Global Warming discussion: is it a hoax?

[Scott26]

Your naïveté comes from a lack of understanding of how huge a role politics plays in this entire discussion. You are obviously very smart, but there are certain things that you only learn through life experience. Understanding politics and the role it plays in day to day life is one of those things. Sure some learn it sooner than others, but in high school you simply haven't been exposed to nearly as much as you will as you live your life and grow older. My statement wasn't meant to imply you will change your mind on global warming, if I did a poor job illustrating that I apologize. But it's clear from reading your statements that you don't yet understand that many statements made by government officials, scientists, and many others are often politically motivated statements. People will use whatever facts are available to drive home their point and that is true on both sides of the aisle. That is really the only point I was trying to make.

It's all good my friend.

[Phil]

Thanks a lot for coming on here and clearing some things up. My mind is open, but through the research I have done so far I'm a firm believer in CAGW. I really look up to NASA and NOAA and since they believe the science is settled so do I. I have watched hours of lectures from universities with many of the professors agreeing that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and is a major problem. I have also watched lectures from the complete opposite spectrum. It's just that so many of the points that non-believers in CAGW make are addressed by the believers in CAGW. Also to me so far, it just seems like the deniers often don't use science to make arguments and instead rely on these elaborate conspiracy theories like the whole "climategate scandal" fiasco. I will continue to try to learn and keep an open mind like all scientists need to do in the future.

Well, I will say, a lot of these so-called "skeptics" don't know what the heck they're talking about..most are politically motivated.

 

That said, most of the stuff you hear about this so called "consensus" is pure hogwash. Those who subscribe to CAGW do indeed hold a majority, but it's more like a 65-35 majority, rather than the 97-3 fairytale referred to by the usual suspects.

[Phil]

Through everything I know so far CAGW just makes a lot of sense to me. I did read it and I didn't quickly post a response just to cater to my side. Most of what I read so far and watched was in opposition to that statement, but I will continue to research more about that in the future.

The thermalization processes involved are actually extremely complex, down to the subquantum level. Are you sure you understand it all?

[Scott26]

The thermalization processes involved are actually extremely complex, down to the subquantum level. Are you sure you understand it all?

I never said I understood it all. It's an extremely complex process as you said and I try to understand what I can.

[Scott26]

Well, I will say, a lot of these so-called "skeptics" don't know what the heck they're talking about..most are politically motivated.

 

That said, most of the stuff you hear about this so called "consensus" is pure hogwash. Those who subscribe to CAGW do indeed hold a majority, but it's more like a 65-35 majority, rather than the 97-3 fairytale referred to by the usual suspects.

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?

[tbone8]

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?

 

Politicians and lies are pretty much one in the same. "If you like you Insurance, you can keep your insurance". You hear that one before, blatant lie. I agree its probably in the 60-40 range but 60-40 cast doubt, 97% sounds a whole lot better, dont you think? That NOAA consensus is available to read at this link http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full. What a load of crap that is, its basically a manufactured guess, not scientific at all. They will never produce an accurate poll because its not in their best interest. You need to understand, there is a lot of money to be made with this global warming, a lot. Most things in life, you will find, you can trace back to following the money. If you put all the scientific data aside and follow the money, it would make you sick.  Now does big oil have a lobby, you bet they do. There are no clean hands here. But oil and coal are cheap sources of energy. In my house, I have all LED lighting. Not because I am trying to save the planet but because they make my electric bill lower. Carbon tax and higher energy costs, that money has to go somewhere...

[Phil]

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?

It's a political statement, for the most part. There's a difference between acknowledging that CO^2 affects the macroscale radiative budget, hence having some degree of influence on global temperatures, versus the dogmatic view that it's a powerful climate driver, capable of operating on higher frequency scales.

 

By NASA's standards, I'm part of the 97%.

[Phil]

Furthermore, physics evolves as we learn. A few centuries ago, quantum mechanics would have been considered pseudoscience.

 

We humans aren't all that smart, when you get down to it.

[weatherfan2012]

Couldn't have said it any better phil.

[Money]

Why would NASA have a whole page for the 97 percent consensus if it's pure hogwash?http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/... Can you explain to me how it's somehow politically advantageous to do this? If it is a 65-35 majority as you said, why don't they just say it? Also do you have any sources that your projection is closer to being correct rather than the 97 percent?

 

Like people have said before, people will fudge numbers to make their side look better/more accurate. The 97% of scientists thing is pure b.s. 

 

Politics play a HUGE role in all off this. 

[richard mann]

(.. cross-ference.)
 
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64521
http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64238

[Scott26]

(.. cross-ference.)

 

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64521

http://theweatherforums.com/index.php/topic/526-global-warming/?p=64238

Yeah this started in the Great Lakes sub-topic since we got into a debate over there, but was moved over here by a mod/admin. I don't think it's necessary to have two threads to be honest.

[Scott26]

It's a political statement, for the most part. There's a difference between acknowledging that CO^2 affects the macroscale radiative budget, hence having some degree of influence on global temperatures, versus the dogmatic view that it's a powerful climate driver, capable of operating on higher frequency scales.

 

By NASA's standards, I'm part of the 97%.

Understandable, but I would still like to see some source showing the 97% consensus being complete bs.

[BigDizBliz420]

why are all weather boards filled with people who don't believe science? I think it's cause we love SNOW!

[tbone8]

Understandable, but I would still like to see some source showing the 97% consensus being complete bs.

 

Think about it for a moment. You can't get more than 4 out of 5 Dentists to recommend Trident gum. If the 97% were a true number, in my book, that would imply only the fringe nutjobs did not buy into something. 97% is virtual metaphysical certainty, which in this case, it clearly is not. There are very smart, well educated and respected people that do not buy into it. Heck, just hearing from the so far majority on this forum telling you its bogus should make you a light a bulb...

[Scott26]

Think about it for a moment. You can't get more than 4 out of 5 Dentists to recommend Trident gum. If the 97% were a true number, in my book, that would imply only the fringe nutjobs did not buy into something. 97% is virtual metaphysical certainty, which in this case, it clearly is not. There are very smart, well educated and respected people that do not buy into it. Heck, just hearing from the so far majority on this forum telling you its bogus should make you a light a bulb...

Well, other then you and Phil most of the people that have responded to this thread clearly don't have much of a scientific background. I have looked at forums like Americanwx and most of the Meteorologists there are firm believers in CAGW. This forum is overwhelmingly tilted in the opposite direction and I wonder why. I would still like Phil to tell me where he got the 65/35 ratio. He likely made an educated guess rather than knowing that is exactly the case, but there should be some sort of source that proves the 97% consensus is complete bs. I have looked all over the internet and I have seen no study or anything other then the 97% consensus. I do find it a bit interesting and odd that there is a large percentage in which the research papers have "no opinion" in the IPCC 97% consensus study. The largest percentage outright supported anthropogenic climate change with a very small amount of deniers. Though, a bit over 30% had no opinion whatsoever. So I'm a bit skeptical about that, but I still want Phil to give me a good source that 65/35 is the more accurate ratio before I write off the IPCC study.

[richard mann]

Think about it for a moment. You can't get more than 4 out of 5 Dentists to recommend Trident gum. If the 97% were a true number, in my book, that would imply only the fringe nutjobs did not buy into something. 97% is virtual metaphysical certainty, which in this case, it clearly is not. There are very smart, well educated and respected people that do not buy into it. Heck, just hearing from the so far majority on this forum telling you its bogus should make you a light a bulb...

 

.. Don't forget the "4 out of 5 Dentists". 

[richard mann]

.. successfully. 

[Scott26]

Ultimately a theory is tested by being able to predict future outcomes.

Hence the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, which is on similar grounds to the theory of evolution, plate tectonics and the big bang, but it's just newer and therefore has more dissent. Also, I'm unsure how this related to my response you quoted me on at all...

[Scott26]

We have that in common, as I'm not sure how this related to my response. 

 

The IPCC models will eventually be proven (or not) by observed conditions, no matter what 97% of the scientists think.  For what its worth, I have no problem believing that CO2 molecules absorb heat.  That can be tested.  The varying degree of feedback mechanisms are what is uncertain IMO.

Of course, I agree with you completely. It's not like the properties of CO2 are suddenly going to change. The climate is extremely complex and there are many other factors that the models have trouble depicting. It's just ridiculous that people on this forum believe it's all a giant hoax and humans are attributing nothing to the warming of the Earth in recent years don't you think? The biggest uncertainty is, like you said, the extent of this warming in the future and whether it's going to be catastrophic, fairly harmless or somewhere in the middle.

[richard mann]

.. More academic Scott, what I look for myself where searching for a better appreciation and assessment of cases more general, is the idea that where different, even differing ideas are pointed to / brought more into focus, whether or not those being "discounted" more and to whatever degree, are being with a decent degree of "form"; .. or otherwise looked at, "deference" to the other individual's or group's efforts, where having offered / put more forward, their "assessment" / "evaluation" / "conjecture".

 

.. Or put more simply, "Deference and Form" ... first.  (Others' points, or near to points. First.)

 

— Even "Wheat from chaff". 

[Phil]

We have that in common, as I'm not sure how this related to my response.

 

The IPCC models will eventually be proven (or not) by observed conditions, no matter what 97% of the scientists think. For what its worth, I have no problem believing that CO2 molecules absorb heat. That can be tested. The varying degree of feedback mechanisms are what is uncertain IMO.

CO^2 molecules don't "absorb heat". They intercept infrared radiation in a few specific frequencies, as most tri-atomic molecules do, and subsequently transition into an excited state. Most of this kinetic energy is then transferred to the surrounding gases via conduction/collisional line broadening, warming them, before the CO^2 molecule can re-emit the intercepted photon(s).

 

However, this extra kinetic energy can only be thermalized (realized as an increase in kinetic energy) in molecules that are in a less-excited state than the original CO^2 molecule(s) doing the transfer (2nd law of thermodynamics). Hence, the relevant thermalization can only occur in the mid/upper troposphere, where temps are cold enough, and the rate of collisional transfer is greater than the rate of emission.

 

In the stratosphere, CO^2 has a cooling effect, because the rate of emission is greater than the rate of collision (lower air pressure/higher DOF). Up here, N2/O^2/O^3 molecules collide with CO^2/N^2O, which subsequently emit the energy at a rate that exceeds low frequency collisional transfer.

[tbone8]

Hence the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, which is on similar grounds to the theory of evolution, plate tectonics and the big bang, but it's just newer and therefore has more dissent. Also, I'm unsure how this related to my response you quoted me on at all...

Evolution has a genetic trail that likely links all living things together. Its pretty much the only theory going besides divine creation. Plate tectonics is pretty much a slam dunk, they just argue on what causes them to move. Finally, the big bang can be mathematically calculated. Its really an apples and oranges argument I think. As time goes on and these dire predictions keep fizzeling out, more and more folks are jumping the GW ship. Like the polar bear drownings, the guy that came up with that fabrication was a fraud...

[Phil]

CO^2 molecules don't "absorb heat". They intercept infrared radiation in a few specific frequencies, as most tri-atomic molecules do, and subsequently transition into an excited state. Most of this kinetic energy is then transferred to the surrounding gases via conduction/collisional line broadening, warming them, before the CO^2 molecule can re-emit the intercepted photon(s).

 

However, this extra kinetic energy can only be thermalized (realized as an increase in kinetic energy) in molecules that are in a less-excited state than the original CO^2 molecule(s) doing the transfer (2nd law of thermodynamics). Hence, the relevant thermalization can only occur in the mid/upper troposphere, where temps are cold enough, and the rate of collisional transfer is greater than the rate of emission.

 

In the stratosphere, CO^2 has a cooling effect, because the rate of emission is greater than the rate of collision (lower air pressure/higher DOF). Up here, N2/O^2/O^3 molecules collide with CO^2/N^2O, which subsequently emit the energy at a rate that exceeds low frequency collisional transfer.

So, this is why the lack of a well defined "hotspot" in the upper troposphere is concerning for AGW advocates. The majority of thermalization occurring via CO^2 radiative forcing should be occurring above 400mb. If that warming is not occurring, then CO^2 cannot be the culprit, despite what many say.

 

Not to mention the increase in observed OLWR, the reduction in H^2O aloft, and the lack of spectral dampening since 1998.

[Phil]

Evolution has a genetic trail that likely links all living things together. Its pretty much the only theory going besides divine creation. Plate tectonics is pretty much a slam dunk, they just argue on what causes them to move. Finally, the big bang can be mathematically calculated. Its really an apples and oranges argument I think. As time goes on and these dire predictions keep fizzeling out, more and more folks are jumping the GW ship. Like the polar bear drownings, the guy that came up with that fabrication was a fraud...

Big Bang theory stands on weaker ground than AGW, actually. Don't pull me in on this one unless you want a 50 page rant, lol.

[richard mann]

.. I promise.

[tbone8]

Big Bang theory stands on weaker ground than AGW, actually. Don't pull me in on this one unless you want a 50 page rant, lol.

Interesting, do you have a condensed half page rant we could read?   I just always wondered, its presented as a slam dunk butt the physics is a tad above my paygrade. I thought the confirmation of the Higgs boson a couple years ago lent a lot of credibility to the whole deal?

[Scott26]

So, this is why the lack of a well defined "hotspot" in the upper troposphere is concerning for AGW advocates. The majority of thermalization occurring via CO^2 radiative forcing should be occurring above 400mb. If that warming is not occurring, then CO^2 cannot be the culprit, despite what many say.

 

Not to mention the increase in observed OLWR, the reduction in H^2O aloft, and the lack of spectral dampening since 1998.

But, water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. Wouldn't a reduction in H^20 aloft being an argument that CO^2 is more likely to be the culprit? I'm not trying to argue anything, but I'm trying to understand. Also it's currently estimated that human impacts on the atmosphere exert a cumulative radiative forcing of 1.6 watts/m^2, but why exactly should most of the CO^2 radiative forcing be occurring in the middle/upper troposphere? I understand that some of the re-emitted infrared energy is lost to space and some travels back downwards, but what keeps most of the warming going on in the middle/upper troposphere instead of most of it getting absorbed into the oceans for example.

[Phil]

But, water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. Wouldn't a reduction in H^20 aloft being an argument that CO^2 is more likely to be the culprit?

Should be the other way around..warmer upper troposphere should raise the bonding threshold.

 

I'm not trying to argue anything, but I'm trying to understand. Also it's currently estimated that human impacts on the atmosphere exert a cumulative radiative forcing of 1.6 watts/m^2, but why exactly should most of the CO^2 radiative forcing be occurring in the middle/upper troposphere?

I already explained this..the radiative forcing must be thermalized before it is realized as a macroscale forcing. The intercepted frequencies we're talking about here are very low, analogous to a temperature ~ -47F. You're only going to get thermalization at or below that temperature, as a "colder" (less-excited) molecule cannot further warm a warmer (more excited) molecule.

 

I understand that some of the re-emitted infrared energy is lost to space and some travels back downwards, but what keeps most of the warming going on in the middle/upper troposphere instead of most of it getting absorbed into the oceans for example.

Because the thermal energy is transferred to O^2/N^2, which do not emit in the relevent frequencies

[richard mann]

-
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-should-governor-inslee-do-about.html

[Glacier]

The use of "hoax" in the title or when talking about AGW is unfortunate because the actual arguments are a lot more sophisticated than that. The theory of AGW can be summarized as such:

1) The world is warming.

2) Humans are to blame.

3) This is bad.

4) We need to do something about it.

 

If you question any of these 4 pillars, you are a denier (to use another unsophisticated term). The science by any stretch of the imagination shows that the world has indeed warmed since 1950 when human emissions are thought to start contributing to the warming. 

 

This brings us to the second pillar around humans causing the warming. Humans are contributing somewhat because the planet would be 2.5C cooler if there were no CO2. Since the effects of CO2 on the atmospheric temperature is logarithmic, the human effects decrease as the emissions go up.

 

This brings us to the third pillar. On the environmentalist side of the AGW theory, the naturalistic fallacy is used to point to human emissions as being a problem. In the past the warmer planet was good for life, but now this time that humans are causing it so it's going to be bad. The other common fallacy invoked when trying to support the third pillar is the spotlight fallacy. This one is easy to get carried away with because there is always extreme weather happening somewhere, just as there always has been in the past. With more media coverage and more interest in the climate extremes, it appears that the weather is getting weirder and more extreme, but the science doesn't support this assertion. 

 

As for the fourth pillar, let's assume that the climate is going all haywire. We would then have to perform a cost-benefit analysis similar to that done by Bjorn Lomborg. 

[tbone8]

The use of "hoax" in the title or when talking about AGW is unfortunate because the actual arguments are a lot more sophisticated than that. The theory of AGW can be summarized as such:

1) The world is warming.

2) Humans are to blame.

3) This is bad.

4) We need to do something about it.

 

If you question any of these 4 pillars, you are a denier (to use another unsophisticated term). The science by any stretch of the imagination shows that the world has indeed warmed since 1950 when human emissions are thought to start contributing to the warming. 

 

This brings us to the second pillar around humans causing the warming. Humans are contributing somewhat because the planet would be 2.5C cooler if there were no CO2. Since the effects of CO2 on the atmospheric temperature is logarithmic, the human effects decrease as the emissions go up.

 

This brings us to the third pillar. On the environmentalist side of the AGW theory, the naturalistic fallacy is used to point to human emissions as being a problem. In the past the warmer planet was good for life, but now this time that humans are causing it so it's going to be bad. The other common fallacy invoked when trying to support the third pillar is the spotlight fallacy. This one is easy to get carried away with because there is always extreme weather happening somewhere, just as there always has been in the past. With more media coverage and more interest in the climate extremes, it appears that the weather is getting weirder and more extreme, but the science doesn't support this assertion. 

 

As for the fourth pillar, let's assume that the climate is going all haywire. We would then have to perform a cost-benefit analysis similar to that done by Bjorn Lomborg. 

 

I gotta say, I think the thing that rubs me the most is the the labeling "denier" if you don't agree with someone or some thing. As far as your four points go:

 

1) The world is warming. The earth goes through MANY warming and cooling trends, fact.

2) Humans are to blame. We could not control the climate if we tried, absolutely no proof.

3) This is bad. Actually, I hope it is rising. Many more beenifits than cooling.

4) We need to do something about it. Again, we can't control the climate.

 

The world was thought to be flat, sun revolved around the earth and someday hopefully soon, global warming will fall on that ash heap...

[Scott26]

The original models showed the GHG in the troposphere warming first, than spreading lower.  This hasn't happened.  If anything, the troposphere temps are lagging SST's.   AGW proponents attribute this to stronger than modeled trade winds.  I am oversimplifying of course...maybe Phil will elaborate.

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting  and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? Once again I'm not presenting an argument right now, but I want to see some of your guys take on it. Here is what NOAA says about the hiatus...

 

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

 

"Completed analyses show that more than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future."

[Scott26]

I gotta say, I think the thing that rubs me the most is the the labeling "denier" if you don't agree with someone or some thing. As far as your four points go:

 

1) The world is warming. The earth goes through MANY warming and cooling trends, fact.

2) Humans are to blame. We could not control the climate if we tried, absolutely no proof.

3) This is bad. Actually, I hope it is rising. Many more beenifits than cooling.

4) We need to do something about it. Again, we can't control the climate.

 

The world was thought to be flat, sun revolved around the earth and someday hopefully soon, global warming will fall on that ash heap...

Are we back in the 1800's right now?    With all of the technology and knowledge we have today the majority of scientists being wrong seems very unlikely.

[Phil]

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? Once again I'm not presenting an argument right now, but I want to see some of your guys take on it. Here is what NOAA says about the hiatus...

Problem is, if NOAA cannot account for the lack of warming above 400mb, they cannot attribute any of that oceanic warming to AGW. The energy MUST be thermalized in the troposphere before it can be distributed.

 

Right now, we've got billions upon billions invested in AGW theory, so there's definitely an incentive make it work. Unfortunately, there's a lot of anti-physical nonsense popping up as a result.

[Phil]

Are we back in the 1800's right now? With all of the technology and knowledge we have today the majority of scientists being wrong seems very unlikely.

 

Uh, what? I suggest you research the recent paradigm shift in how we understand stomach ulcers, or the discovery of quantum mechanics, for starters. Truth is, the majority of theoretical "consensuses" have actually turned out to be false.

[Scott26]

Uh, what? I suggest you research the recent paradigm shift in how we understand stomach ulcers, or the discovery of quantum mechanics, for starters. Truth is, the majority of theoretical "consensuses" have actually turned out to be false.

I'm not trying to get too off topic here, but wasn't Quantum Mechanics more of a discovery, as you said, instead of proving anything false? It's not like it disproved Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Didn't it just bring us into a new world of physics at the subatomic level?

[tbone8]

It seems like a lot of you are so focused on the global temperature anomaly being in an hiatus in the last decade or so. Why is this when the sea levels, arctic ice melting  and ocean temperatures are still on the increase? Once again I'm not presenting an argument right now, but I want to see some of your guys take on it. Here is what NOAA says about the hiatus...

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

 

"Completed analyses show that more than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future."

 

Funny how nature is a good excuse for explaining GW.   As far as "the majority of scientists being wrong seems very unlikely", you have seriously got to be kidding me. 10 years from now, our technology and what we know will look like childs play. When I was your age, the were no home computers, internet, ipods and the pending ice age was all the rage. I mention the global cooling thing not to jab at you but to try to make you realize how things change.You really need to break out of your pigeon hole thinking.

[Phil]

I'm not trying to get too off topic here, but wasn't Quantum Mechanics more of a discovery, as you said, instead of proving anything false? It's not like it disproved Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Didn't it just bring us into a new world of physics at the subatomic level?

No, it replaced classical mechanics/upended most of our theories on how the atomic world worked, actually.

 

If you want to be blown away, read "The Quantum Enigma". We have more questions now than ever.

[richard mann]

Problem is, if NOAA cannot account for the lack of warming above 400mb, they cannot attribute any of that oceanic warming to AGW. The energy MUST be thermalized in the troposphere before it can be distributed.

 

Right now, we've got billions upon billions invested in AGW theory, so there's definitely an incentive make it work. Unfortunately, there's a lot of anti-physical nonsense popping up as a result.

All quite plain. To anyone who ..... (Fill in the blank.)