32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[Johnny Canuck3]

Whatever it is, it's not the stuff of seers and clear-sight, and it deserves a warning in the drugs forum for people to avoid if they want to retain their critical faculties . . .

The funny thing is, you people come back doing exactly what I say you'll do, exactly what any acolyte would do: you come back either yelling, or name calling, or saying that the person must be on drugs.

You don't even recognize yourself for what you are. But that's ok: others will, and that's the whole point of the exercise.

 

[yield]

Does this sound like an exaggeration? Just look at those quotes of mine above, from people who compare those who have questions about climate change, with pedophiles and holocaust deniers. People who call for Nuremburg trials for questioners.

These aren't the responses of individuals involved in a scientific debate. These are the responses of acolytes faced with the abomination of heresy.

Poor. 2/10

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Poor. 2/10

The only thing poorer, would be your thoughtful and well reasoned response, consisting of one word, two numbers, and two smilies.

Or are you still working on the actual, coherent response?

 

[tangentlama]

The only thing poorer, would be your thoughtful and well reasoned response, consisting of one word, two numbers, and two smilies.

Or are you still working on the actual, coherent response?

I refer you to post 773.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I refer you to post 773.

Yes. You claim I plagiarized. Go do your googling if you think that's the case. Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.

 

[tangentlama]

You are a liar. I claimed no such thing.

 

[yield]

Does this sound like an exaggeration? Just look at those quotes of mine above, from people who compare those who have questions about climate change, with pedophiles and holocaust deniers. People who call for Nuremburg trials for questioners.

So you, bigfish or wouldbe have been compared to pedophiles or holocaust deniers?

Freethinker, iconoclast and martyr! That is you Johnny Canuck2.

The only thing poorer, would be your thoughtful and well reasoned response, consisting of one word, two numbers, and two smilies.

Or are you still working on the actual, coherent response?

So "one word, two numbers, and two smilies" weren't enough for you!

Mea culpa!!!1!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You are a liar. I claimed no such thing.

13-07-2008, 17:57
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: livin'in G-ds Own Country
Posts: 2,030

Climate change is not a belief system!

post 776 deserves no response other than to c&p it into the search engine to see who is promulgating this nonsense

Meaning, I didn't write it, and posted it without attribution, which is plagiarism. Perhaps you weren't aware of the definition of that word.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So "one word, two numbers, and two smilies" weren't enough for you!

Mea culpa!!!1!

I don't actually require anything from you, but one would think that for your own sense of self respect, you'd at least attempt to respond, if at all, with something that shows you to be capable of a little independent thought.

Assuming that that's the case, of course.

 

[yield]

I don't think you're a loony, just a Believer, and arguing with you, will allow others to read and weigh the discussion.

If it wasn't for YOU all the plebs would never be able to make an opinion of their own!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If it wasn't for YOU all the plebs would never be able to make an opinion of their own!

Let's face it, the vast majority of U75 members never contribute, or contribute rarely. They are content to read the post of others. So, the arguments here, are being followed by lots of people who aren't talking, just listening.

If you want to refer to them with perjorative terms, that's up to you.

 

[free spirit]

Hang on a minute - if you have all that experience, how come you are unable to anti up an exposition of the CO2 driver theory from first principles?

unable?

I'm perfectly able to, it's just a few days work to do it properly, and being as I've got a lot of other more important stuff going on in my life, you're going to have to wait.

anyway, as far as I'm concerned there's a quid pro quo thing going on here - ie. you post up either a proper reasoned defence of pretty much any of your climate change related posts that I've challenged over the years, or admit that you were wrong on any of the points, then I'll get off my arse and finish this thing for you.

btw - I've sussed your cunning ploy. Keep banging on about the CO2 driver theory, and people start to think that the IPCC theory of climate change is all about CO2, making it a much easier target.

as you well know that's not the IPCC position at all, which is why the IPCC produces detailed graphs like the ones I posted earlier showing the impacts of all the main factors, not just CO2.

On the other hand, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are known to follow temperature on all time scales.

hold on bigfish... are you really trying to say that the current increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a result of the temperature increase?

And this is just arrant nonsense. "Natural factors", i.e, the influence of the Sun, cosmic rays, clouds, etc. are more than capable of explaining the variation of global temperature over the entire Holocene period, including the 20th century warming of less than 1C, which is well within the bounds of natural variability and not at all "unprecedented".

OK, I've no problem with natural factors explaining the variation of historic global temperatures prior to the last couple of centuries or so, which is pretty fucking obvious really.

similarly as I've pointed out on numerous occasions anthropogenic climate change theory in no way says that natural factors somehow magically no longer have any effect... all it's saying is that on top of the various natural processes you have the impact of anthropogenic influences such as the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, increased aerosol levels, and land use changes.

anyway, seeing as you've just stated that natural factors can explain the recent warming without any anthropogenic influence, let's have a look shall we?

Clouds... now, there's no way that cloud levels haven't been affected by human activities over the last century or so, anyone disputing that anthropogenic aerosols haven't effected clouds in any way is a fucking idiot... so you can't have variations in clouds as being a natural effect.

are you sure you don't want to add volcanoes into the mix?

how about el nino / la nina cycles?

sorry, but while I'm entirely with you that all these factors have an influence on climate, I just can't see anything that explains the climate of the last century, particularly the big rise in global temperatures over the last 40 years or so.

please do point to whatever it is that you think's driving this trend from this data, or produce the other natural factor that's producing this trend - or essentially STFU.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hey Free Spirit: if you want to do some refuting, here's one for you.

I posted it a few pages back, but it got ignored. I won't regurgitate it, because I know you'll understand what it says.




http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/14/c014p001.pdf

 

[free spirit]

I say that to a certain extent, we're being sold a bill of goods, and most people are swallowing it.

Here's the analogy:

A few years ago, Bush and Co. told us that Saddam Hussein was the devil incarnate, and that he was building WMDs, nukes, poison gas, in giant underground bunkers in the Iraqi desert.

Colin Powell went to the UN, with pictures and everything, showing that it was so. The head of the CIA said it was dead certain that this was going on. All the authorities and experts, said it was so, and something had to be done about it now. And the usually fractious Congress, and the UK parliament mostly, shut up and toed the line.

And people ate it up. Hell, I did. So, off to war we go, to spend trillions of dollars, waste a bunch of lives white and brown and black, but.....the whole premise of the war was either a mistake, or an outright lie.


So, here we are today. A bunch of political types, including the IPCC [see free spirit above, saying that the IPCC tailors its releases for political purposes], telling us that once again, the sky is falling, big time. Doomsday is right around the corner, and we have to do something big, now.

In this case, they want to tax our asses off, for the benefit of 'future generations'. What that means, is that they'll tax us, but they aren't making any promises about what they're going to spend the tax money on.

Does any of this rub you even slightly the wrong way?

You were pretty much right about the govt last time, with Saddam. So are you going to take the fishhook firmly in your cheek on this one, meekly, without asking any questions at all?

You're wrong. There was evidence, it just turns out that it was incorrectly interpreted, or insufficient, or fabricated. It was played up by Bush.

Bix was one of a few knowledgeable voices crying out in the wilderness. The average citizen, like yourself, was sceptical simply because they didn't like Bush and the US.

Today, with climate change, the evidence is equivocal on many fronts, and contrary to what you've said, there are scientific and economic equivalents of Hans Blix, taking a stand against the established doctrine. One difference is that this time around, the 'Hans Blix' characters aren't being merely scoffed at, they are being demonized by reactionary elements on the opposing side that are seeking to quell any discussion or dissent.

sorry, for going back a few days, been busy, but I really can't let this go.

Johnny - you fell for the bullshit propaganda that led to us going to war in Iraq, yet somehow it's us who're the ones falling for the bullshit this time?

fuck right off with that analagy.

the evidence was there all along if you actually cared to look that Iraq was no threat, that if it did have any chemical weapons they were degraded and pretty much beyond use... fuck it can't be arsed to redo this, but basically the evidence was there to disprove 99.9% of every bullshit justification for war the US and UK governments came up with.

let me remind you that it was you who fell for their bullshit, not me, not bernie, not laptop, etc

we did our research so we knew who was telling the truth and who was feeding us bullshit. You didn't so you fell for it hook line and sinker, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq's died, and now you're doing it again with the stakes even higher.

learn from your fucking mistakes, you're better than that ffs

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

sorry, for going back a few days, been busy, but I really can't let this go.

Johnny - you fell for the bullshit propaganda that led to us going to war in Iraq, yet somehow it's us who're the ones falling for the bullshit this time?

fuck right off with that analagy.

the evidence was there all along if you actually cared to look that Iraq was no threat, that if it did have any chemical weapons they were degraded and pretty much beyond use... fuck it can't be arsed to redo this, but basically the evidence was there to disprove 99.9% of every bullshit justification for war the US and UK governments came up with.

In hindsight it wasn't there, but like I've said, Colin Powell showed up at the UN with actual pictures proving that it was so. A great sell job was done, and the dissent that was around was based for the most part on an institutional dislike for the US as opposed to overwhelming facts. The facts didn't start to become clear, until after the fact.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

ps. Maybe you bernie and laptop didn't fall for it, but your govt did, and a lot of british lives have been lost as a result.

Funny your govt missed all those overwhelming facts that the three of you picked up on.

 

[free spirit]

ps. Maybe you bernie and laptop didn't fall for it, but your govt did, and a lot of british lives have been lost as a result.

Funny your govt missed all those overwhelming facts that the three of you picked up on.

our government went along with it because blair didn't want to risk the 'special relationship', so they colluded with the states to sell us a bill of goods.


in case you hadn't realised I and most of the brits on urban were dead set against the war from the off, and spent a fair amount of time protesting to try to stop the UK government from joining the US in it's 'crusade', so please don't even think about trying to lump me in with the UK government.

and if you really don't think the evidence was there before the war, check some of my posts out on the subject on here from before the war, I'm sure a few of them will still be here somewhere.

you fell for it then, and you're falling for it again, and the idiotic thing is that it's the same fucking people who're selling you the lies that you're falling for now that did it last time.

 

[free spirit]

In hindsight it wasn't there, but like I've said, Colin Powell showed up at the UN with actual pictures proving that it was so. A great sell job was done, and the dissent that was around was based for the most part on an institutional dislike for the US as opposed to overwhelming facts. The facts didn't start to become clear, until after the fact.

yeah, the pictures were so damming that the UN gave it's full backing for he war....... no wait, that's right they didn't did they.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

our government went along with it because blair didn't want to risk the 'special relationship', so they colluded with the states to sell us a bill of goods.


in case you hadn't realised I and most of the brits on urban were dead set against the war from the off, and spent a fair amount of time protesting to try to stop the UK government from joining the US in it's 'crusade', so please don't even think about trying to lump me in with the UK government.

and if you really don't think the evidence was there before the war, check some of my posts out on the subject on here from before the war, I'm sure a few of them will still be here somewhere.

you fell for it then, and you're falling for it again, and the idiotic thing is that it's the same fucking people who're selling you the lies that you're falling for now that did it last time.

Which side is trying to stifle debate and dissent this time around?

 

[free spirit]

Which side is trying to stifle debate and dissent this time around?

the only thing I'm trying to stifle is stupidity and bullshit disinformation.

actually stifle is the wrong word - I'm trying to counter stupidity and bullshit disinformation with information that's backed up by the science.

anyway, give me a minute I'm trying to reply to your question about that paper.

 

[free spirit]

Hey Free Spirit: if you want to do some refuting, here's one for you.

I posted it a few pages back, but it got ignored. I won't regurgitate it, because I know you'll understand what it says.




http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/14/c014p001.pdf

ok Johnny, here's a few thoughts on that paper...

1 - I think the basics of their hypothesis are sound - as in increases in CO2 in areas with very low levels of water vapour in the air will have greater impact than in areas with higher levels water vapour.

2 - I'm not sure that it's as clear cut as that study shows as the study only looks at that one factor. There are other relevant factors that would need to be properly investigated and either eliminated or incorporated into the equation that this study doesn't investigate at all. The main one that I can think of being changes in aerosols, and black carbon on snow in those areas over the same timespan.

Black carbon on snow would obviously have a much greater impact in winter than in summer in areas where there was no year round snow cover (which I believe applies to these areas?).

Lighter reflective aerosols would also have much a higher impact at these northern latitudes in winter than in summer as the sun is much lower in the sky, and the light has to pass through much more of the atmosphere before it get's to the ground, meaning more of it will be reflected / scattered by the aerosols.

Both these areas of identified most rapid temp increase are in the countries with the heaviest, most polluting industries / most changes in aerosol generation during that time period, and though they may not be in the middle of where the pollution was generated, it's entirely possible that prevailing winds would have meant these aerosols would have carried to these areas more than others (I'm not saying they definately did or didn't, just that it's possible). Both the US and Russia had major changes in their aerosol emissions over this time period, with the US having massive aerosol emissions during the early period of this study, and massively reducing it's aerosol emissions from the 70's onwards. I don't think Russia particularly cleaned up it's aerosol emissions deliberately, but it did have a near total collapse of it's industry and economy during the late 80's and early 90's which would have had a major impact on it's aerosol emissions towards the end of the study period.

Because these areas have low levels of water vapour they would presumably react a hell of a lot more than other areas to changes in cloud cover linked to aerosols as well.

3 - It's impossible to really get any proper feel for what's going on from this paper, as it only gives you the average anomolies for the entire period, so there's no potential to see what the slopes' like, what the decadel changes are like etc. (which might at least give some basis for identifying if there might be other factors in play).

4 - It only actually runs through to 1995, so doesn't show the last 12 years, when much of the warming has actually taken place, and essentially what you've got is the first 20 odd years being the post ww2 dip in global temperatures as the starting point... that dip is mostly attributed to the effects of aerosols, so it stands to reason the dip at the start would be heaviest in the regions with the heaviest aerosol concentrations - ie Russia and North America, which brings me back to point 2.

5 - Both these areas are towards the northern edge of land mainly landlocked areas of the Ferrel / Mid Latitude cell, so it's also possible that changes in the atmospheric circulation in the region (linked to global warming and / or as a feedback from the localised temperature changes). Changing whether the prevailing wind is coming from the cold arctic, or from the warmer south would obviously have a major effect on the temperature of a region (or more likely simply changing the proportion of arctic / southern winds).


got to go to bed now, basically it's an interesting paper IMO, I had read it before, and quite possibly linked to it from here at some point. I think there's some truth in what they're saying, but there's no where near enough detail to really see what's going on, or any coverage of any other factors.

I'd be interested to see if anyone's followed this up to look into any of the other factors / go into this in any more detail / include the last 12 years data in the analysis.

 

[tangentlama]

Don't forget, that was also back when I thought it was the IPCC who made the 2 - 7 foot sea level rise claim, when it actually turned out to be the EPA. I guess they're the guilty ones.

April 2008: IPCC position on predicted sea-level rise.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7759581&postcount=720

You quote a news story. When I put forward something the IPCC says, I quote the IPCC itself, not some interpretation by a journalist.

Well, that's not exactly true, now is it: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7758918&postcount=676
It's true that you have also quoted science magazine news articles.

Btw, if this is right, it means the IPCC has revised its predictions yet again, this time within the space of one year: from two feet, to a max of meters.

Best read the post again: I make no such claim that the IPCC has revised its predictions.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7759581&postcount=720

My quote was from the 4th IPCC report.

Which quote is that, Johnny?

Which truth: the IPCC truth [max two feet] or your alarmist truth?

Notwithstanding that the revised predictions are 0.61m below the EPA's estimate which you had believed and insisted were attributed to the IPCC until you were pulled up on your claims, you then stated that the IPCC has revised it's predictions from 1.9ft max to 1.5m max in the space of a year. Even if it had been IPCC revise of predictions 'in the space of a year', you should realise that new research data contributes to constant revision of predictions, because that is modelling requires fresh data in order to make predictions. It would be no use to use figures that only went to 1995 and ignore all data collected between 1995 and 2008.

*SIGH* Let's go through the post 720 again.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7759581&postcount=720

First, there is no mention of 'truth' only predictions.
Second, you are prone to misreading and misattributing, mistating and overstating. Over the space of several pages on this thread - you admit it you quoted the EPA who claimed 2ft-7ft rise (0.6m min to max 2.14m for we European-dwellers) rise, and not the IPCC as you originally claimed.

To clarify the current positions on sea-level predictions, I quoted a science magazine article (New Scientist) which states the IPCC 2008 position, as well as stating latest predictions from the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory UK, which are supported by other researchers, in an article published in both the magazine New Scientist and the news service Reuters.

You then try to claim the IPCC has revised it's prediction from 2ft to 1.5 metres, after previously trying to claim that the IPCC predicted a 2-7 ft rise.

You then attempt to continue on with your reportage of doubts about IPCC, even though IT'S NOT THE IPCC MAKING REVISED PREDICTIONS.

Realising this, you then suddenly change tack and and present the latest predictions from scientists in UK/Norway/USA as 'tangentlama's alarmist truth' instead of a more neutral 'predictions from latest research in UK/Norway/USA presented in Vienna'. I'm sorry that the new predictions have alarmed you.

I'm also amazed at the amount of misunderstanding you present as well as your capacity to misreport, Canuck, but I will perhaps give you the benefit of the doubt again, and say that maybe fear is partially responsible for your reactions and approach to climate change.

 

[kerplunk]

Acceptance of climate change does not require faith, nor is that acceptance comparable to ethno-nationalism.

Professional sceptics (e.g. Marohasy) and various types of deniers - from professional to amateur - attract an audience of people who are scared of climate change.

Frightened people may well take on the characteristics you describe - crusaders, stiflers of dissent, parroting sceptical dogma they've gleaned from the prophets who say 'fear not, the scientists are doomongers'. I don't underestimate how scary climate change may sound to someone whose parents never taught them about the precession of the equinoxes or glacial cycles, and I don't think you should either, Canuck.

Bernie Gunther doesn't deserve the shtick that you and bigfish are giving him, and I object strongly to you labelling him 'a Believer' - he has a fine scientific mind and understands both the science and the politics of climate change.

Like most denialists JC has a strong anti-science streak running through his posts with his constant equating of faith in science to religious faith. This is a fundamentally anti-science postion.

The irony is you have to be far more 'faith-based' to kick against mainstream scientific opinion so dogmatically. God wouldn't give us such a fragile planet don't you know. God wouldn't put all that cheap beneficial energy in the ground to tempt us if we weren't meant to release it's carbon content into the atmosphere and oceans. God simply just wouldn't be such a trickster.

 

[Aldebaran]

Like most denialists JC has a strong anti-science streak running through his posts with his constant equating of faith in science to religious faith. This is a fundamentally anti-science postion.

I can be wrong but I don't get the impression JC is religious.

The irony is you have to be far more 'faith-based' to kick against mainstream scientific opinion so dogmatically. God wouldn't give us such a fragile planet don't you know. God wouldn't put all that cheap beneficial energy in the ground to tempt us if we weren't meant to release it's carbon content into the atmosphere and oceans. God simply just wouldn't be such a trickster.

I am religious. Your approach as to how religious people would talk about this problem is beyond ridiculous. Sorry.

salaam.

 

[PAD1OH]

as someone that works in the "environmental sector", i find this thread interesting.

It's interesting because of the huge effort in beating each others position up without stopping to realise where the possible overlap/linkages/gaps between the arguments are....

my only additional comment is that you are all falling into the trap of silo thinking on the issue. Climate change is one of many issues and the policy responses need to be evaluated in the context of the other issues e.g. material security, food security, peak oil etc.

 

[Signal 11]

It's interesting because of the huge effort in beating each others position up without stopping to realise where the possible overlap/linkages/gaps between the arguments are....

Where do you think they are?

my only additional comment is that you are all falling into the trap of silo thinking on the issue.

I am certainly not falling into any such trap. Nor is anyone else that I am aware of.

Climate change is one of many issues

Nobody said it was the only issue. It is the subject of this thread, however.

and the policy responses need to be evaluated in the context of the other issues e.g. material security, food security, peak oil etc.

Nobody said they don't. This thread isn't about the responses to climate change. It is about certain posters' efforts to deny that human-caused climate change is real and/or deny that it is significant enough to warrant a response.

 

[free spirit]

as someone that works in the "environmental sector", i find this thread interesting.

It's interesting because of the huge effort in beating each others position up without stopping to realise where the possible overlap/linkages/gaps between the arguments are....

my only additional comment is that you are all falling into the trap of silo thinking on the issue. Climate change is one of many issues and the policy responses need to be evaluated in the context of the other issues e.g. material security, food security, peak oil etc.

you are kind of correct, but if you check around the site you'll find most of those issues covered in detail in other threads.

part of the problem also is that this is just the latest in a long series of threads on climate changing going back to the early 2000's involving many of the same participants, and bigfish in particular has a unique posting style that essentially is based around posting up a point, then when that point is challenged failing to either offer any evidence to defend his positoin or concede that he was wrong, which after several years of 'debating' does tend to lead people going into instant attack mode.

you're right though in that the IPCC position is an evolving position, as new evidence comes in the predictions alter to reflect that etc. so it's not like anyone's really arguing that it's set in stone, just that most of the 'evidence' that has been produced on here to supposedly counter the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis either doesn't stand up to scrutiny, raises some interesting points but in no way refute the overall hypothesis, or is actually already incorporated into the IPCC reports anyway - ie basic misunderstanding of what the IPCC position actually is.

anyway, welcome to urban - I think it's traditional to offer you a hobnob or something

 

[free spirit]

Nobody said they don't. This thread isn't about the responses to climate change. It is about certain posters' efforts to deny that human-caused climate change is real and/or deny that it is significant enough to warrant a response.

actually yep, good point, this specific thread is specifically about challenging the opinion given in the quote in the opening post - although the discussion has evolved from there, it basically starts with someone making a false claim that

The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it,”

which if you actually check the wording of the petition wasn't even what these scientists had signed up to, never mind all the other stuff.

personally I thought I'd mostly be fairly balanced about things considering the starting point of the thread.

 

[kerplunk]

I can be wrong but I don't get the impression JC is religious.

I don't think you need to be religious (in the way that you mean) to have a religious type faith that AGW isn't happening (it's called denial).

I am religious. Your approach as to how religious people would talk about this problem is beyond ridiculous. Sorry.

salaam.

I was talking about denialists, not religious people.
Religious or not, I think if you press many a denialist hard on why they think AGW isn't real, eventually you'll get an answer that basically amounts to 'god wouldn't allow it'.

 

[bigfish]

sorry, for going back a few days, been busy, but I really can't let this go.

Johnny - you fell for the bullshit propaganda that led to us going to war in Iraq, yet somehow it's us who're the ones falling for the bullshit this time?

fuck right off with that analagy.

the evidence was there all along if you actually cared to look that Iraq was no threat, that if it did have any chemical weapons they were degraded and pretty much beyond use... fuck it can't be arsed to redo this, but basically the evidence was there to disprove 99.9% of every bullshit justification for war the US and UK governments came up with.

let me remind you that it was you who fell for their bullshit, not me, not bernie, not laptop, etc

we did our research so we knew who was telling the truth and who was feeding us bullshit. You didn't so you fell for it hook line and sinker, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq's died, and now you're doing it again with the stakes even higher.

learn from your fucking mistakes, you're better than that ffs

JC's analogy is good. Yes, he fell for the government war propaganda back then, which placed him in opposition to the progressive anti-war movement of the masses, with whom you, Gunther, laptop, etc. sided at the time. But now the assault against the masses has taken a different form - lets call it "Green" warfare. The masses can instinctively sense the danger a fascistic "Green" warfare program poses and are steadfastly refusing to grant any party advocating such a program mass support and indeed strike blows against such parties where they can - "Green" Ken being their latest high profile victim to get his arse kicked out of office. This time round, JC also senses the danger and has moved to the side of the masses, whereas you and your disturbingly intolerant gang of reactionary authoritarian mates have moved in the opposite direction, like a fifth column.