View Full Version : Climategate U-turn ???
Are there to many people, to many cows, and to much of everything??
Maybe..
BUT, the guy who wrote the book,,
Now says it's all wrong, his data has gone missing, he say it's not warming.
Al Gore is looking for a new job...
Read,, from the horse's mouth (or orifice of choice)..
You decide..
Personally,, I think Professor Jones' 15 minutes are up, over, and out...
My $00.0002
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no
global warming since 1995, By Jonathan Petre, Last updated at 5:12 PM on
14th February 2010
a.. Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
b.. There has been no global warming since 1995
c.. Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it
should be'
The academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is
crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble
'keeping track' of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of
Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations
of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was
swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as
it should be'.
The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate
change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in
medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made
phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically
significant' warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there
are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the
orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director
of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking
of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world
and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the
United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press
governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of
'scientific fraud' for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and
refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin
said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that
his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and
office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC's website, said the
professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around
the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the 'hockey stick graph' which is
relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said 'his office is
piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of
pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data
to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never
realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them'.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack
of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share
data with critics, which he regretted.
dadof18x'er
02-15-2010, 06:39
the really hard core "experts" won't give up, they say the cold and snow "proves" climate change. Reminds me of Bagdad Bob:D
Kyobanim
02-15-2010, 07:03
The current weather patterns neither prove or disprove anything outside of the fact that el nino makes it wet.
craigepo
02-15-2010, 07:56
The climate change folks have clearly not spent the last few years hanging out in Missouri. The last couple winters have been freaking cold. Last summer was amazingly cool. I'm sure they would write that off as being anecdotal.
http://climate.missouri.edu/charts/chart1.php
Some very good reading for consideration here.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches.html
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Kyobanim
02-15-2010, 08:32
Good link, thanks Richard.
"Most people assume linearity in environmental processes, but the world is largely non-linear: it's a complex system. An important feature of complex systems is that we don't know how they work. We don't understand them except in a general way; we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, we learn we don't. Sometimes spectacularly."
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
Utah Bob
02-15-2010, 09:59
Whenever we think we understand them, we learn we don't. Sometimes spectacularly.
The story of my life in so many ways. ;)
Some very good reading for consideration here.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches.html
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Although Crichton does not mention Chaos, he talks around it. The idea that past data can determine the future is marginally safe in most linear science.
EG: If you add industraly chemicals to the water system,, you will kill the fish.
But weather in not linear and as absurd as it seems, the butterfly theary, as part of Chaos, does make sense..
Theory
Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather), since it is impossible to measure the starting atmospheric conditions completely accurately.
Origin of the concept and the term
The term "butterfly effect" itself is related to the work of Edward Lorenz, and is based in chaos theory and sensitive dependence on initial conditions, already described in the literature in a particular case of the three-body problem by Henri Poincaré in 1890[1]. He even later proposed that such phenomena could be common, say in meteorology. In 1898[2] Jacques Hadamard noted general divergence of trajectories in spaces of negative curvature, and Pierre Duhem discussed the possible general significance of this in 1908[3]. The idea that one butterfly could eventually have a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent historic events seems first to have appeared in a 1952 short story by Ray Bradbury about time travel (see Literature and print here) although Lorenz made the term popular. In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal .506 instead of entering the full .506127 the computer would hold. The result was a completely different weather scenario.[4] Lorenz published his findings in a 1963 paper for the New York Academy of Sciences noting that "One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings could change the course of weather forever." Later speeches and papers by Lorenz used the more poetic butterfly. According to Lorenz, upon failing to provide a title for a talk he was to present at the 139th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1972, Philip Merilees concocted Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? as a title. Although a butterfly flapping its wings has remained constant in the expression of this concept, the location of the butterfly, the consequences, and the location of the consequences have varied widely.
The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in a certain location. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different. While the butterfly does not "cause" the tornado in the sense of providing the energy for the tornado, it does "cause" it in the sense that the flap of its wings is an essential part of the initial conditions resulting in a tornado, and without that flap that particular tornado would not have existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
In this case, Al Gore is a butterfly,, without wings.... Kinda like a slug...
bravo22b
02-15-2010, 12:43
"Most people assume linearity in environmental processes, but the world is largely non-linear: it's a complex system. An important feature of complex systems is that we don't know how they work. We don't understand them except in a general way; we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, we learn we don't. Sometimes spectacularly."
This is a great quote that basically summarizes why I think the climate change proponents are totally full of sh*t. I don't spend a lot of my time trying to analyze the data that the various groups, for or against, put out to support their case. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not going to be able to interpret that data in a knowledgeable way.
My common sense tells me that it is likely that humans are having an effect on the global environment, and therefore probably the climate as well. Whether the changes that we may have wrought are any different than ones that might be brought about by a natural event like a volcano, I have no idea.
But when someone tries to tell me that they know what is happening now, what will happen 20-30 years from now, and what to do about it, in regards to such a complex set of variables, I know they're talking out of their *ss.
dadof18x'er
02-15-2010, 12:57
But when someone tries to tell me that they know what is happening now, what will happen 20-30 years from now, and what to do about it, in regards to such a complex set of variables, I know they're talking out of their *ss.
especially when they seem to be so interested in jacking my wallet!
mark46th
02-15-2010, 13:29
There is too much money invested in Global Warming/Climate change for the government to deny it. Part of Obama's promise of change was more Green Jobs. Obama won't admit that his healthcare plan was wrong, why should we expect him to admit his views on the climate are wrong?
"It's always about the money, mate"
Russel Crowe as Terry Thorne in 'Proof of Life'....
Soros was the big money behind global warming. Gore was the political voice. The UN, the "moral conscience." The polar bears - visual aids. Obama - the savior. All now very inconvenient.
Public opinion won't tolerate more public investment in this farce.
"Green jobs," "cap and trade," "carbon footprint." All dead. I'd hate to be selling low energy light bulbs right about now.
I'll wait until the news starts to produce widespread reporting of the farce, otherwise, I'll keep my bets that we will continue to hear about it until global warming melts the snow from the next natural ice age....
dr. mabuse
02-15-2010, 19:10
*
robert2854
02-15-2010, 19:19
It seems to me that threhas been global warming since the "ICE AGE"
FWIW, the full Q&A with Professor Jones is available here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm).
Meanwhile, the greening of America continues. Source is here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/15electric.html?pagewanted=print).February 15, 2010
Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car
By TODD WOODY and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
SAN FRANCISCO — If electric cars have any future in the United States, this may be the city where they arrive first.
The San Francisco building code will soon be revised to require that new structures be wired for car chargers. Across the street from City Hall, some drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into a row of charging stations.
In nearby Silicon Valley, companies are ordering workplace charging stations in the belief that their employees will be first in line when electric cars begin arriving in showrooms. And at the headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric, utility executives are preparing “heat maps” of neighborhoods that they fear may overload the power grid in their exuberance for electric cars.
“There is a huge momentum here,” said Andrew Tang, an executive at P.G.& E.
As automakers prepare to introduce the first mass-market electric cars late this year, it is increasingly evident that the cars will get their most serious tryout in just a handful of places. In cities like San Francisco, Portland, Ore., and San Diego, a combination of green consciousness and enthusiasm for new technology seems to be stirring public interest in the cars.
The first wave of electric car buying is expected to begin around December, when Nissan introduces the Leaf, a five-passenger electric car that will have a range of 100 miles on a fully charged battery and be priced for middle-class families.
Several thousand Leafs made in Japan will be delivered to metropolitan areas in California, Arizona, Washington state, Oregon and Tennessee. Around the same time, General Motors will introduce the Chevrolet Volt, a vehicle able to go 40 miles on electricity before its small gasoline engine kicks in.
“This is the game-changer for our industry,” said Carlos Ghosn, Nissan’s president and chief executive. He predicted that 10 percent of the cars sold would be electric vehicles by 2020.
Utilities are gearing up to cooperate with the automakers, a first for the two industries, and governments on the West Coast are focusing intently on the coming issues. Price and tax incentives need to be worked out. Locations must be found for charging stations. And local electrical grids may need reinforcement.
The California Public Utilities Commission, whose headquarters are in San Francisco, has brought together utilities, automakers and charging station companies in an urgent effort to write the new rules of the road.
Much of the attention on electric cars has been on the vehicles’ design, cost and performance. But success or failure could turn on more mundane matters, like the time it takes car buyers to navigate a municipal bureaucracy to have charging stations installed in their homes.
When the president of the California Public Utilities Commission, Michael R. Peevey, leased an electric Mini Cooper, he said, it took six weeks of visits by installers and inspectors before he could plug in his new car at home.
“It was really drawn out and frustrating and certainly is not workable on a mass basis,” Mr. Peevey said.
Such issues are being hashed out here first. The San Francisco area is home not only to a population of early technology adopters but to companies like Coulomb Technologies and Better Place that are developing the networks and software to allow utilities to manage how cars are charged.
Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley company that makes electric cars, says it has already sold 150 of its $109,000 Roadsters in the Bay Area. One customer bought the sleek sports car on the spot after a test drive.
“We asked him how he heard of Tesla and why he bought the car,” said Rachel Konrad, a Tesla spokeswoman. “He said, ‘Well, three other guys on my block have them.’ ”
In Berkeley, a town known for its environmental sensibility, one out of five cars sold today is a hybrid Prius. If electric cars are adopted that broadly in the next few years, problems could ensue.
“If you just allow willy-nilly random charging, are we going to have neighborhood blackouts?” asked Mr. Tang, the utility executive. He said a single car could consume three times as much electricity as a typical San Francisco home.
Mr. Tang is working to make sure that does not happen by monitoring where electric cars are sold in Northern California. And later this year P.G.&E. will lead a “smart charging” pilot project, connecting 200 cars to special charging stations that let utilities control the electrical demand at a given moment.
Robert Hayden, the clean transportation adviser for San Francisco, said the city hopes to have 60 charging stations installed in public garages by year’s end, with a thousand more available across the Bay Area in 2011. And in Oregon, an advisory group is working on charging stations and related issues.
To avoid problems in areas with high car concentrations, utility executives said they would encourage people to charge their vehicles at night or to use smarter electric meters that help control demand.
“We are trying to be proactive about how to make sure that the transformers that serve these homes and neighborhoods are robust enough,” said Doug Kim, an executive at Southern California Edison, which serves Los Angeles.
Mr. Kim said the popularity of electric vehicles “will be a function of a lot of different things: the state of the economy, how many people can actually afford to buy the cars and the price of gasoline — how high does it have to be?”
Some transportation experts are skeptical that electric vehicles will catch on anywhere in the country, in large part because the batteries and the installation of home recharging units are expensive.
Dan Sperling, the director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, estimated that a typical electric car battery would cost the automaker $12,000, and a 240-volt charging unit would cost a household at least $1,500.
Without huge subsidies, “the reality is, these electric vehicles are not going to sweep the industry and become a major share of the market for a very long time,” Mr. Sperling said.
Despite such skepticism, Washington is putting considerable money into the effort, including billions of dollars in loans to Ford, Nissan and Tesla Motors.
Under last year’s stimulus package, nearly $200 million will support Nissan’s introduction of the Leaf by permitting the installation of 13,000 charging stations around cities in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona and Tennessee in the next year or so. (Nissan plans to build the Leaf in Tennessee eventually.)
If electric cars do take off, consumers and society could benefit. Battery-powered motors are more efficient than gasoline engines. They cost drivers on average only 2.5 cents a mile for fuel, less than a third of the cost for a highly efficient gasoline car, according to proponents.
The Energy Department says electric cars produce less of the emissions linked to climate change than traditional vehicles, though how much less depends on the source of power on the local electricity grid.
Before the first Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts reach the show room, an electric car infrastructure is getting a test drive in the Bay Area, in a limited way.
Google, which is talking to automakers about using its PowerMeter energy management software, has already become something of an electric transportation hub. At Google’s Mountain View headquarters, a handful of employees drive to work in Tesla Roadsters, and more drive a fleet of modified Priuses that Google owns. The employees pull into carports that are covered with solar panels and plug their cars into the 100 available charging stations.
Nearby, in downtown San Jose, the city has reserved street parking for electric vehicles and installed charging stations. Nearby, at Adobe Systems’ headquarters, an executive showed off a dozen charging stations in the parking garage. Eighteen more will be installed this year.
“No one wants to be left behind,” said Richard Lowenthal, chief executive of Coulomb Technologies. “We’re preparing for an onslaught of demand.”Before going off for a ride on a dead horse and ranting about how these "innovations" are not going to make a difference if they do not get more people into fewer vehicles needing less parking, I'd like to make one point. It is noteworthy that this article talks about the cost of an electric car in terms of fuel alone. The metric generally used is the total cost of ownership per mile driven.
ZonieDiver
02-15-2010, 21:24
Yep.. charge 'em up. Of course, currently, the only way to produce enough power to charge up all them thar 'lectric cars is with coal-fired plants, since them tree-huggin' 'viro-mentalists don't like Nuke-You-Lure.
What if you can't park right in front of your home?IMO, this is an incredibly important question.
A number of smaller cities are taking a look at overnight on-street residential parking as more and more homeowners/residents are using their garages for storage and/or additional living space.
If a municipality puts the screws on residents and limits their access to "free" on-street parking while the state and federal governments apply pressure for everyone to drive a green car, the unintended political consequences, administrative snafus, and bureaucratic hurdles will be interesting for the political party in power when it all hits the fan.
On the other hand, government coffers will get a nice boost from all the permits, utility taxes, building code/zoning violation fines, and parking citations.
BigJimCalhoun
02-15-2010, 21:48
There is too much money invested in Global Warming/Climate change for the government to deny it. Part of Obama's promise of change was more Green Jobs. Obama won't admit that his healthcare plan was wrong, why should we expect him to admit his views on the climate are wrong?
"It's always about the money, mate"
Russel Crowe as Terry Thorne in 'Proof of Life'....
I sometimes say "if there is no global warming, there is no money to study global warming"
armymom1228
02-15-2010, 23:16
, we just had the peak it appears.
So what you are telling me is that The banana trees in Puerto Rico can expect to have icicles hanging from them? Darn, I know I needed to move further south. :D
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 12:25
It is noteworthy that this article talks about the cost of an electric car in terms of fuel alone. The metric generally used is the total cost of ownership per mile driven.
Spot on.
Find that rotating a fleet of old vehicles is a cost effective way of meeting family needs.
Used and abused a old 4wd Suburban (10/13mpg) for about 30k miles.
Cost $4k to buy. ~$250/year to insure/license. Gave it away when it started winding down.
Used and abused an Eagle Vision (16/28mpg) for about 75k miles.
Cost $7k to buy. ~$250/year to insure/license. Junked it when the engine quit.
Used and abused a Chevy Metro (35/50mpg) for over 20k miles (most of that while gas was over $4/gal).
Cost ~$3k to buy/repair. ~$250/year to insure/license. Sold it for $100 when the transmission started whining.
Currently run:
- Plymouth minivan with a V6 (15/24 mpg)
- full-size Ford van with a 460 (10/13 mpg),
- half-ton Chevy with a carbureted 454 (8/15 mpg)
Total purchase price for all 3: $7500
Total yearly insurance/licensing for all 3: ~$700
Total yearly maintenance for all 3: ~$1000
All of them have plenty of life left.
If one starts to quit, just drive another and evaluate whether maintenance or scrapping/replacing is warranted.
Don't care how much gas costs.
Doing my part to heat up the planet and bring us closer to peak oil. :D
Spot on.
Find that rotating a fleet of old vehicles is a cost effective way of meeting family needs.
Used and abused a old 4wd Suburban (10/13mpg) for about 30k miles.
Cost $4k to buy. ~$250/year to insure/license. Gave it away when it started winding down.
Used and abused an Eagle Vision (16/28mpg) for about 75k miles.
Cost $7k to buy. ~$250/year to insure/license. Junked it when the engine quit.
Used and abused a Chevy Metro (35/50mpg) for over 20k miles (most of that while gas was over $4/gal).
Cost ~$3k to buy/repair. ~$250/year to insure/license. Sold it for $100 when the transmission started whining.
Currently run:
- Plymouth minivan with a V6 (15/24 mpg)
- full-size Ford van with a 460 (10/13 mpg),
- half-ton Chevy with a carbureted 454 (8/15 mpg)
Total purchase price for all 3: $7500
Total yearly insurance/licensing for all 3: ~$700
Total yearly maintenance for all 3: ~$1000
All of them have plenty of life left.
If one starts to quit, just drive another and evaluate whether maintenance or scrapping/replacing is warranted.
Don't care how much gas costs.
Doing my part to heat up the planet and bring us closer to peak oil. :D
I guess we're lucky.
Our current stable:
2002 Lexus RX300 92,000+ miles, 23.1 total mpg, 35K new, (it's got one of those little computers)
2005 Toyota Tundra 3/4 ton 35,000+ miles 18.? city 20.? highway, 25K new
Before the Lexus we had a 1995 Toyota 4-runner, 138,000+ miles, 18+ mpg, 24K new
Maybe it's the flat islands and no snow?? I also use the cruise control down to 25 mph,, which is 70% of the island(s)
FWIW, the most recent matrix available from the AAA is available here (http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Main/PrinterFriendly.asp?CategoryID=3&SubCategoryID=9&ContentID=23).
The full report is available here (http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/20073261133460.YourDrivingCosts2007.pdf).
While the data are for 2007, the AAA reported last year that the costs have remained unchanged.
The data analyzed do not include what one pays for parking.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 18:01
FWIW, the most recent matrix available from the AAA is available here (http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Main/PrinterFriendly.asp?CategoryID=3&SubCategoryID=9&ContentID=23).
The full report is available here (http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/20073261133460.YourDrivingCosts2007.pdf).
While the data are for 2007, the AAA reported last year that the costs have remained unchanged.
The data analyzed do not include what one pays for parking.
Depreciation is a killer.
(Insurance and licensing hurt, too.)
Nobody ever saves money buying a new car for the fuel economy.
Better off buying an old clunker and burning more gas.
Depreciation is a killer.
(Insurance and licensing hurt, too.)
Nobody ever saves money buying a new car for the fuel economy.
Better off buying an old clunker and burning more gas.Back in the early 1990s, one could make a steal getting a slightly used Audi thanks to the sudden acceleration controversy that hurt Audi's sales in the USA.
I wonder if a similar dynamic will develop with slightly used Toyotas?
Looks like the great states of Texas and Alaska are first out the gate . . . pushing back against EPA overreach.
EPA relies on IPCC findings to support USG efforts to regulate (read: TAX) greenhouse gases.
As early voting begins in Texas, Perry sues EPA (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/As-early-voting-begins-in-Texas-Perry-sues-EPA-84499597.html)
Gov. Rick Perry announced today that the State of Texas is filing a lawsuit and asking the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its finding that carbon dioxide is an environmental pollutant. The effect of EPA’s action is to try to use the federal Clean Air Act to enact President Barack Obama’s policies limiting gasses that he believes contribute to global warming and climate change. The lawsuit, filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, alleges the EPA’s endangerment finding is based on junk science and seeks an order stopping the EPA from regulating global warming under the clean air act.
EPA FIGHT, NUCLEAR JUMPSTART (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16216891.htm)
One issue where the administration will not budge, however, is on the Environmental Protection Agency's right to regulate greenhouse gases, an option Obama is preserving in case Congress does not act.
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is spearheading legislation that would prevent the EPA from having that regulatory power.
"We will work against that. We do not want to see that passed," Browner said. Supporters of nuclear power argue more reactors will be needed for the United States to tackle global warming effectively because nuclear is a much cleaner energy source than coal-fired power plants, which spew greenhouse gases.
here we go!
Lets hope these people begin to devour each other over simple things like who's idea it was to coin terms.
They'll do it. Just watch. Sadly, not before your tax dollars line their pockets and there is no legal recourse since it was in the name of humanity and sanctioned by many official government bodies.
The carbon offsets thing made me laugh. What a dillhole.
GratefulCitizen
02-23-2010, 22:50
This is a great quote that basically summarizes why I think the climate change proponents are totally full of sh*t. I don't spend a lot of my time trying to analyze the data that the various groups, for or against, put out to support their case. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not going to be able to interpret that data in a knowledgeable way.
My common sense tells me that it is likely that humans are having an effect on the global environment, and therefore probably the climate as well. Whether the changes that we may have wrought are any different than ones that might be brought about by a natural event like a volcano, I have no idea.
But when someone tries to tell me that they know what is happening now, what will happen 20-30 years from now, and what to do about it, in regards to such a complex set of variables, I know they're talking out of their *ss.
Many people will see patterns where there are none.
The idea of randomness/unpredictability is a concept which scares them.
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/2000/300/2318/2318.strip.gif