Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

[bigus_D]

Your 100 points were no more than 100 assertions, without evidence to back them.

In an argument, if you make an assertion, it's your job to back up the assertion. Whether science, or by the rules of logic/philosophy, and unsupported assertion may be summarily dismissed with another unsupported assertion.

Choose one of those, find your evidence (not more assertions) and go to town on that one.

Also, I challenge that you are a "scientist" as you've claimed. Respectully, you don't argue like someone trained in science, or for that matter, any field that requires intellectual discipline as a required quality. No shame in that, most people are not, but it's very clear from the way you argue that you don't know how to present a case, or argue conclusions, or the premeses your conclusions are based upon.

I challenge you, choose one narrow area, and go head to head, evidence to evidence with dburkhead. I'd do it with you, but I don't enough about this field. Frankly, though, I think I know as much as you.

The list I provided was of common disputes against climate change. For instance "Its the sun"... This was one of dburkhead's earlier assertions as well, oddly enough. There was provided in the copied text a quick rebuttal to the "its only the sun" argument, you'd have to follow the link to find the expanded complete support.

I don't need to debate with dburkhead, because we both agree that more science is required to find absolute answers. I got railed against for saying, simply, that we should do everything we can to leave the world better than when we got it. THIS WAS MY POINT. The, all so overused, "Straw man" has been flung around so heavy here, that nobody can see my point anymore (even after I yell things like "THIS IS MY POINT"). Therefore, a debate, especially judged by such a conservative slanted audience, about the merits of the science behind climate change would be completely meaningless.

p.s. It is apparently unclear that I am not trying to win this "debate"... TROLL TROLL TROLL. I tried to make it clear much earlier, but I was unsuccessful.

 

[dburkhead]

The list I provided was of common disputes against climate change. For instance "Its the sun"... This was one of dburkhead's earlier assertions as well, oddly enough. There was provided in the copied text a quick rebuttal to the "its only the sun" argument, you'd have to follow the link to find the expanded complete support.

Just saying "it's not" is not a rebuttal. That you don't understand the science that indicates why

I don't need to debate with dburkhead, because we both agree that more science is required to find absolute answers.

Not quite. That you are expecting "absolute answers" at all shows that you simply do not understand science. I'm not talking about climate science, but science in general.

I got railed against for saying, simply, that we should do everything we can to leave the world better than when we got it.

Again, not quite. You made certain assumptions about what would be involved and what should be done about it or even if anything can or should be done about anything that might be happening in the case of "climate change."

THIS WAS MY POINT. The, all so overused, "Straw man"

Well, yes, you have overused straw man arguments repeatedly. But then, since it is a logical fallacy even once is overuse.

has been flung around so heavy here, that nobody can see my point anymore (even after I yell things like "THIS IS MY POINT").

And after making that claim you go right back to making the assumptions that were the source of disagreement in the first place. If you want to claim people misunderstood, you really need to stop using the arguments that people supposedly misunderstood in contexts that demonstrate that nobody misunderstood you at all.

Therefore, a debate, especially judged by such a conservative slanted audience, about the merits of the science behind climate change would be completely meaningless.

To be a "debate" about science, you would have to bring actual science to the table. You haven't.

p.s. It is apparently unclear that I am not trying to win this "debate"... TROLL TROLL TROLL. I tried to make it clear much earlier, but I was unsuccessful.

And why should I believe this any more than I should have believed "I am done with this thread"?

 

[bigus_D]

I'm not talking about climate science, but science in general.

not quite... you aren't talking about science at all. You are ignoring the science.

You made certain assumptions about what would be involved and what should be done about it or even if anything can or should be done about anything that might be happening in the case of "climate change."

Sure... I made assumptions. I made an assumption based on the fact that the VAST MAJORITY (we're talking 80%+... probably more like 95%+) of scientists agree on the data. Such an assumption is justified. I've also researched the subject and confirmed my original assumptions. Further, I tested these assumptions by cross referencing articles from various sources and conducted a double top secret double blind back handspring to prove it.

p.s. is the 'sentence' quoted above really a sentence? No? A sentence diagram may be in order, while a venn diagram would not illustrate the lack of proper english in any manner.

Well, yes, you have overused straw man arguments repeatedly. But then, since it is a logical fallacy even once is overuse.

We are talking in circles. Either both of us are employing this fallacy of argument, or neither of us is. In either case, STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN!

What is the debate?
1. Is the earth warming? I vote yes.
2. Is man contributing to it? I vote yes.
3. Is man causing it? I vote irrelevant.
4. Are there risks to humanity due to 'climate change'. I vote yes. that is unless you didn't catch the sarcasm in my enjoyably warm winters comment.
4. Should we do what we can to mitigate the risks? I vote yes.
5. Does Al Gore have the answers? No. I said so in my first post.

I'd love to see your responses...

And after making that claim you go right back to making the assumptions that were the source of disagreement in the first place.

what IS THE DISAGREEMENT? We've already agreed that climate change is happening. My ONLY OTHER POINT was that we should do what we can to mitigate the effects. Do you really think that we should ignore it? ???????

If you want to claim people misunderstood, you really need to stop using the arguments that people supposedly misunderstood in contexts that demonstrate that nobody misunderstood you at all.

This is close to being a sentence.

To be a "debate" about science, you would have to bring actual science to the table. You haven't.

Neither have you. If you want to read about the science, access any number of scientific organization's websites. THEY ALL AGREE... so I won't waste my time pointing you to one that meets your scientific standards.

 

[cbop]

What is the debate?
1. Is the earth warming? I vote yes.
I would say that the climate is changing.... like it always has. I also wonder if that is good or bad. I think the question should be "Is the climate change something to be alarmed about?" To that question, my answer is no, there is no evidence of that
2. Is man contributing to it? I vote yes.
Yes but so is the sun, plants, animals and so on. The question is "what amount is man contributing towards it?"
3. Is man causing it? I vote irrelevant.
Not irrelevant but certainly we do not have all the information needed to make an informed decision
4. Are there risks to humanity due to 'climate change'. I vote yes. that is unless you didn't catch the sarcasm in my enjoyably warm winters comment.
What risk? What is the ideal temperature? Since it has been warmer than the present before, was mankind threatened? How can we jump to that conclusion?
4. Should we do what we can to mitigate the risks? I vote yes.
At what cost, monetarily or social change? Do you kill a patient to cure a cold and declare he is healed? Do we cause more problems regarding quality of life by these solutions?
5. Does Al Gore have the answers? No. I said so in my first post.
Al Gore is not even in the equation, let alone my consideration.

I'd love to see your responses...

I answered your question from my viewpoint.

You state that "VAST MAJORITY (we're talking 80%+... probably more like 95%+) of scientists agree on the data." I have serious doubts about that. Would you think it silly if I was to ask you to name them? Both those that agree and disagree. Of course it is ridiculous and yet it is no different than your 100 points. Right here, in this thread, we have 2 people who claim some knowledge of science and between just those 2, it is 50/50. I believe it is closer to fact to say that vast majority of the scientists that agree with your viewpoint, agree on the data. If a layman such as myself can see holes in your logic, certainly those more informed have doubts as well. I tend to think that there are very few topics, in science or otherwise where you can achieve 95% agreement.... it seems plain to me that this is not one of those few topics.

Sir, I would be loathe to call your scientific credentials or degrees into question but your presentation here tells me that you are hiding something behind the wall of disdain you have built and I fear it is either your lack of objectivity or agenda.

 

[dburkhead]

not quite... you aren't talking about science at all. You are ignoring the science.

You wouldn't know.

Sure... I made assumptions. I made an assumption based on the fact that the VAST MAJORITY (we're talking 80%+... probably more like 95%+) of scientists agree on the data. Such an assumption is justified. I've also researched the subject and confirmed my original assumptions. Further, I tested these assumptions by cross referencing articles from various sources and conducted a double top secret double blind back handspring to prove it.

This statement itself is an assumption. You have no clue how many scientists "agree." And it's not the "data" that one agrees or disagrees with. You see "data" is things like "this instrument provided this reading at that time." That's data. "Global temperatures are rising" is not data. It's an interpretation of data.

And cutting and pasting where someone basically asserted that skeptical views are "incorrect" is not a rebuttal.

Additionally, your "various sources" are all from "true believers." Groupthink at its finest.

As I have repeatedly pointed out to you science is not about how many people "agree" on something. Any time one appeals to how many people "agree" on something one ceases to do science.

p.s. is the 'sentence' quoted above really a sentence? No? A sentence diagram may be in order, while a venn diagram would not illustrate the lack of proper english in any manner.

Thank you for demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the English language in anything more complicated than "See Spot run. Run, Spot. Run."

That the sentence structure is too complicated for you to grasp does not make it incorrect.

We are talking in circles. Either both of us are employing this fallacy of argument, or neither of us is. In either case, STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN!

Ah, the old "I'm rubber and you're glue" school of argument. I grew out of that one when I was twelve. When you you plan to grow out of it?

Either you do not understand what "straw man" means or you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

What is the debate?
1. Is the earth warming? I vote yes.

First, science is not a democracy. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" on anything.

Second, if it were, I would vote "probably."

2. Is man contributing to it? I vote yes.

Again, science is not a democracy. Even if it were, my vote would be "evidence insufficient to draw a conclusion."

3. Is man causing it? I vote irrelevant.

And, once again, science is not a democracy. And if it were, whether man would be very relevant since if man is not causing it there would be very little likelihood that man could do anything about it even if we knew that doing anything about it would necessarily be a "good" thing.

4. Are there risks to humanity due to 'climate change'. I vote yes. that is unless you didn't catch the sarcasm in my enjoyably warm winters comment.

And here you completely pass beyond anything approaching reasonable. Your "sarcasm" could also go by the term of "exaggerating to the point of outright fantasy." Look at the charts I posted earlier. Check the properties to see where they come from (pro-AGW sites). We're talking about, if the "worst" claims of AGW proponents are true, a change of about 1 degree. One lousy degree Celsius. All the predictions of doom are over one lousy degree. Even future predictions don't put temperatures higher than the Medieval warm period which we've already experienced without massive flooding, extreme desertification, or any of the other claims of AGW alarmists. Any "risks" to be faced were already faced a thousand years ago.

<sarcasm>Perhaps your ancestors were all killed off in the global catastrophe of average temperatures being a couple of degrees warmer than they are now, but mine weren't.</sarcasm>

4. Should we do what we can to mitigate the risks? I vote yes.

And I look around and, nope, science is still not a democracy. This assumes several things: that any changes will necessarily be bad, that there is anything we can do about it, that what we do about it won't be as "bad" or worse, etc.

Assume for the moment that AGW is real. I know, that's easy since you already believe it. But carry through the implications. A couple of hundred thousand years ago the ancestors of modern humans were exclusively nomadic hunter-gatherers. When nomadic hunter gatherers find weather/climate uncongeniel they move to where it's more congenial. Since the last glaciation ended, large chunks of humanity developed agriculture and adopted a more settled lifestyle. Now, then nomads get uncomfortably cold they move to where it's warmer (unless there's somebody already there preventing them from doing so which is not an issue in that timeframe). Farmers, however, have a different approach. Their land represents a considerable investment in time and effort. They don't abandon it lightly. So when it gets colder they throw another log on the fire. Throwing another log on the fire puts more CO2 into the air.

Now, add something else into the mix. Given the spacing of the last several glaciations (What many people call the "ice age" is actually several separate glacial periods interspersed with periods as warm or warmer than we see now) we are actually overdue by a good many millenia for the "next" one to start. So why didn't it start? Why isn't Indiana under a mile thick sheet of ice? Maybe it's because those farmers threw another log on the fire releasing that CO2 and stopped the advance of the glaciers. And maybe ending AGW would put glaciers right back over our heads.

Do I think that's likely? Considering that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (water is the biggie and we have essentially no control over it--all human activity combined, even if we deliberately tried, couldn't begin to touch the liquid/vapor interaction going on at the surface of Earth's oceans), and that human activity is a minor component of release of CO2 into the atmosphere, I don't think so. However, the science--the actual science and not just lists of people who "agree" on a particular interpretation--is just as supportive of that idea as anything by the AGW crowd.

5. Does Al Gore have the answers? No. I said so in my first post.

But then you endorse all the answers he claims to have by buying into the koolaid that he's selling. You see, the objection is not to the fact that it's Al Gore "selling" AGW. It's the content of what he's trying to peddle. It doesn't help to disavow Al Gore if you're peddling the same snake oil.

I'd love to see your responses...

Unlikely since you've ignored or misrepresented every point made so far.

what IS THE DISAGREEMENT? We've already agreed that climate change is happening.

And we also agree that water is wet.

My ONLY OTHER POINT was that we should do what we can to mitigate the effects.

This is not an "only." It includes other "points" as assumptions.

- It includes the assumption that it needs to be "mitigated. (What makes you think that the effects of change are necessarily bad? Do you really believe that this is the best of all possible worlds?)
- It includes the assumption that we can do anything to "mitigate" it. If we're not causing it, what makes you think we could do anything to change it? And if the Earth system were really so unstable that a minor addition of a minor greenhouse gas is going to "unbalance" it, then considering things like super-volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and so forth would have destroyed it long since.

It is these assumptions that are the core of the disagreement. This has been pointed out to you before.

Do you really think that we should ignore it? ???????

Since when is "spend further time studying climate and learning what actually drives it and what the results of changes would actually be before taking precipitous action" equivalent to "ignore it." This is the core of your straw man. This has been pointed out to you before.

This is close to being a sentence.

Actually, it's an entirely grammatically correct sentence. It may go beyond your "See Spot Run" competence with the English language, and you may disagree with what it says but there's nothing grammatically wrong with it.

If you really want to go up against me on capability with the English Language, you should really consider that I'm a bona fide professional author and have been paid real money for my ability to use the English language.

Neither have you. If you want to read about the science, access any number of scientific organization's websites.

And once again you demonstrate that you utterly fail to comprehend what science is actually about. Science is not decided, it is never decided (there are very few absolutes in science, but that is one of them) by appeals to who believes or who agrees on something.

THEY ALL AGREE... so I won't waste my time pointing you to one that meets your scientific standards.

IOW, you don't have one. You have a bunch of political organizations that happen to have "science" in their names that make statements that further a particular political agenda.

Don't think so? Where are the AGW proponents arguing for large-scale use of Nuclear power? Where are the AGW proponents arguing for developing OTEC power plants? Where are the AGW proponents arguing for aggressive development of "Cheap Access to Space" to make Solar Power Satellites economically viable (they've been technically viable for decades)? Where are the AGW proponents championing large-scale and aggressive tree farming. (Plant trees. Trees grow taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Cut down trees. Use wood from trees to make stuff, especially durable goods which means the carbon stays out of the atmosphere. Plant more trees where you had just cut them beginning the cycle all over.) Where, in fact, are the AGW proponents that promote anything but a return to an Agrarian lifestyle (if not outright hunter-gatherer) and an end to high-tech civilization that will mean condemning the vast majority of mankind to crushing poverty forever.

Oh, they may talk about "clean" or "Green" alternatives but these alternatives are always things that cannot drive an industrial and technological society--not so the masses can have the benefits of that society anyway. Land based solar? Too diffuse (and we see their true colors when someone actually tries to build a serious solar power plant in California and the Sierra Club sues to shut them down for threatening the "fragile desert ecology"--Dr. Jerry Pournelle predicted that reaction 37 years ago). Wind? Too diffuse, too unreliable, and the total amount of energy is too low. Geothermal? Too dependent on local conditions and the Greens are already making noises about it leading to "ecological problems" in the form of geological instability (and they may actually have a point in some cases).

If I have to choose between my grandchildren living in a world a couple of degrees warmer and living as serfs in a world impoverished by relying on politically acceptable "green" energy and beholden to a privileged elite--or even between living in a world a couple of degrees hotter and living as that privileged elite striding on the backs of a world of impoverished serfs--well, the decision is a no-brainer to me.

Perhaps you would choose differently.

 

[bigus_D]

dburkhead... thanks for another long winded response.

Your sentence structure is not valid, despite your continued reliance on run-ons.

Your assertion that I buy into Al Gore's agenda is completely unsupported.

Sure, science isn't a democracy. Nobody ever said it was. I posted a 'poll' and 'voted' my opinions. I see that this was too complicated an endeavor for you to comprehend. Please try to replace 'vote' with 'believe' in my above post. This may have with your comprehension.

Regarding the list of scientists who agree on climate change, I could list the names of EVERY SINGLE scientific organization in the world, but that may take a little while. I suggest you look them up. THEY ALL AGREE.

also... i see we are back to the 'my degree is bigger than yours' argument. Thank goodness! I was missing that one.

p.s. I'm rubber and you're glue! FACE!

!!! VICTORY !!!

 

[dburkhead]

dburkhead... thanks for another long winded response.

Thank you for once again ignoring content demonstrating that you've got nothing.

Your sentence structure is not valid, despite your continued reliance on run-ons.

I don't usually play the grammar/spelling/language flame game, but since you want to try the grammar nazi approach I feel I can make an exception.

Thank you for once again demonstrating your weak command of the English language (including using a non-sequitor above). What I suspect happened is that you didn't understand the sentences, failed to consider that the problem might be at your end, and decided to go on the attack rather than simply ask for clarification. It's yet another way of avoiding dealing with actual content.

Oh, by the way, you might want to look up what "run on sentence" means. It does not, as you apparently believe, mean simply a long sentence or one with somewhat complicated syntax. It doesn't even mean compound sentences combining coupled ideas into a single sentence even when the ideas could be written in shorter sentences.

Your assertion that I buy into Al Gore's agenda is completely unsupported.

The support is in your own posts on the subject since you've come in here.

Sure, science isn't a democracy. Nobody ever said it was. I posted a 'poll' and 'voted' my opinions.

And neither polls nor opinions are the least bit relevant when it comes to science.

I see that this was too complicated an endeavor for you to comprehend.

Oh, I understood it perfectly. It was yet one more bit of evidence that you have essentially no understanding of what science is despite your claims of being a "scientist."

Please try to replace 'vote' with 'believe' in my above post.

It would be just as irrelevant.

This may have with your comprehension.

Now this is a sentence fragment. Had you not tried to play grammar nazi (badly) I would probably have let it slide, but, well, you opened yourself up to that one. I suspect you meant the word "help" rather than "have." If so, well, the problem isn't that I (and others) don't understand what you are saying/claiming. The problem is that people do.

Regarding the list of scientists who agree on climate change, I could list the names of EVERY SINGLE scientific organization in the world, but that may take a little while. I suggest you look them up. THEY ALL AGREE.

Lists of "scientific organizations" are not lists of scientists. "Scientific organizations" are, and always have been, first and foremost political. They do not represent all, nor even necessarily the majority, of their members, let alone scientists that are not members. (You are aware, are you not, that there's no obligation for a scientist to be a member of any of these organizations and many--probably most in fact--are not?) And if you were "plugged into" the scientific community you would be aware that various "scientific organizations" quite often take official positions with which a great many, if not the majority, disagree.

Claiming that the official positions of these political organizations that have "science" in their name means that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with those positions is as absurd as would be claiming that Congress passing a law means that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with it.

also... i see we are back to the 'my degree is bigger than yours' argument. Thank goodness! I was missing that one.

No, actually, I'm just questioning your veracity, or your command of the English Language depending on what, specifically you were referring to with this.

p.s. I'm rubber and you're glue! FACE!

!!! VICTORY !!!

And thank you for demonstrating once again the level of discourse you have available to you. So I guess the answer to my earlier question is that you haven't outgrown it and have no immediate plans to do so.

 

[bigus_D]

 

[dburkhead]

And once again you ignore content and engage in logical fallacy (I'd look up the actual fallacy but then you'd complain about the use of latin names--yet another way you've used to ignore content--as you've done before).

 

[bigus_D]

What is the debate?

You claim I'm pushing Al Gore's agenda, but this is unsupported.

We agree on the remainder, aside from the level of mankind's contribution to the problem. While science supports my position, and your position goes completely unsupported by science, you claim that I am ignoring "content."

Sweet, sweet VICTORY!

gotta love it!

 

[dburkhead]

What is the debate?

You claim I'm pushing Al Gore's agenda, but this is unsupported.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

We agree on the remainder, aside from the level of mankind's contribution to the problem.

Um, no. Go back and read the posts. The points of disagreement that come directly from your statements go quite a bit farther then that.

While science supports my position, and your position goes completely unsupported by science, you claim that I am ignoring "content."

You haven't discussed the "science" yet. Simply claiming that it supports your position doesn't make it so.

You've made claims. You've cut and paste unsupported assertions (and had that pointed out to you). But actually discuss any of the actual science? Nope. Not once.

So, yes, you are ignoring content.

Sweet, sweet VICTORY!

gotta love it!

Bagdad Bob? Is that you? "There are no American troops anywhere near Bagdad."

Simply claiming "victory" doesn't make it so.

With every post you demonstrate that you've got nothing. You try to pretend that you have "science" by cutting and pasting claims that you don't even understand. And it goes right by you when it's pointed out to you that at least one of the things you've cut and paste is an outright lie. (FYI, the specific lie to which I am referring is the claim that "heat has continued to accumulate" since 1998 to the present. Even using the AGW crowds own graphs on the matter and excluding 1998 the mean temperature of the Earth stopped increasing about 2002. Claiming that the Earth has "continued to accumulate heat" in the face of their own numbers is a lie. It's not a mistake. It's a lie.)

 

[dross]

Continuing to argue, but never addressing the other person's points is unmistakable evidence of belonging to a particular internet species.

 

[bigus_D]

Continuing to argue, but never addressing the other person's points is unmistakable evidence of belonging to a particular internet species.

Yep... it is amazing how he is doing that. I can't believe it either.

 

[CarmelHP]

I think everyone is just laughing at Bigus now

YouTube - Life of Brian - Bigus Dickus

 

[dburkhead]

Yep... it is amazing how he is doing that. I can't believe it either.

Tell the truth. This kind of tactic is age-appropriate for you, right?

 

[bigus_D]

Tell the truth. This kind of tactic is age-appropriate for you, right?

What goal do you think I have?

I hope people are laughing... This thread is almost as funny as that one about the psychology paper was supposedly saying that deniers are crazy. That was some great stuff as well!

FYI, the specific lie to which I am referring is the claim that "heat has continued to accumulate" since 1998 to the present.

Did global warming stop in 1998?

The data on this subject is clear. Your misdirection fails again!
What other points have I made that your scientific research invalidates???

!!! VICTORIOUS !!!

CarmelHP, thanks for the clip. That's some great stuff, don't you think?

 

[SavageEagle]

I call IBTL since there seem to be a lot of closed threads lately...

 

[haldir]

Where's some of the LEOs in the group... dburkhead should be arrested. There has to be a law about engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man sorry, I have to use that line when given the opportunity.

 

[bigus_D]

 

[dburkhead]

What goal do you think I have?

I hope it's to come across as a third grader because you are succeeding swimmingly at that.

I hope people are laughing... This thread is almost as funny as that one about the psychology paper was supposedly saying that deniers are crazy. That was some great stuff as well!

I'm sure they are. You're a funny guy in a "third-grader trying to debate with adults" kind of way.

Did global warming stop in 1998?

The data on this subject is clear. Your misdirection fails again!
What other points have I made that your scientific research invalidates???

Repeating the very site that lied to you the first time so it could lie to you again doesn't make it any more true.

I mean, did you actually follow up by reading the paper? The link was right there. Here's a choice bit from the abstract for you:

Climate models, however, do not reproduce the large decadal variability in globally averaged ocean heat content inferred from the sparse observational database

Now what does that sentence tell us?
- The models don't match the data (that's what "do not reproduce" means).
- The averaged heat content is inferred. (To save you time trying to look up the word, that means they're guessing.)
- "sparse observational database" that means they don't have a lot of measurements compared to the system to be measured.
- Their observations stop at 2003 about the time that the global temperatures chart I posted uptopic (which came from a pro-AGW site) shows the temperature curve leveling off.
- They talk about "improved estimation" in this paper. How do they know it's improved? Why it fits the models better, of course. In formal logic, this goes by several names "begging the question", "circular reasoning," or "affirming the consequent."
- Notice how the word "estimate" keeps popping up. Estimate is piled on estimate piled on estimate. Each level of estimating increases the uncertainty of the result. I shouldn't have to point this out to someone who claims to be a scientist. This is first year science stuff. By this point the error bars are larger than the difference being estimated.

And this is what these "skepticalscience" guys are using as a rebuttal?

!!! VICTORIOUS !!!

And Baghdad Bob makes another broadcast.