Friday
Mar112011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Crushing of dissent
Mar 11, 2011 Climate: other Education A high school student in Australia is struggling to keep quiet during climate change lessons...
For the third lesson the PowerPoint was brought out again with even more questionable statements claiming that putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing: an increase in temperature by one degree; a rise in sea levels; more bush fires; more droughts; more animals to become extinct; malaria to become more widespread (so much so that it would spread to the Northern Territory); the Arctic Ocean to be ice-free by 2050; the extinction of the polar bear; and, my personal favourite, “China and Indonesia will be too hot to grow rice.”
H/T Deadman
Reader Comments (130)
Zed
Wrong argument.
The point is that electrification of personal and commercial transport will mean a big boost in the demand for electricity. Energy policy in the UK is increasing the share of wind in the energy mix, which will reduce reliable baseload generation capacity in the same time frame as the proposed shift to electrified transport.
See the problem here?
BH linked something for you above. It would be good manners to read and respond soon.
Only Zed and her ilk could live in a world where they think 11.34 gallons (the Prius) is less than 10.84 gallons (the BMW).
I guess that's a prime example of a State edukashun.
Dale Vince; we call him Vile Dunce around here. Bloody man just won't go away despite us telling him three times now and at vast expense to the locals fighting his vision of a turbine covered beauty spot.
biddyb
But he's a Green visionary! How can you say such things? Shame.
[And how is St Dale going to get richer if he doesn't keep putting up more subsidy-harvesting machines?]
biddyb
Have you ever been to see Fenbeagle?
Good for a bitter laugh...
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
BBD
errr, the link from Andrew was to a study of private education amongst the poor. Which I've responded to.
Zed
Yes - I seem to be going purblind. Apologies.
Now, your thoughts on the opposite directions taken by fleet electrification and UK energy policy?
BBD - just been to fenbeagle; as you say, a bitter laugh.
Deadman: "Well, I am ... instructing my son how to use that sadly moribund feature of English, the relative adverb."
Ah, you are instructing him paternally. That's a relative adverb, isn't it?
Zed
I think it's unarguable that Oxfam staff have an economic incentive not to solve the problem. This is not to say that they can't overcome their economic incentive, but it is there nevertheless.
Do you think it's worth looking at alternatives to a system in there is only teaching activity in half of schools?
I've just read the article you reference. The Prius used less fuel than the BMW for the journey, which is kind of the point.
Mar 11, 2011 at 5:51 PM ZedsDeadBed
I think you're completely wrong, or just trying to mislead or perhaps you don't understand mpg? 50.3 mpg against 48.1 means the BMW used less fuel, or it did at my infants school.
Vital Statistics
Model BMW 520d SE
Engine 1995cc, four cylinders
Power 177bhp @ 4000rpm
Torque 258 lb ft @ 1750rpm
Transmission Six-speed manual
Official fuel/CO2 55.4mpg / 136g/km
Performance 0-62mph: 8.3sec
Top speed 144mph
Road tax band C (£115)
Price £27,190
Fuel used on test 10.84 gallons (50.3mpg)
Fuel cost £54.19 (diesel)
Model Toyota Prius T Spirit
Engine 1497cc, four cylinders
Electric motor 50kW/67bhp
Power 77bhp @ 5000rpm
Torque 295 lb ft (motor) 85 lb ft (engine)
Transmission CVT automatic
Official fuel/CO2 65.7mpg / 104g/km
Performance 0-62mph: 10.9sec
Top speed 106mph
Road tax band B (£15, alternative fuel)
Price £20,677
Fuel used on test 11.34 gallons (48.1mpg)
Fuel cost £54.64 (petrol)
"One Task – One Country – One Day" That rather reminds me of a slogan that was popular in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s but perhaps "climate change deniers" should not say such things.--Roy
jawohl.
"One Task – One Country – One Day" That rather reminds me of a slogan that was popular in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s but perhaps "climate change deniers" should not say such things.--Roy
jawohl.
Sandy - for the Prius, there is also the unfactored cost of replacing the batteries in, say 5 years. That won't be trivial.
The torque figure is impressive, although I expect the electronics prevent you from using it to behave badly..:-(
Sorry, Deadman.
Alfred's blog just doesn't ring true as the the authentic ponderings of a 12 or 13 year old. Any parent could spot that. It would have been far better to resist the temptation to finesse it.
Interesting how Zed was able to quickly skim the Times article lapogus posted and respond in 17 minutes that this article proved the Prius had used less fuel. No way! Read it more carefully next time! Take your anti-beemer specs off next time! This just goes to show how difficult it can be not to read into something what one wishes to read into it...
Though it turns out that the diesel used by the beemer has a slightly higher energy density than the petrol used by the Prius (1 litre of diesel releases more energy upon combustion than one litre of petrol), and also contains more carbon per litre, so it emits more CO2 per litre. So in one sense Zed was right - the Prius would have been - just - lower-emitting & less energy-guzzling on the trip. Though the cost to the environment of making the batteries, as James P pointed out, changes that a bit.
Then there was the energy in the Prius batteries at the start; where did that come from then?
LevelGaze,
What I meant by this earlier reply is that I am not being taught properly at school so, perforce, I must study at home.I am 14, being in my second year of high school, and most of my class are 14 or turning 14 this year.
Alfred
"If I am to learn I must look for alternative ways of doing so"
I would not argue with that, but my point was different. We would prefer to see your own thoughts, expressions and words, unmassaged by a parent's editing. That would carry more conviction.
Anyway, let's not labour the matter.
Baa Humbug, I believe that '20 feet' of sea level rise comes from 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Pinwheel, I believe you mean The Movie Formerly Known as an Inconvenient Truth (rebirthed after the UK court case as Some Convenient Untruths).
Alfred, I've left an encouraging word on your blog.
Jeremy @ Mar 11, 2011 at 2:21 PM: Agree with you on Hobart. Great spot - which is why I live there. There is a fair population of what some non-PC poet many years ago termed the Brown Rice Dictatorship, and we lack the innovativeness of San Francisco, but some decent folk too.
On dictatorship and fascism: there is no necessary connection between environmentalism and fascism, but if the adherents of the former do not respect c=the classical liberal distinction between the public and the private they quickly go down the path of the latter. I'd put instilling values rather than critical thinking in that category. If we add the recent revelation that the first apocalyptic (rather than benign) vision of global warming/climate change/climate disruption coming from an old Austrian Nazi to the 'Green' values of the Nazi era, the danger is a real one. (But still not a necessary one). There is a great book by Robert Proctor, the Princeton historian on this: The Nazi War on Cancer. Besides the widely-known 'Blood and Soil' of Darre, there are accounts of wonderful public health programs against chemicals and smoking, for whole foods, against vivisection - even a charming organic garden at Dachau. (The poster of grateful animals goose-stepping past Goering in salute for his adopting an antivivisection order is a classic).
As I say, not a necessary connection, but a slippery slope if there is no commitment to liberal values.
they DO get education, in madrassas
Not too different from your avg humanities campus (no reading, lots of head wagging, occasionally drugs )
Mar 11, 2011 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P
Yes and the pollution from actually making the batteries in the first place.
Big respect, Alfred - there is SOOOO much brainwashing going on. Hard as it may be, stick to your principles.
@LevelGaze
"I would not argue with that, but my point was different. We would prefer to see your own thoughts, expressions and words, unmassaged by a parent's editing. That would carry more conviction."
LevelGaze, you seem to assume that 14 year-old kids can have own thoughts, expressions and words independent from those of their parents, teachers and peers. Well, guess what? They don't. And many adults do not, either, including even the scientific types. What is 'peer review' but a grown up version of 'peer pressure'?
If it is critical thinking you're after, then that's sufficiently been demonstrated in Alfred's piece. And there is nothing wrong with him making his own choices on who to consult and whose advise to take and who to employ as an editor.
As to whether the piece in question is Alfred's own work, I believe it is. He gets 9 out of 10 from me. I'm not happy with the gratuitous use of some lawyerly words ('thereto' - 'thereafter') coming from a 14 year-old, but I guess nobody can blame them for trying to talk like adults. Actually the whole piece has a whiff of legal statement about it. I guess we now know which profession his heart lies in. And to add further authenticity that this is all his work he does actually make a spelling error at the end of the third sentence of the third paragraph: "the evidence therefor is undeniable".
BTW, while you're visiting Alfred's Review, don't forget to check his review of the movie The Green Hornet:
"This is a good movie to sit down with some friends if they can be quiet because there are some scenes where you do have to hear what they are saying."
I wonder if he'll be reviewing computer games, too. I hear Plants Vs Zombies is good.
Levelgaze
If you wrote a book, would you not want it proof-read? There are plenty of adult bloggers around without Alfred's command of English who would certainly benefit, IMO.
sHx
"a spelling error at the end of the third sentence"
No it isn't. 'Therefor' appears more in legal documents than in general use, possibly because most English teachers don't know the difference either, but it means 'for that', as in 'payment therefor' or, as Alfred said, 'evidence therefor'.
Link
Too many lawyers in my family, I expect.
@James P
"'Therefor' appears more in legal documents than in general use..."
Well, I guess I have a lot more English to learn, and need to read a few more cases.
sHx,
Using “therefor” avoided using yet another that (the pronoun) in a sentence wherein that (the conjunction) was already performing sterling service. I have a fondness for old adverbs which ought not, I reckon, fall either into desuetude or into the sole custody of lawyers, so is not astonishing that I teach my sons the utility thereof.
Alfred is rather annoyed that some commentators doubt his ability to present his own thoughts. To him it smacks of the sort of elitism which denies that Shakespeare wrote his own plays because he had not studied at university.
I’m one of those fathers who, when a son says, “I wonder if—”, says, “You wonder whether, do you mean?” Recently, Alfred returned from his mother’s place, and related that his mother (who believes in AGW) said that he was “sounding just like your father.” It was not a compliment, I expect. It might be annoying for my sons to have a pedantic parent, but they do have a lot of good literature read to them, and I am good at explaining the jokes and allusions in works as diverse as novels of Austen, Rowling and Wodehouse or episodes of “The Simpsons”.
Alfred does intend to review computer games, and all sorts of other things. Keep an eye on his blog. Look also at his younger brother’s blog: he intends to publish his review of the Australian Prime Minister later today, as well as another film review.
Thanks, James P.
"I’m one of those fathers who, when a son says, “I wonder if—”, says, “You wonder whether, do you mean?"
Out of that fine comment, Sir, the above shall be my first take home lesson.
sHx,
Request complete: Plants vs Zombies.
Thanks, Alfred. I just read it, and left a comment, as well. Best wishes.
Alfred S is in second year, so that makes him 12 or 13 at a guess. Do you really think it wise to refer anyone to his blog? I certainly don't. Please pause to think a bit before triumphantly exposing any more innocents to the unashamed worshippers of the man-made climate change myth.
@Sheumais
Have you checked Alfred's blog lately?
Leave it to Bishop Hill and the shameless Wingnut James Delingpole to praise a young student for denying climate science.
@bjedwards
Climate Science = Horoscope Science
Climate Models = Astrological Charts
Climatologists = Astrologers
The world needs no more pseudo-scientific non-sense like the CAGW hypothesis.
Pity the children and their parents who have been inculcated to believe in the dogma propagated by this Millenarian movement.
sHx,
You don't fool anyone, bunky. You can neither refute the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrating AGW is real nor make your fairy tale worldwide conspiracy theory of thousands scientists work.
I look forward to the day when you are on your knees begging forgiveness from Alfred for lying to him.
@bjedwards
There was a huge body of evidence and an unassailable consensus that put the Earth at the centre of the universe for 1800 years. Your climate science has a long way to go to surpass horoscope science of the Dark Ages. Prior to climatology, the only 'credible' predictions of world-wide apocalypse were made by astrologers and religious zealots. If you believe the world is coming to an end because of your sinful ways, well, that's your choice. Just don't blame climate skeptics for your stupidity.
You come across as a particularly vile member of the CAGW dogmasphere. The kind that brings the worst out of a person. I am NOT looking forward to the day when you and your fellow CAGW cultists are hanging from lamb posts for causing another Dark Ages.
Don't worry, I'll fall on my knees and repent afterward for not getting in the way. Yes, maybe I will.
sHx,
You fool no one. You are completely incapable of refuting the fact that the overwhelming peer-reviewed sceince demonstrates AGW is real. Not one of you political hacks can refute the science you hate so much. You cannot make your worldwide conspiracy theory work involving the majority of the thousands of scientists who YOU all claim have successfully pulled off a scientific hoax for the last 30 years without spilling the beans.
Is it any wonder that you should be treated as the immoral, intellectually dishonest low-lives you show yourselves to be? Is it any wonder that you are as pathetic as Creationists, vaccine deniers, and every other denialist in history? You declared war on science and reason for your narrow political beliefs and you have no more ability or evidence to refute the science than any other snake oil salesman. You declared war and we are fighting back, exposing you as the low-life bottom-feeders you are.
Sorry, sHx, you will end up in the trash bin of history. NOW is the time for you to stop your miserable lying. The real world is sick and tired of your blatant , immoral nonsense.
bjedwards
Climatology (via AR4) presents a consensus estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric fraction of CO2 of about +3C (also see Knutti & Hegerl, 2008).
Nobody knows the true value, including yourself.
It is most certainly possible that it is lower - perhaps between 1.5C - 2C, which would explain the relatively flat trends for surface and tropospheric temperatures since the 1998 El Nino.
Eg. see here. Trends are ~ 0.09C since 1998 for UAH, ~0.05C from RSS and ~0.02C for HADCRUT3. GISTEMP is higher at ~0.17C, but that’s an effect of GISTEMP’s interpolation (estimation) of Arctic temperatures.
Obviously as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, more energy must be accumulating in the climate system. The obvious place to look for it is the ocean.
While estimates of the heat content of the 700m ocean layer are currently subject to repeated revision, it does look as though there has been no trend - possibly for a decade.
Perhaps the energy went deeper?
Studies of deep ocean heating (Purkey & Johnson, 2010) reveal insufficient warming to account for what Kevin Trenberth describes as the 'missing energy':
(Science Perspectives, 16 April 2010)
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/T_SciencePerspectiveApril10.pdf
Where indeed? Missing energy or a poorly constrained value for climate sensitivity? Do you know? Of course not.
So it is disturbing to see you raging with certainty (presumably) inspired by a belief in catastrophic AGW. That is unscientific and irrational.
Since you claim to champion the scientific and rational approach to truth, you shouldn't be misrepresenting uncertainty as you do.
Nor should you extrapolate from a scientific position to a moral one - as you do.
You really don't pay attention, BBD.
The reality is quite clear: the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates that AGW is real.
Do you understand that no manner of whining and lying will change that fact?
Really, it is pathetic that we have to deal with you buffoons who are determined to claim, like you, that you have completely debunked and overturned the massive science of climate change that converges on the reality that AGW is real and has consequences.
And you better believe it is a fundamental MORAL issue. ALL denialist movements in history are ultimately a moral issue, whether it is Creationism, vaccination denial, 9/11 denial, your climate science denial, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism, or Holocaust Denial. Denialism is politica, and the methodology and tactics are common to all denialist movements. The climate science denialism you praise is no different. You DO NOT have the science to support your political cause so you must deny the science overwhelmingly demonstrating AGW is real. It is no different than the Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism that lasted three decades before it was ultimately defeated. Three decades of lying about tobacco.
Climate science denialism is THE moral issue of our time and you better believe we will fight your immoral lying.
Capiche, BBD?
bjedwards
You do not appear to have read my comment. Please do so (it is a courtesy) before responding.
And calm down - you sound unhinged.
@bjedwards --
It is not the custom in this place to insult rather than argue. And the comparison to Holocaust deniers is particularly unwelcome. Please endeavour to be civil.
If I parse your previous entry, omitting insults and irrelevancies, it seems to come down to this:
"the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates that AGW is real."
That's an arguable point of view, and opens up possibilities to discuss where uncertainties or errors may exist in the AGW hypothesis/theory. Notice that BBD is discussing the science, not personalities, nor tossing off disparaging personal remarks.
The remainder of your post (and indeed a majority of previous posts as well) is irrelevant, immaterial, insulting and frankly detracts from any substantial points you might be trying to put. That may be acceptable at certain sites, but it doesn't go down well here.
bjedwards
Please moderate your tone
bjedwards has a blog where he shouts at 9/11 truthers, but he also has a climate blog (not much in it so far).
http://climatedenial.blogspot.com/
I will note that Bishop Hill made the commitment to support a "student's" disparaging, insulting, politically-motivated statements and unsupported claims against the many thousands of the world's climate scientists whose combined work is described by Alfred as a "hoax".
My statement of fact remains true: the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrate that AGW is real. That fact is not at issue and as such the burden of proof falls on those who do not agree to demonstrate - scientifically - that the overwhelming, accepted science does NOT demonstrate AGW is real. It is unacceptable to pretend and state that the science is a "hoax" because one does not like the policy implications, that which both James Delingpole and Bishop Hill are condoning in this instance with Alfred statements. This is, in fact, the heart of the issue.
No one claimed anyone is a Holocaust Denier. That canard is usually given to avoid the real issue of denialism, the methodology, tactics, and political motivation which is common to ALL denialist movements, to wit, that which I have already pointed you all to:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
Climate science denialism - just as much a politically motivated movement as any other denialist movement - is the REAL problem which scientists and policy makers are dealing with. It is NOT the science of climate change; attacking the science, pretending that it does not demonstrate AGW is real, claiming that it is a "hoax by the world's scientists and Leftists to take away your rights, steal your money, and create a one-world government led by the U.N." as many of you do, is immoral, intellectually dishonest, and outright denialism.
Are you all really content to condone the political canards, and misrepresentation of climate science Alfred repeated? Are you happy that Alfred did as he claimed, repeating that "AGW is a hoax"? Are you content to disparage science because you can't figure out how to respond to a wholly global problem requiring the cooperation of every form of government the world knows and that just does not conform to your political philosophy? Nothing like claiming there is no problem - and removing yourselves from contributing to the solutions, alternative policies to the ones you claim about? What, in fact, are you teaching Alfed other than to stand on the sidelines, doing nothing but letting those whose policies he may disagree with go ahead and implement them?
Nature said it best in an editorial today:
NATURE | EDITORIAL
Into ignorance
Nature 471, 265–266 (17 March 2011) doi:10.1038/471265b
Published online 16 March 2011p
"It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by countless scientists, is irresponsible."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html
"What, in fact, are you teaching Alfred other than to stand on the sidelines, doing nothing but letting those whose policies he may disagree with go ahead and implement them?"
I'm not sure that we're teaching Alfred anything...At a young age, he seems to have learned one of life's most important lessons, namely that it is his right, and almost his obligation, to stand up for what he believes, although that might be an unpopular point of view.
He's hardly standing on the sidelines. He's taking an active stance to oppose those policies he may disagree with, and by opposing, end them.
[This post is actually intended for Alfred rather than bj, who apparently isn't listening anyway. Alfred, it is not easy to discern the truth within the current cacophony. It is not as simple as a hoax (in my opinion), but there are many who are exaggerating the situation, based on different motivations. Do not underestimate the power of "cui bono?" but also do not believe that it explains everything. It requires a lot of education in order to combat the many half-truths which are propounded -- and not all the half-truths come from a single direction. It is always a wise choice to base your viewpoints on facts; doubly so when an opinion is unpopular and will be challenged constantly. Read, absorb, question, re-read. You may not yet have enough science background to understand all the arguments, but I suspect you have a good intuition. If nothing else, let tone of discussion guide you: the shrillest voices are usually the least reliable.]
I just realised this thread is still alive.
"Is it any wonder that you should be treated as the immoral, intellectually dishonest low-lives you show yourselves to be? Is it any wonder that you are as pathetic as Creationists, vaccine deniers, and every other denialist in history? You declared war on science and reason for your narrow political beliefs and you have no more ability or evidence to refute the science than any other snake oil salesman. You declared war and we are fighting back, exposing you as the low-life bottom-feeders you are."
Dude, you have some real anger management issues. Ordinarily counting up to 10 would help calm people a little, but you should count up to 1000 -just to be on the safe side-, before you open your mouth. Precautionary principle and what not.
In fact, it is better if you don't talk at all, because this kind of presentation of 'facts' is what a lot of people find repulsive. 'Scientific facts' don't sound persuasive when they come from frothing mouths.
You have 'reality management' issues, too, like every other doomsday cultist, but no one can help you there. When sanity returns, if it returns at all, you can always say 'climate scientists made me do it'. I predict that will be the excuse many of your climate dogmatists will use if and when reason dawns on you.
I think Alfred is learning why those like HaroldW and sHx are evading the issue at hand and then pay attention to the link to the editorial in Nature I provided in my last comment. HaroldW entirely misses the point that standing up for one's own beliefs is not the issue but how one arrives at those beliefs and from whom. Clearly, Alfred's "beliefs" are not based on the validity and reality of the science of climate change, but on the politics of those who don't want to admit that policies that may be required to address a real, global problem may not be compatible with either the political philosophy or financial interests of certain people. Repetition of political canards is not indicative of critical thinking/
sHx particularly evades the ethical issue at hand. Certainly, he doesn't want to admit the denialism he practices nor the outrage such intellectual dishonesty produces. One cannot hold a rational discussion with denialists. As the Denialism Blog points out, and born by many years of experience:
"Finally, some ground rules. We don't argue with cranks. Part of understanding denialism is knowing that it's futile to argue with them, and giving them yet another forum is unnecessary. They also have the advantage of just being able to make things up and it takes forever to knock down each argument as they're only limited by their imagination while we're limited by things like logic and data. Recognizing denialism also means recognizing that you don't need to, and probably shouldn't argue with it. Denialists are not honest brokers in the debate (you'll hear me harp on this a lot). They aren't interested in truth, data, or informative discussion, they're interested in their world view being the only one, and they'll say anything to try to bring this about. We feel that once you've shown that what they say is deceptive, or prima-facie absurd, you don't have to spend a graduate career dissecting it and taking it apart. It's more like a "rule-of-thumb" approach to bad scientific argument. That's not to say we won't discuss science or our posts with people who want to honestly be informed, we just don't want to argue with cranks. We have work to do.
"Second, denialism isn't about name-calling or the psychological coping mechanism of denial. The first reaction of any denialist to being labeled such is to merely reply, "you're the denialist" or to redefine the terms so that it excludes them (usually comparing themselves to Galileo in the process). However, denialism is about tactics that are used to frustrate legitimate discussion, it is not about simply name-calling. It's about how you engage in a debate when you have no data (the key difference between denialists and the paradigm-shifters of yesteryear)."
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
I made fun of the hopeless idiocy of 9/11 Deniers. Their denial of the events of 9/11 is relatively harmless. Not so with climate science deniers. They have real, negative effect.
The proof is in the pudding. You won't be able to find anyone able to refute the fact that the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates AGW is real. You won't find anyone who has overturned the overwhelming science by cherry-picking as BBD does above, and is one of the tactics of all denialism.
bjedwards
You are apparently ignorant of the climate science which you claim to champion.
Perhaps my 'cherry picking' also applies to Kevin Trenberth? I posed his question about the 'missing energy' - or did you miss that in your haste to start having a pop at me?
Apart from Song & Colberg (2011), what other study deals with deep ocean warming? I used Purkey and Johnson (2010) because it relies on highly accurate - although sparse - repeat hydrological sections for its estimate of deep water warming.
I reference the Argo data because it is the latest and the best measure of upper ocean heat content.
Nowhere do I suggest that 1). global warming is not real or 2). that I have somehow 'falsified' it.
I simply pointed out that the observed increases in surface and tropospheric temperatures, and upper ocean and deep ocean heat content, do not appear to support the consensus value for climate sensitivity.
Your histrionic and offensive replies have done nothing to advance your 'position' - such as it is - and much to reveal you as foolish and ill-informed.