IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers

[Riverwind]

you come up with all these straws for causes of warming yet offer no evidence to explain the cause of the warming, nothing, apparently in the minds of deniers evidence is not required.

And you keep making the rediculous assertion that the warming has to have a 'cause'. Where is you proof that is it is anything more than the random variations of a complex system? Climate models don't count as proof since they are built based on the assumption that the climate cannot change without an external forcing.

[Keepitsimple]

unfortunately you don't understand the significance of CO2 lag, this is the smoking gun of anthropogenic CC...1st by making this claim you're denying that CO2 is a GHG is that correct:)?...2nd in past warming's as recorded in ice core samples CO2 spikes generally 800yrs after temp spikes, there is no massive warming to account for the this rise in CO2 800yrs ago, this temperature rise is trailing the CO2 rise, how can that be please explainbecause you've now claimed that CO2 is not be a GHG...3rd the CO2 increases recorded are anthropogenic they are not natural emissions...

You make very little sense. Of course CO2 is a GHG - I would never claim otherwise. I'm not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. If you'll remember Al Gore's charts - he made a concise point that throughout history, CO2 peaked at the same time as temperature. This was the IPCC position at the time. It was only after scientists expanded the scale of the data that it clearly showed that temperature spiked first, followed by CO2 - at least in the ice-core data that was being referenced. No one has explained WHY that was the case - it was just a fact based on that data. Now you're claiming that this is the anthropogenic smoking gun for Climate Change.......because there doesn't appear to be any warming 800 years ago to account for the increased CO2? Nobody said there had to be! What they said was that the IPCC and Al Gore had presented incorrect or outright fraudulent information.

Let's start over Wyly and I'll keep it simple.....I agree that humans have increased the CO2 in our atmosphere and are continuing to do so........from a natural or proven sustainability level of 350PPM to what is today 380 heading upwards at 2 PPM per year. By far the majority of this CO2 increase is the result of human activity. What you are not getting is that there really is no proof that this increase in CO2 is a major contributor to Climate Change. As I said, the initial premise of the IPCC was that they could not find anything else, so it must be CO2. Ever since, they have been trying to stick their fingers in a horrendously leaky boat. They say it's not the sun, they say it's not the oceans, they say planetary orbit variations don't cut it - it never changes, it's always CO2. Don't you find it curious that their first "guess" 20 years ago has never changed - never been altered? It has always been completely arrogant to think that after millions upon millions of years on climate change - driven by the sun of course - that humans could alter the whole universe by emitting a few more parts per million of CO2. Sheer hubris. We are not that important.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

For someone who is a global warming skeptic, the science is not settled.

There is an important difference between a global warming denier and a global warming skeptic.

I think the following is one of the best summaries of these arguments I've seen in quite some time.

Both sides had supporters among qualified scientists, although Greenies often questioned the bona fides of their Skeptic colleagues. Rabid Kyoto-propagandists coined the term “climate change denier” for skeptics to put doubts about global warming on the same footing as Holocaust denial. It was a stroke of genius and an admission of moral bankruptcy at the same time

George Jonas

[wyly]

And you keep making the rediculous assertion that the warming has to have a 'cause'. Where is you proof that is it is anything more than the random variations of a complex system? Climate models don't count as proof since they are built based on the assumption that the climate cannot change without an external forcing.

climate change cannot occur without reason, cause and effect is definitive...whether climate gets cooler or warmer it does so because some event has caused it to do so it is impossible for it to do otherwise...

[wyly]

You make very little sense. Of course CO2 is a GHG - I would never claim otherwise. I'm not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. If you'll remember Al Gore's charts - he made a concise point that throughout history, CO2 peaked at the same time as temperature. This was the IPCC position at the time. It was only after scientists expanded the scale of the data that it clearly showed that temperature spiked first, followed by CO2 - at least in the ice-core data that was being referenced. No one has explained WHY that was the case - it was just a fact based on that data. Now you're claiming that this is the anthropogenic smoking gun for Climate Change.......because there doesn't appear to be any warming 800 years ago to account for the increased CO2? Nobody said there had to be! What they said was that the IPCC and Al Gore had presented incorrect or outright fraudulent information.

you inferred that CO2 only follows temperature rise which is untrue there by denying CO2 as GHG...Al Gore's presentation showed the link between temp and CO2, the ice core samples confirm the typical CO2 lag of temp which is now reversed...that you didn't understand that concept isn't Gore's fault...

it is IMPOSSIBLE to to change a ratio of a gas mixture and not change it properties, ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!...

Let's start over Wyly and I'll keep it simple.....I agree that humans have increased the CO2 in our atmosphere and are continuing to do so........from a natural or proven sustainability level of 350PPM to what is today 380 heading upwards at 2 PPM per year. By far the majority of this CO2 increase is the result of human activity. What you are not getting is that there really is no proof that this increase in CO2 is a major contributor to Climate Change. As I said, the initial premise of the IPCC was that they could not find anything else, so it must be CO2. Ever since, they have been trying to stick their fingers in a horrendously leaky boat. They say it's not the sun, they say it's not the oceans, they say planetary orbit variations don't cut it - it never changes, it's always CO2. Don't you find it curious that their first "guess" 20 years ago has never changed - never been altered? It has always been completely arrogant to think that after millions upon millions of years on climate change - driven by the sun of course - that humans could alter the whole universe by emitting a few more parts per million of CO2. Sheer hubris. We are not that important.

first guess 20 years ago? knowledge of the greenhouse effect goes back 100 years, you're judging scientific knowledge by your own awareness...

and back to the point I'll keep raising because you can't answer it....20 million tons of SO2 from the Mt Pinatubo eruption lowered average global temps for 2 years, but 1.8 gigatons(2003) of Anthropogenic CO2 per year can have no effect, please explain this...

[Riverwind]

climate change cannot occur without reason, cause and effect is definitive

The 'cause' can be internal to the system. i.e. oceans can release heat that was sequestered thousands of years ago causing the air to warm. From our perspective such changes would have no identifiable cause because we cannot measure the net exchange of energy between the oceans and air.

If you disagree then please explain the 'cause' of the warming from 1910 to 1940. You will find that there is no known cause. It just 'happened' according to the IPCC.

[Keepitsimple]

you inferred that CO2 only follows temperature rise which is untrue there by denying CO2 as GHG...Al Gore's presentation showed the link between temp and CO2, the ice core samples confirm the typical CO2 lag of temp which is now reversed...that you didn't understand that concept isn't Gore's fault...

it is IMPOSSIBLE to to change a ratio of a gas mixture and not change it properties, ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!...

As I said, you don't make any sense. I didn't say that CO2 "only" follows temperature rise. I said Al Gore's presentation made it look like they occurred at the same time.......but when the scale of years is expanded for the data that was presented CO2 peaked about 800 years after temperature peaked. That doesn't mean it happens all the time and I don't think anyone has a good explanation. It's just a fact based on the data that Al Gore used and the fraudulent way that he presented it.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

... even though the summary report (for "policymakers") you link to, itself, provides an index for the likelihood terms used, you prefer to continue your deniers agenda attempting to cast doubt/suspicion at every turn. The science is settled... unless you're a denier.

When one speaks to the much manipulated phrase, “the science is settled”… one recognizes that climate scientists are now >90% certain that mankind is causing climate change… that’s reflected with the IPCC AR4 reports… and that’s up from the 66% certainty offered within the 2001 IPCC TAR reports. So, yes… in terms of recognizing that mankind is causing climate change... the “science is settled”.

For someone who is a global warming skeptic, the science is not settled.

There is an important difference between a global warming denier and a global warming skeptic.

A denier asserts that various claims of global warming claimants are not correct.

A skeptic asserts that various claims of global warming claimants are not certain.

Hey now - since Keepitsimple appears most hesitant to discuss the skeptic-denier dynamic, perhaps we're getting somewhere now... in your offered labeling, what would you call a "skeptic" who utilizes the writings/positions of recognized/acknowledged "deniers" in presuming to denigrate/attack climatologists, climate science, AGW, the IPCC, those accepting to the impact of AGW on climate change, etc.?

I'm not talking about some "skeptic" casually offering up something with an attached tone/suggestion of uncertainty... I'm talking about the so-called, self avowed types who claim to be "skeptics", yet leverage the writings/positions of avowed deniers in presuming to posture with uncertainty in the face of their true denial while denigrating/attacking. C'mon,"skeptic posers"... embrace your true selves - say it loud and proud... say you don't believe!

[Keepitsimple]

and back to the point I'll keep raising because you can't answer it....20 million tons of SO2 from the Mt Pinatubo eruption lowered average global temps for 2 years, but 1.8 gigatons(2003) of Anthropogenic CO2 per year can have no effect, please explain this...

Wyly, I'm not a scientist - so perhaps I missed what you're trying to get at. Greenhouse gases trap a certain portion of heat that radiates back from earth as a result of sunlight hitting our planet. SO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas. All those particulates that were released from Mount Pinatubo prevented a large amount of sunlight from actually reaching the planet.....that's why the temperature cooled. Does that answer your question?

Edited November 12, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Even though there are several statements of probability, there are also several key statements of certainty. For the IPCC, at least some important fundamental science is settled. The following is an example of one of the IPCC's statements of certainty:

“Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}”.

In the article “Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air”, available here, Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway, writes:

“In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO₂ in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO₂, the molecule ¹²CO₂, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule ¹⁴CO₂ is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. ...”.

Putting aside R. Essenhigh’s main assertion concerning CO2 residence times, within that same linked to article, R. Essenhigh also throws in an assortment of other claims that have (also) been soundly refuted… R. Essenhigh also offers the following false assertions: that:

- R. Essenhigh states: “The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa.”

False – the accepted feedback system is one where a CO2 induced temperature increase results in warming that causes oceans to outgas CO2 to the atmosphere in response to a lowering of CO2 solubility in warmer ocean water…increased warming causes increased atmospheric CO2 which brings forward the greenhouse effect….. in terms of global warming, temperature increases do not drive CO2 increases.

- R. Essenhigh states: “Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapour.”

False – anthropogenic CO2 upsets the rough natural carbon cycle emission-absorption balance… where a percentage of human CO2 emissions are not being absorbed and remain in the atmosphere.

False – Essenhigh’s claim reflects upon water vapour’s radiative transfer impact range as limited to the lowest 2km of the atmosphere and discounts the radiative transfer aspects of CO2 within the 2km-to-8km portion of the atmosphere… notwithstanding, the positive warming feedback loop between increased CO2 and water vapour.

In regards R. Essenhigh’s principal assertion concerning CO2 residence times, he addresses the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2 and completely discounts the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere. The following paper from David Archer, one of the world’s pre-eminent climatologists, soundly refutes any of R. Essenhigh’s claims concerning CO2 residence times:

Summary

The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr.

A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 104 years is in start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behaviour of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of 300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to choose. However, the 300 year simplification misses the immense longevity of the tail on the CO2 lifetime, and hence its interaction with major ice sheets, ocean methane clathrate deposits, and future glacial/interglacial cycles. One could sensibly argue that public discussion should focus on a time frame within which we live our lives, rather than concern ourselves with climate impacts tens of thousands of years in the future. On the other hand, the 10 kyr lifetime of nuclear waste seems quite relevant to public perception of nuclear energy decisions today.

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’

[waldo]

I think the following is one of the best summaries of these arguments I've seen in quite some time.

Both sides had supporters among qualified scientists, although Greenies often questioned the bona fides of their Skeptic colleagues. Rabid Kyoto-propagandists coined the term “climate change denier” for skeptics to put doubts about global warming on the same footing as Holocaust denial. It was a stroke of genius and an admission of moral bankruptcy at the same time

George Jonas

Argus! I'm completely shocked that it would be you who might attempt to divert this thread with another one of your Jewish angles

Climate Change Denial - Breaking the Holocaust Link

Finally, there is, once again, the question of whether calling someone a denier necessarily puts them into a category with people who deny the Holocaust.

The point seems to be missed over and over. If you say "no, that's wrong" and you have data - you have alternatives that are being tested and not just pulled out of an old textbook or made up - then that can legitimately be regarded as research, which may or may not add something useful to the conversation. If, instead, you foresake research in favour of a series of public lectures in which you wave your arms and deny climate change purely on the basis of outdated or irrelevant references, then that is just denial.

And if, when someone points it out, you think that puts you in bad company, that's your own affair.

[Riverwind]

The point seems to be missed over and over. If you say "no, that's wrong" and you have data - you have alternatives that are being tested and not just pulled out of an old textbook or made up

This is an example of dishonest bait&switch which alarmists restort.

You see, even if someone can prove beyond any doubt that GHGs are going to cause 3degC of warming it does not automatically mean that cap and trade or Kyoto 2 the best way to deal with the issue. Yet that does not stop alarmists from labelling anyone who disagrees with any of their desired policies as a "denier".

That why is is correct to say that the term "denier" is intentionally used as a propoganda term designed to associate sceptics with holocaust deniers. The fact that alarmists have no qualms about using it shows they are either morally bankrupt or blind zealots.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Wyly, I'm not a scientist - so perhaps I missed what you're trying to get at. Greenhouse gases trap a certain portion of heat that radiates back from earth as a result of sunlight hitting our planet. SO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas. All those particulates that were released from Mount Pinatubo prevented a large amount of sunlight from actually reaching the planet.....that's why the temperature cooled. Does that answer your question?

it doesn't answer the question...20,000,000 tons of SO2 can cool the planet for two years and you claimed it's hubris to claim anthropogenic CO2 could have the opposite effect because it's insignificant, tell us how is 1,800,000,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year(on 2003 emissions) is insignificant... plus CO2 is cumulative only half is absorbed back into the cycle...so where as most of that 20,000,000 tons of SO2 cycles out in a couple of years the CO2 does not...

20,000,000 tons of SO2/vs 1,800,000,000 tons of CO2

Edited November 12, 2009 by wyly

[wyly]

As I said, you don't make any sense. I didn't say that CO2 "only" follows temperature rise. I said Al Gore's presentation made it look like they occurred at the same time.......but when the scale of years is expanded for the data that was presented CO2 peaked about 800 years after temperature peaked. That doesn't mean it happens all the time and I don't think anyone has a good explanation. It's just a fact based on the data that Al Gore used and the fraudulent way that he presented it.

you've already explained you're no scientist and neither am I but I understand the significance...and in normal warming processes that's the way it happens temp rise first followed by CO2 increases...the oceans supply the CO2 recorded in the lag spikes warm water holds less CO2 than cold water...there is a lag because it takes centuries for the deep oceans to warm and release the CO2 stored there...without a significant previous warming 800yrs ago there is no cause for the increased CO2 levels other than Anthropogenic...CO2 is a GHG and is now driving temperature...there is no other explanation that explains the warming...feel free to list any peer reviewed papers say otherwise...

[Keepitsimple]

it doesn't answer the question...20,000,000 tons of SO2 can cool the planet for two years and you claimed it's hubris to claim anthropogenic CO2 could have the opposite effect because it's insignificant, tell us how is 1,800,000,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year(on 2003 emissions) is insignificant... plus CO2 is cumulative only half is absorbed back into the cycle...so where as most of that 20,000,000 tons of SO2 cycles out in a couple of years the CO2 does not...

20,000,000 tons of SO2/vs 1,800,000,000 tons of CO2

It's easy to be fooled by seemingly large numbers. Lets keep things in perspective. The average person exhales 310KG of CO2 each year. There are about 6.6 billion people in the world. I'll let you do the math. Maybe then you'll see why it's not as significant as one might think when simply presented with your huge number and no context.

I answered your question but you don't seem to like the answer so I'll say it again. SO2 and particulates from Pinatubo blocked out some of the sunlight - that's why it cooled - it's a very direct cause and effect. That's completely different from the theories surrounding how much of a real impact CO2 has on Climate Change.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

...without a significant previous warming 800yrs ago there is no cause for the increased CO2 levels other than Anthropogenic...CO2 is a GHG and is now driving temperature...there is no other explanation that explains the warming...

Which is exactly the point that I've made from the start......the IPCC theory is based not on proof that CO2 has a direct and quatifiable impact on Climate Change....but that "there is no other explanation". Sceptics say there are plenty of explanations - GHG's definitely play a role but there are so many other components to climate change - and each one that is discovered and researched continues to chip away at the significance of CO2.....and of course, the significance of that portion of CO2 that is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

[noahbody]

We have talked about this before.

If the argument is to say science is never settled then it can apply to smoking as well. They use the word "risk" and "could" and "possibly" and "might" when talking about the outcomes.

Can you model how long a person will live if he smokes 7 cigarettes per day? Of course not. Because there are many unknown variables. You can smoke all your life and not get lung cancer. You could also die of something else. That's how it's similar to AGW.

Incomplete models make bad science. The only thing that should be settled, is that argument whether man, at this time, can model Earth's climate. The answer is no.

[wyly]

It's easy to be fooled by seemingly large numbers. Lets keep things in perspective. The average person exhales 310KG of CO2 each year. There are about 6.6 billion people in the world. I'll let you do the math. Maybe then you'll see why it's not as significant as one might think when simply presented with your huge number and no context.

I answered your question but you don't seem to like the answer so I'll say it again. SO2 and particulates from Pinatubo blocked out some of the sunlight - that's why it cooled - it's a very direct cause and effect. That's completely different from the theories surrounding how much of a real impact CO2 has on Climate Change.

you win the absurd logic of the week award...

cause and effect CO2 is a GHG which accumulates faster than it cycles out of the atmosphere, the greater the accumulation, the greater the effect...it is changing the ratio of a gas mixture therefore the atmosphere MUST change it's properties it is impossible to do anything else IMPOSSIBLE!...to deny it is scientific ignorance, or a denier...

[wyly]

Which is exactly the point that I've made from the start......the IPCC theory is based not on proof that CO2 has a direct and quatifiable impact on Climate Change....but that "there is no other explanation". Sceptics say there are plenty of explanations - GHG's definitely play a role but

the Anthropogenic CO2 fits the models, without it and it's GHG properties the models do not match the warming....

there are so many other components to climate change - and each one that is discovered and researched continues to chip away at the significance of CO2.....and of course, the significance of that portion of CO2 that is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

chip away? really...supply a list of these components and back them up with links to peer reviewed studies...

[Riverwind]

the Anthropogenic CO2 fits the models, without it and it's GHG properties the models do not match the warming

So? Ever heard of curve fitting? That is where one creates a model that match the existing data perfectly by picking the right parameters. That is all the IPCC models do. People have done the same with simple models and shown that that natural variations can explain the warming fine. The trouble is you cannot get $billions in funding for supercomputers if all you want to show is that climate is changing and there is nothing governments can do about it. Edited November 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[Argus]

Argus! I'm completely shocked that it would be you who might attempt to divert this thread with another one of your Jewish angles HAW! HAW! HAW!:

Climate Change Denial - Breaking the Holocaust Link

I'm not shocked that, as usual, your answer serves best to portray you as a bufoon, and that your cite holds the same contemptuous, swaggering ignorance as you display in every single post.

Jonas' post was more about the way knowledge-free ideologues have embraced climate change in the same way others embrace religion, and close their minds (such as they are) to anything which might contradict their desperately held theological views. Climate Change is not about science or proof, any more than religion is. Religion is about faith, as is Climate Change, only in your case, it's faith that the evil capitalist systems will die away and the new world order of environmental perfection will reign.

As Jonas says: Global warming first surfaced as a scientific question, all but devoid of ideology. Today it’s an ideological position, all but devoid of science.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Argus

[wyly]

So? Ever heard of curve fitting? That is where one creates a model that match the existing data perfectly by picking the right parameters. That is all the IPCC models do. People have done the same with simple models and shown that that natural variations can explain the warming fine. The trouble is you cannot get $billions in funding for supercomputers if all you want to show is that climate is changing and there is nothing governments can do about it.

show us your links to peer reviewed papers and not blog opinions

[waldo]

So? Ever heard of curve fitting? That is where one creates a model that match the existing data perfectly by picking the right parameters. That is all the IPCC models do. People have done the same with simple models and shown that that natural variations can explain the warming fine. The trouble is you cannot get $billions in funding for supercomputers if all you want to show is that climate is changing and there is nothing governments can do about it.

huh? Near perfect backcasting is the norm with any models/modeling... does your criticism extend to the predictive capabilities of climate models? Are you suggesting there are no climate models with demonstrated predictive result... exactly how is your apparent selectivity being applied in evaluating the accuracy/relevance of climate models?

I do believe I'm having a recall buzz here - something about a raised contradiction you've left unanswered... something along the lines of past model vs. observation discussions where you attributed all warming to natural variability while at the same time acknowledging in another post, as you stated, an "AGW problem"... albeit a problem where you suggested there was a need to address methane before CO2. It's just not clear what type of "AGW problem" you were accepting to while at the same time advocating for an "all natural variability" influence. (I believe I also highlighted the unnatural aspects of methane concentrations increasing due to CO2 increasing (re: previous discussions concerning the increased melting of Greenland permafrost)).

[waldo]

Which is exactly the point that I've made from the start......the IPCC theory is based not on proof that CO2 has a direct and quatifiable impact on Climate Change....but that "there is no other explanation". Sceptics say there are plenty of explanations - GHG's definitely play a role but there are so many other components to climate change - and each one that is discovered and researched continues to chip away at the significance of CO2.....and of course, the significance of that portion of CO2 that is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

can you offer any models that speak to your "plenty of explanations"... that can attribute warming to your "plenty of explanations"... while discounting the significance of human induced CO2 increase?

[waldo]

You see, even if someone can prove beyond any doubt that GHGs are going to cause 3degC of warming it does not automatically mean that cap and trade or Kyoto 2 the best way to deal with the issue. Yet that does not stop alarmists from labelling anyone who disagrees with any of their desired policies as a "denier".

That why is is correct to say that the term "denier" is intentionally used as a propoganda term designed to associate sceptics with holocaust deniers. The fact that alarmists have no qualms about using it shows they are either morally bankrupt or blind zealots.

In the greater "debate", policy lags science when labels get thrown around. How many actual prominent working/active research scientists are even involved in policy? A denial position hasn't been shaped by concerns over policy - a denial position is solely related to science. If you're in denial... you're a denier... as the linked to article stated, if you're being labeled a denier (or an alarmist, for that matter), if "you think that puts you in bad company, that's your own affair."