of time since we've started paying attention.

As for the bolded portion--for the last GD time, I'm not making that claim, so quit pretending that I am. Seriously, get over yourself on that point.

*eyeroll* I doubt you had any credibility for me in the first place. But then again, I don't make remarks about my intelligence to hype up my credibility like saying I could be a Mensa candidate or anything. I just post links to people more credible than I am that show what I am saying. I let my evidence speak for itself.

Ha...that wasn't to hype up anything, it was just to make a point that I'm not the imbecile that your comment to me appear to imply that you think I am. Like I said when I made the comment, I don't care if you believe that point, but it is what it is.

And to be fair, I do give you some credibility on parts of this topic, but I fail to trust that you, as I noted above, have put forth the appropriate effort into impartial research on this subject. I have no doubt that you have researched the pro-AGW sites and graphs and data, just not the skeptical side's scientific work that might raise a little doubt in your head that maybe the alarmism isn't necessary. I think you approach this topic illogically because you don't have the info from all sides, as is evident in you constantly parroting the phrase similar to, "show me the data...where is a link...show me the data...where is a link...," when just a little minimal research would get you the data and links.

WEEEEELL, if the right would get their heads out of their asses and actually join the conversation about solutions to climate change instead of continuing to beat the dead horse about it being real or not maybe there would be a solution that didn't involve Carbon credits we could get behind? Stop complaining about the solutions Democrats propose if you guys aren't proposing your own solutions.

LOL...you assume I'm a republican or on "the right."

This is further evidence concerning your lack of credibility--you make a false assumption of me AND you think that my stance on this is political.

Hilarious.

Well I'd say that the rest of the world is trying to prevent global warming from killing us off by trying to think up solutions to it. Meanwhile, here in the states the longer we talk about it being real or not, nothing gets done and that really WILL kill us off.

It's already happening whether you want to admit it or not. We are starting to see the drastic effects of climate change already and it's only getting worse. Your position, as the years go on, is going to look more and more ridiculous.

Says the hyperbole queen. But the reality is that the AGW stance and its alarmist, overblown predictions are what look ridiculous, as they keep never happening. So, you can make unproveable claims about the future if you want, but that is a logical-fallacy bandwagon that I'm going to try avoid.

Problem with the title of the thread:

There is zero proof BASED ON PROVEN SCIENCE that any of these gases put into the atmosphere by anything man does has any level enough to effect any change in CLIMATE. Thus calling them greenhouse gases is invalid and improper if consideration of man's influence on the climate is the issue.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Ha...that wasn't to hype up anything, it was just to make a point that I'm not the imbecile that your comment to me appear to imply that you think I am. Like I said when I made the comment, I don't care if you believe that point, but it is what it is.

You didn't say that to me though. You said it to someone else. I just thought it was ridiculous even when it was said to that person.

And to be fair, I do give you some credibility on parts of this topic, but I fail to trust that you, as I noted above, have put forth the appropriate effort into impartial research on this subject. I have no doubt that you have researched the pro-AGW sites and graphs and data, just not the skeptical side's scientific work that might raise a little doubt in your head that maybe the alarmism isn't necessary. I think you approach this topic illogically because you don't have the info from all sides, as is evident in you constantly parroting the phrase similar to, "show me the data...where is a link...show me the data...where is a link...," when just a little minimal research would get you the data and links.

I repeat that mantra because it isn't my responsibility to prove your claims. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of what you are talking about though. The reason I want you to prove your claims is so I can get a baseline for what you are talking about. I can just as easily google something and get a source that says the exact opposite of what you are saying, after all you wanted me to google your claims.

LOL...you assume I'm a republican or on "the right."

Did I? Where did I say anything about YOUR political affiliation specifically?

This is further evidence concerning your lack of credibility--you make a false assumption of me AND you think that my stance on this is political.

Hilarious.

Says the guy who just straw manned my argument.

Says the hyperbole queen. But the reality is that the AGW stance and its alarmist, overblown predictions are what look ridiculous, as they keep never happening. So, you can make unproveable claims about the future if you want, but that is a logical-fallacy bandwagon that I'm going to try avoid.

But they ARE happening. There is real time data that shows the models are accurate. There is real time data showing the climate changing. Just because you don't want to believe that man is causing it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You didn't say that to me though. You said it to someone else. I just thought it was ridiculous even when it was said to that person.

Let me ask you something--in another thread, you quoted two people doing ad hominem attacks against you and you asked them to stop talking about you and to get back on topic.

Because of this thread, I chuckled at that. But in any event, what you consider ridiculous is irrelevant to me.

I repeat that mantra because it isn't my responsibility to prove your claims. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of what you are talking about though. The reason I want you to prove your claims is so I can get a baseline for what you are talking about. I can just as easily google something and get a source that says the exact opposite of what you are saying, after all you wanted me to google your claims.

But it is your responsibility to research on your own into things that may contradict what you "know" to be scientific truth.


But therein lies the problem...we can each contradict eachother's statements with valid scientific research. My whole consistent point as to why I'm a skeptic and not a denier--I'm intelligent enough to realize that the science isn't settled, nor is even the machine that drives the earth's climate fully understood. So, by asking you to research it yourself is an acknowledgment that we both can contradict each other with scientific papers and data, so I'm not going to do the leg work that will most likely result in a merry-go-round, never-ending discussion (like we're currently in).

Although I do appreciate you wanting a baseline for my claims, I don't think that it will convince you or change your mind about anything. Only an internal desire to seek out the foundational claims and science for both sides will do that.

But they ARE happening. There is real time data that shows the models are accurate. There is real time data showing the climate changing. Just because you don't want to believe that man is causing it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

No, the real time data shows that something is happening--something I attribute arbitrarily to about 95% being part of our natural cycle. But I was discussing the alarmist and hyperboles put for by the loudest (and most extreme) of the AGW crowd, like dying polar bears, and ice-free North Poles, and shrinking ice in the Antarctic at an alarming rate (when the average has been shown to be an increase in land ice mass). Hurricane predictions aren't coming true. Claims that there will no longer be any snow are not true.

These types of claims--like where a polar bear will seek you out and hug you in your driveway for buying a Prius (yes, I know that was supposed to be funny)--are what scare those apathetic or allergic to research and understanding. Those are the types of BS claims that have been circulating for decades that have scared the politically and scientifically unintelligent into buying into the claims from the beginning, then making the following like a religion and shaming them into thinking that if they don't adhere to the claims and believe them, that they are terrible human beings and set on destruction of the planet.

It's utter ass garbage. Hopefully we are both intelligent enough to understand reality lies in between the extremes of what I just said and those you cite as saying the earth isn't warming and it's all a lie. We just seem to be closer to the middle, but you're on one side of the fence and I'm on the other.

And for the last effing time, I have not said that man isn't causing climate change, I just think man's role as a catalyst is inconsequential to that of nature...and that is why I feel that all of these attempts to halt or reverse the warming that I see as being necessary in the cycle of our planet and its health will do more harm than good, and I don't think that people stop to question that part of it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I cited elementary science fair projects because they show how simple the concept of radiative forcing is to verify, something you completely ignore and instead rant about CO2 temperature lag, in my opinion you are just regurgitate rhetoric you get from the AGW/science denying websites.

Never have mammals thrived in a CO2 rich world, your belief that because Earth had high CO2 levels in the past so there is nothing to worry about is void of logic, unless you think our species ability to thrive is not important.

It truly takes some mental gymnastics for a reasonably intelligent person to down play the 40% rise of CO2 that we are not only observing, but can attribute using science to burning petroleum and coal.

We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and some of you just want to put on the blinders and pretend this is not a problem.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But it is your responsibility to research on your own into things that may contradict what you "know" to be scientific truth.

I never said I don't do that though. You are assuming that I don't.

But therein lies the problem...we can each contradict eachother's statements with valid scientific research. My whole consistent point as to why I'm a skeptic and not a denier--I'm intelligent enough to realize that the science isn't settled, nor is even the machine that drives the earth's climate fully understood. So, by asking you to research it yourself is an acknowledgment that we both can contradict each other with scientific papers and data, so I'm not going to do the leg work that will most likely result in a merry-go-round, never-ending discussion (like we're currently in).

Because you don't trust my integrity to honestly read your sources. Believe it or not, I've had my mind changed by posters on these forums posting quality evidence that I was unable to refute.

Although I do appreciate you wanting a baseline for my claims, I don't think that it will convince you or change your mind about anything. Only an internal desire to seek out the foundational claims and science for both sides will do that.

Which you don't believe that I do.

No, the real time data shows that something is happening--something I attribute arbitrarily to about 95% being part of our natural cycle. But I was discussing the alarmist and hyperboles put for by the loudest (and most extreme) of the AGW crowd, like dying polar bears, and ice-free North Poles, and shrinking ice in the Antarctic at an alarming rate (when the average has been shown to be an increase in land ice mass). Hurricane predictions aren't coming true. Claims that there will no longer be any snow are not true.

Hyperbole by politicians and keyboard warriors is one thing, but what about the predictions made by actual scientists that ARE accurate and not only accurate are being shown to be under reported? I know I posted a link to that somewhere in this thread a few times.

These types of claims--like where a polar bear will seek you out and hug you in your driveway for buying a Prius (yes, I know that was supposed to be funny)--are what scare those apathetic or allergic to research and understanding. Those are the types of BS claims that have been circulating for decades that have scared the politically and scientifically unintelligent into buying into the claims from the beginning, then making the following like a religion and shaming them into thinking that if they don't adhere to the claims and believe them, that they are terrible human beings and set on destruction of the planet.

As opposed to all the hyperbole and rhetoric from the denier crowd talking about hockey sticks and carrying snowballs into Congress or comparing weather to climate? My favorite is the continual claim that climate scientists are pushing AGW for the money, but when you point out all the money being dumped into denying the science, you get crickets.

Don't pretend like the denier camp isn't full of its own levels of ridiculous hyperbole and rhetoric either.

It's utter ass garbage. Hopefully we are both intelligent enough to understand reality lies in between the extremes of what I just said and those you cite as saying the earth isn't warming and it's all a lie. We just seem to be closer to the middle, but you're on one side of the fence and I'm on the other.

Reality always lands in the middle of the extremes, that's why I get angry at people who quote me politicians like Al Gore's words on climate change instead of the actual scientists on the matter.

And for the last effing time, I have not said that man isn't causing climate change, I just think man's role as a catalyst is inconsequential to that of nature...and that is why I feel that all of these attempts to halt or reverse the warming that I see as being necessary in the cycle of our planet and its health will do more harm than good, and I don't think that people stop to question that part of it.

Fine. Let's try this approach then. What's the harm in trying then? If we are all wrong about it and there is nothing to be done, would you have rather we did nothing or go out swinging?

a reply to: jrod

But it's just as easily shown that the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, along with compositional changes in the atmosphere and oceans could be the result of natural processes.

You choose to latch on to the teat of AGW theory and science, and I prefer to be somewhere in the middle, acknowledging that we are playing a part, but that much of what you cite is often related more to localized issues than global, and that there's not the level of understanding concerning the climate and all of its mechanisms as you seem to believe that there is.

It's okay, but to claim that my opinion and stance on the issue is a result of wearing blinders and playing make believe is as asinine as saying by 2015, there would be no more ice at the North Pole. Or back when you argued against me that the average in Antarctica concerning land ice is on the increase, not the decrease. Or myriad other things.

Just implying that someone is unreasonable because they have come to different conclusions than you doesn't make it so, and any reasonably intelligent human being could see that a skeptical, moderate stance on the issue makes much more sense than what you spout off and claim in your dire warnings and scientific reports (that can too often be scientifically disputed).

But like I've said to you before, I have no desire to change your mind, and you obviously continue to consider skeptics of AGW theories to be relatively unintelligent, so debating with you is pointless.

I, on the other hand, just see you as ideological and unwilling to entertain the total of the climate science out there that refutes your favorite theories--but that doesn't mean that I find you unintelligent, just unbalanced in your research, and I think you approach all dissenting studies with the goal of disproving them. I could be wrong, but from what I've seen in how you respond to links and data posted, I don't think that I am.