parmenides3

Me again. http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/08/3...so-warm-period/ Next; there was no 'juggling' of US temperature data; a mathematical error was found and adjusted. It made absolutely no discernible difference to the global temperature trend. Next; we argued about the CET and the US data on another thread, somewhere. If you want to measure Global Warming, you need to have a Global average; it's that simple. The signal is not materially effected by any subset of surface data (unless the majority of the measurements are in that subset). Note also that we now also have satellite data to compare with surface measurements, and these two a cross-referenced with some care; there is no indication that there is any difference between the two. And this new thing is another work of art from CA, I presume? Sorry to say this, but it is yet another irrelevance; despite the implication, it makes no difference to the global measurement. The thing here, jethro, is that the folks at CA want us to believe that the surface temperature data is wrong, so they clutch at any piece of peripheral evidence they can to demonstrate this. But think about it; what they are trying to claim is that somehow, in the past, we could measure temperatures quite accurately, but nowadays, with satellites, computers and lots more knowldege, we can't. is this a reasonable assumption to make? Once again, this is CA trying to undermine the authority of science and the people who do it, to generate doubt about GW by ignoring the obvious, huge lumps of measurement which show GW and focussing on a couple of teensy-weensy niggles, and to convince us that GW is some kind of hoax. I hope you understand that 'seems' is the operative word here; all that CA has is 'seeming' contradictions, rather than actual science done by actual people who actually know what they are doing. Which takes us back to the original question, I suppose; why would you feel inclined to 'trust' the material presented at CA (by non-specialists), but not to 'trust' the material presented elsewhere? Is there a logic to your selection of whom to trust? Respectfully, (see, still smiling...) :)P

I am perfectly happy to accept that your opinion is founded on your own studious research and evaluation, but I would be interested to know what the source of your 'reasonable doubt' is. I'd also point out that the conclusion that we are forcing climate change went way beyond a 'popular theory' in science circles about twenty years ago; these days, it is a rigorously examined and clearly established fact. And now you will say, 'ah, but that is why I doubt; you claim it is a fact...' This is hopeless; if someone with a scientific inclination comments in terms of 'likelihood' and 'probability', people complain (incorrectly) that 'there is an element of doubt'; if instead a clear and simple message is given, you respond 'I can't trust you if you're being so unequivocal, because I know nothing in Science is certain...' How is a person expected to say anything at all? You say that the experts predictions cannot be 'shown without doubt to be true and accurate', but I would point out to you that the GISS model in 1989 estimated a warming for the present, and it is very nearly bang on; certainly, it captured the trend after it made the 'prediction' extremely well. Is this not evidence that the experts have some idea what they are doing? What you appear to be saying is that you don't believe in the possibility of 'prediction'. Is this a fair assessment? You mention two 'camps'. Such camps exist here on NW and in the blogosphere, to some extent, but they do not exist in climate science; there is one 'camp' , made up of almost every 'climate scientist' in the world, and there are one or two scientists who disagree that we are forcing climate change. All the other people who present 'contrary' 'science' are not climate scientists and are not presenting 'science'... :)P

I'm glad it's you who's making this post and not Lady P ! (blush). :)P

Fair comment, but the implication of your statement was reasonably clear (at least to me). I wasn't that 'heavy' with you, was I? I am still curious to hear your answer to my question... :)P

Hi, Bushy, and welcome to NW. You've chosen a lively subject to start your posting on! I don't think it's a good idea to accuse a person of being a bigot, especially if you know very little about them. Do you have any reason to believe that SF hasn't looked at 'both sides' of the argument? No. You suggest that 'the other side of the argument have research and evidence to hand and equally sound reasons for their stance', but this appears to be one of the key problems that's coming up. The 'other side' appears to have evidence and appears to have sound reasons, but the evidence and the reasons have been studied and refuted many times over; but 'the other side' ignores this and continues to present the same arguments. What I would ask you is why you don't trust the experts? What is it you think they have done wrong? I hope you enjoy being on NW, but please be careful about the words you use... :)P

WIB: So you are saying that the experts are wrong... which takes me back to the original question. Vikes: No, I didn't miss the point. I am absolutely delighted to have all evidence presented in support of, or contrary to, AGW, judged by this criterion. When this is done, what is the result? The problem is, 'ordinary folks' can't tell the difference between sound and unsound science, or as has been said, can't be bothered to try and work it out. I'd also note what I said earlier; all that ever seems to happend when a claim is responded to is that, if the person making the original claim doesn't like the answer, they just go away and think of some other reason to believe what they choose to believe. I have asked this question partly because, to me, the logic, science, evidence and sheer weight of expert opinion points my mind to one particular conclusion. What I want to understand is why this isn't the case for others. Got to go and cook now. :)P

So, you're suggesting that people don't trust the experts, because all they tend to know about them is what is reported in the media. Add to this that often, if not very often, the science is misrepresented in the media, and add to this that we have an ambiguous relationship with the media; accepting what fuels our existing opinions, but being cynical about the media's honesty in all other cases... Which would kind of suggest that the problem is not what the experts are saying, but what the media are telling us that the experts are saying, and what we think of the media. I'm not sure. Need to think (and walk the dog). :)P

Lots of response; good! Vikes: True, it does not logically follow. However, if the question that laserguy's response implies, 'How can I tell what is 'good' or 'bad' science/', which is related to 'How do I know who to believe?', is being considered, then one of the criteria for evaluating the likely credibility of a piece of information is the source of that information, and that source's credibility. Though I am cynical about the media at times, I'll say that I'm more inclined to pay attention to a story in the Guardian or the FT than one in the National Enquirer. This doesn't mean I am biased, only that I have used my discernment in evaluating the credibility of the source. Again, it does not follow logically that the origin of a paper has any relevance to its validity - this is a given - but again, we're talking evaluation, here: if you look at the 'track record' of actual 'papers' (more often, simply press releases or od-eds) which are linked to industry-funding, what do you see? The track record is poor: as yet, none of the 'papers' (let's stick to the science) has received any serious consideration, NOT because of where they originated, but because the science was Cr&p. If a person like laserguy wants to decide whether or not the science is right or wrong, but perhaps lacks the training in science which allows them to evaluate it from a opurely scientific perspective (and for whom amongst us is this not the case?), then who wrote what for whom and why is absolutely relevant; it may not have a strict logical implication of falsity, but this is not the point; it has a 'background' which might make a non-scientist have reason to be suspicious about the validity of the science. if the person has this doubt, they can then turn to others who might be able to provide explanations or answers to why the science is 'good' or 'bad'. C-Bob; in simple response, I can see a lot of new threads on the horizon... Blast; your reply is interesting. First, you say that you think that there is enough contradictory evidence to cast doubt on AGW; this is an answer to my question, and an unseful starting point. then you refer to 'carbon trading and business/moneymaking...' which is a whole different issue, not about why you don't trust the experts, but about why you don't trust the people who want to capitalise on AGW by mugging us with products or taxes; that bit is more about the politics and praxis, not about the experts. So, ignoring the second of your points, which maybe should be discussed elsewhere, and concentrating on the first: Where is this evidence? Where does it come from (as you can see, I argue that this does matter)? Has it not been responded to? :)P

C-Bob: yes, that's an interesting response, and not one I suspect many would have come up with. We have touched on the subject that climate science is like other scientific disciplines, with comparable strengths and weakenesses, before. I am not sure how much use a 'Philosophy of Science' discussion is going to have, though; this is a whole separate area/discipline in itself, and requires a lot of background knowledge to get involved in. Do people really need to make an evaluation of a conceptual science, though? When discussions about nuclear energy come up, I don't see anyone challenging the science of nuclear physics, even though this is the foundation on which the possibility of nuclear power exists. Yes. I give 'practical' (perhaps we could say 'engineered') examples, but our lives are filled with technological products whose very existence is founded on the unchallenged assumption that the underlying science is competent to allow reliable engineering. Climate science is, after all, founded simply on long-term observation of weather and the patterns that appear from this (climate). Does the difference lie in the expectation of climate science that it has 'predictive skill'? Your comment that 'AGW is far from proven' kind of begs the question, doesn't it? The 'experts' are telling us that 'the climate is warming and we are at largely responsible' is 'unequivocal'. This amounts to a claim that AGW is, as far as they are concerned, 'proven'. Of course there are still 'questions to be answered' and 'unsatisfactory aspects', but you yourself point out that this is true for all conceptual science, but it doesn't stop us from making use of what conclusions do exist, or of making/engineering things on the basis of the know science. You say there are '...too many potential alternatives, obstacles or contradictions...', but again, this is begging the question; this assumes that such alternatives, obstacles or apparent contradictions have not been considered sufficiently by the experts, or have not been answered by them. Do you feel you have a case for showing that they have done this? I would argue that every one of the potential pitfalls which you mention has been addressed and considered, I can provide ample evidence to support this, and I can show that these issues, where they are issues, are taken into account when conclusions are reached. But when I do these things, the response I tend to get is to be ignored: very few people bother to respond to posts where I provide them with links to counter-evidence, or explanations of why an objection is wrong. I can only assume that this is because these people don't want to accept these responses and refutations. certainly, the same arguments arise again and again, and I rarely see evidence that people have actually looked at the arguments or evidence; they simply repeat the same points as before (you and jethro, and a few others, are notable exceptions). In conclusion, then, I am suggesting that your principal comments 'beg the question'; you are effectively saying that you don't accept the science because you don't accept the science. Don't worry; I expect you to respond to this... Hi Laserguy: and thanks for the congrats. You said: 1. The 'mountainous body of evidence': I know of one scientist (Lindzen) who has genuinely offered an alternative hypothesis (the 'Iris' theory). This is discussed in some in detail in chapter 7 of the IPCC WG2, and elsewhere. It is considered an active hypothesis, with some evidence contradicting it, but worthy of research, but the IPCC report concludes that it is not (yet) sufficiently 'strong' to offer a realistic explanation, which the AGW theory does (allowing for C-Bob's 'flaws'). There is no other 'respected source' that I know of which cites natural influence as an alternaitve to AGW. There are websites which make this claim, but they are not 'respected sources'; they are almost always industry-funded, the 'science' on them is not science at all, but cobbled-together nonsense which 'looks' impressive, but contains no substance and is often self-contradictory. I agree with you that it may well be down to how an individual interprets the information at their disposal, and agree that the tendency to accept or reject what looks like 'evidence' is determined more by an 'inclination to believe' than by a proper, rational analysis of the content; if the latter were the case, there would be very little discussion of the subject at all... How can we verify a source's integrity? If we are talking about science and scientific evidence (does the science of this argument hold up?), one good way is to look to see where the science has been published. If a paper has been published in a scientific journal, it must have met some (nominal) standards which make it 'scientific' at all. If it hasn't been published in a journal, there is normally a good reason; because no journal will accept that it is sufficiently 'scientific'. We can also judge a website/information source on its 'track record'; if there is a history of publishing spurious claims and material which 'twists' or manipulates the work of scientists to fit its' own avowed stance, we can justifiably have some doubt about whether it can be trusted. I'm not saying this is easy, but once again, I would point out that the body of evidence 'supporting' AGW is unimaginably large, too big for any one person to get through in a lifetime. The body of evidence challenging AGW is tiny. The body of 'BS' on the internet is large, though; but take a closer look; every time that some new purported 'challenge' comes up, it is repeated and copied thousands of times over; this does not mean that there is a lot of 'evidence', often, there is one bit of 'evidence', which often turns out to be false, repeated many times over. That'll do for now...

This is a serious question, which I want to try to understand. We place our trust in experts of all kinds, all the time. Our society is both technological and scientific, filled with the products of experts; cars, aircraft, computers, etc... But when it comes to climate change, a frequent discussion which comes up is that the experts are/might be/could be wrong, so a person is sceptical about what they are being told. Why? Is there something special about the people who do climate science which makes their expertise somehow different? Is it not the experts, but the politicians who you distrust? Assuming you have actually read some of the relevant material, like the IPCC AR4 SPM (the Summary for Policy Makers), what is it about the conclusions which makes you feel that you don't believe them? I know this is an invitation for people to have a 'rant', but it is an important issue inside climate science at the moment. Sometimes, i feel like I can see what a person is distrustful of, and can offer a response; often, debates (those circular threads of which we are so fond) end up boiling down to the conclusion that the person concerned doesn't believe that the IPCC (or any one of a number of 'bodies') is right. So, now is your chance; what's wrong with the experts who are telling us that our climate is changing because of human activity and that the climate will warm more, that if we don't take action to slow down the rate at which we are affecting the climate, the consequences down the line are very likely to be deadly for some and damaging for many others? Oh; and let's try and keep it civilised, shall we? :)P

If it's all 'true' (which is by and large what I have come to think), then it is obviously important. If it's important, then trying to help each other understand what is going on and what the options are is also important. I often get bored responding to the same arguments, with what I think is fairly obvious reasoning, but I will continue to do so because I think it is my responsibility to. Roger: sorry, a bit busy for now, I will respond to your post later... :)P

Oh, Roger, there is so much in your last post to respond to... Leaving aside the philosophy (what is 'truth', is it ever 'absolute'?), how do we find out anything about the world? Through observation, exploration and the application of reason. Inasmuch as these have been done, we have found out the 'truth' about GW and AGW. not the absolute, and not ther whole, but tha basic, underlying 'truth', is now established by these methods. The analysis of causes of GW incorporates these questions. No measurement or analysis of natural cycles explains recent temperature changes. As far as these are understood, the natural cycles which are supposed to influence global temperature indicate that we should currently be in a 'cooling phase' (which answers a later comment you make, too). In theory, it is possible that some natural variation about which we know nothing and which has never even been guessed at exists, which, if discovered, would explain what has been going on for the past 100 years better than the explanation we currently have. Until such an explanation comes along, shouldn't we work on the best explanation we currently have? Of course, I don't agree, but I would ask you why, in this case, we should think that the professional scientists have got it so wrong? After all, pretty much everything in our society comes, directly or indirectly, from the process of analysis and discovery that has built up into what we might call 'the body of science'. Any one of the ideas in science might be shown, eventually, to need revision or rejection, but I would ask people to consider the implications of suggesting that the entirety of science, or a substantial proportion of it, is somehow based on false premisses, or errors. You are suggesting here that the media are 'far-left' ('quasi-communistic'?). My experience as an analyst and teacher of Media over thirteen years suggests to me that the media tends to support the dominant ideology, rather than undermine it, so on this, I disagree with you. I also disagree that things are 'more balanced' in the USA: this is too much of a generalisation, and not, i believe, supported by the evidence. The particulate transport matter is taken seriously, both by the IPCC and by the climate science community. The main point I would make here is that any changes in this metric are also anthropogenic in origin - they come from our activity - and as such, are just as much a part of the problem as GHG emissions. This is, however, a growing area for research, and new material is being produced on a regular basis, so the influence is being 'held open' as a scientific question at the moment. Notwithstanding this, once again, whilst such a variable is significant, there is no evidence that its importance is anywhere near as great as that of CO2 emissions. Hope this helps... :)P

WIB; 1. False. It's the skeptics and denialists who use polemic, ad-homs, disinformation and diry tricks to try to deceive the public, such as claiming that the acceptance of the science is somehow 'quasi-religious', for example; it is quite the opposite; a recognition of a rational argument as being correct or not is an application of reason itself, not an 'act of faith'. 2. False. The media has its own agenda, which is to seel copy; the exaggeration comes from the media, not the science. 3. False. how many thousands upon thousands of scientific papers do I have to link to before people recognise that the amount of work and evidence is overwhelmingly vast, completely one-sided, and by any reasonable measure, unequivocal? 4. Which climate scientists have done this? Show me. Then show me the mistakes they have made. 5. Who are you talking about here? If you are referring to our government's policies, then you are complaining about the government, which is an ebtirely different issue. Regards, :)P

Maybe, maybe not. If even the US Military recognise the risks associated with climate change (not renowned for being liberal-minded), and if the energy, banking and insurance businesses all have plans and recommendations in place, all that is missing is the international political agreement. Clearly, the Bush administration wants their policy to be guided by their business leaders, as is the norm, and wants to find a technological 'magic bullet', rather than do anything to 'threaten' its own economy. OTOH, some analysts are fairly clear that emissions reductions now will cost less and cause less trouble than any other existing response, and this includes any possible policy for adaptation. If one was to be truly cynical, one might suggest that it would be in the USA's long-term interest for climate change to continue at its current rate; this would help solve the so-called 'population time-bomb' problem, and destabilsation elsewhere would strengtehn the US's authority and position, which is currently not in the best of health. A few trillion dollar arms-for-oil deals could really boost their economy... :)P

HP: what sort of compromise are you thinking about? Almost every government and most branches of industry now recognise and are engaging with the problem of global CO2 emissions, apart from four or five, the single most important of which is the USA. They are doing this because there is nothing much to do a deal about; if Bush was right in his speech yesterday, and global demand for energy is set to rise by 50% by 2030 in response to economic growth, then failing to agree to meaningful and binding international emissions targets will more or less condemn us, by the estimates, to at least 3C, and possibly more, warming in the next few decades. Everyone agrees this is a 'bad thing', and everyone agress that we can do something about it, so the only compromise that will cause any real breakthrough will have to be made by the USA. :)P

Likewise, a quickie, as I too have a life (contrary to appearances). The lead/lag 'issue': some people have tried to claim that CO2 doesn't force temperature change because the historic record suggest that it followed it. These people overlook the fact that the forcing of temperature by CO2 is a known piece of physics, and that, whether it came first or second in the past doesn't matter for us; in the past, when it appeared, it forced temperature, and the same is true in the present, the difference being that we haven't waited for temperatures to go up, but have added the forcing ourselves. This is well understood, and so isn't discussed in the IPCC, because it isn't an issue, in spite of what some websites (falsely) try to claim. Gaps in model outputs: yep, they don't model everything equally well, which makes some aspects of climate prediction rather uncertain. But they do model temperature changes well, and they have done so since the first, relatively simple, models came out twenty years ago. And if they are reasonably good at this, and they show that, regardless of other considerations, this particular projection is robust to all variability (and it appears to be), then the confidence that we will see the trend in global warming continuing for decades at least is appropriately very high indeed. I remeber the ocean burps being mentioned in passing but you'll have to remind me about this hypothesis. On the underwater volcanoes idea, in essence, the hypothesis lacks any supporting evidence, and even if there were all these volcanoes which the USGS had missed, there's not evidence of the right kind of mechanisms or trends to explain the global changes in climate; it's a much weaker hypothesis than AGW, with some iomportant questions to answer before it is taken at all seriously. You say this: '...one of the biggest ones is their claimed degree of certainty...' Sorry; you'll need to be more precise; about what? If you mean the claimed degree of 'certainty' that we are changing the climate, mostly by adding CO2, I'd remind you that the scientists originally wanted to make this 'extremely likely' (95%+), but the political representatives insisted that this be watered down to 'very likely' (90%+); so in this instance, the IPCC is not exaggerating scientists' confidence, but downplaying it. Enjoy your home-making weekend... :)P

Hi jethro. This is from the IPCC AR4 chapter on detection and attribution of climate change, executive summary [my highlights]: So, this seems to be what we are considering here. The first point I want to make is that the role of CO2 relative to other forcings has been analysed, and the conclusions take the analysis into account; in other words, even allowing for the possibility that something may have been overlooked, it is still 'very likely' (90%+) that GHGs have caused most of the warming over the last 50 years. Contrary to what you say, I do not ignore the evidence of other factors influencing the climate, and neither do the IPCC. The conclusions about the role of CO2 take these into account, and are robust even allowing for the uncertainties. The relevant section of the IPCC AR4 is 84 pages long: I can provide a link to the pdf if you want. It does what you ask for; it takes into account all of the possible natural variables, as well as the uncertainties about attribution, and still reaches the conclusion that CO2 is the biggest single contributor to GW, and that the ECS is something around 3C. I would suggest, then, that whilst your scepticism is not unreasonable, it is founded on a misapprehension of how the IPCC has reached this conclusion, and what factors it has taken into account. The strong statements about the role of CO2 are not indications that other factors are being ignored, but instead, a reflection of the strong conclusions of the science after all the evidence has been considered. Regards, :)P Edit; just in case you have nothing better to do this weekend (ha ha!): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf :)P

Excuse me for being dense, but aren't the recent years of warming evidence of GW? Whilst it is strictly correct to say that no one weather extreme, like a hot Summer, can be attributed directly to any one cause (because of systemic variability), a trend such as the one we have seen in the UK over the past twenty years looks fairly unequivocal to me. I agree that the media hyping every hot day is not constructive, but I don't agree with your estimates for the number of people who are skeptical of AGW; the number of these people is shrinking every year, and represents a minority with ever-decreasing influence, even in the USA. Once again, we are hearing about 'supporters' and 'skeptics', as if this is some kind of a contest; why do we insist on seeing it this way? It isn't constructive. Will somebody who is skeptical actually provide me with one piece of proper evidence supporting their skepticism? Until they do (and they can't - it doesn't exist), I have to assume that skepticism is no more than a personally-held opinion. :)P

Morning, jethro. This looks like an interesting piece; I'll do some follow-up and see what comes up, I'm not sure what makes this especially original, though, unless it's the conclusion that changes in the Antarctic drove NH changes; this appears to run counter to most ideas I have read. My early morning head hasn't gone away either, so give me some time... :)P

I also notice some build up on a line around 25W, which might become an invest or system in the next 24 hours... what name is after Lorenzo? And a reminder for anyone who doesn't already have this link on their bookmarks: http://www.crownweather.com/tropical.html#atlantic :)P

I'm not the best person to ask whether there is less coverage in the media, because I look for it, and tend to notice it when it comes up, which it does seem to do on an almost daily basis. Given that this year we've had the IPCC AR4, Geneva, New York and Bali, as well as the CGI this week, new European legislation and most major industries (insurance, banking, investment...) coming up with plans for dealing with GW, I can't (literally) remember a day when GW has been out of the noews insome form or another. I will, however, agree that, since we haven't had any particularly hot days this Summer, our usual media trash about heatwaves and the end of the world has been, thankfully, in short supply. The piece you posted at the start contains one paragraph summaries of four of this year's 'popular' pieces of denialist disinformation, all of which are false, which doesn't say a lot for that particular journalist's objectivity or their knowledge of the subject. I thoroughly agree with you that people don't like being told what to do, and that some of the commentators on GW are heavy-handed and pushy, but the same goes for lots of people who have an agenda driving their personal bete-noir, whatever its flavour is; there's nothing special about GW in this respect. I also agree that such a pushy approach about how we should behave is not very productive, but this isn't the same a pointing out to people the actual facts about what is happening, in response to deceptions perpetuated by lobbyists (mainly in the USA) which are designed to trick people into thinking that there is still some doubt about the changing climate. I know what you mean about feeling you are being 'spoken down to'; sometimes I get over-excited and make this mistake myself; my apologies. But I will not apologise for exposing material designed to deceive as the mendacious rubbish it is. This doesn't mean I don't think you have the right to believe what you choose, but I will respond to claims that GW is a 'fad' if I think they are not true, and to other claims if they are based on falsehoods. Laserguy; the survey was conducted in 21 countries with about 22000 respondents; there is no reason to believe its conclusions are any more or less valid than any other properly conducted survey. Though you may be correct, this is evidence of a kind that most people - certainly in the UK - are both aware and concerned (I think it's over 90%). Perhaps you are underestimating the public a little? WIB: I'm not entirely unsympathetic to what you are saying, but I would point out that most of the 'unscientific pap' comes from non-scientists; as ever, I'd suggest that people go and look at the source material for themselves, and be cautious about media-linked proclamations. You also overlook the point that the global climate is the issue with GW, not the British Summer, such as it is. Perhaps we can use the technical thread to discuss the evidence (or lack of it) for the causes of various weather anomalies, as this is an interesting but tricky area to deal with. That'll do for now. :)P

Nope, sorry, this time your logic has defeated me. This is what you said in the original post: You seem to be saying that green issues and GW (or are they the same thing?) are less important, or are taken less seriously, than they used to be. I have provided evidence that this is not the case. Can you provide evidence that it is? PS: enjoying the cut & thrust... :)P

This is a familiar routine, but anyway; if the billions below the poverty line were told that their lives and those of their children will probably be much worse because some of us weren't bothered to do anything about it, even though we knew what was olikely to happen, I'd bet they'd care; wouldn't you? Let's deal with the people who are supposedly represented in the original 'growing skepticism' claim; was this meant to represent those people? Surely, they won't have changed their opinions recently, so the claim is made for people who read newspapers/watch TV, and for these people, the claim is false. :)P

If you look at the survey I linked to, you'll see that the opinions of the journalist which you cut & pasted are wrong; there isn't a 'growing skepticism', but a growing awareness. And what does distinguishing between 'green' and 'GW' have to do with science? :)P

Herein lies the quandary; does one ignore it or point it out? Some say the former, some the latter. Me; it depends on what mood I'm in, and what my post count is. :)P