MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Z11 sounds the sort of person who would need to see a peer-reviewed study before he started breathing.
As the earth is so complex shouldn't the onus be on car manufacturers etc. to prove they DON'T affect the climate? The Industrial Revolution is more like The Industrial Experiment isn't it?
"Inability" and "abilitly to not" are both fine, however, "If you want to expound on your argument" bothers me. I'd have written "If you want to expound your argument".
I suggest you're more likely to convince hainey that man is provoking climatic change than beat him in a grammar war Rightplace. I don't have a spell checker or read through my posts so there are pages of material should you wish to have a pop at me.
Going full circle, it was the study of other planets that made us aware that the mixture of gases we live in is critical to life on Earth as it is at present. The biosphere of which we are a part has had a major influence on the composition of the atmosphere since photothesising plants converted the reducing atmophere to the oxygen rich one we know today. Man has flaourished because the conditions on Earth have been favourable to our species. In reducing the continental photosynthesising biomass and releasing CO2 we are changing the composition of the atmosphere. An atmophere with a different composition will behave in a different way - climatic change. No need to measure anything, the logic is sufficient.
suggest you're more likely to convince hainey that man is provoking climatic change than beat him in a grammar war [b]Rightplace[/b].
Shurely shome mishtake?
Petty digs? I'm sorry, I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter
How many years are there then 1998-2008? I dont think someone who fails to count to ten and the challenges someone on what special maths they are using is really in a position to try and take the intelectual high ground do you? My three year old managed it when I checked.
How many years are there then betwen 1998 - 2008 - the period you refer to as the last ten years ? 😳
(wind up deleted)
RPRT - regards your point about comparing models, the problem there of course is that you cannot extrapolate forward that just because you've been right for a short period, that the inbuilt aggregate errors and chaos theory means the reliability of your model will progressively deteriorate - you're falling for reverse gamblers fallacy!
Interetingly - heres a nice development on the reliability of the current models from the latest issue of Nature (yes, Phil Jones [i]et al[i]'s pet publication)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
Our results are incompatibly lower (P?<?0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40?p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest [b]~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming.[/b]
So, even the climate researchers are now accepting that the IPCC models are wildly overstated!
How many years are there then betwen 1998 - 2008 - the period you refer to as the last ten years ?
98-99 - 1
99-00 - 2
00-01 - 3
01-02 - 4
02-03 - 5
03-04 - 6
04-05 - 7
05-06 - 8
06-07 - 9
07-08 - 10
Junkyard, I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid. 😉
"How many years are there then betwen 1998 - 2008 - the period you refer to as the last ten years ?" the word between is interesting i'm sure it means something?
99 - 1
00 - 2
01 - 3
02 - 4
03 - 5
04 - 6
05 - 7
06 - 8
07 - 9
I'm not sure if that helps any one? Hainey in your answer you apear to count 1998 as in the group but ignore 2008 you really ought to be consistant the boundry years are either in the count in which case the answer is 11 or out in which case the answer is 9 .
Funny how data can be interpreted in different ways!!!!!
So the nature letter suggests we should have more confidence in the more conservative amplification levels. Even at the lowest amplification levels predicted we're heading for several degrees and worryingly higher levels of energy in weather systems. If you accept the nature letter is anywhere near the truth you have accepted CO2 emmisions will cause significant (catastrophic) climatic change as we head towards 500ppm.
Z11 said:
RPRT - regards your point about comparing models, the problem there of course is that you cannot extrapolate forward that just because you've been right for a short period, that the inbuilt aggregate errors and chaos theory means the reliability of your model will progressively deteriorate - you're falling for reverse gamblers fallacy!
Should we stop using this model then?
[img] 
[/img]
It has been "right" for a short period, but everyone accepts that it's not perfect. Maybe we shouldn't "extrapolate forward"?
well indeed Hainey there are two ways to interpret the data the right way and the wrong way.
Three quick points
1. You posted up a graph claiming the last ten years were not warming i challenged you saying that 1988 was more than 10 years BP = before present.
2. I pointed out that 1988-2008 was 11 years - 11 data points
3. your response
hainey - Member
[QUOTING ME ]
Ok let me try what year is it ? is it 2008? ok now then is 1998 more than 10 years BP[before present? hard innit. 98 -08 is also 11 YEARS YOU IDIOT
[Hainey]
sorry, 11 years, and your point is.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/20
Junkyard, debating with you is about as appealing as playing leapfrog with unicorns.
'cos he has your measure hainey?
zzz is this still rattling on. To save reading it all can we summarise who are the looney climate change worshippers & who realises its all a load of old tosh?
'cos he has your measure hainey?
Hardly!
Constant contradictions and diversions away from the topic just become boring as i think everyone would agree!
BP means before 1/1/1950. 10 BP is 1940.
Constant contradictions and diversions away from the topic
You have counted the same dates twice and come up with two different numbers whilst doing ad hominem attacks on me and then you accuse me of diversions and contradictions 😯
I think Hainey is the red queen and zulu is humpty dumpty
The Red Queen shook her head, "You may call it "nonsense" if you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
TJ we're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view, however i imagine your teeth are brighter than you are.
Junky, as i said before any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Nice line in insults 🙂 I shall remember that for future use
Junky, as i said before any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
However Junkyard appears to share a reality with the rest of the world whereas your reality appears to be an alternative one - thru the looking glass perhaps?
thru the looking glass perhaps
I could have eaten alphabet spaghetti and crapped better comebacks than that.
I have no idea where yours or junkyards reality is to be honest, somewhere between extreme and fanatical. One day you may be able to better yourselves and look at the worlds problems with the blinkers well and truelly removed.
Have you anything constructive to say or do you wish to just insult me? You are just coming over as a little bit bitter and attacking me adds nothing to your view no matter how many times you do it.
My view of reality is grounded in a scienctific approach I can explain, an ability to evidence what I say and even post evidence that supports my argument. You are unable to be consistent about something as simple as counting the years 1998 - 2008 [inclusive], and claim others are irrational whilst saying this about the Noble pize winning IPCC
An organisation which lets be honest makes all the data up themselves, declares themselves as the world experts, then tells the world that they are correct
Yes it is clearly me who has a blinkered view about the world and suffers from an extreme, irrational view 🙄
Yes it is clearly me who has a blinkered view about the world and suffers from an extreme, irrational view
Well i'm glad we agree on something at last.
Well, theres a turn up for the books for you RPRT
Looks like someones joined onside with some of my wacky denialist concerns - the evil philanthropist Bill Gates:
Governments will also be increasing the money they spend to help reduce global warming. The final communiqué of the Copenhagen Summit, held last December, talks about mobilizing $10 billion per year in the next three years and $100 billion per year by 2020 for developing countries, which is over three quarters of all foreign aid now given by the richest countries.
I am concerned that some of this money will come from reducing other categories of foreign aid, especially health. If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases. In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment.
Dont worry though, someone else has joined onside in supporting your world view:
😆
Z11,
I notice that once again, as soon as I ask a tricky question you change the subject. Maybe you could have a look back a page and respond?
BTW, I didn't say that spending money on global warming wouldn't be used as an [b]EXCUSE [/b]to cut back in other areas. But it is a political decision, not a question of resources. As I said the first time you put this forward, we could have put money into tackling malaria long before global warming got to the top of the agenda, [b]but we didn't[/b]. And I already made one suggestion as to how money could better be prioritised. Scrapping trident would free up a few billion to tackle climate change and/or malaria and/or other foreign aid.
RP - look up, I did!
If you're referring to "maybe we shouldn't extrapolate forward" on [i]this[/i] page - you fail to understand the difference between aggregated errors in a model and a an approximation of a physical law 😯
Are you denying that a minor miscalculation of a variable in a model means that the further forward your model forecasts, the more inaccurate your prediction will be?
I mean, you could compare your model to see how it works in the future, but since you cannot compress time, you cannot predict forward the reliability - Anyway, the nature report linked to above already shows that the reliable computer modelling you've been telling us about is [b]already[/b] going off track by as much as eighty percent - the global records are not matching the models predictions!
Regardless - back in the box with your terrorist mates, just like the Taliban you'd rather see us back in the stone age! I suppose like them and greenpeace you think the only way to "make" people stop producing carbon is going to be direct action, better get your place in flight school booked!
[img] 
[/img]
I suppose your terrorist mates would love to see us get rid of trident too!
🙄
There was a dire warning in chapter 13 of the report of IPCC Working Group II:"Up to 40% of Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation," it observed.
"It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."
Closer inspection reveals that the authors referenced for this work are, in fact, an expert linked to environmental group WWF and a green journalist.
"The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rainforests, referenced to a non-peer reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF.
"This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication,"
How does Bill Gates in any, way shape or form deny climate change in that quote?
oh dear anagallis_arvensis, are you tripping over your own straw men as well now?
Where did [b]I[/b] say he did? I said:
ofsome
wacky denialist concernsmy
nice try, next!
denialist being the keyword, he's not denying anything he's just saying he thinks money could be better spent elswhere...you'll have to explain to me how I'm being so thick.
[b][u]When[/u][/b] we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets [b]start worrying about tomorrow.[/b]Nearly a million people die every year from malaria, last year up to half a million kids were subjected to blindness through Vitamin A deficiency -the financial cost of dealing with this would pale into insignificance against the amount of money being bandied around in cap and trade CO2 credits.
again, how is that related to your use of the word denialist?
Carbon taxes will raise all you need to pay for any other good deeds you have in mind. £3/l petrol should raise enough cash to fund most anything you want.
[b]My[/b]|m?|
possessive adjective
1 belonging to or associated with the speaker : my name is John | my friend.
Who did I call a denialist? Myself
Who were the concerns pertaining to? Me
Did I refer to Mr Gates sharing a number of concerns with me? Yes
Did I refer to the concerns as being denialist in themselves? No
Did I refer to Mr Gates as a Denialist? No
"The concerns which pertain to me, the denialist" 😉
Don't you understand simple English A_A?
Would you like me to arrange a referral to the "Derek Zoolander Institute For Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too"?
You tried to set up a straw man, and you failed, poor you, diddums... 😆
As I said - next!
Has Zulu completely lost the plot? does any of his last few posts make any sort of sense?
You really take the biscuit for distorting things to fit your frankly deranged view.
I refer you to the looking glass quotes above
As you'll have no doubt gathered I'm quite happy with the basic "more CO2 equals more energy in the atmosphere and this is not a good thing" but I find the IPPC quite irritating. They spend a lot of money coming up with detailed predictions they shouldn't be making and have very little to contribute to what we could be doing.
Trading carbon credits and anything else agreed on won't do any good and no-one is prepared to sign anything that would do any good as they are convinced it will result in economic meltdown. It wouldn't, it's just a matter of diverting resources.
If you buy a smaller car next time you can buy a solar hot water heater with the saving. How much of what you spend your cash on is simply for bragging rights? How much of what your aquaintainces spend is on bragging rights. Those rights are generally polluting vehicles, homes and holidays. Among my circle of friends that's changing, even in wider society the Range Rover Sport is becoming a sign of selfish arrogant ignorance and stupidity.
How foolish are you prepared to look?
Regardless - back in the box with your terrorist mates, just like the Taliban you'd rather see us back in the stone age! I suppose like them and greenpeace you think the only way to "make" people stop producing carbon is going to be direct action, better get your place in flight school booked!
It's quite late and I can only imagine you've been drinking. What are you on about? My "terrorist mates" ????????
It's pretty bloody obvious that humans are screwing up the climate. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.
[i]It's pretty bloody obvious that humans are screwing up the climate. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.[/i] or paid to.
They didn't have solar panels, wind turbines, hydro power or birth control in the stone age.
hainey - Member
Yes it is clearly me who has a blinkered view about the world and suffers from an extreme, irrational view
Well i'm glad we agree on something at last.
Ok sarcasm added to list of things you do not understand
Z-11 can I ask if it was meths you were drinking? That it is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read let alone on this thread - truly bizzare RPRT amazing restraint well done.
My|m?|
possessive adjective
1 belonging to or associated with the speaker : my name is John | my friend.Who did I call a denialist? Myself
Who were the concerns pertaining to? Me
Did I refer to Mr Gates sharing a number of concerns with me? Yes
Did I refer to the concerns as being denialist in themselves? No
Did I refer to Mr Gates as a Denialist? No"The concerns which pertain to me, the denialist"
Don't you understand simple English A_A?
Would you like me to arrange a referral to the "Derek Zoolander Institute For Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too"?You tried to set up a straw man, and you failed, poor you, diddums...
As I said - next!
eh?
It is at least consistent with the rest of his posts. confused blathering
I haven't been following this with much attention, but have we established who's got the biggest dad yet?
er, not quite, i reckon it's got a few more pages to go...
i'm really not sure what agenda Hainey and Mr-11 are working to, but i'm pretty sure it's not 'looking at the world through science'
Hainey, Mr-11, may i have your attention please?
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there are others methane for example, CO2 is more important than methane because there's so much more of it. (we can't pin all of this on farting cows)
2) human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% (and rising) - through deforestation and the use of fossil fuels.
3) are you seriously trying to argue with points 1 and 2? - then i'm afraid you'll need to show some me some evidence, or i'll write off your behaviour as attention seeking.
i am not dogmatic, show me evidence and i will let it change me.
(for example, i was writing a report for work last week, i was barking up the wrong tree with my basic assumptions, until Mr Reggiegasket kindly pointed me in the right direction)
[i]Regardless - back in the box with your terrorist mates, just like the Taliban you'd rather see us back in the stone age! I suppose like them and greenpeace you think the only way to "make" people stop producing carbon is going to be direct action, better get your place in flight school booked![/i]
And right there you lost any credibility you may still have had. Go ride your bike Jimbob it'll do you the world of good.
[i]Go ride your bike K****** [/i] (Zulu has posted his initial himself in the past)
Play nice Dave, you know the rules:
[i]Privacy Policy
Gofar Enterprises Ltd fully respects the privacy of all our users and while we do collect information at registration and from time to time through various means such as surveys, competitions and other means, we strictly believe in respecting your right to privacy. To this end we will NEVER supply the personal details of any user to any third party unless a) you give us your explicit permission to do so, or b) we are obliged to do so by relevant authorities[/i]
Whats that Dave? Are you suggesting that a little bit of baiting the Greenie's isn't quite playing fair? 😈
I mean, its ok for people to call anyone who disagrees with their faith based interpretation of "the science" a moron, play ad hominem with any counter argument, and try to set up straw man arguments that you claimed something you didn't...
But its not OK to point that out or mention that Bin Laden has quite clearly expressed an opinion that industrialised countries are to blame for the 'global warming crisis', which [b]is[/b] a pretty interesting development given the fact that Greenpeace have been supporting a 'direct action' agenda for a while now. 😆
I mean, as a 'mod', I wouldn't expect you to support double standards! 🙄
Don't worry Edukator, I mean, rules clearly only apply if you agree with what someone is saying...
However, obviously given the fact that I've said on the same thread that my career involved over a decade of animal research, one would have thought that at some point the common sense [u]personal security and safety implications [/u] might kick in there... I mean, maybe Dave's sympathies really do lie with terrorists? 😯
Not reading all that, but I too am sceptical. The Climategate proved scientists were bigging up the threat for funding. Don't know if anyone's posted this yet - but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is:
Earth's atmosphere contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, a variable amount (average around 0.247%, National Center for Atmospheric Research) water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen, helium, and other "noble" gases (and of volatile pollutants).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere
0.038%. Apparantly scientists think we're responsible for lifted it 0.003%, and thus destroying the world. Hard for me to believe
Steve - run away before you are burned at the stake!! 😉
Most scientists think man has raised atmospheric CO2 from 290ppm in 1860 to 380ppm today with a combination of industrial emissions and the destruction of natural sinks. That's a 31% increase. Some oil industry funded scients claim this increase is natural but have failed to identify a natural cause.
I suggest reading before posting Steve. There's plenty of information on the previous pages that you need to read before you can add anything useful.
hainey - Member
Steve - run away before you are burned at the stake!!
Good analogy - the global warming nazis do seem to be conducting a witch hunt, again as was seen in the Climategate saga.
🙂
Thanks for the advice Edukator.
...now **** off!
Don't forget Godwin's law Steve.
No burning anyone, just hoping for poetic justice.
Ah, you have a potty mouth too Steve. Will do, wife willing.
any neutral can clearly see who is winning this argument. Calling those who disagree with you terrorists an Nazis clearly shows this.
godwins law indeed.
Zulu - for all you claim to be in testing and research your understanding of scientific method and how to assess research is sadly lacking - unless of course you are trolling. Or do you work at teh level od sweeping out the animals cages?
Steve - hard for you to believe? Perhaps you should read some of the data. CO2 plays a large part in regulating the heat on the planet. The higher the co2 levels the higher the temp. CO2 is higher now than it was a couple of hundred years ago by 30 % Global temps are up over the same period. these are all facts that cannot be disputed by anyone with any sense.
You can dispute how significant mans role in this is but those three things are indisputable measured facts.
Yes hard to believe. You've chosen to believe biased scientists seeking more and more funding. I read scientists were claiming man was responsible for a 10% increase, not 30%.
You like to use 30%, cos it sounds greater - even if it is 30% of a small figure)
If the population of the UK were the atmosphere, it would be like increasing from 14896 to 21280, probably the amount of posters on here.
We have a relatively stable amount of Co2 in the atmosphere - yet massive variations in weather, so me, anyone saying the Co2 is so massively important is wrong.
I'm not saying man made global warming isn't happening. I'm saying I'm far from convinced - and probably less convinced now than 2 years ago.
CO2 is higher now than it was a couple of hundred years ago by 30 % Global temps are up over the same period. these are all facts that cannot be disputed by anyone with any sense.
But the fact that one causes the other can be - the simple fact you choose to gloss over in your statement above! as Junkyard pointed out, correlation does not mean causality - cue pirate graph!
If I'm wrong on my understanding of scientific method TJ, I suggest you might want to stop taking a whole variety of prescription medicines... 😉
Calling people terrorists? Are you denying that Greenpeace has consorted with terrorist organisations?
a 30% increase is a measured fact and is not a "reactively stable" amount
weather is not climate
So your opinions from clearly zero knowledge and zero understanding are more valid than the scientific concensus?
Go and do some reading and try to gain some basic understanding and knowledge. Try to argue with something other than ignorant and stupid opinions
TJ said :[b]You can dispute how significant mans role in this[/b] is but those three things are indisputable measured facts
correlation does not mean causality
I agree
Zulu at least read what I wrote. 🙄
Calling people terrorists? Are you denying that Greenpeace has consorted with terrorist organisations?
Lets have some proof of that completely ridiculous assertion.
the scientific concensus?
Said it before, this is [b]not[/b] a valid scientific argument, mere confirmation bias - the scientific consensus was that the world was flat and that the sun went round the earth! I suggest you go and read the works of Thomas Kuhn!
Zulu - try reading what is written and answering the questions put to you rather than quoting out of context.
You are getting more and more desperate and far fetched in your arguments and anytime someone catches you out you slither off in a different direction trying to distract from the bollox you have spouted.
Right - someone else turn. I can't be bothered any more.
There could be one atom of some exotic gas in the atmosphere, and we could chuck another up increasing by 100% the amount up there. Are we supposed to believe that's gonna end the earth?
You're being pedantic. I don't profess to know much about the science, but have seen plausible rebutals of the man made global warming arguments. The earth has been hotter before, the atmosphere has had more Co2 before, but now climate change - that no-one would have noticed had we not been told it's happening - is all our fault.
Seems you've not changed much - still the know all condescending ****.
On a different subject TJ you called me ignorant, stupid, and making it worse for myself about a year ago by ignoring a speeding fine.
Guess what - still heard nothing, now nearly 18 months gone.
sorry steve, godwins law, you lose.
(i don't make the rules).
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it absorbs infrared radiation.
2) human activity has increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; we know this because we can look at the levels of decayed carbon isotopes which come from fossil fuels.
3) places like bangladesh, where millions of people live on land less than 1m above sea level are beginning to feel a bit nervous about the implications of points 1 and 2
i am not dogmatic, show me evidence and i will let it change me - will you?
X
(the earth's gonna be just fine, WE're probably going to be fine, but people struggling to live in marginal areas of the world are already feeling the pinch)
I don't profess to know much about the science
clearly
Now that is a really good argument. Wow I'm convinced. You are still an arrogant and ignorant clown. 🙄
It's just stupid for the world to be spending huge amounts on global warming research, when all they have to do is ask you TJ.
..............then again, you do have a history of being wrong!
Or perhaps the thousands of well qualified scientists who are researching climate change that believe it to be man made?
yes there is a debate and rightly so. However the clear weight of evidence is on one side.
clear weight of evidence
Care to enlighten us what you think this evidence is?
hmm, well i just did a very basic job search for 'climate scientist' - you know, the ones who are after all the money (and are therefore biased).
the average pay i found was approx £30k.
not bad really, but you can earn more being a teacher, and i'm sure with all their science acumen they would quite easily be able to find plenty of other, better paid jobs.
seems then that they probably don't do it for the money...
hmmm...
hainey - Memberclear weight of evidence
Care to enlighten us what you think this evidence is?
You don't know where to get it from?
Plenty of references to it on here and plenty out there is you want it. I suggest "nature" as a start point or scientific American or new scientist. they will have papers, references and citations to follow
Come on, if there is overwhelming evidence it must be very easy for you to summarise for us in say a couple of sentences.... no?
Oh - you want a summary? Plenty on this thread. Junkyard and edukator have put it better than I could.
Today we can update you with the news that the credibility of the IPCC and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken another major blow as Britain’s highest ranked government scientist, Professor John Beddington CMG FRS admits the science for global warming is “uncertain.”
Global warming belief is like a new and terrible religion.
Steve - you can do better than that bunch of paranoid conspiracy fantasists suerly?
AboutThe goal of Climategate.com is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, and other information and news to help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and in addition, [b]to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal.[/b]
Their main "scientist" appears to be Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science.comment
[i] Yes hard to believe. You've chosen to believe biased scientists seeking more and more funding.[/i]
This strikes me as an interesting argument. I wouldn't for a moment dispute that scientists have a tendency to be biased towards their sponsors. But science tends to be funded by people with some vested interest in getting something useful out of the research. Which raises the question as to what commercial or governmental agencies would be falling over themselves to provide such funding in the first place?
Ian - they are using it as an excuse to raise your taxes and to put a global socialist state in place. did you not realise?
🙂