Redstate

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

You'll notice that there is no GW whatsoever from 1979-86, 1987-1994, or (as Jacoby points out) from '98 -2006. You see, if you choose your window selectively enough (as Jacoby does) you can make whatever case you want.

You'll also note that if you do anything remotely statistically responsible (like taking a 5 year rolling average), its pretty obvious that global warming is, alas, very much with us.

The only way Jacoby and others can make their case is by cherry-picking data. But this is easily debunked by simply looking up a temperature record. I found one with 30 seconds google searching.

Why is it that no one... NO ONE... on Red State fact-checked Jacoby by looking up the temperature record themselves when he told you something you wanted to hear?

I thought Red Staters were supposed to take a sketpical attitude towards all GW claims...

the "avg. worldwide temp." citing in your chart rose HALF A DEGREE C. Good Lord, it's the end of the world! So yes, I am very skeptical.

I've seen charts going back thousands of years and the Earth's temperatures CYCLE. Warm periods, cold periods. It's called nature. Have you seen the one showing that it was hotter through the middle ages? They didn't even know what fossil fuels were back then.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bast**** -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” ~ David Roberts
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Based on your graph, it looks like we were able to nip Global Cooling in the bud about 1910, when the negative "temperature anomaly" (whatever that is) was about the same order of magnitude as today's positive "anomaly".

Thanks God for the internal combustion engine, eh?

And 150 years? Who are you accusing of cherry-picking data?

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

(including Red State, Jacoby, etc) would anyone try to defend the claim that the graph above actually indicates that temperature is not rising.

Most serious Deniers gave up this line of defense years ago, and have moved on claims based on a personal responsibility ("but its not our fault!") or can-do optimism ("there's nothing we can do about it")!

If you don't know what "temperature anomaly means try a) using your dictionary, b) googling for the phrase, or c) reading pretty much anything about global warming. Oh, never mind, I'll save you the trouble, since you don't appear to be doing any of those things: its the amount above or below the (in this case) 1960-90 average.

Your keen observation that 1910 temperatures were almost as far below the 1960-90 average as they are now above it has absolutely no relevance to anything, let alone the internal combustion engine.

150 years is chosen for several reasons. One, that's about how far direct measurements of temperature go back. Indirect measures go back farther, but they are controversial. However, they show that current temps are unprecedented in the last millenium or so. (Contrary to what a poster above mentioned, temperatures ARE warmer than in the middle ages.) If you doubt any of this, try finding a temperature record in a peer-reviewed journal.

Additionally, 150 years includes time a) before a buildup of CO2 unprecedented in the last few million years, and b) after a buildup of CO2 unprecedented in the last few million years.

Finally, in response to a poster above, a half degree is of relatively modest concern. Two or three degrees is considered much more serious. Four or five degrees is considered catastrophic. If you don't know why scientists hold these views (or consider it likely that temperature will continue to increase), try to understand their reasoning before making up your mind whether you agree with it.

the previous responses, it might have occurred to you that people weren't questioning whether warming had occurred, but whether it was still occurring. If you look at the global average temperature data from the University of East Anglica and the Hadley center http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ it appears that we may have reached an inflexion point in the temperature anomaly curve, with global average temperature essentially flat since 2000 and decreasing in the Souther Hemisphere.
. While there have been other inflexion points in those graphs, the current point is different in that at previous points, temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were not falling, as they appear to be now. Since we passed the last solar maximum in late 2000 per this article

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm

it stands to reason that we should be seeing some cooling. In fact if we look back to 1989 (approx 11 years from 2000), we saw a leveling off of the rise in global average temperature. However, this leveling off did not see a decrease in temperature in the Southern hemisphere as is seen in the current data. Therefore, one might well question if this current warming cycle has not peaked.
.
Regarding your assertion that current temperatures are higher than any in the medieval period, my response is "hogwash". While there may not be temperature data for the Medieval Optimum period (since they didn't have thermometers), there is plenty of historical data showing the growing of grapes in England, as well as farming in Greenland, which is impossible today. Just because the existance of this period doesn't fit your catastrophy scenarios, doesn't mean it did not occur.
.
It's going to take more than chicken little scenarios based on flawed computer models to convince me that we should give up the benefits of fossil fuels (such as being able to support the Earth's current population.
.
Has the Earth warmed. Of course, it has done so many times. Is the current warming trend unprecedented and catastrophic? The historical record says no.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Think Global Warming Alarmists like you are not just kooks, but stupid...

At the rate of .5C every 100 years, we're talking 600+ years to get that 3 degree change, let alone the additional 200+ years to get to "catastrophic change".

Now, what's cheaper and easier (not to mention better for our economy)?
A) Trying to prevent this climate change by fundamentally changing our way of life

or

B) Build levees to protect the at-risk cities?

Oh, and just for curiousity's sake, what are YOU doing about Global Warming?

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

150 years is chosen for several reasons. One, that's about how far direct measurements of temperature go back. Indirect measures go back farther, but they are controversial. However, they show that current temps are unprecedented in the last millenium or so. (Contrary to what a poster above mentioned, temperatures ARE warmer than in the middle ages.)

Summary: Data outside my sample is wholly unreliable. However, data within my sample is way higher than those outside my sample.

Analysis: Truly, sir, you do have a dizzying intellect.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." -- Bill Cosby

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Still here, just lurking... and actually yes, enjoying what is a surprisingly mild European winter.

And for all the rejoicing about this "anti-AGW" article, it's logic seems to be pretty random. You can say "wow, it's cold, guess that global warming thing was a bust", or you can say "there's no AGW scientific consensus, just look at all these scientists who say that AGW is real, but curbing CO2 emissions will hurt us more than adaptation", but those are not the same argument. In fact, they directly contradict each other!

It's also interesting that while so many here seem unwilling to trust scientists to represent their field of expertise, the second a bunch of scientists start making ECONOMIC predictions, they're suddenly being hailed as bastions of common sense.

Happy New Year all, it's good to be back! :)

When they're being objective, with FACTS, that is. Not unproven hypothesis. Facts. Did you even read the article? They're not talking about just 2007 here.

Show me a scientist who still believes the Earth is flat. Show me a scientist who doesn't believe in nuclear fission. The problem is, the whole AGW arguement is shrouded by politics and being pushed by politicians. No one has proven that AGW doesn't exist - and no one has proven that it does.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Your judgement on whether scientists are being "objective with facts" seems to be very subjective in itself. As a proscription, it also seems to misrepresent the situation we face. Flat vs globe, fission vs not are matters that were hypothesised about for many years, and about which it was later possible to prove definitively.

Chances are we will one day be able to definitely prove whether AGW is occuring, but if at that point the hypotheses of much of today's scientific community are proved correct, chances are it will be far too late to offset some potentially disastrous effects on human society.

Much like sailors who put out to sea with their faith placed in the scientific hypothesis that they would NOT fall off the edge of the world, humanity is going to have to make its decisions regarding AGW and CO2 based on the scientific community's "best guess".

"Much like sailors who put out to sea with their faith placed in the scientific hypothesis that they would NOT fall off the edge of the world, humanity is going to have to make its decisions regarding AGW and CO2 based on the scientific community's 'best guess'."

Actually, that is a common misconception. It was never widely believed that the earth was flat. In fact, a Greek mathematician not only proved that the earth was round, but calculated the circumference of the earth to within a few hundred miles, using the length of shadows in two cities and the distance between those cities. Even earlier it had been observed that a ship "sank" into the ocean as it got further away - and this was recognized as indicating the earth was round.

The belief that "everyone used to think the earth was flat and sailors would fall off" developed largely from the works of Washington Irving. In fact, while most people believe Columbus was proved correct in his contention that the earth was round by sailing west from Europe and discovering land about where he expected it to be, it should be pointed out that the land Columbus expected to find was India, China, or Japan - in other words, he thought the earth was smaller than everyone else, and was proven wrong, but still made a great discovery.

Thus, the analogy you use for preparing for global warming is not a good one, since it is not based in historical reality.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

...happen based on a flimsy theory that's been challenged by many reputable scientists, we must:

1. Not drill for any of our own oil leaving us beholden to Middle-Eastern and Venezuelan oil tycoons who use our money to support those who want to kill us. Meanwhile, our oil prices continue to rise.

2. Not build any new refineries which contributes to higher fuel prices. This of course affects the prices of everything else we buy.

3. Continue to subsidize ethanol production, driving up the cost of food since we're now using corn for fuel. Farmland gets diverted to corn crops, driving up the cost of wheat (and everything else at the grocery store). I've noticed the price of bread almost double over the past 3 years and I hear the Mexicans aren't very happy about the price of tortillas.

4. Force auto manufacturers to build cars that get 100 mpg. The result? 50 hp cars made of cardboard = more highway fatalities. Make them hybrids with expensive batteries (full of toxic chemicals) that must be replaced every few years. Oh and yes, we'll need to upgrade our electical grid to accomodate electric cars. Ready for more rolling blackouts? We could always build a few new nuclear plants but, well, your know the liberals won't let that happen either.

I know there's even more but I really need to get back to work. So I'll ask you this: Even if the US quit burning fossil fuels completely, how are you going to get China, India, Russia, etc. to do the same? What difference will it make? What happens when the next big volcano erupts? How are you gonna handle all those greenhouse gasses? And what about the sun? I remember a Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns built a big umbrella to block the sun.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

is a 1 deg C increase in temperature over the next 100 years, your hypothesis that it "will be far too late to offset some potentially disastrous effects on human society", is hogwash. The reason scientists used to be trusted is because they used to limit themselves to science and stayed out of politics. However, when some political shill like Hansen hawks catastrophy scenarios from computer models based on unreal starting data, is it any wonder when people start questioning scientists' credibility. Scientific consensus has never been fact. It wasn't when the majority of scientists believed the Earth the center of the solar system and it isn't now.

...like thermostats located by A/C compressors!! LOL!!! And that's just the tip of the iceberg from what I've read.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign..

is that most of the catastrophic computer projections start with CO2 levels for the current time period, much higher than have actually occurred. This is not exactly the way to establish credability.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

But Jacoby is, by almost any definintion, a very moderate conservative. A great guy, and a superb speaker (had the pleasure several times), but certainly not some sort of hardcore rightwinger.

That's all I'm saying.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

And now we are on the downside.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

is why we at RedState love AGW apologists.

It's their stick-to-it-iveness, their determination in the face of ever mounting contrary data - abso-freaking-lutely nothing phases them!

Severe hurricane season? -> Global Warming.
Mild hurricane season? -> Global Warming.
Drought? -> Global Warming.
Too much rain? -> Global Warming.
Not enough snow? -> Global Warming.
Too much snow? -> Global Warming.
Arctic ice shrinks? -> Global Warming.
Arctic ice grows? -> Global Warming.
Heck, weather directly opposity to what the Gorecle told us to expect? -> Global Warming.

It's not AWG, folks - it's the long sought-after unified field theory they're selling!

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

The dyslexia on AGW got to me!

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

...if "random weather" is off the table, what would it take in your mind to disprove anthropogenic global warming climate change?

[To the peanut gallery ... five bucks says that the evidence required to disprove "climate change" is a lot more robust and specific than the evidence they have right now to support it... we sall see...]

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

I could have done with some global warming n/t
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

1st: a stabilisation of our climate, where temperature variation tends towards a mean, or a major slowing in the average annual increase trend. I strongly believe that increasing temperatures are not going to kill us - it is the rate that those increasing temperatures rise. If entire climate systems shift rapidly, forests are unable to relocate, migration paths are disrupted (of land mammals, birds, fish, whales etc.), and man is not capable of preparing for the exodus of the human population centres on the coasts.

2nd:CO2 (and other green house gases other than water) is proven to have a minimal effect on the climate. At the moment that seems incredibly unlikely - historic evidence suggests increases in CO2 due to feedback loops have driven climate change before and the basic physics has been explained.

3rd:Man is proven to have negligible effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Currently it has been demonstrated that natural carbon sinks are not compensating for our activity and there is a net influx of carbon into the atmosphere.

I realise that this theory flies in the face of the ideology of redstate, and that's unfortunate, because I would have hoped some could get beyond the partisanship and look at the theory without dismissing it as a liberal conspiracy beforehand, I really wasn't expecting quite so much vitriol as a new poster though.

See Joliphant's post on being flatlined since '98, and the BG article.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

2005 might be a 'dead heat' with 1998, but I would hardly consider that significant yet. I'm talking about long term stability - which simply hasn't occurred.

This is probably my least preferred method of falsifiability - the wait and see how bunged up the climate gets, and then concede defeat at the point of no return. If conservatives are going to oppose climate change they're going to have to offer something with a better guarantee than that.

And don't try to tell me 150 years is longterm...
That's just an eyeblink, climatically speaking.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

1st: stabilization to a mean - presumes that stable climate is the norm; see http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Vostok_long.html
Somehow earth managed some pretty wild climatic changes without man's input. It is the stability of the last 10,000 yrs that is anomalous.

2nd & 3rd: you're asking for proof of a negative proposition. The earth (including feedback loops) & sun are not the stable, well understood systems that you imply.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

but the general sentiment of conservatives. It's tiring when conservatives are jumping on every editorial and twisted fact to decry - "IT'S A CONSPIRACY BY POOR SCIENTISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS and DEMOCRATS!" That's not how to debate your point.

I accept that the earth has had major swings in temperature in the past. Notice how the up swings are incredibly rapid and the down swings are slow? But even the incredibly rapid up swings occur over thousands of years. The big spike in that Vostok graph took ~5000 to rise 12 degrees centigrade - about 400 years per degree. By all indications temperature has risen (despite a cool effect mid century by aerosols) by about 0.8-1 degree c in 100 years, and is projected to rise somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees by 2100. Is that anomalous? Perhaps. But it's certainly not something to dismiss when there is a vast amount of evidence that it is at least partly due to us. The questions that need to be asked are "how high is it going to go"; "how are we going to adapt" and "how can we mitigate it".

As for numbers 2 and 3, it's quite simple - show that CO2 concentrations are not increasing in the atmosphere and show that CO2 does not have radiative qualities with regards to infra red.

"IT'S A CONSPIRACY BY POOR SCIENTISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS and DEMOCRATS!" That's not how to debate your point."

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

"Except when it IS"

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

...undermines all your arguments.

You keep referring to "temperature stability" as if that's the norm. Relative stability has only been a feature of earth's climate for the last 10,000 years. Given the history of the last 400,000, it is the stability in the last 10,000 years that is the really anomalous feature.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

More like the 20th century has the most stable temperatures ever recorded. Its a singular anomaly in the temperature record.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Seasonal fires in places that have seasonal fires, drought in desert areas, and finding out that the ice pacik is actually increasing.
Only people selling something would mischaracterize these things as signs of great change.

Molon Labe!

Mars, a planet on which the only input to the weather system is solar energy (no humidity, no volcanism, no life, no SUVs) has apparently been warming during the same 20 years we've been seeing apparently anomolous warming on Earth, and there's some indications that Neptune's been doing the same.

The whole AGW debate puts me in mind of the Bohr model of the atom - a really elegant theory who's only problem was that it produced predictions that didn't match empirical data.
___________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

From the drive bys favorite maverick. How best to get drive by coverage than to embrace one of the favorite hoaxes of the drive bys?

That's why AMNESTY man says he isn't for AMNESTY that he stated he wanted in the first place ...

Get the drive bys on his side is the mavericks game. Always has been.

...because you are an evil oil baron who is hell-bent on stealing the planet's natural resources from the indigeonous people to line your own pocket and the pockets of other rich fat cat capitalist investors.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

I just got my VRWC Membership Card in the mail yesterday and was wondering if that gets me a discount on dues...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

And we're going to do all that by filling our tanks with vegetable oil, putting up windmills, and legislating higher mileage! All we need to do is replace all the cars in the country with bicycles and we'll be halfway there!
______________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

Whatever you think, its more than a 100 plus years, which is the only reliable temperature data we have. How arrogant of us to say we can tell there is a big problem with global warming based on so little evidence.

Its even crazier to say we caused it, or can do anything about it.

Isn't it funny that all the solutions sound like Stalin in the 1930's. I wonder why.

What is that quote about the road to hell being paved by good intentions?

...the ounce of prevention costs you billions of dollars? I think it's a little different than comparing it to "the earth has a cold, and we need to give it meds" logic. If the ounce of prevention is just that, an ounce, and the cost is truly in the billions of dollars, then that has to enter into the equation, doesn't it?

I'm a rural, backwoods kind of guy, so I also believe in being cautious and careful stewards of our environment. I think the economics/benefits part really needs to be looked at though.

NASA, after fixing a computer "glitch" in 2006 reported that the warmest year on record was actually 1947. I think economically it would make sense to look at the science, at least a little more than we have, before commiting to spending billions of dollars that may have zero effect.

Joe Schmo's blog

It's not just the money (which, by the way, I've seen estimated in the trillions), it's the lives. There are 1.3 billion people in India and 1.5 billion in China, not to mention the emerging economies in Africa. All of the "solutions" to AGW will effectively prevent these countries from industrializing, which will lead to lives of crushing poverty for the majority of those people, at a time when they're finally poised to share in the prosperity that the industrial revolution brought to the rest of the world.

As for that whole "diplomacy" thing, good luck convincing China to stop building power plants, when it's not even possible to get them to stop selling weapons to Iran and Syria, or to pressure that lunatic in North Korea from building nuclear weapons.
___________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

Joe Schmo's blog

...so in figuring out whether spending billions now is a good idea, I would weigh those billions against the future costs if the AGW scenario is correct, and apply some reasonable discount factor for the uncertainty of it all.

I am under the impression (solely through the MSM, for what that's worth) that the future costs of a median AGW outcome are in the many trillions of dollars.

So if it is billions now to essentially buy insurance against a multi-trillion-dollar event at some point in the future, the billions begin to look like a reasonable insurance premium to pay.

I also do not think that throwing around terms like "Stalinist" in the discussion is helpful. I haven't heard of AGW proponents building Gulags, purging the Red Army or starving the peasant population, so I would think that the use of the term "Stalinist" to describe the AGW folks is inaccurate.

Comparing people who I think mean well to one of history's most prolific mass murderers is unfair and intellectually dishonest on any level.

Gar

Yes if you listen to the MSM.

Historically though warming has been a good thing. Longer growing seasons, more stable climates milder winters etc you get the picture.

You realize during the revolutionary war we were getting snows in june and july ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I think when you refer to billions, you're thinking of compliance costs to meet the Kyoto treaty requirements (non-conservatively etimated at approx. $750 billion worldwide). However, based on the computer models so loved by the AGW crowd, complete compliance with the Kyoto treaty would only reduce the Global average temperature by approx. 0.14 deg C over the next 100 years. Given the consensus warming projections are about 1.0 deg C, what have you accomplished? Nothng, except to waste many 100's of billions of dollars (and probably stymie any economic growth). If you want to really take a bite out global warming (at least according to your beloved computer models, you're going to pretty much have to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels worldwide. After all, tht CO2 we've prouced stys in the atmosphere for decades. Since we really have no substitutes that are readily deployable, you're talking about eliminating probably about half of the world economy as well as billions of lives. So no , I don't think it as an ounce of prevention. I think of it as treating a bee sting by amputating my arm (without anesthesia.

You hit my point, albeit in a much clearer way.

Joe Schmo's blog

...done that

And fundamentally, that's the problem with the "make a testable hypothesis" approach. Such testable hypotheses would have to be over a time scale of 20 - 50 years. To frame the debate along those lines means that you are writing off those years before doing anything.

I'm not a climate scientist, either, but I know a thing or two about both computer models and control systems.

The alarmists have been using computer models for years to demonstrate the effects of man-made CO2 on warming on the climate. It's these models that have been used to generate the most dire predictions (sea level rising by seven feet, planetary oxygen production stopped, death of the oceans, dogs and cats living together...). This is the "scientific basis" of the AGW claims.

The bad thing about computer models is that if you're modelling an incompletely understood system, you have to make some assumptions about how the system works, and this gets particularly questionable when you're modeling a system with multiple feedback mechanisms; these are usually represented by complex (sometimes 6th degree) transfer functions, and minor changes in any of the coefficients could lead to completely different results.

The nice thing about computer models is that you don't need 20 years to verify them, you set up conditions that existed in the past, and run them forward to predict known climate events and/or our present climate. You don't have to wait 20 years, you can "rewind" the data and hit the fast-forward button.

The bad news is that so far no one has come up with a climate model that reliably "predicts" past events AND shows manmade CO2 causing the "sky is falling" scenarios.

If someone can show me a model that works, then I'll say it's time to look for real solutions, and not just an idiotic cap-and-trade system that will do nothing more than raise the cost of energy and provide Al Gore and his ilk with justification for buying carbon offset "indulgences".

___________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)