[Bored chemist]

Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.

I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.

You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.

What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.

And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.

You had two choices; you could address the errors you made or you could be rude to people.
Given that you chose to be rude, who is the trash here?

Incidentally- to say "I need your ID to threaten you; please give me your ID" is pretty poorly thought through.
And, as I have already explained, I'm not giving y ID out because doing so would restrict my ability to post my opinion.
Do you actually understand that?

You also see not to have grasped the fact that I'm not a climate change sceptic.
How have you not managed to grasp that yet?

[Tim the Plumber]

Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.

"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.

You said;

So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.

So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!

[Tim the Plumber]

Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.

I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.

You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.

What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.

And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.

Apparently CWTwit cannot recieve personal messages. Shame.

[alancalverd]

For what it's worth, I care a great deal about climate change and its effect on humanity, which is why I take a very skeptical stance on the bad science that underpins current governmental responses to the problem (such as giving taxpayers' money to windmill manufacturers).

As I see it, climate change is inevitable, the anthropogenic contribution is negligible, and the effect will be disastrous in the next 50 years as the worst-affected populations take up arms to migrate to more habitable areas. Blaming western industry isn't going to help, particularly if the same treaties allow uninhibited expansion of coalburning industries in the east, and taxing travellers is just political cynicism.

Craig: mend your manners.

[Bored chemist]

Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.

"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.

You said;

So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.

So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!

I have answered he question several times.
My answer was (and remains)" It's not my field; go and ask the experts".
I even gave you a link to their web page.


Incidentally
http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

[Tim the Plumber]

For what it's worth, I care a great deal about climate change and its effect on humanity, which is why I take a very skeptical stance on the bad science that underpins current governmental responses to the problem (such as giving taxpayers' money to windmill manufacturers).

As I see it, climate change is inevitable, the anthropogenic contribution is negligible, and the effect will be disastrous in the next 50 years as the worst-affected populations take up arms to migrate to more habitable areas. Blaming western industry isn't going to help, particularly if the same treaties allow uninhibited expansion of coalburning industries in the east, and taxing travellers is just political cynicism.

Craig: mend your manners.

Which areas do you see as having negative effects from a small rise in temperatures?

[Tim the Plumber]

Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.

"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.

You said;

So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.

So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!

I have answered he question several times.
My answer was (and remains)" It's not my field; go and ask the experts".
I even gave you a link to their web page.


Incidentally
http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

[Bored chemist]

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?

[Tim the Plumber]

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

[alancalverd]

Which areas do you see as having negative effects from a small rise in temperatures?

A small rise in temperature may be no big deal, except where the behavior of plants and animals is strongly linked. That is, pretty much the entire temperate zone. Crop sprouting from seeds, bulbs and tubers is determined by temperature change, but animal migration and reproduction (including birds, bees and wild mammals) is also directed by day length.

A warm spring can produce early flowering that is not consummated by pollination from migratory insects. However those insects that hibernate or hatch in the spring may reach maturinty and die before the migratory insectivorous birds arrive. It's a remarkably delicate balance that gets in and out of kilter from year to year, but a steady trend can produce an unforseeable change, with medium-term potential for crop failure or insect devastation.   

Small changes in temperature can be associated with very large changes in tropical rainfall patterns or seasonal melts in the sub-arctic and mountains. Whilst relatively sophisticated  agronomies like Egypt can cope with a degree of flood variation, more marginal and population-stressed areas in the Indian subcontinent cannot tolerate much change in monsoon patterns.

It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations.   

[agyejy]

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

He very clearly stated this already. He understands the scientific processes and therefore trusts the what must be several thousand (if not tens of thousands) of qualified climate scientists that have dedicated their lives to the study of climate. The science behind human caused climate change is well established and widely available. In fact it is well established and supported that anyone that disagrees needs a very good reason for that disagreement (and conversely there is no real need to justify agreement beyond trust in the scientific method). Asking someone to justify their belief in the scientific method and the results derived from it is akin to asking them why they believe in gravity.

But by all means if you have specific criticisms concerning the science I am sure they can be addressed. In fact I've been doing just that for quite some time in this thread. Though it could potentially save as all some time if you simply looked for your question here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

As it has probably already been addressed.

It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations. 

It is demonstrably false that CO2 is not the cause of climate change and that has been fairly well established in this thread.

[Tim the Plumber]

Which areas do you see as having negative effects from a small rise in temperatures?

A small rise in temperature may be no big deal, except where the behavior of plants and animals is strongly linked. That is, pretty much the entire temperate zone. Crop sprouting from seeds, bulbs and tubers is determined by temperature change, but animal migration and reproduction (including birds, bees and wild mammals) is also directed by day length.

A warm spring can produce early flowering that is not consummated by pollination from migratory insects. However those insects that hibernate or hatch in the spring may reach maturinty and die before the migratory insectivorous birds arrive. It's a remarkably delicate balance that gets in and out of kilter from year to year, but a steady trend can produce an unforseeable change, with medium-term potential for crop failure or insect devastation.   

Small changes in temperature can be associated with very large changes in tropical rainfall patterns or seasonal melts in the sub-arctic and mountains. Whilst relatively sophisticated  agronomies like Egypt can cope with a degree of flood variation, more marginal and population-stressed areas in the Indian subcontinent cannot tolerate much change in monsoon patterns.

It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations.   

Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?

Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.

As to urban populations these do not rely upon the local food production to live they live by international trade. As such they are indeed suffering as a result of the use of food as fuel increasing prices by 70% but that will be the same where ever they go. The supension of international trade due to the restriction of the use of fossil fuel would of course bring very dire consequences.

[Tim the Plumber]

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

He very clearly stated this already. He understands the scientific processes and therefore trusts the what must be several thousand (if not tens of thousands) of qualified climate scientists that have dedicated their lives to the study of climate. The science behind human caused climate change is well established and widely available. In fact it is well established and supported that anyone that disagrees needs a very good reason for that disagreement (and conversely there is no real need to justify agreement beyond trust in the scientific method). Asking someone to justify their belief in the scientific method and the results derived from it is akin to asking them why they believe in gravity.

But by all means if you have specific criticisms concerning the science I am sure they can be addressed. In fact I've been doing just that for quite some time in this thread. Though it could potentially save as all some time if you simply looked for your question here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

As it has probably already been addressed.

It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations. 

It is demonstrably false that CO2 is not the cause of climate change and that has been fairly well established in this thread.

A couple of years ago I was thrown off another science forum because I pointed out that Greenland was not melting to any great degree. That talk of 660Gt mass loss per year was drivrel.

The last figure I saw in a scientific paper was of 12.9Gt per year anual mass loss of Greenland's ice.

Linking to the not skeptical not science site you love is just the same as go away and read this vast load of gibberish used by other religious types.

This is a science forum. If the science of Global warming cannot be debated here then it something is very wrong.

I ask you to answer the thread about what it would take for you to consider the CAGW hypothesis dead. If your answer is that you need to wait for the high priests of Climate Science^TM to say so then you are, in this area, not doing science but have moved to religion.

[Bored chemist]

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

Tim, you may remember saying something about the importance of answering question.
Well, it works both ways, as I said
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

[agyejy]

Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?

Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.

As to urban populations these do not rely upon the local food production to live they live by international trade. As such they are indeed suffering as a result of the use of food as fuel increasing prices by 70% but that will be the same where ever they go. The supension of international trade due to the restriction of the use of fossil fuel would of course bring very dire consequences.

Characterizing the projected impacts of climate change as slight changes in temperature and rainfall is a grave disservice. Here is a slightly more comprehensive but still brief list of impacts:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Impacts/ProjectedEffectsGlobalWarming.html

I cursory google search on your part would reveal much more in depth information. That's all I'd do and frankly it isn't my job to do basic research you should have done before ever forming an opinion one way or another.

A couple of years ago I was thrown off another science forum because I pointed out that Greenland was not melting to any great degree. That talk of 660Gt mass loss per year was drivrel.

The last figure I saw in a scientific paper was of 12.9Gt per year anual mass loss of Greenland's ice.

Please source your 660 Gt claim. I cannot find reference to it and I suspect you misunderstood, misremember, or were fed misinformation. Real figures from the relevant scientific literature can be found below:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Linking to the not skeptical not science site you love is just the same as go away and read this vast load of gibberish used by other religious types.

This is a science forum. If the science of Global warming cannot be debated here then it something is very wrong.

This is how debate happens. Evidence is presented in the form of observations and peer reviewed articles from experts in the field. They and thus anyone that cites them have presented their evidence and made their case. It is now your turn to respond with specific criticisms of the already presented evidence.

I ask you to answer the thread about what it would take for you to consider the CAGW hypothesis dead. If your answer is that you need to wait for the high priests of Climate Science^TM to say so then you are, in this area, not doing science but have moved to religion.

This is ridiculous. Trusting experts and peer reviewed science is not the same as religion. It would take an extraordinary amount of evidence in the form of observations to disprove anthropomorphic climate change but only because there is an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting it. Evidence that is by and large in the public domain and freely accessible. I don't have the time, expertise, or resources to do an in depth study of the climate but I can judge the credibility of climate research by looking at the data and arguments presented.

Apparently you have no interest in actual rational discourse on the matter based on your blanket dismissal of climate experts and their experimental verification.

[alancalverd]

Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?

Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.

One year makes little difference. Indeed a self-styled climate scientist would dismiss it as "weather". But it's worth looking at phenomena like tree lines. Even in temperate areas like western Ireland, Wales and Scotland, there's a marked change in vegetation with altitude. Normal temperature lapse rate is around 3 degrees per 1000 ft, and we find a significant variation in natural vegetation and crop yelds over 500 ft, so a remorseless change of the order of 1.5 degrees over 100 years would indeed make a significant change in the agriculture of these islands.

Freezing water is hugely important. A slow freeze produces large ice crystals that can damage unadapted living tissue. The critical mean winter temperature range between alpine and lowland crops is only about 2 degrees. Again, vegetation will recover over one or two years, but a small shift in mean winter temperatures in these islands can alter the longtgerm viability of many species not only of plants but also insects.

Oddly, it's the temperate/sub arctic areas, what we consider stable, fertile and productive land like the British Isles and Northern Europe, that would see the most dramatic changes as the snow line retreats. We have already seen an increase in English wine production since 1950, not just a matter of taste and fashion, but a significant northward march of the potential for producing white and now even red wine in my lifetime. It may even return to Scotland before I'm too old to drink Scottish champagne.

Several species of wood-boring beetles have appeared in southern England from warmer climates. Previously, occasional imports in bulk timber did not survive their first winter, but the lack of freezing conditions (and, admittedly, the increase in domestic heating) have turned these curiosities into pests.

You might care to speculate on the mean isotherm around, say, the Sahara desert, or consider what would happen in India if three successive monsoons failed. Or read up on Icelandic history - marginal agriculture that has flipped from boom to bust a few times.

[Tim the Plumber]

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

Tim, you may remember saying something about the importance of answering question.
Well, it works both ways, as I said
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

I have studied it.

You  have, I hope, studied it.

Can you cite some actual science that says that there is a significant danger of something significant happeneing? Some sort of problem that would justify all the panic? That would do as a start.

But, I asked first, so why do you think there is something to worry about?

[Tim the Plumber]

Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?

Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.

As to urban populations these do not rely upon the local food production to live they live by international trade. As such they are indeed suffering as a result of the use of food as fuel increasing prices by 70% but that will be the same where ever they go. The supension of international trade due to the restriction of the use of fossil fuel would of course bring very dire consequences.

Characterizing the projected impacts of climate change as slight changes in temperature and rainfall is a grave disservice. Here is a slightly more comprehensive but still brief list of impacts:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Impacts/ProjectedEffectsGlobalWarming.html

I cursory google search on your part would reveal much more in depth information. That's all I'd do and frankly it isn't my job to do basic research you should have done before ever forming an opinion one way or another.

A couple of years ago I was thrown off another science forum because I pointed out that Greenland was not melting to any great degree. That talk of 660Gt mass loss per year was drivrel.

The last figure I saw in a scientific paper was of 12.9Gt per year anual mass loss of Greenland's ice.

Please source your 660 Gt claim. I cannot find reference to it and I suspect you misunderstood, misremember, or were fed misinformation. Real figures from the relevant scientific literature can be found below:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Linking to the not skeptical not science site you love is just the same as go away and read this vast load of gibberish used by other religious types.

This is a science forum. If the science of Global warming cannot be debated here then it something is very wrong.

This is how debate happens. Evidence is presented in the form of observations and peer reviewed articles from experts in the field. They and thus anyone that cites them have presented their evidence and made their case. It is now your turn to respond with specific criticisms of the already presented evidence.

I ask you to answer the thread about what it would take for you to consider the CAGW hypothesis dead. If your answer is that you need to wait for the high priests of Climate Science^TM to say so then you are, in this area, not doing science but have moved to religion.

This is ridiculous. Trusting experts and peer reviewed science is not the same as religion. It would take an extraordinary amount of evidence in the form of observations to disprove anthropomorphic climate change but only because there is an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting it. Evidence that is by and large in the public domain and freely accessible. I don't have the time, expertise, or resources to do an in depth study of the climate but I can judge the credibility of climate research by looking at the data and arguments presented.

Apparently you have no interest in actual rational discourse on the matter based on your blanket dismissal of climate experts and their experimental verification.

I will not look at any link you post unless you quote the actual bit you wish to refer to. I suggest that if you do want to look at a specific issue within the whole AGW thing such as Greenland's ice loss you start a thread about it so we can keep the thread in some way concise.

Your attitude is to close down any discussion of any herasey against the global warming religion.

If you don't wish to take part don't.

[Tim the Plumber]

Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?

Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.

One year makes little difference. Indeed a self-styled climate scientist would dismiss it as "weather". But it's worth looking at phenomena like tree lines. Even in temperate areas like western Ireland, Wales and Scotland, there's a marked change in vegetation with altitude. Normal temperature lapse rate is around 3 degrees per 1000 ft, and we find a significant variation in natural vegetation and crop yelds over 500 ft, so a remorseless change of the order of 1.5 degrees over 100 years would indeed make a significant change in the agriculture of these islands.

Well, yes but there is no sudden shock effect where any significant trouble happens.

Freezing water is hugely important. A slow freeze produces large ice crystals that can damage unadapted living tissue. The critical mean winter temperature range between alpine and lowland crops is only about 2 degrees. Again, vegetation will recover over one or two years, but a small shift in mean winter temperatures in these islands can alter the longtgerm viability of many species not only of plants but also insects.

Oddly, it's the temperate/sub arctic areas, what we consider stable, fertile and productive land like the British Isles and Northern Europe, that would see the most dramatic changes as the snow line retreats. We have already seen an increase in English wine production since 1950, not just a matter of taste and fashion, but a significant northward march of the potential for producing white and now even red wine in my lifetime. It may even return to Scotland before I'm too old to drink Scottish champagne.

Yes, good isn't it?

Several species of wood-boring beetles have appeared in southern England from warmer climates. Previously, occasional imports in bulk timber did not survive their first winter, but the lack of freezing conditions (and, admittedly, the increase in domestic heating) have turned these curiosities into pests.

OK, there are some very tiny, in comparison with the good bits, troubles with getting a warmer climate. They do manage to survive it in France though....

You might care to speculate on the mean isotherm around, say, the Sahara desert, or consider what would happen in India if three successive monsoons failed. Or read up on Icelandic history - marginal agriculture that has flipped from boom to bust a few times.

Yes, the present warm, wet conditions are helping a lot. Obviously the Monsoon is very important and unstable. Not having petrol to pump the wells in the dry years is a bad thing though. Atleast it is if you think humans dying is bad.

[agyejy]

I will not look at any link you post unless you quote the actual bit you wish to refer to. I suggest that if you do want to look at a specific issue within the whole AGW thing such as Greenland's ice loss you start a thread about it so we can keep the thread in some way concise.

Well for starters you brought it up not me. You made a claim and I asked you to back that claim. Telling me that you won't bother to read any evidence I post and that you actually can't be bothered to actually support your claim paints a pretty clear picture of your willingness to actually debate anything. Beyond that this thread has in general become a catch all for criticisms of climate change science so there is really no compelling reason to split of the discussion at all.

Your attitude is to close down any discussion of any herasey against the global warming religion.

If you don't wish to take part don't.

The only person closing down discussions here is you. You refuse to read the evidence provided to you. You denigrate large sections of the scientific community for no reason and with no evidence. You seem to be unable to distinguish between faith and being persuaded by evidence and reason. Your accusations that support of climate change amounts to irrational faith are very hypocritical given your refusal to even consider the evidence.

Additionally, I request that in the future you cease using the term global warming and definitely drop the religion part. Instead I would ask that you use the accepted terms global climate change or just climate change for short. Global warming is a mischaracterization of the science which is why it was changed. Given that I graciously agreed to not use the term denier because you find it rude I'm sure you can find it within yourself to make the adjustment because I find the terminology you use similarly rude.