An Inconvenient Truth

[Drake]

This thread became much less interesting when we started debating the actual science. :P

[Warhammer]

Looking at the everything presented here, I maintain my position. Is the earth getting warmer? Yes. Was it warmer before now? Yes. Will it be warmer in the future? Yes. Will it be cooler in the future? Yes. Is man responsible for the current warming trend? No.

I think the guy that was interviewed at the Hurricane Center, whatever the link was, has it right. I think it is particularly telling that his funding was cut, after he disagreed with the Global Warming crowd. This fits in perfectly with what I know about government grants and research contracts for this sort of thing.

The CEI link does bring up a bunch of items that Gore can be blasted on. The problem is, those that put Gore on a pedestal are not going to agree with any of the points. Those on the right are going to take those points as validation of their distaste for Gore. Personally, I think many points were spot on and were legitimate critiques. Others were pretty petty and hurt the overall argument.

[st.cronin]

All I know for sure is that every day when we come home my girlfriend goes to the thermostat and turns on the heat. A minute later, I turn it off. She never seems to notice.

[Drake]

Heh.

Have I told you lately that I have an enormous man crush on you?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

All I know for sure is that every day when we come home my girlfriend goes to the thermostat and turns on the heat. A minute later, I turn it off. She never seems to notice.

they never do. It's some illusion in their head that 70 is going to be dramatically warmer than 67 that keeps them going.

[Swaggs]

I'd be curious to see how many critics of the movie have never actually seen it, just because they feel like they would be supporting Al Gore in some way.

I saw it with a group of seven people and we all enjoyed the movie (not a given for a documentary) and found a few points that really made a lot of sense that we all seemed to be thinking about afterwards, regardless of the overall belief of "global warming." The biggest that struck me was the automobile industry + oil industry not pushing vehicles that get higher MPG. That particular portion made a lot of sense to me.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Heh.

Have I told you lately that I have an enormous man crush on you?

Would you quit stalking me!!!!

[SFL Cat]

So who is causing all the problems on Mars and Pluto?, both of those are warming. I didnt know there were Hummers on Mars, let alone on Pluto, so it's just a guess on my part but I dont think it is a SUV problem.. so what is causing them to warm as well? Hummm lets see, they share the same solar system, nope, no connection there :blink:

BUT! I will say this, deforestation might be a problem on Mars and Pluto, I have not seen a SINGLE TREE on Mars or Pluto.. American logging companies backed by the Bush administration no doubt are to blame..

I have also not seen a single living thing on either Mars or Pluto, probably D. Cheney and his hunting buddies are to blame for that one..

Kind of hard to blame it on a vast right wing conspiracy to help oil and lumber companies make more money, but I am betting someone will!

So why are we experiencing global warming again? Environmentalists tell us they KNOW why it is happening here...it's because of US! Anyone who doesn't believe we (by we I mean the United States) are responsible is an idiot, never mind Mars and Pluto -- probably just a coincidence.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

So who is causing all the problems on Mars and Pluto?, both of those are warming. I didnt know there were Hummers on Mars, let alone on Pluto, so it's just a guess on my part but I dont think it is a SUV problem.. so what is causing them to warm as well? Hummm lets see, they share the same solar system, nope, no connection there :blink:

BUT! I will say this, deforestation might be a problem on Mars and Pluto, I have not seen a SINGLE TREE on Mars or Pluto.. American logging companies backed by the Bush administration no doubt are to blame..

I have also not seen a single living thing on either Mars or Pluto, probably D. Cheney and his hunting buddies are to blame for that one..

Kind of hard to blame it on a vast right wing conspiracy to help oil and lumber companies make more money, but I am betting someone will!

So why are we experiencing global warming again? Environmentalists tell us they KNOW why it is happening here...it's because of US! Anyone who doesn't believe we (by we I mean the United States) are responsible is an idiot, never mind Mars and Pluto -- probably just a coincidence.

But then again Mars isn't experiencing global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But then again Mars isn't experiencing global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Silly facts!

Why bring facts into a lively internet debate?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But then again Mars isn't experiencing global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Some would disagree

What's the newest article on their "RealClimate" blog? It's an article that tries to deny "global" warming on Mars. I find it incredible that so many people are able to buy this stuff. Why? It has been established, beyond any reasonable doubts, that intense warming - and let's admit that most likely a natural one - has been taking place on Mars in the last few years, to say the least; this trend disagreed with the mainstream climate models, at least by May 2005; the dry ice caps are retreating with an enormous speed; these gigatons of sublimating carbon dioxide are slightly more important than SUVs on Earth especially because carbon dioxide represents only 0.038% of our atmosphere but 95% of the Martian atmosphere; don't try to claim that CO2 and its greenhouse effect can be neglected on Mars, especially if you say that even the tiny fraction is important here on Earth.

Nevertheless, Steinn Sigurðsson - who is an astrophysicist who studies binary stars - does not find it painful to argue that the obvious and massive shrinking of the Mars' South Polar Cap is "almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere". Here on Earth, a piece of ice melts somewhere in the Arctic region and these people, ignoring the opposite trend in Antarctica (which is the place that many of them should actually study), convince hundreds of journalists to publish a pile of naive articles that the melting ice proves "global warming" and a "global catastrophe behind the corner".

When the very same thing happens on Mars, with the speed that is far more obvious than the speed here on Earth, they tell you that "it is almost certainly just a regional climate change".

hxxp://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/dutch-journalism-award-kyoto-is-junk_06.html

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But then again Mars isn't experiencing global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

You have to admit its still pretty much uninhabitable.

[Warhammer]

Yeah, but that is just one viewpoint. What struck me about his article is how he glosses over his viewpoint, but dissects any attack against him. Seems like business as usual.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Some would disagree

From what I've read, most people disagree with Sigurdsson's dismissal of the warming trend on Mars.

[Fidatelo]

This whole debate will be moot soon thanks to Stoern's free energy: http://www.steorn.net/

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by sabotai

The #1 reason I can not be a Christian. Iced coffee tasting terrible is a core belief of mine.

You're still good as I believe JC's theology probably indicates you'll have no problem finding a way to heat it up later....

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

You're still good as I believe JC's theology probably indicates you'll have no problem finding a way to heat it up later....

I was drinking when I read this...big mistake.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

You're still good as I believe JC's theology probably indicates you'll have no problem finding a way to heat it up later....

Infidel! You can not simply heat up cold coffee. That is a sin!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Infidel! You can not simply heat up cold coffee. That is a sin!

Then I'm prolly gonna bust hell wide open.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

So who is causing all the problems on Mars and Pluto?, both of those are warming. I didnt know there were Hummers on Mars, let alone on Pluto, so it's just a guess on my part but I dont think it is a SUV problem.. so what is causing them to warm as well? Hummm lets see, they share the same solar system, nope, no connection there :blink:

BUT! I will say this, deforestation might be a problem on Mars and Pluto, I have not seen a SINGLE TREE on Mars or Pluto.. American logging companies backed by the Bush administration no doubt are to blame..

I have also not seen a single living thing on either Mars or Pluto, probably D. Cheney and his hunting buddies are to blame for that one..

Kind of hard to blame it on a vast right wing conspiracy to help oil and lumber companies make more money, but I am betting someone will!

So why are we experiencing global warming again? Environmentalists tell us they KNOW why it is happening here...it's because of US! Anyone who doesn't believe we (by we I mean the United States) are responsible is an idiot, never mind Mars and Pluto -- probably just a coincidence.

Did anyone, anywhere claim that the sole cause for global climate change was humans? Human interference is making the problem worse. Accelerating the change, if you will.

[Warhammer]

SFL Cat's link should be required reading on this debate. Not so much as a rebuttal that global warming isn't happening, but about how the scientific community operates.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Isn't it possible that a warmer Earth could be beneficial? The Earth warmed up since the last ice age and that has been nothing but good for us, right? Why is that a few more degrees from our current temp is bad? Was the global temp perfect before and now it is bad that it is getting warmer? Why wasn't it bad that it kept getting as warm as it did in the past?

If you read more about it or perhaps watched An Inconvenient Truth, then perhaps you find that some of your questions are answered.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Did anyone, anywhere claim that the sole cause for global climate change was humans? Human interference is making the problem worse. Accelerating the change, if you will.

The only problem is you can't make this claim based on scientific evidence.

I remember in the 70s after several consecutive severe winters and reports of glaciers advancing at "scary" rates how alarmists were direly predicting that a new Ice Age was upon us. Naturally, we (i.e. humans) were responsible because of the pollution we were producing.

During the warming trend of the 80s and 90s, Ice Age has morphed into Global Warming. The culprit (industrialized pollution) has remained the same, however.

Now we seem to be coming back full circle as I again hear rumors of a coming Ice Age, but with the brilliant twist of it being "caused by Global Warming."

What disturbs me about the Global Warming crowd is that they have become a quasi-religious movement. Man-made global warming is their creed and anyone who might not agree or question that doctine obviously is a modern age heretic/infidel.

We also get the religious aspect of hypocrisy, especially from Hollywood and political elites -- who preach to us how we should be more environmentally friendly, while they live their lavish lifestyles -- jetting to one of their 5 or 6 10,000 square foot mansions scattered around the globe.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Some would disagree



hxxp://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/dutch-journalism-award-kyoto-is-junk_06.html

And here you see the Right's propaganda mechanism in all it's glory. Something written at a site run by climate scientists with the sole purpose of discussing climate issues is refuted by the blog of an assistant professor of physics whose comment on the very Gore issue that started this thread is:

That's a typical difference between the leftists and rightwingers. Leftists want others to reduce their lives and to pay. Leftists want themselves to benefit. And the rightwingers are those who actually create the values and live the right and modest lives

The climate scientists are painted as greedily biased, while Motls is the pure voice of unencumbered reason.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

What are these clean forms of energy? Solar is super expensive and can't be used where the sun don't shine. Environmentalists oppose wind power because it kills birds. Fuel cells still have a ways to go but look to be very promising.

I didn't claim that the clean forms of energy available now are now without flaws, be they cost issues or other concerns.

Cost will of course be a major impediment - early adopters pay more due to economies of scale. That's not to say that alternate forms of energy are necessarily going to be more expensive than gas or coal, but they will suffer in comparison in terms of economies of scale.
Regarding side effects of the various forms of energy production, the world does not operate as a vacuum - every action has reactions. Wind turbines produce no pollution, but they could be a hazard to birds as well as having subtle effects on downwind erosion patterns. Tidal energy may have similar side effects on marine life as well as tidal and current patterns. Hydrogen cells may reduce CO2 emissions, but increase the presence of other toxic chemicals into the environment. Dams can produce a tremendous amount of energy, but at a cost to fish breeding among other environmental effects.

However, we know that gasoline consumption produces CO2 emissions that, taken as a whole, have a significant impact on our atmosphere, with a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting that said emissions are a major contributor to the current trend of global warming.

There are other alternatives you haven't mentioned - I'd wager that most Americans drive more than is necessary, where walking or using a bicycle would be a completely green option.

I have no doubt that when somebody comes up with a cheap/clean solution that is as good as gasoline, we will beat a path to their door and in no time we will switch everything over to this new form of energy.

I do. There is so much money tied into gasoline and the products that use gasoline that those industries have huge economic incentives to keep alternatives from reaching the market. Check out the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" as an example. It's a biased source, but there is a lot of truth there as well.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The only problem is you can't make this claim based on scientific evidence.

Tell me - what is the color of the sky in your bizarro world?

Scientific evidence is the whole basis for this discussion, as opposed to your hazy, individual recollections of what someone might have said in the '70's.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

And here you see the Right's propaganda mechanism in all it's glory. Something written at a site run by climate scientists with the sole purpose of discussing climate issues is refuted by the blog of an assistant professor of physics whose comment on the very Gore issue that started this thread is:

The climate scientists are painted as greedily biased, while Motls is the pure voice of unencumbered reason.

I'm sure all climate scientists are as pure as the wind-driven snow,...sorry I meant sun-blasted sand.

I love how anyone who questions global warming is a shill for Exxon-Mobile...but there is NO CONNECTION at all between billions in research grants and those invested in the man-made global warming theory.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

What disturbs me about the Global Warming crowd is that they have become a quasi-religious movement. Man-made global warming is their creed and anyone who might not agree or question that doctine obviously is a modern age heretic/infidel.

Excuse my generalities, but it amuses me how the Right talks in language that it knows, here namely religious language. There is a broad scientific consensus on things like evolution and global warming and that the world is round. Typically, if you deny that consensus with little to no evidence, you are seen as being a bad scientist, since evidence is a core part of science, and good scientists won't want to give you money (why pay someone $50k to try and prove the world is flat? we've already done those studies). But the Right talks of the scientific consensus of evolution and global warming as 'religions' or 'cults' and as having 'heretics' instead of just bad scientists.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If Hollywood wanted us to take Global Warming seriously as a collective whole, they wouldn't have invited one of the most polarizing political activists to make make this documentary.

This wasn't a case of an environmentalist film maker choosing to have Al Gore make the presentation in this movie simply because he was a political figure of some note - it's because this cause is something Gore has championed for some time, and the movie is a relatively big-budget evolution of a presentation that Gore has been giving on a regular basis at locations all around the world for several years now.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Man-made global warming is their creed and anyone who might not agree or question that doctine obviously is a modern age heretic/infidel.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Tell me - what is the color of the sky in your bizarro world?

Scientific evidence is the whole basis for this discussion, as opposed to your hazy, individual recollections of what someone might have said in the '70's.

Case in point.

BTW, I was there...the 70s that is...were you?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Pure as the wind-driven snow, I'm sure...sorry I meant sun-blasted sand.

I love how anyone who questions global warming is a shill for Exxon-Mobile...but there is NO CONNECTION at all between billions in research grants and those invested in the man-made global warming theory.

Let me see if I've got this right - the government, which is the source for the vast majority of these research grants, has a vested interest in pushing the world's scientific community to bias their findings in favor of claiming that human-related activity is the major cause of the current global warming trend?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when the petroleum and auto industry fund a small group of scientific researchers, they have a huge economic incentive to see to it that the results from these small groups of scientists exonerate their products from blame for a potential global climate crisis.

But I'm having a real hard time seeing where the government would have an economic incentive to push the vast majority of scientists to a different conclusion.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Case in point.

BTW, I was there...the 70s that is...were you?

Yes I was, the entire decade in fact. Perhaps you'd like to point out some backing for your claim that scientists were predicting a new ice age?

And I'm ridiculing your position because you seem to have no use for things like facts and evidence - you know, the things that make up science.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yes I was, the entire decade in fact. Perhaps you'd like to point out some backing for your claim that scientists were predicting a new ice age?

And I'm ridiculing your position because you seem to have no use for things like facts and evidence - you know, the things that make up science.

From Wikipedia

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[2] Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects,[3] and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

Environmental messages included smog levels, reports of smoke sources and effects, public service messages against littering and poison disposal, and reports of trees damaged by acid rain. Many people had backyard trash burning barrels, and concerns began about the amount of smoke from burning leaves in the fall. Many places instituted burning restrictions in the late 1960s.[4][5]
Currently, there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be low, and the IPCC notes, "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[6] The ceasing of thermohaline circulation in the world's oceans caused the rapid global cooling in the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yes I was, the entire decade in fact. Perhaps you'd like to point out some backing for your claim that scientists were predicting a new ice age?

According to the 1975 NAS Report, it sounds like it was a concern among the scientific community that Global Cooling was the current trend.

"there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years"

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If I remember right Rev. 3:16 is the so-called "Coffee verse". Here Jesus is telling us that contrary to then common thinking, iced coffee is just as delicious as hot coffee. The only truly dreadful coffee is room-temperature coffee, which can happen to both hot or cold coffee.

So, by this reference to coffee (instead of tea) Jesus was prophecizing America and it's global dominance.

[MrBigglesworth]

SFL Cat, you can see that from about 1940 to 1975 the temperature was overall down, but can you explain to me the overall trend of the curve over the past hundred or so years?

[JPhillips]

Well, yeah. Everything Jesus said was about American global dominance.

[Pumpy Tudors]

IT'S GETTING HOT IN HERRE
SO TAKE OFF ALL YOUR CLOTHES

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

SFL Cat, you can see that from about 1940 to 1975 the temperature was overall down, but can you explain to me the overall trend of the curve over the past hundred or so years?

Coming out of the Little Ice Age when the graph starts.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by VPI97

According to the 1975 NAS Report, it sounds like it was a concern among the scientific community that Global Cooling was the current trend.

"there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years"

Actually, sounds like what they were saying is that it was currently unusually warm, but they were concerned that eventually it would cool.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This whole debate will be moot soon thanks to Stoern's free energy: http://www.steorn.net/

Is that the company that pulls energy out of their ass?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

SFL Cat, you can see that from about 1940 to 1975 the temperature was overall down, but can you explain to me the overall trend of the curve over the past hundred or so years?

Please explain exactly what the Temperature Anomaly is supposed to represent?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Please explain exactly what the Temperature Anomoly is supposed to represent?

Temperature! DUH!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

From Wikipedia...

There was a small period of cooling relative to the modern trend up to that point. The techniques of discerning temperatures from thousands of years ago were not yet understood or in practice, so the ability to gauge and contextualize temperature records from the relatively brief time span of the last 400 years.

The bigger picture here is to note that scientists were concerned about how greenhouse gases were impacting our atmosphere and thus our climate.

So yeah - back in the mid 1970's the scientific community wasn't in a near consensus about the phenomenon of global warming, but then again, that was 30 years ago and global scientific knowledge has advanced a great deal in that span of time.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

If you read more about it or perhaps watched An Inconvenient Truth, then perhaps you find that some of your questions are answered.

You can't give me the Reader's Digest version?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

And here you see the Right's propaganda mechanism in all it's glory. Something written at a site run by climate scientists with the sole purpose of discussing climate issues is refuted by the blog of an assistant professor of physics whose comment on the very Gore issue that started this thread is:

The climate scientists are painted as greedily biased, while Motls is the pure voice of unencumbered reason.

Uh, did you read the report?

This report is science. Some people will argue this or that about the agenda, but the fact remains that the article in the link is science (not the blog, but the article referenced in the blog).

The fact of the matter is this, science is about learning through questioning. Why do some stars move faster relative to others? That simple question gave rise to the concept of planets, and later to that of the solar system with every thing revolving around the sun. There were arguments made on both sides, and eventually the weight of evidence came down on the side of the solar centric side of the debate.

Also, let's not get our panties in a wad over what everyone's degree is in. Scientific Method is Scientific Method. Hell, Einstein was a patent clerk, does that mean his photoelectric theory was garbage? No. What the article says is that the Mann study, which many people that argue for global warming use as item #1 for support, was geared to produce a certain result. These two guys try to recreate the data produced by the study and find that they can't. Mann, who initially helped out, became increasingly resistant to their work and instead went into a defensive mode.

Based upon this information right here, I think there is a right to be skeptical. On one hand we have a scientist who published a study saying that global warming is occurring and is the worst that we have seen in the last millennium. We have another group that begins to look at the data and discovers some flaws in the methodology of the study. Not only that, but some data was sketchy, and the person responsible for the study is not willing to supply their sources and data.

That is where the science breaks down. When reviewed, it is necessary to look at the sources and data and ascertain whether anything is incorrect. The problem here is that Mann does not want his sources and data questioned. There could be several motives for this behavior.

The problem is that Mann could lose funding if he agrees that his data is incorrect or wrong. Others in the field could also lose funding for their projects if the underlying reason for the study is found to be faulty.

On the other side, the new players do have an agenda. However, theirs is more long term than the climatologists. Plus, they are not arguing that the earth is not warming, they are arguing that rigorous analysis of the data and sources does not reinforce the conclusion of the study.

They then proceed to point out how the data can be manipulated to produce the original result, but then show that this is due to an error in how the data is manipulated. In this case, one sample is grossly over-represented which leads to the "hockey stick" temperature graph the study produced. They then claim that the only way that the data can show this, is if this one piece of data is over-represented.

Basically, the paper is a great debate. Now, if science is to take place, the original team for the paper must now defend its work. Not by shouting down the opposition as the climatenow website is doing, but by reproducing their original work using different data, which must then undergo peer review. Or, they can argue how the new study that questions their results is in fact incorrect.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Please explain exactly what the Temperature Anomaly is supposed to represent?

"Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990." And then the plus and minus is the divergence from the mean for each year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Please explain exactly what the Temperature Anomaly is supposed to represent?

It's based on the idea of there being a "standard" temperature around which any deviations, positive or negative, are considered anomalies. Think of 0 on that scale as value X, with -0.2 being X-0.2, or +0.4 as X+0.4 if that makes it easier.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Temperature! DUH!

Deviations from a mean - duh...

What's the mean? How was the mean determined?

Info like that is ... kind of important ... duh!

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

You can't give me the Reader's Digest version?

An Inconvenient Truth cannot be told, you must see if for yourself to believe it!